Sitting of 30 April 2002

Preamble
The House met at Ten o'clock, pursuant to Resolution
[24 April]

PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
10.3 am
Mr. Speaker: The House will now suspend in order to enable hon. Members to attend Her Majesty to present a Loyal Address on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of her Accession to the Throne.
MR. SPEAKER and the House proceeded to Westminster Hall to attend Her Majesty with an Address.
MR. SPEAKER resumed the Chair at half-past Two o'clock.

ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY

  (GOLDEN JUBILEE)
  Mr. Speaker: I must report that the House this day attended Her Majesty in Westminster Hall, with an Address on the occasion of Her Majesty's Golden Jubilee; in reply to which Her Majesty was pleased to make a Most Gracious Speech.
  I will ensure that my words in presenting the Address, and Her Majesty's reply, are entered in the Journals of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER presented the Address to Her Majesty in the following words:
  Your Majesty: we, Your faithful Commons, offer our heartfelt congratulations on the completion of fifty years of Your reign. We wish to assure You of our loyal devotion and to express our profound gratitude for the unstinting service which You have given to the Nation and to the people we have the privilege to represent in Parliament.
  Your long and distinguished reign has seen extraordinary changes at home and in the wider world. The United Kingdom of 1952 would be unrecognisable today. A society where the scars of war had not yet healed has given way to equality of opportunity, to social and geographic mobility and to levels of prosperity and health which that generation could only have dreamed of. The nature of society too has changed dramatically, as today we celebrate the diversity of race, culture and faith that makes this country a vibrant and exciting place to live.
  New democracies have emerged across the world which this Parliament is proud to nourish and support. The Cold War has given way to new partnerships, new challenges and new opportunities. The United Kingdom continues to exercise important influence in the counsels of the world and we make a major contribution to securing the peace. 50 years ago this Parliament was at the heart of an Empire. Today we are one of 54 independent members of the Commonwealth, of which You are Head.
  786
  Your personal contribution to the development of this unique organisation has been of great significance and millions of people are grateful for it.
  During Your reign, Ma'am, this Parliament too has changed. We have chosen to share our sovereignty with our European partners and to delegate powers to the devolved Parliaments and assemblies of Scotland and Wales as well as Northern Ireland. The House of Commons today looks rather different from 1952. We have 6 times as many women Members and it is also a younger House—nearly half our Members have known no other Monarch. You have been served by 10 Prime Ministers and I have the honour to be the 8th Speaker of Your reign.
  Amidst this sea of change the monarchy has acted as a beacon of stability and a unifying influence for our people. But it is not simply the throne that we honour today—it is Your personal contribution that we have reason to give thanks for. By Your sense of service and Your devotion to duty, by Your consistent display of dedication and commitment, by Your wisdom and grace, You have demonstrated for all to see the value of a constitutional monarchy in securing the liberties of our citizens and the fundamental unity of this Kingdom and the Commonwealth. In 1952, in a motion moved by Winston Churchill, the House of Commons expressed their complete conviction that You would throughout Your reign work to uphold the liberties and promote the happiness of all Your peoples. That confidence has been amply justified over the last 50 years.
  Few monarchs in the history of these islands can match Your contribution. We are supremely grateful to You and to His Royal Highness Prince Philip, whose support for you has been so manifest and whose personal commitment to the Nation has been of such value to us.
  In this historic Hall at the heart of the Palace of Westminster, the scene of so much royal, political, and parliamentary history, Parliament salutes its Sovereign. We offer You our respect, our affection and our prayers.
  May God save Your Majesty and give You His blessing, both now and for many years to come.

  HER MAJESTY'S REPLY
  Her Majesty's Most Gracious reply was as follows:
  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
  You do Prince Philip and me a great honour in inviting us here today. I am most grateful to have this opportunity to reply to your Loyal Addresses and I thank you both, Lord Chancellor and Mr. Speaker, for your generous words.
  It is right that the first major event to mark my Golden Jubilee this summer is here in the Palace of Westminster. I would like to pay tribute to the work you do in this, the Mother of Parliaments—where you, like so many famous predecessors before you, have assembled to confront the issues of the day, to challenge each other and address differences through debate and discussion, and to play your essential part in guiding this Kingdom through the changing times of the past fifty years.
  For if a Jubilee becomes a moment to define an age, then for me we must speak of change—its breadth and accelerating pace over these years. Since 1952 I have witnessed the transformation of the international

  787
  landscape through which this country must chart its course, the emergence of the Commonwealth, the growth of the European Union, the end of the Cold War, and now the dark threat of international terrorism. This has been matched by no less rapid developments at home, in the devolved shape of our nation, in the structure of society, in technology and communications, in our work and in the way we live. Change has become a constant; managing it has become an expanding discipline, the way we embrace it defines our future.
  It seems to me that this country has advantages to exploit in this exciting challenge. We in these islands have the benefit of a long and proud history. This not only gives us a trusted framework of stability and continuity to ease the process of change, but it also tells us what is of lasting value. Only the passage of time can filter out the ephemeral from the enduring. And what endure are the characteristics that mark our identity as a nation and the timeless values that guide us. These values find expression in our national institutions—including the Monarchy and Parliament—institutions which in turn must continue to evolve if they are to provide effective beacons of trust and unity to succeeding generations.
  I believe that many of the traditional values etched across our history equip us well for this age of change. We are a moderate, pragmatic people, more comfortable with practice than theory. With an off-shore, seafaring tradition we are outward-looking and open-minded, well suited by temperament—and language—to our shrinking world. We are inventive and creative—think of the record of British inventions over the past fifty years or our present thriving arts scene. We also take pride in our tradition of fairness and tolerance—the consolidation of our richly multicultural and multifaith society, a major development since 1952, is being achieved remarkably peacefully and with much goodwill.
  788
  But there is another tradition in this country which gives me confidence for the future. That is the tradition of service. The willingness to "honour one another and seek the common good" transcends social change. Over these fifty years on visits up and down this country I have seen at first hand and met so many people who are dedicating themselves quietly and selflessly to the service of others.
  I would particularly pay tribute to the young men and women of our armed forces who give such professional service to this country often in most demanding and dangerous circumstance. They have my respect and admiration. I also wish to express my gratitude for the work of those in the public service more widely—here in Westminster or the corridors of Whitehall and town halls, as well as in our hospitals and schools, in the police and emergency services. But I would especially like to thank those very many people who give their time voluntarily to help others. I am pleased that the Jubilee is to be marked by the introduction of The Queen's Golden Jubilee Award, a new annual award for voluntary service by groups in the community. I hope this will give added recognition to those whose generosity of time and energy in the service of others is such a remarkable tradition in our society.
  These enduring British traditions and values—moderation, openness, tolerance, service—have stood the test of time, and I am convinced they will stand us in good stead in the future. I hope that the Golden Jubilee will be an opportunity to recognise these values and to celebrate all that we as a nation have achieved since 1952. For my part, as I travel the length and breadth of these islands over these coming weeks, I would like to thank people everywhere for the loyalty, support, and inspiration you have given me over these fifty, unforgettable years. I would like to express my pride in our past and my confidence in our future. I would like above all to declare my resolve to continue, with the support of my family, to serve the people of this great nation of ours to the best of my ability through the changing times ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SCOTLAND

    Transport
    Mr. Frank Doran: When she last met the Strategic Railway Authority to discuss transport in Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [51346]
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): I do not know whether it is in order to say so, Mr. Speaker, but I thought that your address to Her Majesty was excellent, and I hope that some of the sketch writers heard it as well.
    I will shortly be meeting the senior management team at the Strategic Rail Authority to discuss a range of issues affecting rail services in Scotland.
    Mr. Doran: A legacy of rail privatisation is a fragmented and confused ticketing system. Recently, one of my constituents, Mr. Bill Naphy, attempted to buy a ticket on the Virgin train which runs directly from Aberdeen to Exeter and in the process discovered that no cheap rail tickets were available to anyone north of Edinburgh or Glasgow. When my hon. Friend meets the SRA, will he take up the issue of that blatant discrimination against all travellers from the north of Scotland, which is a further indictment of the rail privatisation system that we have been left with?
    Mr. Foulkes: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. The Tories left the railways in a complete mess, with a lack of investment and fragmentation, and we cannot clear it up overnight, as my hon. Friend knows only too well. I agree with my hon. Friend also about the importance of accurate information not only on tickets but on prices, and particularly on the purchase of through tickets. I give him this pledge: I will discuss the matter with the SRA and other rail bodies, and report back to my hon. Friend who is, incidentally, along with the other two Members for Aberdeen, very assiduous in pursuing the interests of his constituents.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: The Minister will be aware that the ongoing chaos on our railways is of great concern as regards Scottish employment and has implications for the future. Will he do better than the Minister for Transport did in questions last week and deny, rather than fuel, rumours that the upgrading of the west coast main line will stop at the border?
    Mr. Foulkes: The upgrading of the west coast main line is very important for Scotland, and it is being carried out because of our huge investment in the railways—£64 billion is now available in real terms. That is more than the programme of spending on the railways in any of the last 50 years, during the whole of the Queen's reign.
    John Robertson: My hon. Friend will be aware of the controversy surrounding the
    790
    rail link between Glasgow and Glasgow airport. Will he allay those fears, give his full backing to that link and ensure that it is built quickly?
    Mr. Foulkes: The Government, together with the SRA and the Scottish Executive, are carrying out a study of airport links, both to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports, which will be completed in the autumn. I personally welcome the SRA's readiness to consider the development of direct rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports, which are both vital to the future development of air services out of Scotland. However, I point out to my hon. Friend that there is already a rail link to one of Scotland's great airports, Prestwick, from where he can fly to five centres in Europe.
    Sir Robert Smith: In meetings with the Strategic Rail Authority, will the Minister take on board what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) said about the problems of being outside the central belt and the railway network, and make it clear that it is not just ticketing that is a problem, but the whole investment in the infrastructure? Electrification stops at Edinburgh. We must make it plain to the SRA that Aberdeen should be part of the strategic rail network. It is important that journey times from Aberdeen southward are as fast as they are from Edinburgh southward.
    Mr. Foulkes: I agree with the hon. Gentleman—he is nearly my hon. Friend—on that. It is important to improve the links to Dundee, Aberdeen and the north in general. I am concerned about that and discussed it recently with representatives of GNER, who are thinking about having new trains that run straight through without electrification, so providing a quicker and better service to both Dundee and Aberdeen. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the £400 million that is being spent on Waverley station to allow more trains to run through it will also be of assistance. All in all, as far as the north-east is concerned, the rail organisations, with the wholehearted support of the Government, are doing everything possible to improve connections.
    Dr. Gavin Strang: While strongly supporting the plan for a rail link from Edinburgh to Edinburgh airport, may I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, which I received last week, on the proposed Musselburgh Parkway station? Does he agree that one benefit of the proposed station would be that more people would travel from Lothian to London by rail? That would be a good thing, not just on general environmental policy grounds, but also in relation to congestion on the roads and at London airports.
    Mr. Foulkes: My right hon. Friend makes a good case for the Musselburgh Parkway station. I discussed that with GNER immediately after he raised it at Scottish questions last month. When the franchise for the east coast is re-tendered after the two-year extension, the parties will have another opportunity to submit proposals for a 20-year franchise. The case for a station at Musselburgh can be considered then if a bidder sees the benefit of it to their proposals. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will lose no opportunity in making his case to the bidders.

    Manufacturing
    Chris Grayling: If she will make a statement on trends in manufacturing employment in Scotland over the last 12 months. [51347]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The manufacturing sector continues to be very important to the economy of Scotland, employing around 281,000 people up to December last year and supporting a further 180,000 jobs in the Scottish economy. Both the Scottish Engineering quarterly review and the Bank of Scotland review in March this year reported an increase in manufacturing activity for the second month running, which is very encouraging. However, significant issues still need to be addressed in the manufacturing sector, and the Government, working in partnership with the Scottish Executive, will seek to do that.
    Chris Grayling: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. She will be aware that manufacturing employment in Scotland, at the 281,000 figure that she cites, is at one of the lowest levels ever. Does she think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's decision to charge Scottish manufacturing firms an additional £50 million or more in employers' national insurance contributions will increase or reduce the number of manufacturing jobs in Scotland?
    Mrs. Liddell: I have to say to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) that Labour Members take no lessons on manufacturing industry from members of Her Majesty's Opposition. In the years the Tories were in office, 327,300 Scottish manufacturing jobs were lost—some 52 per cent. of the total—as a result of the rape of our coal, iron, steel and shipbuilding industries. It has been the job of this Government to put in place measures that will stabilise and add value to manufacturing employment, and also increase skills. We are working closely with Scottish industry to achieve that.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to my right hon. Friend's Budget. The Budget is good for industry in Scotland. It puts in place a framework for stability in the economy and provides assistance through research and development, which is especially relevant to the 100 large companies in Scotland that employ some 40 per cent. of the population. At the same time, it puts in place the framework for enterprise that is needed to stimulate new starts in the economy. That is critical for the Scottish economy, as those who know and understand it accept.
    Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: Does my right hon. Friend agree that last week's Budget was a Budget for fairness and enterprise? Does she also agree that employers and employees should take a fair responsibility for funding improvements to the NHS?
    Mrs. Liddell: I agree with my hon. Friend. Improvements in the NHS are important in Scotland, as anywhere else, and it is significant that employers recognised before the Budget that the cost of ill health in Scotland was between £2 billion and £2.5 billion a year, so anything that improves the health and well-being of the Scottish work force benefits everybody. The procurement strategies of the health service will be important as the increased injection of cash finds its way through the
    792
    system. An additional accumulated £8.2 billion of expenditure in the health service in Scotland is good news for Scottish business.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Notwithstanding what the right hon. Lady has just said, is it not the case that, according to a report in the Daily Record of 3 April, a reputable journal with which the right hon. Lady was once connected, no fewer than 18,374 manufacturing redundancies were announced in Scotland in January and February alone, 7,400 of which were in four companies—Motorola, NEC, BAE Systems and British Petroleum? I know that, famously, the Secretary of State believes that the Scottish economy is performing quite well, as she told us last year, but do not those figures give the lie to that? Before she embarks on her usual anti-Scottish National party rant, will she tell us three things that she is doing as Secretary of State to improve the lot of, and the dismal outlook for, Scottish manufacturing?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman is always good at talking Scotland down, but he never enters into a concrete debate about how, for example, to improve productivity in Scotland. He wants to talk about three things. How about the stable and strong economy, which this British Government have created for all the United Kingdom, and Scotland in particular? How about the reduction in unemployment to historically low levels, which the hon. Gentleman never gives credit for, especially not to those people who have moved from welfare into work, which more and more are doing as a result of the Government's policies? Neither does the hon. Gentleman give credit to those in the hi-tech area of the Scottish economy, for example in the biotech and software sectors, which are experiencing unprecedented growth thanks to the economic conditions created by the Government. The hon. Gentleman is happy only when Scotland is not performing. Scotland is performing and the hon. Gentleman's party's fortunes are declining.
    Rosemary McKenna: Yesterday, my right hon. Friend visited my constituency and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, a successful American inward investment company. Does she agree that the SNP seems to spend its time living in the past and does not recognise that the financial services sector in Scotland is of huge importance to the economy of Scotland and the UK?
    Mrs. Liddell: What my hon. Friend says is true and I pay tribute to her for her links with companies such as Morgan Stanley Dean Witter. I was greatly encouraged by what it told me yesterday. It came thinking that it would end up employing 200 or 300 people in Scotland, but so impressed was it with the skills and determination of people in Lanarkshire, Dumbartonshire and Glasgow that not only has it expanded in my hon. Friend's constituency, but it is now putting some of its securities operation into Glasgow, employing a further 400 people. The financial services sector in Scotland—not just in Edinburgh, but in places such as Glasgow and Cumbernauld—is going through a period of unprecedented growth. It contributes greatly to our gross

    793
    domestic product and it thrives in the atmosphere of economic prudence and competence that the Government have created.
    John Thurso: Does the right hon. Lady agree that manufacturing jobs—indeed any jobs in Scotland, but particularly in the telecoms manufacturing industry—depend heavily on a good and solid investment in communications infrastructure, such as broadband? In that regard, is she aware that of the £30 million that had been earmarked by Government for the rural roll-out of broadband only £4 million will go to Scotland, which perhaps has the greatest need of all? Can she assure us that she will speak to her colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that broadband is properly rolled out in Scotland and there is not the social exclusion that will follow from lack of investment?
    Mrs. Liddell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the pathfinder projects in Dumfries and Galloway and the highlands and islands that are aimed at extending broadband. Indeed, Wendy Alexander, the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, has made the issue one of her main priorities. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I look forward to the introduction of the Communications Bill, which will allow us to put the regulation of telecoms and broadcasting together in a much more modern setting. It is important that industry, the Executive and the Government work closely together to ensure the roll-out of broadband, which is just as important for the financial services industry as for other aspects of the telecommunications industry. It is high on the Government's list of priorities.
    David Cairns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one factor that is vitally important for the future of manufacturing in Scotland is ensuring that new technologies and developments that are created there result in manufacturing jobs remaining there? To that end, will she join me in welcoming the news on research and development that she mentioned with regard to the Budget of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor? Will she also join me in congratulating companies such as IBM in Greenock on investing millions of dollars in this country so that manufacturing jobs can remain in Scotland, where they belong?
    Mrs. Liddell: I had a very enjoyable visit with my hon. Friend to IBM in Greenock only a few weeks ago. It is a well established company in Scotland, as it came there at the end of the second world war. It moved in primarily as a screwdriver manufacturing operation, but has now invested much of its international activity in the Greenock plant. I was impressed with the far-sightedness of IBM and its local management, which has produced a facility that is very good for the local community and exceptionally good for the reputation of the Scottish economy internationally, especially at the high-tech end of the telecoms market.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Is the Secretary of State aware that CBI Scotland states in its industrial trends report 2002:
    "The outlook for Scottish manufacturers continues to look bleak"?
    Was not that diagnosis confirmed last week, when Foxteq in Renfrew revealed that it was about to dismiss up to half its entire work force? With almost 6,000 job losses in one sector alone in Scotland last year and closure of facilities by Motorola and NEC, when will she show a little humility on this matter and acknowledge that it is her policies of over-regulation, more red tape and higher taxes that are adding to the ever-increasing number of manufacturing job losses in Scotland?
    Mrs. Liddell: I would encourage the right hon. Gentleman to come and visit Scotland on occasion, because he will find a very different picture from the one that he paints. Indeed, I met the CBI as recently as last week. Its quarterly industrial trends survey shows that business optimism was positive among Scottish manufacturers for the first time since January 2000, and that export optimism for the year ahead is also positive for the first time since January 2001. Yes, significant problems remain for the Scottish economy—problems that we inherited because of the previous lack of investment in skills and research and development in Scotland. As a consequence of the action that we have taken in the past five years, record low numbers are in unemployment. For the first time ever, we also have record numbers of young people going straight from school into employment—something that we never saw during 18 years of Tory government.

    Eurostar
    Mr. Tom Harris: What discussions she has had with the Strategic Rail Authority regarding the provision of direct Eurostar rail services between Scotland and continental Europe. [51348]
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): The Government believe that all areas of the country should have good access to channel tunnel rail services. I will discuss this matter, among a range of issues of importance to Scotland, when I meet senior management from the Strategic Rail Authority shortly.
    Mr. Harris: I wonder whether my hon. Friend recalls a promise made by a previous Conservative Government, who said that following construction of the channel tunnel, direct passenger rail services would be provided between the continent and all parts of the United Kingdom. Given the potential customer demand and economic benefits to cities such as Glasgow, will he now commit this Government to making good the Tories' broken promises on the issue?
    Mr. Foulkes: It would be a very tall order to make good all the Tories' broken promises, but I can he helpful on the issue in question and tell my hon. Friend that later this year the SRA will publish a strategy for facilitating rail services through the channel tunnel from various parts

    795
    of the United Kingdom. I am sure that he will welcome that step forward and the ability to take up one of the tasks that the Tories were signally unable to carry out.
    Mr. Michael Weir: Will the Minister now answer the question that he signally failed to answer earlier as to whether the upgrade of the west coast line will be carried across the border? Does he accept that if that fails to happen, it will prove the point made by the Rail Passengers Committee Scotland that the Strategic Rail Authority's 10-year strategic plan is very much south-east centred?
    Mr. Foulkes: Yes, I shall answer the question that I failed to answer earlier, having now found my place in my notes.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: That was a straight answer.
    Mr. Foulkes: I always find that honesty is the best policy.
    The scale of the overspend and underdelivery on the west coast main line is a major issue, and the SRA has had to examine the project to determine what outputs can be delivered and by when. The plan assumes that the west coast project will cost about as much as Railtrack estimated last spring, but that there may be some delay in completing key milestones. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Further to my hon. Friend's answer to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), will he impress upon the Strategic Rail Authority the importance of maintaining and improving direct rail links between Aberdeen and, if not Europe, at least London? Crucial to that is a major upgrading of the track between Aberdeen and Edinburgh.
    Mr. Foulkes: I appreciate that. I have always been enthusiastic about extending electrification beyond Edinburgh. Having spoken to GNER, Railtrack and others involved, I recognise that better services can be provided more speedily through GNER acquiring faster and more efficient trains—diesel trains, which are now as fuel efficient and environmentally friendly as electric trains—and it intends to do that.
    The development at Waverley will be of particular advantage to Dundee and Aberdeen. I am keen to see the general upgrading of the east coast main line, and if that involves sorting out the track north of Edinburgh, which I discussed earlier, I shall raise that with the Strategic Rail Authority.
    I am enthusiastic about the high-speed link, which was the subject of a study started by WS Atkins and announced by the SRA last year. That should be out in the latter half of this year. We have witnessed the success of the TGV—I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pronounces this better than I do—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask the Minister kindly to allow me to get to Question 4? I call Mr. Eric Joyce.

    Tourism
    Mr. Eric Joyce: What steps she is taking to promote tourism in central Scotland. [51349]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I had a very successful meeting in Madrid with leading members of the Spanish travel industry, all of whom are actively engaged in encouraging tourists to come to Scotland.
    The responsibility for promoting specific areas of Scotland lies with Visit Scotland. That includes all central Scotland, from its historic sites to the ultra-modern Falkirk wheel, which is funded by the Millennium Commission through the national lottery.
    Mr. Joyce: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in late May Her Majesty the Queen will formally open the Falkirk wheel. Will she join me in congratulating all involved in the construction of the wheel, especially my constituents at the British Waterways Board and Morrison Construction, for creating a magnificent focus for tourism in central Scotland? Does she agree that it will be important for potential investors along the route of the canal carefully to consider the merits of developing the regenerated parts of the Forth and Clyde canals?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Bringing together the Forth and Clyde canal and the Union canal is an important tourist initiative in central Scotland. We should bear it in mind that the millennium wheel is unique. I have not yet had an opportunity to see it, but my colleagues on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs went away amazed at the feat of engineering that it took. We all look forward to its opening.
    The millennium wheel is not the only unique tourist attraction in Scotland. For example, we have the world historic site at New Lanark, the opening of the toll booth in Stirling, and Burns cottage in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne). I urge people to take the opportunity this weekend to visit as many of those unique sites in Scotland as possible.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I recently visited the refurbished toll booth in Stirling, in central Scotland. I was impressed by the new arts and community facility, which is funded by Scottish Arts Council lottery grants. What is the Secretary of State doing to facilitate meetings between Visit Scotland and the Arts Council to ensure that the tourism potential of such developments, which are funded by lottery grants, are maximised?
    Mrs. Liddell: It was a great pleasure to visit the toll booth with my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) on the day that it opened, to announce that Her Majesty had granted city status to Stirling. I therefore know the toll booth, which is a stunning investment.
    Liaison already takes place between the Scottish Arts Council and Visit Scotland as well as the other agencies that are involved in bringing tourists to Scotland. For example, there is currently a major initiative to promote

    797
    golf. It is important to play to the strengths of all the niches in the Scottish economy. I hope that the initiatives taken by Visit Scotland will bear fruit.
    Mrs. Lait: So as usual, the right hon. Lady is not getting involved in anything that will help Scotland. We have had nothing but a cloud of words about the west coast rail link north of the border. Will she clarify what will happen to it? Will she also estimate the effect on the recovery of the tourist industry in Scotland of the increase in national insurance, which is nothing but a tax on jobs?
    The right hon. Lady mentioned golf. Will she give her view of Visit Scotland's inability to promote deerstalking—[Interruption.] Deerstalking is one of the most effective tourism industries in rural Scotland. Does she agree that by not promoting it, Visit Scotland is cutting off the noses of Scottish rural people to spite its politically correct face?
    Mrs. Liddell: That is what is known as an omnibus question. I know that I am not a good golfer, but deerstalking has nothing to do with golf. Those of us who spend our lives in Scotland rather than doing the occasional day trip acknowledge that important moves are being made to promote tourism in Scotland and improve rail links and direct flight links to Scotland. The hon. Lady's time would be better spent on promoting Scotland's values and the opportunities to visit it rather than on trying to talk it down.

  The Advocate-general was asked—
  ADVOCATE-GENERAL

    Devolution
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What devolution issues have been raised since 19 March under the Scotland Act 1998. [51312]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Since 19 March, 30 devolution issue cases have been intimated to me. They have raised a variety of points, such as articles 6 and 8 of the European convention on human rights, which protect respectively the right to a fair trial and respect for private and family life. Some devolution issues have also related to the compatibility of secondary legislation with European Community law.
    Miss McIntosh: I am sure that the Advocate-General agrees with an article in The Scotsman on 21 January which stated:
    "The Advocate-General's post is a crucial part of the devolution settlement … The … post is likely to continue and become a valued part of the UK constitution."
    If she agrees with that, does she also agree that a five-minute Question Time is complete nonsense and does not allow her to be held responsible for the discharge of her duties? Can we have a Question Time of 15 or 30 minutes?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear
    The Advocate-General: I am delighted that there is so much support for my Question Time. The hon. Lady has been a consistent and effective questioner. It is a credit to my answers that she wants more time.
    It is, of course, for the business managers to decide whether to extend this interesting slot in the parliamentary timetable. I agree with The Scotsman on this occasion, and I am delighted that the hon. Lady appreciates the importance to the devolution settlement of the Advocate-General's role. I look forward to her next question.
    Mr. Jimmy Hood: Has my hon. and learned Friend had any discussions about reviewing the performance of the Scottish Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in respect of some of its awards to children who have been sexually abused? Some of its awards have been paid at the lower limit, which is disgraceful when higher levels of compensation are paid in England. Does that not concern my hon. and learned Friend? Could she have a word with her colleagues in Scotland about it?
    The Advocate-General: I understand my hon. Friend's interest in this matter, but he must understand that these decisions are made by independent panels, so it would not be appropriate for me to intervene or to discuss them with him.

    Court Proceedings
    Annabelle Ewing: In how many court proceedings she is scheduled to appear in her capacity as Advocate-General in the next six months. [51313]
    The Advocate-General: I am involved in the consideration of court proceedings on an ongoing basis. For example, I intend to appear personally as counsel, representing the Secretary of State for Defence, in the Macdonald case before the House of Lords. This case concerns questions of European law and human rights arising from the dismissal of a service man from the armed forces. I also intend to appear in the investigation, held under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, into the disappearance of the fishing vessel Trident off the north-east coast of Scotland in 1974. At present, specific dates for these hearings have not been set.
    Annabelle Ewing: I thank the Advocate-General for her answer. That appears to bring the tally to a grand total of four court appearances since 6 June last year, with the dates of the two further appearances that she just mentioned still to be set. Does she not accept that there is some concern in Scotland that the number of her court appearances—far from not being routine, as she stated in an earlier reply—are rare to the point of extinction?
    The Advocate-General: I do not know whether the hon. Lady has ever appeared in such a court as the House of Lords—the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—or whether she understands the amount of preparation involved in such cases. Law Officers do not always appear personally. Since my appointment, I have made a point of doing this work in court. My last appearance was in the

    799
    Appeal Court in Scotland a few weeks ago, when I spent a number of days in court as well as a large number of days preparing the case. Obviously, the timing of these court appearances is not under my control, and they sometimes conflict with parliamentary business. I also have to allow time for all the other advisory work that I do. I think that the hon. Lady is getting good value for money.

  LORD CHANCELLOR's DEPARTMENT
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR's DEPARTMENT

    Auld Report
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If he will make a statement on the Auld report and its implications for the work of the magistrates courts. [51316]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): The period of comment on Sir Robin Auld's review of the criminal courts has closed. As the Lord Chancellor has stated, the Government are now considering the recommendations—including assessments of costs and benefits—in detail, and taking into account all the comments that have been received. The Government intend to publish a White Paper announcing their conclusions before the summer recess.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister will be aware that the magistracy has been a bulwark of justice in this country since as long ago as 1195. Does he agree that, if the Government accept Lord Justice Auld's proposals, they would be pandering to their command-and-control tendency, as detailed by the central magistrates court committee in The Guardian on 19 April, and that those proposals would present a serious threat of closure to magistrates courts, which would be another severe blow to rural areas?
    Mr. Wills: No, I do not agree. If the hon. Gentleman had taken the time to read Sir Robin Auld's report, he would have seen that his rhetoric bears absolutely no relation to the facts. Sir Robin Auld pays tribute to the work of the magistracy. I am happy to repeat that the Government value the work of the magistracy. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is a bulwark of the criminal justice system, and it will remain so.
    Mr. David Kidney: I commend my hon. Friend and his Department for their thorough consultation and the serious way in which they are listening to all views, but can he at least say that Auld's recommendation of a unified criminal court will go ahead? Within that, can he say that local justice delivered by magistrates will be entrenched as an important part of its role and practice?
    Mr. Wills: I am not in a position to announce the outcome of the Government's deliberations on Sir Robin Auld's report. As my hon. Friend will know, we will announce our conclusions in a White Paper that will be published shortly. I can tell him that we have already indicated in our manifesto that we see the attractions of a
    800
    unified court—that is on the record. It is absolutely clear that, whatever decisions we take, local justice will be very important.
    Mr. David Heath: The Auld report says that much of the work of a new district division could, with advantage, be undertaken in magistrates courthouses, reducing the trend of closure. As the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said, the trend is accelerating, not least in my area, with the proposed closure of Frome magistrates court. Given that Lord Justice Auld states unequivocally that the most important factor in these closures is
    "the limits placed by central Government on magistrates courts committees' budgets",
    will the Minister use his offices to stop the closures, expand the use of local magistrates courts and ensure that local justice stays local?
    Mr. Wills: I think that the hon. Gentleman could profitably spend some time reading Sir Robin Auld's report in detail. [Interruption.] If he is suggesting he has already read it, I think he should read it again and understand what Sir Robin Auld said.
    The hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned with local justice. Of course, we are all concerned with that. If he is asking me to guarantee that a magistrates court will never be closed again, I have to say that, no, I cannot guarantee that. He must recognise that it is important not only that justice is done locally, but that it is done efficiently and effectively, and is available to all. That means having courtrooms that are modern, are accessible to people who are disabled, have the right segregation of facilities between victims and witnesses and have all the other modern facilities that people expect of their courts. We will continue to implement a programme of modernisation to achieve that.
    Julie Morgan: I know that my hon. Friend is aware that the Auld report makes no specific recommendations on specialist courts for domestic violence, but does he agree that such courts would be an important step forward?
    Mr. Wills: I certainly recognise the strength of the arguments. We have been looking at that matter carefully in the Department and we will continue to do so. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work in this important area. She will have to await the publication of the White Paper to see what decisions we take in relation to Lord Justice Auld's report.
    Mr. William Cash: May I, first, congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on the Address to Her Majesty, which has received great approbation throughout the country?
    As I am sure the Minister knows, much concern has been expressed by local communities, by magistrates and by hon. Members from all parties—including, for example, in a debate in which I took part on the Greater London magistracy—about the proposal in Lord Justice Auld's criminal courts review that local management of magistrates courts should be subsumed into a national executive agency. The Minister will know what I am driving at. I am sure that he agrees—at least I hope he agrees—that such a step would lead to a serious reduction

    801
    in local justice and, in the regrettable words of the Lord Chancellor, who also made an admirable Address this morning, create
    "the scope to close unnecessary courts".
    I am sure that neither development would be welcome in the House. Can the Minister therefore give an assurance that, when the White Paper is published, it will contain proposals that maintain a locally managed and locally accountable structure for magistrates courts throughout England and Wales?
    Mr. Wills: Of course I recognise those concerns—they have been expressed frequently over the past few months. We have held wide-ranging consultation and had a large number of roadshows. Those views surface regularly, and of course we take them seriously. However, the hon. Gentleman is going to have to be patient and wait just a little longer for the publication of the White Paper to see what we propose.

    Grays Courts
    Andrew Mackinlay: If he will make a statement on the future of the courts in Grays. [51318]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): Decisions on the future of the magistrates court at Grays are for the Essex magistrates courts committee to determine, in consultation with its three paying authorities: Essex county council, Southend borough council and Thurrock borough council.
    Earlier this month, Essex magistrates courts committee determined its accommodation needs, and its plans do include the eventual closure of Grays magistrates court. At the moment, none of the three paying authorities has exercised its right to appeal against the determination.
    Andrew Mackinlay: May I tell the Minister that we in Grays are not happy about this? In fact, I lie to the House—we are very angry. One reason is that, in a letter to the council, the chairman of Essex magistrates courts committee blames the Minister's Department for insisting that it include the existing Basildon courthouse in its private finance initiative. I want the Minister to give an undertaking today that, when we appeal—as we will—he will get his Department to rethink that requirement. It is grossly unfair to the people of Thurrock, an ancient town with good communication links on the Thames gateway. Nor is it in the interests of efficient, local and accessible justice—the criteria that he repeatedly referred to in response to earlier questions. A Basildon courthouse is not accessible to—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not an Adjournment debate; it is Lord Chancellor's questions.
    Mr. Wills: I can assure my hon. Friend that I will take back to the Department the force of his feelings. More than that, I should remind him that, although there is a deadline of 10 May, we have still not received an appeal from any of the paying authorities. Should they decide to appeal, as he says they will, I am happy to repeat the offer
    802
    that I made in correspondence to meet him and any other parties involved, so that we can discuss all the questions arising from this inevitably rather complex matter.
    Mr. Simon Burns: May I tell the Minister that, regardless of what might happen in Grays, the people of Chelmsford are delighted with the proposal—which forms part of the review and the changes to the magistrates court system in Essex—for a brand new, purpose-built courthouse in Chelmsford, the county town, for the provision of justice at the magistrates level?
    Mr. Wills: Of course the hon. Gentleman may tell me that, and I am happy to hear it.
    I have repeated my offer to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). These are complex matters and we are happy to discuss them in a meeting, but I should again remind my hon. Friend that we must first receive an appeal. To date, we have yet to receive one.

    Knutsford Crown Court
    Mr. George Osborne: If he will make a statement on the proposed closure of Knutsford Crown court. [51321]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): The Lord Chancellor has approved public consultation on the proposal to close the Crown court at Knutsford. The group manager responsible for the court began consultation on 10 April, and it will run for four weeks. Once all responses have been received, consideration will be given to whether a formal case for closure should be presented to the Lord Chancellor. The results of the consultation will need to be weighed, along with the opportunity costs and benefits associated with all the available options.
    Mr. Osborne: I thank the Minister for his answer. In the light of the Westminster Hall debate and our meeting, he will know of the strength of opinion in eastern and mid-Cheshire about the proposed closure of the court—and we have not even produced the petition yet. I thank him for the courtesy with which he has treated the representations of local people. Will he repeat on the Floor of the House what he intimated to me in private: that he will try very hard to maintain the public character of the courthouse, if the Crown court does indeed leave Knutsford?
    Mr. Wills: I am of course happy to do that. As I have said, unfortunately, courts sometimes have to close, and that has always been the case. When important historic buildings such as Knutsford Crown court have to close, the court service will always try to preserve their public character. However, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the service has a public duty to ensure that whatever it does represents good value for money for the taxpayer, and that will be a consideration in this case. Of course, we will always look creatively and imaginatively at preserving public buildings of great historic merit.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not follow him in the discussion of listed buildings, because

    803
    the reality is that the balance of justice in Chester, and in Cheshire generally, will require that the closure of courthouses is considered with great care. Courthouses are considerable distances from each other and, before my hon. Friend agrees to the closure of a courthouse, I hope that he will consider carefully the effect on other courthouses and those who need access to them.
    Mr. Wills: My hon. Friend's point is well taken. We understand it and we also understand the particular problems in Cheshire. We have to balance a series of complicated factors, including travel times—especially for victims and witnesses. We must also be conscious of the fact that, in this case, the cost of maintaining the courthouse to the appropriate standard is some £5 million. As a matter of good public policy, we must question whether that expense can be justified.

    Magistrates Courts
    Vera Baird: What steps he will take to improve the quality of justice in magistrates courts. [51323]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): Ninety-six per cent. of all criminal cases begin and end in magistrates courts, which says a vast amount about their importance to the system. Fewer than 1 per cent. of magistrates' decisions are appealed, which says much about the quality of their decision making. We remain, as I have already said, fully committed to maintaining the lay magistracy and our system of community justice as a cornerstone of our criminal justice system.
    Vera Baird: I do not want to swap too many statistics with my hon. Friend, but 73 per cent. of not-guilty pleas in the magistrates courts result in a conviction, compared to 57 per cent. in the Crown court. That must be a cause of concern, however one looks at it, and an obstacle to any real redistribution of business between the two courts. Is my hon. Friend aware that practitioners think—and historically have thought—that magistrates over-convict because of their lack of legal skills to deal with legal points and admissibility? Does he agree that while preserving a lay element in criminal trials is vital, the way forward is to limit the role of magistrates to that of fact-finders only, just like the more successful jurors?
    Mr. Wills: My hon. and learned Friend has a distinguished background in the law and obviously takes pride in her profession. I do not wish to go into the details of the statistics, but the two court systems try different cases and, therefore, one would not expect exactly the same outcomes. I should also reassure the House, for those who are not already aware of the fact, that magistrates are always advised by fully legally qualified justices' clerks. Therefore, I am slightly surprised that my hon. and learned Friend seems to imagine that no legal expertise is applied in magistrates courts. Magistrates also receive full training before they sit in court and regularly receive refresher training. As I have said—and shall repeat, because it is so important—the Government are wholly committed to the future of the lay magistracy as a cornerstone of our system of justice.

  PRIVY COUNCIL
  The President of the Council was asked—
  PRIVY COUNCIL

    Parliamentary Recesses
    Mr. Simon Burns: What plans he has to introduce further changes to the length of parliamentary recesses. [51331]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons is currently considering the proposals set out in the memorandum by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House last December. I am convinced that changing the pattern of the summer recess would help to ensure better scrutiny of the Government.
    Mr. Burns: Over the past decade or so, the number of hon. Members with children of school or pre-school age has greatly increased. Those Members much appreciate the efforts that have been made to dovetail parliamentary recesses with the school holidays. When the Minister considers implementing the changes proposed for the summer recess next year, will he fully bear in mind the school holidays proposed, both in England and Scotland, before reaching any decision? Easter is a moveable feast each year, so will he also ensure that he does not repeat the problems of last year, when the recess began as the school holidays were about to end?
    Mr. Twigg: I am delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman. One of the purposes of the modernisation and reform programme is to ensure that the House becomes a more family friendly institution, in recognition of the increased number of Members with children of school or pre-school age and of the need to attract more of them from England and Scotland as well as from Wales and Northern Ireland. I am delighted to have the hon. Gentleman's support, and when the proposals are taken forward by the Modernisation Committee I hope that we can ensure that we have a summer recess that coincides much more closely with school summer holidays throughout the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Peter Pike: My hon. Friend states one objective, but will he confirm that the main objective of any change to recesses and the way in which the House sits in the parliamentary year is to enable the House to legislate better and Members of Parliament to do their job better in their constituencies, because there are two aspects to the job—at Westminster and in the constituency?
    Mr. Twigg: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I see no contradiction between having a more family friendly Parliament and one that also enables greater effective scrutiny of legislation and the accountability of Government. My hon. Friend has served with distinction on the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. The specific proposal in the memorandum of the Leader of the House would enable us to continue to have the same length of recess over the summer period but would involve the House reconvening

    805
    in September. I believe that that would enhance the accountability of Government and the scrutiny of legislation.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Are there any cost implications to the changes?
    Mr. Twigg: I see no reason for any significant cost implications, although, clearly, that matter is to be considered by the Modernisation Committee.

    Select Committees
    Martin Linton: What plans he has to take forward his proposals for reform of Select Committees. [51333]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I intend to bring Standing Order changes before the House in the near future to implement the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee. These will strengthen our system of scrutiny by providing for a more transparent and independent system of nomination to Select Committees and by increasing the resources and specialist staff available to them. In the meantime, I warmly welcome the decision last week by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to appear twice a year before the Liaison Committee, which will be the first time any Prime Minister has appeared before a Select Committee in modern times.
    Martin Linton: Does my right hon. Friend hope to submit the new proposals in time for the new Scrutiny Committees, if agreed, to give pre-legislative scrutiny to draft Bills in the next Session? Will he consider including in the objectives of the proposed Scrutiny Committees not only taking evidence from Ministers but scrutinising the agendas of European Council meetings in advance?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend wrote to the Modernisation Committee with the helpful proposal that we might add to the core tasks of the Scrutiny Committees the requirement to make sure that they remain abreast of the scrutiny of European directives and legislation. The point has force and we will consider whether to amend the core tasks accordingly before we debate this in the House.
    On draft legislation, it is of course open to Select Committees to carry out their scrutiny under their present powers. I hope that before the House comes to the end of the Session we will have had the opportunity to introduce some draft legislation and that Select Committees will wish to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny. The earlier we can get Parliament in on the act of the preparation of legislation, the better the prospects are for Parliament to shape that legislation.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Leader of the House recognise that members of the Liaison Committee warmly welcome most of the proposals from the Modernisation Committee? On their behalf, I express their delight at the remarkable announcement from the Prime Minister that he will face two full public sessions of questioning before the Liaison Committee each year.
    806
    Will the Leader of the House accept that the Chairmen collectively are equally sincere when they say that they are genuinely worried and concerned that the proposed 33 per cent. increase in the size of the Committees could prejudice and damage their effectiveness? Before my right hon. Friend brings his proposals before the House, will he have look at the issue again?
    Mr. Cook: First, may I welcome what my right hon. Friend says about the decision of the Prime Minister to appear before his Committee? It is absolutely right that the Prime Minister should appear before the Liaison Committee, which contains the Chairs of all the Select and Scrutiny Committees and can thus carry out scrutiny of any issue within the office of the Prime Minister.
    My right hon. Friend mentioned the size of Committees. We considered that carefully in the Modernisation Committee and came to the conclusion that it was not right that Members who want to take part in that scrutiny process should be debarred from doing so because of the present size of the Select Committee. Although I understand the anxieties of some members of the Committee as to the importance of retaining cohesion, I am myself the Chair of a Select Committee—the Modernisation Committee—which has 15 members and succeeded in reaching a unanimous report. It can be done.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider that point? It does not matter how big the Select Committees are—some Members will always want to be on them. Surely, what is crucial is the effectiveness of the Select Committees and maintaining good and regular attendance of their 11, nine, or whatever, members. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore think carefully before putting the current proposal before the House?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman makes with strength a point about which he obviously feels powerfully. I shall have an opportunity to discuss the matter with the Liaison Committee when I visit it next week, and I hope that on that occasion we can understand each other and see whether there is a way forward.
    I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that there are already two Select Committees of 17 members and that they have traditionally been of that size—[Interruption.] I think that I am hearing what I am about to say to the House. Those two Committees have traditionally operated through a Sub-Committee system. If Select Committees are to face up to all the matters and core tasks that we set out, more of them will have to set up Sub-Committees and may welcome a larger size in order to do so.

    Private Bills
    Andrew Mackinlay: What plans he has to put proposals before the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons for reform of private Bill procedure. [51334]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): Private Bill procedure was reviewed by the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure in 1987–88, and many of the matters previously covered by that procedure are now covered by the

    807
    Transport and Works Act 1992. Before the general election last year, the House agreed to Standing Order changes that allow the House to consider the compatibility of the European convention on human rights with private Bills. The Modernisation Committee might discuss that in future.
    Andrew Mackinlay: May I encourage the Minister to see that the Modernisation Committee does look at the matter again? Can we interpret the fact that the Leader of the House did not vote on the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill the other week as an indication that he, like me, considered the whole thing a charade and something that the Government should not have had their hands on? Should not the Modernisation Committee and the Government review the procedure to consider whether it should be changed? It was designed, and most used, to deal with the building of Victorian railways. Is it appropriate that, in a modern Parliament, there should be such an archaic procedure—one that the Government pretend not to be involved in, even though in fact they are involved? Surely, we should say what we mean and mean what we say—especially the Government—about all legislation.
    Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The quantity of private legislation has been hugely reduced by various measures—the Transport and Works Act and the Financial Services Act 1986.
    The specific Bill to which my hon. Friend referred was debated at great length in the House over more than three and a half years.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: May I urge my hon. Friend to consider reforming the procedure for private Members' Bills? For instance, if we were to adopt a similar pattern for our sitting times on Wednesdays as the one we currently use on Thursdays, might it be possible to bring private Members' Bills into the main body of the Kirk and consider them on Wednesday and Thursday evenings?
    Mr. Twigg: That matter certainly merits further debate; it is under review and will be taken forward by the Modernisation Committee.

    House of Lords
    Fiona Mactaggart: What the proposals for reform of the House of Lords are; and if he will make a statement. [51335]
    Mr. Martin Salter: When the Government will announce their proposals on House of Lords reform. [51336]
    David Taylor: When he expects to make an announcement on further progress on House of Lords reform. [51337]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The Government are committed to reform of the House of Lords to create a modern, effective second Chamber. As I have previously informed the House, we received 1,000
    808
    responses to the White Paper. As the Select Committee on Public Administration observes in its sixth report, published today,
    "the Government wishes to consider them carefully before deciding on the way ahead".
    I can confirm, however, that we hope to announce how we intend to proceed before the summer recess.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is the Committee correct to think that the weight of responses to the White Paper is closer to its thinking than to that of the Government? Is he satisfied with the response, which seems to record previously existing points of agreement and disagreement rather than to reflect new thinking? Can we expect new thinking before the summer recess, when the Government have promised their full response?
    Mr. Cook: The Select Committee stated in its report this morning that it is understandable that the Government are unable to give a complete and final response, given that it is necessary for us to consider carefully the responses to the White Paper. I have said to the House before, and I am happy to confirm in the context of this Question Time, that the great majority of responses indicate support for a majority elected second Chamber. Clearly, that must be a factor in considering how to take this matter forward. In terms of what we hope to announce before the summer recess, of course we would expect to go further than we have been able to indicate to the Select Committee at present, and I hope that that will point a way forward for us to make sure that we can legislate in the near future for a reformed, effective, representative second Chamber.
    Mr. Salter: May I remind my right hon. Friend of his comments following the publication of the ill-fated White Paper on House of Lords reform? He said that the search will go on for a "centre of gravity" on this issue and that we need a "period of reflection." Does he not agree that, five months on, we have reflected more than enough? Given the 304 right hon. and hon. Members who signed the early-day motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) calling for a substantially elected second Chamber, there is no longer any doubt whatsoever that this is the road that we should go down.
    Mr. Cook: It is very kind of my hon. Friend to remind me of the debate in the House; I assure him that every moment of it is engraved on my memory. I was conscious that the majority of Members taking part in the debate wanted a higher democratic element in the new second Chamber. Of course a period of reflection must come to a conclusion. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I must invite him to wait a little bit longer before we announce that. That period of reflection is very important to make sure that we take seriously not just what is expressed in the House but what is expressed by the public and the others who responded. I assure my hon. Friend that we are conscious of the need to maintain momentum on this, and we are also conscious of the need

    809
    to make sure that the House can legislate at an early opportunity. That is why I hope that we can announce how we intend to proceed before the summer recess.
    David Taylor: Before the long-delayed second stage of House of Lords reform creaks into life, do the Government intend to request the House of Lords Appointments Commission to recommend a further tranche of the ludicrously named people's peers? If so, what changes of criteria does the Minister believe are necessary to widen the pool from which these people will be recruited so that we avoid the appointment of the cosy clique variety that we saw last year?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes his point with considerable colour. He will have observed that there have
    810
    been no recent appointments from the Appointments Commission, and it is important that the House should be able to reach a view on what should be the future composition of the House. It is much more important that we address our mind to how we see the long-term reform of the House. I hope that, in the process of doing that, we can find the centre of gravity. I believe that the Public Administration Committee proved that it was possible for those who want reform to reach agreement.
    I strongly agree with my hon. Friend's opening remark about the long time taken to secure reform. For almost a century, since 1911, we have been looking for reform of the second Chamber, and I am determined that we shall not make the same mistake as before, whereby those who were in favour of reform were divided among themselves, and therefore no reform took place. We must not let that happen this time.

Points of Order
Mr. Paul Keetch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) and I met health service workers from Herefordshire outside the gates of Downing street with three separate petitions calling for more beds for Hereford hospital. I then presented my petition of some 26,000 names, along with my hon. Friend's petition of some 3,000 names, to the Prime Minister. The hon. Member for Leominster, however, whose petition was of some 500 names, kept his petition back. Last night, he presented that petition to the House. He stated:
"I presented more than 20,000 signatures to Downing street last week, and it is a great pleasure to present this petition to the House now".—[Official Report, 29 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 775.]
Given that Standing Order No. 153 states that a Member presenting a petition
"shall confine himself to a statement of the parties from whom it comes"
and
"the number of signatures attached to it",
will you, Mr. Speaker, explain to the hon. Gentleman how he can correct the record?
Mr. Bill Wiggin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for this opportunity to draw further attention to the strength of feeling in Herefordshire about the lack of hospital beds and to give credit to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) for his part in helping me with this very serious issue. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I thank the hon. Gentlemen for raising this point of order. When Members address the House—whether presenting petitions or in any other way—they must take responsibility for the accuracy of their remarks. There is nothing that the Chair can do to help the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch).
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the course of a very busy 24 hours for you, have you had time to reflect on the problems between
812
Westminster and the Scottish Parliament on the disposal and dispersal of productions amassed in the Lockerbie trial?
Mr. Speaker: It has been a rather busy day for me. I am still looking into the matter.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I note your guidance to the House about the accuracy of Members' statements to the House. If the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) had been in the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) presented his petition, would it not have been possible for the hon. Gentleman to have put the matter right then?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me into the argument.
Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, there is considerable concern in the House about the situation in the middle east, particularly as, once again today, the Israeli Cabinet has turned down the request for a United Nations mission to go to Jenin. The Americans hold all the cards in this case and unless they play those cards, they will be considered to be complicit in covering up what happened in Jenin. Have you, Mr. Speaker, received any indication that a Minister will come to the House—either today or later this week—to update us on the latest situation so that we know what Her Majesty's Government are doing to press the case for the UN to be allowed access?
Mr. Speaker: I have no information on that matter.
Mr. Roger Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) and I would have been in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) presented his petition if he had done what he promised and told us when he was going to present it—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is always welcome in the Chamber, whether the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) is presenting a petition or not.

Waste
3.38 pm
Joan Ruddock: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to grant additional powers to local authorities in England and Wales for the enforcement of controls and for the prosecution of offences relating to the unauthorised or harmful deposit, treatment or disposal of waste and the transporting of controlled waste without registering; to amend the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 and Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and for connected purposes.
I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill is much simpler than its long title. I introduced what became the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989, and this Bill is a piece of unfinished business. I produced my first Bill because of the appalling situation that I encountered on the perimeter of the Silwood housing estate in my constituency. Some 10,000 tonnes of waste had been illegally dumped—much of it spoil from the docklands redevelopment—creating not just blight and hazards but an environment of dust, dirt and litter.
My Act and the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which followed it, gave a new impetus to apprehending fly-tippers and to cleaning up the results of their criminal activities. Inevitably, as environmental standards rose and public concern increased, waste regulation authorities struggled to keep pace. Regulating waste and tackling environmental crime are high priorities for the Environment Agency, which has done much to deal with both problems over the past decade. However, in respect of fly-tipping, experience now suggests that there would be considerable benefit if local authorities could exercise some of the powers currently available to the Environment Agency; that is the purpose of my Bill.
Fly-tipping is defined as
"the unlawful deposit of waste without a waste management licence or registered exemption".
My Bill applies to individuals or companies with a duty of care to see that people who carry waste commercially are registered and do not dispose of it illegally. Waste production in the United Kingdom is now estimated at 428 million tonnes per annum—up from 400 million tonnes in 1989. Within that overall total, in England and Wales, 30 million tonnes are municipal waste; 25 million tonnes are commercial waste; 50 million tonnes are industrial waste; and 72 million tonnes are demolition and construction waste.
Obviously, the scope for fly-tipping is enormous, but no precise national figures are available for the volume of waste fly-tipped or removed. The Environment Agency estimates that removing fly-tipped waste costs it £500,000 per annum. By contrast, a recent Local Government Association survey of fly-tipping provided evidence that the estimated cost of clean-ups to English and Welsh local authorities was £25 million per annum. It found that 94 per cent. of the 128 responding authorities had recorded incidents of fly-tipping, with 20 per cent. recording more than 1,000 incidents. Furthermore, 84 per cent. believed that local authorities did not have sufficient powers to deal with fly-tipping, and 97 per cent. supported a change in regulations.
The survey informed the deliberations of the National Flytipping Stakeholders Forum and its recommendations on the way in which local authorities could deal more effectively with fly-tipping. Officers from my council—
814
the London borough of Lewisham—are enthusiastic members of the fly-tipping forum, and the work of Kevin Moore, Lewisham's service policy and partnerships manager, in particular, has inspired my ten-minute Bill. Kevin Moore's preoccupation is not with Bob the Builder, but with his criminal counterpart, Frank the Fly-Tipper and his alter-ego John; I stress that those nicknames were chosen by Kevin Moore, not by me. Frank offers builders and householders cheap rates to dispose of bulky waste and rubble. He finds a quiet residential road, industrial site, railway line or roadworks and tips his truck. If caught red-handed, he says that he had to unload to grease his axle or fix the truck. He will claim that the vehicle is not registered in his name; it is owned by John, whose full name and address he does not know. Of course, John does not exist and to ensure that he is not traceable, a false address is given to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. If Frank is stopped by the Environment Agency, of course he will promise to give John the papers to get registered and nothing more will happen.
Kevin Moore wants action. Lewisham has suffered 13,600 fly-tipping incidents in the past year, costing over £500,000 in clean-up operations. That is an enormous burden for a local authority hut, more frighteningly, the figure is 50 per cent. up on last year, which was 50 per cent. up on the year before. Whenever a new waste sector is regulated, fly-tipping increases. I dare not mention fridges, but tyres are already a major problem in Waltham Forest, Birmingham and Newcastle. The London boroughs of Lewisham and Newham were the first local authorities to have public service agreements aimed at reducing fly-tipping. They stand ready to pilot the new powers proposed today and are confident that many other local authorities wish to follow them.
My Bill would make explicit provision to give local authorities the power to serve notices requiring waste carriers to produce documents and to extend the offence of failing to comply with such a requirement. It would introduce two further measures—first, to extend the power to carry out roadside checks and, secondly, to provide for the imposition of fixed penalties for the offence of failing to produce authority to transport controlled waste.
The latter is particularly important because in practice, as I mentioned earlier, failure to produce registration documents results in no penalty. The new measure would be a much more effective deterrent to those who take to our streets with their trucks full of illegal waste: they would have to get registered or get fined. The advent of CCTV and the willingness of residents to report fly-tippers mean that local authorities can often identify offending vehicles. They are much better placed than the Environment Agency to stop a fly-tipper in transit or to spot a suspect vehicle on their patch.
Case studies from my borough indicate all too clearly that the stretched resources of the Environment Agency mean that it does not use to the full the powers that the House gave it a decade ago. Fly-tipping remains a major scourge, blighting our landscape and people's lives.
Local authorities are not alone. Increasingly, big landowners such as the National Trust, Railtrack, British Waterways and individual farmers are suffering unsightly and dangerous fly-tipping. Councils are faced with mounting clean-up costs as they seek to meet increasing demand. Last year, Lewisham prosecuted 46 fly-tippers and, using existing powers, served more than 500

815
fixed-penalty fines on businesses found directly responsible for minor fly-tipping, but the council is confident that it could do much more if it had new powers.
Frustration is growing. Local authorities are under increasing pressure from the public and, indeed, from central Government. Waste production continues to rise relentlessly as prosperity and consumerism grow. Neglected and dirty streets lead to community apathy and antisocial behaviour. Waste minimisation and recycling are essential to protect the future environment, but we need to take action today. If we do not want to get buried in our own filth, we will have to give councils the means of tackling the criminals who constantly evade the law and blight the environment of so many law-abiding citizens.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Joan Ruddock, Peter Bottomley, Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Gregory Barker, Sue Doughty, Jim Dowd, Ms Julia Drown, Julie Morgan, Mr. Bill O'Brien, Ms Bridget Prentice, Mr. Simon Thomas and Ms Joan Walley.

Waste
  WASTE
  Joan Ruddock accordingly presented a Bill to grant additional powers to local authorities in England and Wales for the enforcement of controls and for the prosecution of offences relating to the unauthorised or harmful deposit, treatment or disposal of waste and the transporting of controlled waste without registering; to amend the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 and Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 128].
Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  [Relevant document: The Second Report from the Treasury Committee, Session 2001–02, on Budget 2002, HC 780.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition
  3.49 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am pleased to do so at a time of economic stability, with improving prospects for economic growth, with the right foundations on which to carry forward our work on enterprise and fairness and with investment and reform in our public services, securing the national health service for the future.
  The Chancellor was able to report in his Budget statement that Britain has enjoyed
  "the lowest inflation and the lowest interest rates for 40 years: for the first time for half a century, unemployment in Britain is lower than in America, lower than in Japan and lower than in the rest of Europe; and in the year just ended, Britain had the highest growth of any of our major competitors."—[Official Report, 17 April 2002; Vol. 130, c. 577.]
  That record of economic stability has not happened by chance, but is a result of the tough choices that we have made and the new monetary and fiscal frameworks that we have put in place, which are serving the economy well in the global uncertainties that we have seen.
  The challenge—indeed, the opportunity—for British industry and investors is to build on that hard-won stability, accelerate productivity improvements and increase output, jobs and prosperity. Although the economy has been stable, it can and must grow stronger. The Bill reflects the Government's clear role in ensuring the conditions necessary for successful businesses through important measures to modernise taxes, promote enterprise and cut red tape.
  Sir Robert Smith: Will the Chief Secretary reconsider the Bill as it affects the North sea oil and gas industry and explain how those measures will bring stability? The Government have used that sector as an exemplar of how industry and the Government can work together, yet people in the industry are now in a state of shock and despair given that all the Government's understanding of them seems to have been swept away. The costs of operating in the North sea are so much higher than in other fields and the fields are so much smaller and therefore the returns are much more risky, so it seems a strange time to put up tax when other regimes have been lowering their taxes on the North sea.
  Mr. Smith: On the North sea oil regime, our aim is, of course, to promote long-term investment in the North sea, while giving a fair return to the British people. So the Bill contains two important measures in relation to the North sea tax regime. First, to raise revenues, clauses 90 to 92

  817
  will introduce a supplementary charge at a rate of 10 per cent. on North sea profits: but, secondly, to support new investment, clause 62 will provide 100 per cent. first-year allowances for capital expenditure and investment in the North sea. I am advised that, under the allowance change and even with the supplementary charge, companies that invest in new fields will have higher post-tax rates of return than they would under the current regime. So we are striking the right balance between stimulating investment and getting a fair return to the British people.
  Mr. Michael Jack: Given the words that the right hon. Gentleman has just uttered, will he place in the Library what is effectively the business case, stating in detail how he has come to his conclusions, so that we may also make a balanced and informed judgment of those words?
  Mr. Smith: I shall be very happy to write to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) and deposit a copy of the letter in the Library to illustrate my point about the interaction of the 100 per cent. capital allowance and the 10 per cent. charge.
  On the platform of stability that we have put in place, the aim of the Budget, enshrined in the Bill, is to build a stronger enterprise culture, with higher productivity and investment. In recent years, British business investment levels have risen significantly from just over 10 per cent. of national income to almost 14 per cent.
  Mr. David Ruffley: In the context of investment, will the Chief Secretary tell us what the savings ratio is this year, compared with the savings ratio that the Government inherited in 1996–97?
  Mr. Smith: As I recall, the ratio is about 5 per cent. and is projected to go up gradually. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the savings ratio reflects consumer confidence in their domestic financial position. One of the reasons why it went down was that consumers had more confidence and their household balance sheets were stronger than they had been in the years of boom and bust under the Conservatives, when they never knew what would happen to their financial circumstances.
  We want to sustain and improve business investment and that is why in past Budgets we cut corporation tax from 33p to 30p, the lowest rate in our history. To encourage investment in the technologies of the future, clause 52 and schedule 12 extend an enhanced research and development tax credit to all companies. That means a £400 million boost for innovation and research in Britain.
  To help companies restructure without key decisions being constrained by the tax system, clause 43 and schedule 8 set out an exemption for companies disposing of substantial shareholdings. That new relief forms part of the Government's commitment to reform and modernise the corporate tax regime, ensuring that the United Kingdom remains a good place in which to do business.
  The Bill also sets out the new regime to provide relief for the cost of intangible assets, including intellectual property and goodwill. The new relief, details of which are set out in clause 83 and schedules 29 and 30, will
  818
  encourage business to take advantage of opportunities in the knowledge-based economy. This is another important step in our programme of corporate tax reform.
  Mr. Michael Weir: The Minister has made many points about corporate tax reform, particularly with regard to corporation tax, but does he accept that in Scotland 75 per cent. of all small and medium-sized enterprises are either sole traders or partnerships and do not pay corporation tax? What is there in the Bill to help those businesses and truly help enterprise in Scotland?
  Mr. Smith: I was coming later in my remarks to the steps that we are taking to raise the VAT threshold and greatly to simplify the administration of VAT, which I hope will come as a great help to the companies to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He is right to stress the importance of small businesses. They account for 55 per cent. of all private sector jobs—more than 10 million jobs in all—and nearly half the economy's output. Recognising their important role as employers and wealth creators is an important theme running through the Bill.
  In 1997 we cut the small companies tax rate from 23p to 21p and in 1998 we cut it again to 20p with a starting rate of 10p. This year, clause 31 takes it down again to 19p with immediate effect. To send a strong signal to the small business community, clause 32 reduces the starting rate of corporation tax, also with immediate effect, from 10p to zero. That means that companies with profits of up to £10,000 will pay no corporation tax. The Budget set out the most favourable tax regime for small companies in any of the advanced industrial countries and the Finance Bill puts that into statute.
  To fund the growth of innovative young companies, we need to increase the level of business investment. Private equity investment has doubled since 1997 and 38 per cent. of all EU private equity investment is in the UK. To maintain that momentum, the Bill will cut capital gains tax to 20 per cent. for business assets held for one year or more from this month. For business assets held for more than two years, it will cut capital gains tax to 10 per cent. That means that overall, Britain will have a capital gains tax regime more favourable to enterprise than even that of the United States.
  We recognise too that the cost of compliance is an important issue and the Budget sets out proposals to reform the administration of VAT, to help smaller firms comply with PAYE and to remove unnecessary regulations. Clauses 23 to 25 set out the steps that we are taking in the Bill to simplify and streamline the VAT regime.
  In disadvantaged areas, businesses can be a catalyst for community regeneration, so in 2,000 designated enterprise neighbourhoods, our small business tax cuts will be supported by further measures to encourage social entrepreneurs. First, there are measures on stamp duty on property transactions. In the pre-Budget report, we abolished stamp duty on home and business property transactions worth up to £150,000. For commercial transactions, we are now seeking state aid approval to abolish the limit altogether. Secondly, the community investment tax credit will take effect from this month, providing £25 million to support every £100 million of private sector investment. Clause 56 and schedules 16 and 17 set out the details.

  819
  We also believe that there is no necessary trade-off between economic growth and environmental protection. The challenge for us all is to achieve higher growth while enhancing the environment. It is increasingly recognised that sustainable development is an opportunity for British companies. Investing now in productive energy-saving technologies and techniques is important for competitiveness in this expanding global market.
  We are taking further steps in the Bill to exempt from the climate change levy all electricity produced by combined heat and power. We will also exempt from the levy electricity generated by coal mine methane, which combines the social benefit of employment in mining communities and the environmental benefit of efficient energy production. More generally, investment in energy-saving technologies will qualify for capital allowances at an enhanced rate of 100 per cent., strengthening our economy as we move towards our Kyoto targets.
  On cleaner fuels, the Bill introduces a fuel duty incentive on sulphur-free fuel. We have already announced fuel duty cuts for the development of hydrogen, biogas and methanol in pilot projects. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary invited further proposals for pilots that would help the development of cleaner fuels and which we would be prepared to support with fuel duty cuts and exemptions.
  Incentives will also be introduced to encourage people to drive cleaner vehicles, with a licence fee reduction of £30 for the most efficient cars, £55 for the least polluting vans and £35 for the least polluting motor cycles. We have also announced our introduction of the distance-based road user charge for lorries, with offsetting cuts for the UK haulage industry to ensure that foreign lorry operators pay their fair share for using our roads. The details are set out in clause 134.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughllin: Some time ago, the Government announced that they would give the fuel duty rebate to community transport. Is there anything in the Bill that advances that commitment? When will we get the proposals that the Government promised they would make on that measure?
  Mr. Smith: I understand that no such commitment was made, but as the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, I will check it carefully and get back to him.
  On waste disposal, we want to encourage the sustainable treatment of waste. As was expected, clause 119 increases the standard rate of landfill tax from £12 to £13. The Bill also includes important amendments to the operation of the aggregates levy and provides for the scheme's operation in Northern Ireland. Clauses 126 to 130 set out the details.
  The goals of economic growth and environmental protection are intertwined in the policies of this Government. That was true of the Budget, it is true of the Bill and it will be true of the forthcoming spending review.
  David Taylor: I was pleased to hear of the planned increase in landfill charges, but does not the Minister recognise that associated with
  820
  that steady increase in charges is a steady increase in fly-tipping of the type that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) seeks to address in the private Member's Bill on waste that she introduced a moment ago? The problem exists in the constituencies of many hon. Members. Do the Government intend to tackle fly-tipping at the same time as making it more expensive to use our existing landfill sites?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford in introducing her ten-minute Bill. That is partly why we have been reviewing and consulting on reform of the use of the fund that the levy makes possible to ensure that it is properly aligned both with our priorities and with those of the public for better recycling and clearing up mess wherever it is—as well as taking vigorous action against those who are responsible for fly-tipping.
  Mr. Jack: When the landfill tax was introduced, there was a corresponding reduction in employers' national insurance contributions. Can the Chief Secretary explain why, for the second time under this Government's responsibility for that tax, no corresponding reduction has been made, although the landfill tax rate has been increased?
  Mr. Smith: We have made a judgment on the overall balance between the reduction of 0.3 per cent. in employers' national insurance contributions and the establishment of the fund. As I said, we have been reviewing the fund's operation. In making that overall judgment, the effects must be considered together.
  Mr. David Laws: Will the Chief Secretary give way?
  Mr. Smith: I should like to make a little more progress, if I may. I have been very generous in giving way.
  To ensure fairness for taxpayers and businesses, we must act swiftly to close tax loopholes and be vigilant against tax avoidance. The Chancellor has therefore decided to act with immediate effect on the avoidance of stamp duty on property, to put an end to three artificial schemes for VAT avoidance and to review the complex rules of residence and domicile.
  The heart of the Budget, as we debated last week, is to secure the long-term future of the national health service—a key priority for the Government. Tomorrow, we will have the opportunity to discuss the measures in the national insurance resolutions. The Bill freezes personal allowances for the under-65s in 2003–04, contributing to further investment and reform in public services and the NHS, which were starved of resources for 18 years under Conservative Governments, but will be renewed for generations to come by this Government.
  We believe in a Britain where fairness and enterprise reinforce one another, where, on the platform of stability and tough fiscal rules that we have put in place, we can invest the resources needed for quality public services and make work pay, so that everyone is enabled to make the most of their potential. A strong and growing economy is crucial for a fairer Britain. The Bill, like the Budget, advances both, and I commend it to the House.
  4.8 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Finance Bill because the provisions contained in its two volumes and 488 pages increase the burden of taxation on important sectors of the economy; fail to make adequate commitments about taxation and personal allowances in future years; and will have a negative impact on competitiveness and the attractiveness of the UK as a location for investment.'
  I begin by drawing attention to my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests. Specifically, I do occasional work on staff communication skills with employees of J P Morgan and Deutsche Bank.
  I can say without exaggeration, and with the assent of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that the Chief Secretary's speech in winding up the Budget debate last Tuesday was widely viewed as the most peculiar parliamentary performance of this Parliament, and probably of the past five years. The right hon. Gentleman was overcome with hysteria and propelled into such flights of uncontrolled fury that many Conservative Members feared that Vesuvius had exploded all over again. I am an observant as well as a compassionate chap and I therefore recognise that it was a terrifying experience for the Chief Secretary to try to cope with the forensic dissection of the Budget that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) unleashed. Nevertheless, let me say with all due courtesy that it is reassuring to observe that this afternoon he has returned to some semblance of normality.
  Let me continue as I have begun, in a generous spirit and with some words of welcome for specific measures in the Finance Bill. We welcome the tax credit for research and development by large companies, even though it has been announced for the third time. We welcome the cut in corporation tax for small firms and the modest reform of the basis for the payment by companies of VAT. However, they and other not unwelcome features of the Budget must be viewed in the wider context of other, damaging imposts.
  I refer specifically to an impost of which business is painfully aware: the £6 billion a year extra taxation with which it has been encumbered in the past five years and the additional burden of £5 billion a year in regulatory costs. Those burdens impede companies' ability to win orders and create jobs.
  The Bill must be viewed in the light of the fact that new regulation that affects business has been introduced and continues to be introduced every 26 minutes of the working day. It must be viewed in the light of the fact that since the Government took office, Britain has plunged from ninth to 19th on the world competitiveness scoreboard. It must also be considered in the light of the fact that productivity growth is below that of the United States of America, under the Labour Government, when it was consistently above it under the previous, Conservative Government.
  Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: In a moment. The hon. Gentleman tempts me; he will have to wait only a few minutes.
  822
  The measure must be examined in the light of the fact that this country's share of world exports has fallen since the Chancellor took office. The balance of trade deficit is there for all to see—it has damaged the country every month for the past four years. Indeed, the British Chambers of Commerce estimate that rail failures alone have cost the average company in this country no less than £21,000. The Chancellor is wont to speak in terms of telephone numbers and that figure might therefore be writ small in his thinking. However, as my hon. Friends know, it is significant to the companies that are damaged as a result. That is the crucial point.
  Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: I can no longer resist the hon. Gentleman's soothing bromides.
  Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman is an expert on peculiar parliamentary performances, but is not it peculiar to cite so many statistics without reminding us of this country's record on growth compared with that of the other G7 nations?
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman tempts me. I shall comment on growth and the recent forecasts later. He might wish to advance his cause by making a speech or indulging in an intervention, but it is extremely foolish of him to assist me in mine. That is precisely what his ill-advised intervention has done.
  The Bill is massive and its size continues and exacerbates a trend that we have witnessed in the past five years. The first Finance Bill of Margaret Thatcher's Government, which was commended to the House of Commons by the then Sir Geoffrey Howe, now my noble Friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, ran to 22 pages. For the elucidation of Labour Members, it was published on 18 June 1979. This Bill is the third largest that the Chancellor has introduced and the third largest of all time—it has 488 pages and is published in two volumes. As if that were not a grievous enough affliction, this 488-page, two-volume Bill is accompanied by a further two volumes of explanatory notes, which in total amount to no fewer than 604 extra pages.
  David Taylor rose—
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. I shall readily give way in a moment.
  I leave it to the House to judge whether it was a tactful calculation or an inadvertent error on the part of the Government that the pages of the explanatory notes were left unnumbered. My indefatigable assistant was obliged to do the counting herself on my behalf.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is right to make a point about the inflating size of Finance Bills under this Government. Would he, however, care to comment on that trend under the Conservative Government? In 1995, the Finance Act ran to 566 pages.
  Mr. Bercow: That is a very illuminating fact, and I disclaim all responsibility for it immediately on the ground that I was not here, I did not know, I am not

  823
  responsible, I cannot be brought to book, and it is a matter of the most stupefying irrelevance to me. Whereas the Liberal Democrats want to focus on the past, my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches are concerned with the present and preoccupied with the future. That is the difference between forward-looking Conservatives and backward-looking, neanderthal, nit-picking Liberal Democrats, who will always remain the minority party.
  David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is taking the House on an illuminating peregrination round the dimensions of the document before us. Is he not, however, living proof that a small size does not necessarily produce concise coherence of the kind with which he suggests Lady Thatcher's early legislation is associated?
  Mr. Bercow: There are two answers to that. First, so far as I am concerned, there is hope yet, and I am still growing. Secondly, I say to the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor)—who is always, if nothing else, very fair—that nothing was ever to be heard from my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Howe of Aberavon on the subject of Finance Bills that was not penetrating, persuasive and concise in equal measure.
  Mr. Jack rose—
  Mr. Bercow: I shall give way to my right hon. Friend, who is a distinguished former Financial Secretary.
  Mr. Jack: As someone who was responsible for quite a long Finance Bill, I wonder whether my hon. Friend would agree that the pages of the Finance Bills for which the last Conservative Government were responsible were quality pages that laid the foundations for the reform of the British economy and helped to leave it in its current robust state?
  Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. He was a distinguished Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and the last Conservative Government bequeathed an outstanding economic legacy to this Government. The simple reality is that, as a consequence of successful economic policies pursued over 18 years by the Conservative party, we achieved record prosperity at home, secured respect abroad and helped to rediscover that sense of belief in ourselves that for so long, under Governments of both colours, had deserted us. That is the reality, and my right hon. Friend is sensible to point it out to me.
  Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: Not at the moment. I am always tempted to give way because I like feeding on dog bones, but I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in due course.
  The facts about the size of the Bill are all the more remarkable given the fact—to which the Chief Secretary elliptically referred—that it does not even include provision for the increases in national insurance contributions. The sheer, unbridled, crass ineptitude of the
  824
  Government in moving the Budget resolutions was such—as the wider public should now be aware—that a separate debate on the national insurance rises is required tomorrow. That debate will be dealt with by the shadow Chancellor and by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington).
  Kevin Brennan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not normal practice to include national insurance matters in a Finance Bill, because national insurance contributions go not into the Consolidated Fund, but into the national insurance fund?
  Mr. Bercow: That was an unfortunate intervention, because the reality is that the Government believed that that was the plan, but suddenly discovered that they had erred. They then grovelled to the Opposition in recognition of the fact that an extra parliamentary day would be required for this purpose. I would simply say, in all kindness to the hon. Gentleman, who is an agreeable companion outside the Palace of Westminster, that grovelling sycophancy should not be taken too far. I know that the hon. Gentleman is keen to impress those on the Treasury Bench, but if he is going to make interventions he should be clear that they are in line with the nous and information available to Ministers.
  In the context of complexity, from which I know Labour Members are keen to distract attention, I refer to the verdict of John Whiting of PricewaterhouseCoopers, a distinguished and senior accountant on 25 April in the Financial Times:
  "The only thing that keeps it bearable is the fact that we have seen a lot of it before. But for that, we'd be utterly floored."
  The trend of ever more complex Finance Bills, and lengthier ones at that, is serious. It is compounded by the trend of ever more complex and lengthy tax law, as illustrated by the growing size of tax manuals. Tolley's standard tax manual, the bible of tax accountants, has grown by more than 30 per cent. in the past three years. As the Financial Times put it on 24 November last year:
  "Tolley's manuals on VAT, income tax and corporation tax … have had to add a total of 855 pages to explain the gospel according to Gordon Brown. The three guides, which together have 3,414 pages, are longer than London's residential and business telephone directories. Tolley's has even had to reduce the print size to cram in more."
  That is in no way a tribute to the Government. Rather, it is a searing indictment of their addiction to meddling, stealth and over-regulation. These are now the principal bugbears of individual taxpayers and British commerce alike. Clive Lewis, secretary to the Institute of Chartered Accountants enterprise group, was surely right when he said:
  "Not only does the volume and complexity of regulation eat into the resources of a business, but it also absorbs time that could be spent more valuably on survival and expansion."
  Dr. Nick Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: No. In due course I might, but I want to make some progress. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be successful in catching the eye of Mr. Speaker or of one of his Deputies later.
  I come to the effect of the Bill on income tax payers. Under clauses 27 and 28, the freeze in personal allowances for those under 65, combined with the freeze

  825
  in the national insurance primary threshold, will raise £700 million in 2003–04 and an anticipated £850 million the year after. Millions of taxpayers will be poorer as a result. The Inland Revenue is now projecting an increase in the number of people paying the top rate—40 per cent.—of tax, from 2,080,000 in the last year of the Administration of John Major to 3,070,000 in 2003–04, when the higher national insurance contributions, which the Government said they would not introduce, kick into the groins of those who have to pay for them.
  I would like to say something about the treatment of tax credits, about which the Government, if they have any conscience at all, should be ashamed.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: On the tax and national insurance increases, are the Conservatives pledged to reverse them, and would they cut that money from NHS spending?
  Mr. Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman is very anxious. I can say beyond peradventure that we will set out our tax and spending plans with total clarity and absolute specificity well in time for the next election. If he seriously expects me, 10 months after we lost the last election on our previous manifesto, to announce the contents of the next manifesto, he is sadly deluding himself.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The Chief Secretary has asked a very stupid question, which we are used to from him. It was only just under 10 months ago that the Government said that they had no plans to raise national insurance charges.
  Mr. Bercow: Deputy Chief Whips have many merits. One of them is that they remind people of points they should have made but did not. That is exactly what my hon. Friend has done. I am bestirred by what he has just said. On 29 May last year, the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), now Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said that the Government had no plans to increase national insurance contributions. She went on boldly—but unwisely, as it transpired—to say, "It isn't going to happen." Given that the Government cannot make up their mind and stick to it over a period of 10 months, it is absurd and preposterous of the Chief Secretary to expect me, during today's Second Reading of the Finance Bill, to unveil the contents of the next Conservative manifesto. I shall do so later, but not now.
  Until this Budget, the various tax credits for families that the Chancellor had introduced—particularly the working families tax credit—had been treated as negative taxation. As such, the tax burden appeared lower than if the credits had been treated as public expenditure, in accordance with international accounting convention. For years, Ministers have been stubbornly insisting that they are right and all their critics are wrong. A delicious irony is therefore to be found by fiscal anoraks who peruse box C2 of the Red Book, which illuminatingly states:
  "The Government…has decided"—[Interruption.]
  No, I shall read it slowly, because I want to maximise the shame and embarrassment of Government Members. They are not going to escape that shame and embarrassment. Box C2 states:
  "The Government … has decided to adopt the OECD classification rules for the purposes of calculating net taxes and social security contributions, as used in the tax-GDP ratio consistent with international best practice … This change adds about 0.5 percentage points to the tax-GDP ratio for 1999–2000".
  826
  Belatedly, if not grudgingly, the Government have now admitted that they were wrong. The Red Book's main table on the tax burden not only contains tax burden outturn and estimates that differ from those in the Budget and the pre-Budget report of 2001; it also contains revised figures for those two financial statements.
  Yet for all the complexity, minutiae and fog of statistics with which the Chancellor and his colleagues seek to blind us, the basic facts about the tax burden are brutally simple. The total tax take will rise by £6.1 billion by 2003–04, and by approximately £8 billion a year by 2005–06. The Government claim that this unprecedented pickpocketing is for the benefit of public services, but I ask the House to consider who will be worse off as a result of the Bill. Nurses will be worse off; police inspectors will be worse off; teachers will be worse off; average earners will be worse off; through measures to come, the national health service will be worse off as an employer; the police service will be worse off as an employer; and the education service will be worse off as an employer.
  What we are getting from this Government is just more talk, more taxes, no change and no difference. Frankly, British people deserve better. In the past five years, taxes have gone up and public services have got worse. This country demands and deserves world-class public services, yet all the Labour Government do is tax more, waste more, fail to deliver improvements and refuse to learn from abroad. The Government demand more of voters' money, but they do not know how to make the NHS and other public services better. Every man, woman and child in this country is paying £1,600 more in taxation than in 1997, yet waiting lists are rising again, and the chances of surviving cancer in Britain are among the worst in Europe. Violent crime and street crime are reaching epidemic proportions, teacher vacancies doubled last year and truancy has risen. Under this Administration and the worst Secretary of State for Transport since his immediate predecessor, the trains have now descended into chaos.
  Perhaps most shamefully of all, the Government are failing to meet the plethora of public service agreement targets that they set. For Ministers to fail to meet voters' expectations is bad enough—but for them to fail to meet their own expectations requires a breathtaking incompetence that is fast becoming the hallmark of this over-hyped and underperforming Administration. What a shower they are.
  We read recently of what always starts to happen in Governments who have a chasm between the words they utter and the deeds they do. They start to fight like ferrets in a sack. The most recent manifestation of the discordant note that has been injected into Government business appeared in an article in The Independent last Friday by the respected political editor, Andrew Grice, under the title, "Brown wins battle with Blunkett on crime cash". The trouble with the Chancellor, who is a ministerial and departmental imperialist par excellence, is that he loves to trample over the terrain of all of his Cabinet colleagues. Is a new low being reached? It looks like it. The article says:
  "Relations between Mr Brown and Mr Blunkett, who are the two front-runners to succeed Tony Blair, are said by Cabinet colleagues to be strained. They had a skirmish on the eve of last week's Budget over whether the Home Office would receive a cash top-up this year."

  827
  It says that the Chancellor
  "has also expressed scepticism about the value for money achieved by previous Home Office initiatives and whether the high 'up-front' cost of Mr Blunkett's reforms to police working practices will deliver long-term benefits."
  The Chancellor is also said to be irritated by the public campaigning for more money by the Home Secretary. There we have it. Relations are not good. It is looking rough and Ministers are turning on each other. They are failing to deliver, they are confounding the public, they are guilty of hype, they are getting it wrong and they are starting to panic.
  Mr. Edward Davey: If I may bring the hon. Gentleman back to the Budget debate and to the documents before us, can he tell us whether he has read the Treasury Committee report published today, and whether he agrees with it?
  Mr. Bercow: I am familiar with the report. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's prompting, because I have read it and have a view on it that I shall reveal to the House shortly. I know that the hon. Gentleman numbers patience among his qualities and I will happily offer him my verdict on that important matter in due course. However, even if the Liberal Democrats do not agree, I would have thought that many important features of the Bill remain to be addressed, including North sea oil taxation.
  Clause 90 will introduce a 10 per cent. supplementary charge on companies producing oil or gas in the UK on the UK continental shelf. That charge will apply to companies' profits from the extraction of oil or gas in the UK or on the UK continental shelf. The Red Book predicts that the tax will cost the industry £100 million this year, £450 million next year and £600 million the year after that. However, commentators Wood McKenzie put the figures at £127 million, £454 million and £771 million, followed by £1 billion in 2005–06. Already it is predicted that investment will be discouraged, with a serious adverse impact on the Scottish economy. That is the considered judgment of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association and of the respected head of BP, Lord Brown, who said only last Tuesday:
  "I don't think any other country in the world has increased production taxes in this way over the last 10 years—with two exceptions—Venezuela and Argentina."
  The risk to jobs in the UK is so obvious, and to those in Scotland so palpable, that everyone is aware of those risks except, apparently, the Government.
  Sir Robert Smith: I raise a constituency concern, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that Scotland's economy is highly dependent on the industry. However, it is important to point out that the whole UK economy benefits from that investment. Businesses far from the North sea will find that their supply chain ends there.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is right and I agree with every word he said. Industry experts Wood McKenzie are understandably anxious that the changes could make the UK less attractive to investors and may delay or postpone the development of marginal fields.
  828
  That is their considered verdict. If Ministers disagree, it would be helpful if they could invoke some evidence in their support.
  Even before the Budget, we saw signs that activity in the North sea was slowing. What appraisal have the Government made of the latest round of licensing? I am told that one company has withdrawn its bid since the Budget, and many fear that the outcome of this round will be disappointing. In suggesting, as the Chief Secretary did, that the industry warrants further taxation, I put it to him that there is widespread concern that the Government have too little regard to the enormous capital requirements of UK continental shelf projects and the long time scales over which returns on investment are achieved. Measured by the return on capital employed, oil exploration and production has in fact been one of the lowest performing sectors over the past 20 years, underperforming in the overall UK market by more than 40 per cent. Furthermore, the Government's tax take is now up from 40.1 per cent. to 46.5 per cent. as a result of the Budget. That rate is higher than in the gulf of Mexico, Canada and Ireland.
  The treatment of controlled foreign companies—a matter of breathtaking insignificance to the economic illiterates who pepper the Labour Benches—is a cause for concern to us and to many outside the House. The controlled foreign companies rules are designed to stop UK companies reducing their UK tax liability by diverting profits to subsidiaries in low tax regimes. Those rules work, broadly, by charging the UK parent companies of CFCs on an amount equal to the profits that would otherwise avoid tax.
  The important point in this context is that clause 88 provides for a reserve power to make regulations specifying overseas jurisdictions to which the exemptions from the CFC rules will not apply. That is clearly targeted at the Crown dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. The proposals concern subsidiaries of groups that have their headquarters in the United Kingdom.
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: Oh, I know that the hon. Lady is very anxious; I will be referring to her in dispatches before long and of course I will then give her an opportunity to intervene.
  Dawn Primarolo: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: Very well.
  Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so graciously. Will he remind the House of when the Conservative party introduced a similar reserve power when it was in Government, and why?
  Mr. Bercow: No, I will not. I simply say to the hon. Lady that the circumstances in which the oil industry finds itself—the margins on its work, the extent of the investment required and the cost of the capital that is put into the process—are on a radically different scale from those that applied then. The verdict of Lord Brown of BP and the view of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association show that they see no comparison between the tax behaviour of the Conservative Government, in

  829
  different and more propitious circumstances, and that over which the hon. Lady is cogitating now. I will come on to the subject of foreign companies and the hon. Lady's role in relation thereto.
  This feature of the Finance Bill has nothing to do with tackling money laundering—rather, it is but the latest instalment in the Government's maniacal war against tax competition. The uncertainty resulting from this reserve power threatens the UK's position as a location for multinational companies' headquarters in the future.
  Mr. Nigel Beard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: No, I will not, because I am dealing with the hon. Lady, which is a pleasurable experience from which I do not wish to be diverted.
  A report in The Sunday Telegraph on 21 April offers a lurid account of telephone calls allegedly made by the Paymaster General to Senator Pierre Horsfall, Jersey's senior politician. He is said to have been given an ultimatum that unless his Government signed the European Union code of conduct by 16 April—the day before the Budget—his island would have to face unpleasant consequences, even though, as Crown dependencies, the Channel Islands are not in the European Union. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man could scarcely be expected to offer to destroy the sector that provides 70 per cent. of their income. It is reasonable for them to rely on the guarantee given by this country 30 years ago when we joined the European Economic Community that their tax sovereignty was untouchable. For the Government to contemplate wrecking the economies of those dependencies is both financially short-sighted and, if I may say so, the most objectionable form of Executive bullying—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Well, I wanted to get that off my chest.
  On vehicle excise duty, schedule 5 makes changes to the vehicle taxation and registration system to provide that liability to tax the vehicle shall rest with the registered keeper. It creates the offence of failing to re-license a vehicle. It provides that a supplement may be charged where a vehicle keeper fails to re-license a vehicle, and that the amount of such a supplement and the circumstances in which it is payable shall be specified in regulations. The schedule will provide that vehicle excise duty shall be payable on any vehicle on the register, or used or kept on a public road, or on any former mechanically propelled vehicle that remains registered as a vehicle.
  The trouble with that is twofold and simply stated. The Government are giving themselves the power to levy vehicle excise duty on vehicles that are neither used nor kept on the public road, and to tax things that used to be, but are no longer, mechanically propelled vehicles. If there is a new Labour logic somewhere in that bizarre and eccentric proposal, the Government will no doubt advise us of it, although the prospect seems improbable. In the circumstances—
  Mr. Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: No, I will not. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and I do not intend to do so again. I know that he wants to make a contribution and I look forward to it with bated breath and eager anticipation.
  830
  Motoring organisations have not been sufficiently consulted. The AA is understandably concerned about the measure and the Opposition will explore it in proper detail in Committee.
  The Chancellor has boasted—not an uncommon phenomenon in the present incumbent—that he will cut beer duty by 50 per cent. for about 350 pub, local and micro-breweries that produce fewer than 2,500 pints of beer a day. However, the reaction to that has by no means been universally favourable, as Jim Burrows, the chief executive of Brakspear, has told us. He said:
  "This clumsy tinkering with beer duty could eliminate the very British heritage the Chancellor claims to defend. His concession only partially implements the European directive on much needed duty savings, which were designed to help small traditional independent breweries to survive. But capping the concession where he has at 18,330 barrels, rather than at the higher 122,205 barrels European limit, will seriously damage a significant number of historic British regional brewers."
  That ought to be a matter of concern to Members on both sides of the House, as there will be such breweries in the constituencies of a number of hon. and right hon. Labour Members and those breweries will be hurt. I wonder whether independent-minded and industrious Labour representatives of those constituents will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to register their protest at the Government's behaviour.
  Mr. Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: Oh, very well—the hon. Gentleman is so amiable. I shall give way for the last time.
  Mr. Davey: I am especially grateful to the hon. Gentleman for indulging me.
  The hon. Gentleman makes a strong case. Does he realise that the situation is even worse, as the cut in the price of a pint that the Chancellor announced on Budget day is unlikely to happen? It is extremely likely that the landlords and breweries will not pass on the cut in duty.
  Mr. Bercow: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not being too pessimistic, but he might be—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) rather ungenerously observes that the hon. Gentleman's intervention was "All froth". Only time will tell, I know not.
  I have, typically, understated my critique of the Government this afternoon, but it would be a disservice to the House not to mention the stop-press news about the Budget. The verdict is highly critical; it states:
  "We are concerned that the Chancellor's Budget may already be based on over-optimistic projections."
  It continues:
  "The imbalances between net trade and domestic demand, and in particular strong consumption growth, may present a challenge to the stability of the UK economy…We are not clear that the Budget makes any significant contribution to correcting the imbalances in the economy…We remain concerned about UK productivity which has lagged behind that of the United States."
  It protests:
  "The Treasury should have published the document 'Trend Growth: Recent Developments and Prospects' in advance of the Budget statement so that the House could have scrutinised it."

  831
  It points out:
  "The Chancellor should have published at the time of the Budget the borrowing requirement for 2007–08."
  It continues:
  "We remain concerned that some Departments seem to be experiencing difficulties in delivering on the Government's agenda of increasing public sector investment."
  Furthermore, it states that
  "underspending has been significant in some Departments".
  It complains:
  "In terms of matching money to reform it remains far from clear what sanctions are proposed and how they might be implemented."
  It notes in relation to taxation that
  "the Government are guilty of sophistry."
  It deplores the
  "lack of consultation with foreign banks in London."
  Furthermore, it demands
  "publication of information on the take-up of tax credits".
  Dr. Palmer rose—
  Mr. James Plaskitt rose—
  Mr. Bercow: That is the verdict of the report on the Budget published today by the distinguished Labour-dominated Select Committee on the Treasury. It is a savage denunciation of the Government by their own friends. Truly, we live in interesting times. The Committee stage is now an enticing prospect. My hon. Friends and I will approach it with relish.
  4.46 pm
  Dr. Nick Palmer: On the points that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) raised at the end of his speech, I shall credit him with perhaps not realising that what he calls a Labour-dominated Committee was in fact a childish ambush set by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members to take advantage of a funeral. There is a long tradition that Select Committees operate by consensus. That tradition is normally to the benefit of Opposition Members, as otherwise Government Members on Select Committees would routinely pass motions praising the Government to the skies and approving every detail in every Bill.
  Mr. Laws: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Palmer: I shall finish my point, and then I shall give way.
  On this occasion, because I was absent for the funeral of the brother of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), and because other hon. Members were absent for other reasons, Opposition Members took the opportunity to force through 25 wrecking amendments to the draft report that had been discussed on the basis of the deliberations of the previous week.
  Mr. Laws: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I regret the intemperate language that he is using. He has completely misrepresented the amendments that were put through, which were not party
  832
  political point scoring but which in many cases reflected the observations that had been made by expert advisers to the Committee. The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, should withdraw his accusations.
  Dr. Palmer: Let us consider an example. In one of their amendments, the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members on the Committee lay great emphasis on the alleged sophistry of having a ceiling on the standard rate of national insurance, because, they say, there is a 1 per cent. extra charge on higher incomes. That is the kind of piffling sophistry—I use the word that Opposition Members used—that so irritates people outside Westminster.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Palmer: I will not give way, because I wish to continue my remarks for a moment.
  The whole operation was typical of the kind of thing that annoys people about politicians. People say that we spend more time trying to trip each other up than we do addressing the issues. Not one of the amendments that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats tabled to the draft proposals in Committee addresses the central issues for the population at large. Not one of the amendments deals with the national health service and whether the increase in funding is worth while. Not one of them deals with the child tax credit and the relief that it will provide to low-income families. Not one of them deals with the impact on the environment of the reduction in duties for non-polluting fuels. Instead, there was one piffling, technical amendment after another.
  Mr. Laws rose—
  Mr. Jack rose—
  Dr. Palmer: I give way to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack).
  Mr. Jack: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's observations. If Labour members of the Committee were so concerned by what was happening when they were in a minority as decisions were being taken, will he explain why they did not produce a minority report in which they could have addressed the points that he has made?
  Dr. Palmer: I do not believe that there is provision for minority reports—[Interruption]—but even if there were, that would not address the essential point. The report makes perfectly clear the votes on each amendment. Again the right hon. Gentleman makes a point about parliamentary procedure and does not deal with the central issues that concern the population at large.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Dr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman would not give way to me, but I shall give way to him.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman's generosity of spirit is appreciated. This is a case of, "Methinks he doth protest too much." Does he not recall that the hon. Member for

  833
  Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), the distinguished Chairman of the Treasury Committee, was present on the occasion in question and that it took place on a full parliamentary day when an important vote on a major piece of legislation was due to take place? It was greatly to the credit—and a proper of reflection of the attention to duty—of my hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and, in fairness, a reflection of the dedication of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), that they were present. They were doing their job, earning their salaries and respecting their constituents. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) did not display a similar attitude.
  Dr. Palmer: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who is normally an amiable fellow, takes the view that the funeral of a leading county councillor in my constituency is not an important matter. I disagree with him.
  Mr. Jim Cousins: My hon. Friend will be aware that, if one wants to produce a minority report in a Select Committee, one has to indicate one's desire to do so at the beginning of the proceedings. I voted 25 times in the Committee yesterday to try to get a slightly more sensible report and, if I had known about the way in which Conservative and Liberal Democrat members of the Committee wished to handle proceedings, I would have signalled my desire to produce such a report. Sadly, I assumed their good will and good sense, so I did not do that.
  Dr. Palmer: I sympathise with my hon. Friend. It is sad, because hon. Members on both sides of the House have put a lot of effort into building up a sensible tradition of Select Committees. Unfortunately, the two Opposition parties are so desperate for petty tactical success that they put it first.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Palmer: No, because I want to move on to discuss the Budget itself. Whereas the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), dwelt for about 20 minutes on the number of pages in the Budget and on gossip about how Ministers get on with each other, I would like to address the content of the Budget.
  The central feature of the Budget is that, for the first time in many years, adequate provision is foreseen for the health service. Strikingly, that was not addressed at all in the Opposition spokesman's introductory remarks. It was not as if he was in favour of it or against it; it simply was not addressed at all because he was too busy counting the number of pages in the Red Book. In the real world, there is broad consensus that however one organises the health system, funding for health in Britain is inadequate, and has been for many years under different Governments. We all know the reason why; until recent years, the economy has been in such a parlous state that successive Governments have been unable to provide adequate funding.
  I am proud that we are now in a position to change that, but I note that the Opposition are unsure of their position. We are promised that at some time in the future they will say whether they support or oppose the
  834
  commitment, but for the time being they are Delphic on the subject, which is why they concentrate on counting pages instead of looking at content. I have talked to my constituents about the impact of the Budget, but I have yet to meet one who wants to know how many pages are in the Red Book. I have yet to hear a constituent raise any of the issues raised by the Conservative spokesman. Again and again, people tell me, "At last we have a Government who are taking health seriously." Of course they have reservations—we should be open about this—about whether the money is really going to the NHS. After many years of frustration and disappointment, people naturally wonder whether we are really going to put the money in.
  There is a political difficulty, which we all know about. There are thousands of hospitals in Britain and hundreds of thousands of people employed in the health service. It will always be possible—whether in three, eight or 100 years' time—to find a hospital somewhere in Britain where a mistake has been made or a problem has arisen, which Opposition spokespeople will use as an opportunity to show that the system is not working and the money has not produced results. They will do so, as the Opposition Health spokesman has said, to try to demolish public confidence in the health service so that they can introduce an alternative, even though they do not know what it is.
  In the real world, people do not share that priority; they want our initiative to succeed and recognise that the Opposition do not want it to, which is one reason why the Opposition's response has so far failed to command interest, let alone support.
  Mr. Howard Flight: Imagine a major business suddenly telling the hon. Gentleman, "We are going to spend £40 billion on developing our business. We don't know how we are going to spend it or even if we can spend it. We haven't worked out what we are going to do." Does he think that that business would be a great success for Britain? Is that an effective way of planning investment and spending?
  Dr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman's remarks seem to relate more to the way in which the Conservative party's finances are run than to the NHS. As he will be aware, the NHS plan was agreed by all the major bodies involved and commands widespread support. If he wants to highlight specific elements of the plan and discuss whether we can achieve them, we could obviously have a reasonable dialogue. I was sorry that his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham attacked the individual objectives set by the Government and the alleged failure to achieve them. Those of us who have worked in management—I suspect that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) has—recognise that if we do not set objectives we will not know if we have succeeded and will not be able to track progress. I welcome the fact that the Government have set themselves tough targets. Sometimes an individual target will not be met. We must have a serious dialogue about that, rather than picking up on the failure as if it were a hostage to be burned at the stake for political advantage.
  Mr. Bercow: The position is even worse than I described. Not only have the Government set targets and in many cases failed to meet them, but in important respects where people could legitimately expect targets to be set, they have not set them. Is the hon. Gentleman

  835
  sanguine about the fact that the Government have no public service agreement target for the reduction of bed blocking, for the reduction of the number of cancelled operations, or for the increase in the number of beds in the care home sector?
  Dr. Palmer: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises the issue, as I have discussed it in some detail with my health authority. I am somewhat inhibited by the fact that we are discussing the Budget, so I am not sure whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me to go into detail. Briefly, the health authority in my area says that bed blocking in the sense in which the hon. Member for Buckingham means it—inadequate funds—is not the key issue. The key issue is finding suitable accommodation with which patients are happy. That is not a financial issue, the health authority says. It is a matter of providing intermediate care in the hospitals. The health authority very much welcomes the additional funding that is coming through for that.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Does my hon. Friend agree that although we have been arguing about numbers for the past few minutes, the essential difference between the Government and the Conservative Opposition is that the Conservatives cannot commit themselves to an NHS free at the point of use for everyone?
  Dr. Palmer: My hon. Friend is right. It is possible that one day the Conservatives will re-commit themselves to that—
  Mr. Harris: But they are not doing so now.
  Dr. Palmer: Indeed. Until now the Conservatives have always said through gritted teeth that they were willing to finance a national health service free at the point of use. They have not said that they were willing to finance it well, and we know from their period in government that they are not, but they have been willing to finance it on some basis. It now appears that that is not the case. That is a matter of grave concern to people out in the real world.
  Let us return to the Westminster world, where we all feel at home and where we debate our points of order and our points of sophistry at our leisure. Another aspect of the Budget that has received widespread support is the commitment to a reduction in duty for combined heat and power, the reductions on methane and the support for green vehicles. The recent reports from the Cabinet Office on the future of energy expenditure in Britain make it clear that if we want to make significant progress within our lifetime, we must start now. We cannot delay.
  I welcome the fact that the Chancellor has opened his doors to representatives of each of the industrial groups developing alternatives to the standard petrol engines, to encourage faster development. I welcome that not just because of the impact that it will have in Britain but because if Britain takes a lead in this area, we are likely to have an export market that will dwarf many of our present markets.
  On my next point, I declare an interest: I advise my former company, Novartis, which is a multinational company involved in pharmaceutical research. The
  836
  proposals to aid research in Britain are welcome, as they reinforce Britain's position as a science base. We cannot underestimate the importance of those proposals because, in the long term, the profile of the British economy will depend on whether we have that significant research base.
  It is entirely possible that we could give up Britain's traditional scientific advantage and concentrate on call centres, insurance services and other traditional or not so traditional activities by which we could make a living in the world market. However, if we want balanced, long-term development that will benefit Britain not only under this Government but under any future Government whom we might imagine in our nightmares, that scientific base is essential, so I very much welcome those proposals.
  I want to allow other hon. Members to speak, so I wish to make a final point on the Budget. I very much welcome the attempt to cut the illegal use of rebated fuel. Those of us who watched the fuel protests will have been struck by the large number of farmers who drove around on motorways and elsewhere, and many of us wondered whether they conscientiously siphoned out their rebated fuel before setting out. During the Select Committee hearings, Conservative Members attempted to find out which class of people were affected. The answer, of course, is the criminal class. That is the class of people who misuse rebated fuel for the purpose of making a profit.
  I have a query for Ministers about whether it makes sense in the long term to have what is in effect a subsidy for farming through rebated fuel and whether it would not be better to have a market rate for that fuel and support farming by other means, possibly those that would attract match funding from the European Union. In the longer term, with our new Labour attachment to market mechanisms, it probably makes sense to move red fuel back towards the market rate, especially as we are trying to reduce the overall impact.
  In concluding on that technical note, I should like to welcome the positive and focused nature of the Budget. To those who say that people on the street are horrified and alarmed by the one percentage point increase in national insurance contributions, all I can say is that the feedback that I have had from everyone I have spoken to in my constituency suggests that if that increase delivers the goods—the health service for which people hope—they will be hugely relieved, pleased and looking forward to a better future.
  5.8 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) has in large part made a very measured and constructive contribution to the debate, but his earlier remarks on the Select Committee on the Treasury were wide of the mark. I speak as a former member of that Select Committee who was involved in the drafting of several reports, including those on the Budget. I remember from my time serving on that Committee that there was constructive debate when we considered draft reports.
  When I look through the minutes at the back of the report and at the amendments tabled by Conservative Members and Liberal Democrat Members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), I see constructive amendments that relate to evidence provided to them by their expert external advisers. The advice and

  837
  evidence were provided not by politicians or party pundits, but by experts in economics and finance. In that vein, I found the hon. Gentleman's remarks unwelcome and out of place in the House.
  Although the hon. Gentleman may have had a valid, understandable reason not to be present, other Labour Members were not present either. If his objections to the report are to be considered, we need to understand why those Members were not there to argue their case. One can only presume from their absence that they were not interested or that they were not prepared to argue their case because they were embarrassed by aspects of the Budget.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Whatever the hon. Gentleman's explanation of how the report came to be in its present form, does he believe that the views of the Treasury Committee, as now constituted, are accurately represented in that report?
  Mr. Davey: That is a surprising intervention. We have the report before us and it was passed in a proper manner through the due procedures. If it is not representative, that is the fault of the members of the Committee and those who were absent, not the Committee as a whole. That is the process of the House.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: As a member of the Committee, I should say that the overwhelming proportion of the report—almost all of it—was the Chairman's first draft. The huge row that has broken out concerns a relatively small part of a number of proposals in the summary of recommendations.
  Mr. Davey: I am grateful for that elucidation.
  Mr. John McFall rose—
  Mr. Davey: In order to be fair to the House, I shall allow the Chairman to respond.
  Mr. McFall: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Chairman's drafts come before the Committee. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the back of the report he will see that 25 amendments were put forward. If 25 amendments are put forward, the Chairman's report is changed quite considerably. That is a matter of fact.
  Mr. Davey: It is a matter of fact that the report was changed significantly, but the amendments that were passed were based on the evidence provided by the external advisers. That is a key point.
  Mr. Laws: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Davey: I want to come to the substance of my speech but before I do so I shall take an intervention from my hon. Friend who also serves on the Committee.
  Mr. Laws: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the amendments that were passed to the Chairman's draft report—for example, recommendation (s), which welcomes measures in the Budget, and recommendation (k), which welcomes the Government's approach to the
  838
  growth and stability pact—were tabled by Opposition Members to the Chairman's report and side with the Government? Is it not clear therefore that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) of an entirely partisan, political approach is not an accurate summary of the way the Committee conducted itself?
  Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend has the concluding remark to this part of the debate. He shows that he and Conservative Members played a constructive role in the debate and I recommend the report to other hon. Members.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Davey: I shall not take further interventions on the report because many criticisms can be levied at the Finance Bill and I want to come to those. Tonight and during the next few months, my hon. Friends and I will be making those criticisms because we believe that many parts of the Bill are ill judged and damaging to the British economy. There are the ill-advised choices of taxes that the Government have sought to raise and there is the complexity that is piled on complexity.
  Liberal Democrats will be tabling a series of amendments to show their constructive and genuine alternative to the Government's tax policy. While the Chancellor seems intent on tying up British business in tax bureaucracy, Liberal Democrats will be radical in their proposal to cut his Gordian knot.
  Despite the Bill's failings, however, on Second Reading the House must be mindful of the core direction of the Budget's strategy—to provide the cash for our public services, and in particular, the health service. It took the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) 20 minutes before he came to the health service, and that shows a complete misunderstanding of the Budget.
  Liberal Democrats are unequivocal in welcoming the Government's U-turn from their general election position on that matter. Just under a year ago, Liberal Democrats argued at the general election that taxes had to rise to fund the services that we provide for each other. Our election campaign was focused on health, education, pensioners and police. It was distinguished and differentiated partly by the fact that we were arguing for higher taxes to make that revenue possible, and that extra revenue had to be found from somewhere.
  Our opponents were vicious in attacking us. They said that we were wrong in saying that we could not have something for nothing, so we are delighted that Labour has now changed its course and agrees with us.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davey: Before I do so, let me say that the Liberal Democrats wish that the Government had made that position clear before the election. The process would have been fairer and more honest, frank, open and transparent and the Budget would have had even wider acclaim if they had put the proposals to the British electorate just 11 months ago. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can explain why they were not put before the electorate.
  Mr. Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I shall stick to my original intention in

  839
  making this intervention. Was not his party criticised at the time of the election because it said that it would fund every promise under the sun through a 1 per cent. increase in the basic rate of income tax?
  Mr. Davey: That was a disappointing intervention. If he had read our manifesto, which was accompanied by detailed costings, he would have seen that it set out a series of spending proposals that were fully costed on the basis of three major tax changes, including not only the penny on income tax, but the 50p charge on incomes of more than £100,000 a year—a proposal that was repeated in our alternative Budget. Indeed, we will be pushing and arguing for our alternative and against the Government's tax measures, which we think are far more damaging.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davey: No.
  Interestingly, Labour's key policy changes after the last election and the 1997 election were based on Liberal Democrat manifesto commitments made in the campaigns. In 1997, in order to move away from the Conservative policies of boom and bust and failed economic management, the Labour Government rightly adopted our policy of establishing an independent central bank. [Laughter.] Labour Members laugh, but the proposal was not set out in their manifesto, so they should wipe the smiles off their faces. Perhaps they will be more amused by my next observation. It was interesting to hear Conservative Front Benchers try to take credit in the Budget debate for the independent central bank policy, when they had opposed it in government. It beggars belief that the Conservative Opposition are trying to take credit for that policy.
  However, after the 2001 election, Labour has now adopted our policy of raising tax to invest in the public services. If only it had done so before.
  Mr. Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davey: No.
  If only Labour had adopted our specific tax policies, we would have had a much happier outcome, but at least it has shifted. It is the Conservative Front Benchers who are now left high and dry, voting against investment for the NHS. The Conservatives join the Liberal Democrats in criticising specific tax policies, and we welcome their support in opposing the Government on those measures, but they present the country with no alternative, so it can only surmise that in voting against the tax rises, the Conservatives want to vote against the health service. Instead of a coherent alternative health policy, we read in today's edition of the Financial Times that their health policy update—that is what they call it—will take at least another year to come into being. The Liberal Democrats wonder why. Perhaps on their Cook's tour of continental capitals, the Conservatives have rediscovered their previous love for Europe. They may have developed a taste for continental travel and for the euros jingling in their pockets, or perhaps their delay in proposing a constructive alternative has occurred simply because they do not know what to do.
  840
  Whatever the cause of the Tories' black hole on health, the Liberal Democrats at least know that they object to the NHS investment, and we will point that out, as I am sure Labour Members will.
  Mr. Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davey: I am happy to do so.
  Mr. Blizzard: I am grateful. Now that the Government have raised extra revenue through taxation—I understand that the hon. Gentleman may not agree with their precise method—will he say whether his party now wants to raise still more through taxation?
  Mr. Davey: I am grateful for the opportunity to put our response on record. We are waiting with bated breath for the publication of the spending review later this year. We need to ensure that the Government are investing in education, the police, pensioners and other issues. I tell the hon. Gentleman and Ministers that if that spending review does not provide the resources that are necessary for those key public services, we will continue arguing for extra tax revenue to make those essential investments.
  Mr. John Burnett: I am not in the front rank when it comes to demanding additional cash, but there is one aspect of policy on which a small amount could go along way. Our troops in Afghanistan are serving alongside American troops in an area that the United States Government have defined as a hostile fire zone. The Americans get a complete income tax exemption during the time that they are serving in a hostile fire zone. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should match those terms? It would not cost much in public money, but it would go some way to showing this country's appreciation for our service men, who do so much for us.
  Mr. Davey: As usual, my hon. Friend makes a telling point, which deals with an aspect of taxation legislation that has not been raised in the House before. All hon. Members should welcome his remarks, which highlight the fact that our troops facing hostile action are not treated in the same way as American troops. I look forward to my hon. Friend pressing the Government in the Standing Committee to try to ensure that they put that matter right.
  Mr. Iain Luke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davey: No, I wish to make some progress.
  If the Budget was good news for the NHS, the Chancellor's tax strategy is very bad news for UK plc. Certainly, the alternative Budget that we published before the election proposed tax rises, but they would not have clobbered business—they would have shared out the burden of paying for public services fairly among households.
  I am delighted that the Treasury Select Committee, which has only one Liberal Democrat member, has today published a report that effectively backs up Liberal Democrat Members' concerns about the Chancellor's choices on taxes. I have never seen a Select Committee report that is so damning of a Chancellor's tax policy,

  841
  drawing on the views of independent expert witnesses. I refer hon. Members to paragraph 54, which discusses the national insurance rises. It says:
  "We think that the Treasury has, as yet, failed to make the case for choosing a method of revenue raising (higher employer and employee national insurance contributions) which excludes well-off pensioners and people living comfortably off unearned income from making a contribution to higher NHS spending."
  Kevin Brennan rose—
  Mr. Cousins rose—
  Mr. Davey: I shall not give way at the moment.
  The proposals on employees' national insurance contributions exclude very wealthy pensioners and very wealthy people living off unearned income, who are not being asked to contribute to the NHS. Many of those people will not understand that, and some may think it unfair, because they, too, wish to make their contribution, but the Government will not let them. It is bizarre that the Government have chosen this relatively unfair way of raising tax.
  Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davey: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is about to defend that unfairness.
  Kevin Brennan: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Liberal Democrats would have raised taxation purely from households, by exactly how much would they have raised income tax in the unlikely circumstance that they had been able to do so?
  Mr. Davey: I am increasingly surprised by the failure of Labour Members to read documents that we publish and place on our website, which set out our detailed policies. We argued for 1 p on income tax, which would raise about £3.5 billion, and for a 50p tax rate on income above £100,000, which would raise just over £4 billion, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to one or two other tax measures described in those documents. Together, they would raise slightly more than the Government have raised through their Budget proposals, so he will have little success in pursuing his argument.
  I refer hon. Members to paragraph 68 of the Select Committee's report, which deals with employers' national insurance contributions. The key point that the Government are having to wrestle with is their belated realisation that business is extremely concerned about the way that it has been treated in the Budget, because it contradicts what the Government have said in the past. In the 2000 Budget, the Government cut employers' national insurance contributions, linking that to the introduction of the climate change levy. They lauded that proposal and said that it would increase employment. When my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil questioned the Chancellor about it at the Select Committee hearing, the Chancellor failed to acknowledge his point, and simply said that changes had been made in other years that meant that the increase would not be damaging to business. I am afraid that that was sophistry, and my hon. Friend was right to point it out. We all agree that raising money for the national health service is a valuable policy objective. However, placing the burden on employers' national
  842
  insurance contributions, and thus on the basic cost of employing labour, must be bad news for the country and job creation. The Government will rue the day that they made that decision.
  Mr. Wayne David: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in 1999, for example, British business lost £10 billion through ill health absences?
  Mr. Davey: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right but that does not mean that one should clobber business with extra taxes. It does not follow that doing that will suddenly create better health. The Liberal Democrats agree that there should be more investment in the health service. We have explained how we would achieve that; our method would not hit UK plc.
  Mr. Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that by going down the national insurance route and cutting corporation tax, the Chancellor may help companies but do nothing for sole traders and partnerships who bear the additional tax?
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which I hope that those on the Treasury Bench have noted.
  Using national insurance contributions to find extra money for the health service might have been appropriate if the Government had combined it with significant reforms. However, they chose not to do that. They could have made the national insurance system far fairer and more efficient but they did not do that.
  We set out the alternative in our alternative Budget in the general election campaign. It is raising income tax. Why did the Government not do that? Because they made a grubby political promise at the last election. They cut income tax in the previous Parliament when they did not need to do that, and they were grubbing around for a tax to raise. They chose not to raise income tax because of a manifesto commitment yet they broke such a commitment and contradicted the utterings of Ministers during the election campaign by raising national insurance. By failing to raise income tax, which would have been fairer and more efficient, the Government put grubby politics before the health of the economy. They should apologise.
  Mr. Beard rose—
  Mr. Tom Harris rose—
  Mr. Davey: I have taken many interventions and I want to make some progress.
  The Bill deals with far more than national insurance. It is riddled with errors that, like the national insurance increases, break two key economic tests for tax policy: fairness and efficiency.
  Let us consider the policy on income tax allowances. By freezing them, the Government have increased the tax burden on the poorest. That is a bizarre position for the Labour Government to adopt. More low-income workers will be caught by the income tax system than by the national insurance system. Where did that appear in Labour's manifesto? The Rooker-Wise amendment was a great achievement by Labour Back Benchers in the late

  843
  1970s and the proposal to freeze allowances goes in the opposite direction. Labour Members should be ashamed of that.
  The only defence that I have heard is that some of those affected will benefit from some tax credits. Let us debate the options. First, some people who are affected will not be eligible for the tax credits. Freezing the allowance will therefore hit some of the low paid, and low-income pensioners. Secondly, some of the tax credits are so complicated that many low-income workers will not claim them. Experience of the working families tax credit shows that. That is not a fair method of raising taxation.
  Business efficiency has been hit. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) said, the proposals to change the tax regime for the North sea oil industry are bizarre and a breach of faith. The Government consulted the industry for many months on different changes that would favour investment and help the industry but ensure that the Exchequer got its fair share. Suddenly, out of nowhere, they make the proposal that appeared in the Budget. If the Government cannot understand why business is losing confidence in them, they should consider the way in which they treat business. They consult, then go off in a completely different direction. That is not the way to win over or to support business.
  The other inefficiency in the Finance Bill is its horrendous complexity. The hon. Member for Buckingham, who is no longer in his place, referred to that at length in terms of the number of pages in the Bill; I want to talk about it in relation to one or two of its proposals. Nine pages are devoted to a minor beer duty change, which we and the breweries believe will not even achieve the Chancellor's target of reducing the price of a pint of beer in time for the World cup. Thus nine pages are taken up by a tiny measure that will not even achieve its goal.
  Fourteen pages and two schedules are devoted to a minor tax relief on vaccine research, which will probably also miss its target. We shall be looking at that research. It is a worthy aim, but whether the measure will achieve it is highly questionable, because the Government are using the tax system for inappropriate measures.
  Mr. Beard: Why?
  Mr. Davey: The proposal is unlikely to achieve its aim because there are dead-weight costs, and because one cannot be sure that what is given tax relief is what we want to give tax relief to. For example, a pharmaceutical company with a whole range of drugs that it cannot sell in western markets could dump them on developing countries. Giving tax relief in those circumstances would be totally contrary to the Government's intentions.
  Five clauses and one schedule are devoted to the aggregates tax, although we were told in the debate on last year's Finance Bill that the Government had sorted all that out, that there were no problems and that they could go ahead with the measure. The Liberal Democrats—and, to be fair, the Conservatives—said that the aggregates levy should not go ahead at that time because the problems had not been sorted out. The fact that the Government have presented the House with five
  844
  clauses and a schedule on the matter tonight shows that we were right and they were wrong. They should delay the implementation of that tax until they have sorted it out properly.
  All this complexity is the reason for the Liberal Democrats launching their campaign for simpler tax. Details of it can be found at www.simplertax.org.uk and I recommend it to hon. Members. We shall consult over a period of time with business, tax professionals and all other interested parties on a whole range of proposals for simplifying the tax system. We want to engage constructively with business and the tax professionals—the experts—to ensure that when we are in government and come before the House with tax proposals, they will be proposals to reform the tax system, to reduce the compliance costs for business and to introduce major micro-economic reforms to help UK plc.
  Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davey: No, I want to make some progress.
  I commend to the House one particular proposal on simpler tax in our first e-newsletter on the website, because it relates to the Finance Bill. We believe that film tax relief should be abolished. It is clear from the Bill that the Government realise that this little tax relief, which they put in place a few years ago, has become a complete rip-off. A whole series of companies are now exploiting it in a way that goes totally against the Government's original intention. Soap operas—the Coronation Streets and Emmerdales of this world—now claim that every episode is a film in its own right, to get the tax relief. How is that stimulating entrepreneurialism and innovation? Those reliefs only serve to create extra tax complexity.
  Mr. Beard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davey: No, I will not give way.
  We are now having to debate many pages in the Bill relating to anti-avoidance mechanisms for a relief that we should abolish. We should be taking those pages off the statute book.
  To be fair to the Government, there are a number of measures in the Bill that we welcome. The fact that the bribes that companies used to give to win business overseas are no longer to be tax deductible is welcome; that is something that we have campaigned for. The extra support for amateur sports clubs is also welcome, as is the fact that some of the measures in the Bill have been widely consulted on. The increase in the inheritance tax rate band is welcome, as are certain other modest measures.
  When we add up all those welcome measures, however, and stand back and ask, "Does this Bill improve the British tax system?", I am afraid that the answer is no. If it did not underlie a Budget strategy that we genuinely support, including investment in the health service, we would not feel able to vote for its Second Reading.
  On Second Reading, it is customary to discuss the Treasury Select Committee report and the macroeconomic policy that lie behind the Budget. I shall do so briefly. The Chancellor and, indeed, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury had, and have, a relatively good story to tell about the economy. Employment is high and

  845
  unemployment is low, interest rates—both long-term and short-term—are low, and inflation is low. All that is welcome news, and represents a genuine achievement on the part of the Labour Government. The Budget, however, fails to address many failings. First and, in many ways, most significant is the fact that the British economy is incredibly unbalanced.
  For some six or seven years, the growth of the economy has been fuelled by the consumer sector alone. It has not been fuelled by investment in business or in manufacturing. Labour Members know that, and they should worry about the fact that the Budget makes the situation worse by piling taxes on to the corporate sector and not restraining the consumption of the household sector through a balanced tax policy. The Government are leaving the job of dealing with consumer demand to the Monetary Policy Committee, which in due course will mean higher interest rates that will stifle investment. By failing to achieve a balanced tax policy—a policy that would help to balance the macro-economy—the Government are storing up serious problems.
  Dr. Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davey: I will give way once more.
  Dr. Palmer: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Is he saying that not only would he have preferred an income tax increase to a national insurance increase, but he would have preferred a larger increase?
  Mr. Davey: We have spelled out our proposals. We would have liked quite a large increase for those earning more than £100,000 a year and a modest increase for the remaining sector, which would have hit those who will not be clobbered by the national insurance contributions. We accept that that would have had a much bigger effect on private sector consumption, but it would have produced a much more balanced economic policy.
  Concerns have been expressed about the Government's short-term growth forecasts. Just the other day we learned that in the first quarter of the year the economy has grown by only 0.1 per cent. If the Chancellor is to meet the growth targets that he announced a few days ago, that figure will have to be revised, or the economy will have to grow very fast during the remaining three quarters of the year. The Item Club, to whose pronouncements we should pay particular attention because it uses the Treasury's own forecasting model, has said independently that it does not believe the growth forecast will be met.
  My main worry about the forecast, however, relates to the longer term. Both in 1999 and now in 2002, the Chancellor has increased his forecasts of the economy's underlying growth potential: the forecast in the Budget is 2.75 per cent. per annum. I do not quibble over whether that figure is achievable. It may well be achievable: indeed, owing to the excessive caution exercised by the Treasury up to now, it probably is, especially as public spending forecasts are currently based on a 2.5 per cent. forecast. What concerns me is the argument that the Government have produced to back up the change. If we really want to hold the Government to account, we must understand the thinking behind their policies, and analyse those policies rigorously to establish whether they meet the tests of arguments.
  846
  How do the Government say they can now revise upwards the underlying rate of growth? They have used a new report from the Government Actuary's department relating to an increase in the size of the labour force, and in particular the prediction that net migration will be slightly higher over the next few years. That may strike Members as very reasonable, but when we look at the detail and, specifically, at the Budget publication "Trend Growth: Recent Developments and Prospects", we find that the Government have not used the Actuary's principal forecast. They have gone away from the principal projection by the Government Actuary. They say that it is excessively cautious and believe that it should be higher. In using a new report to justify uplifting the growth forecast, the Government have gone against the forecast of the Government Actuary. It takes some explaining.
  Mr. Beard: The hon. Gentleman is laying all the emphasis on the increase in the size of the working population. Reports also show that, year on year, there has been growth in productivity. That alone justifies the change in the trend rate that the Government propose.
  Mr. Davey: I am sorry but the hon. Gentleman clearly has not read the Government's own report. The Government assume in their forecast of underlying growth that productivity will stay the same. He cannot argue that underlying growth has increased due to productivity: his own Ministers are not arguing that. It is largely down to the change in net migration.
  Mr. Beard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davey: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will show that he has read the report.
  Mr. Beard: Given that the hon. Gentleman is apparently reading from a paper, he might read it accurately. The Government are not projecting any increase in future growth; they are not saying that they have not allowed for growth over the past five years. They have made a cautious prediction, taking today's productivity growth and not allowing it to increase according to the measures introduced in the Budget. That is what the Budget is saying.
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. The reason why this situation is particularly bizarre is that, at the same time as the Budget was published, the Wanless report was published. It tried to work out what the health needs of the nation would be in 20 years. When Wanless looked at population trends, he took the principal forecasts of the Government Actuary, not the higher one that has been assumed by the Government. The Government's core strategy was for health spending, but in their Budget strategy they use a different forecast of population growth from the Wanless report' s.
  I hope that the Minister will explain that in his summing-up speech. I also hope that the Government will do rather better than the document on trend growth, which provides no intellectual backing for the change. There is no model of the causes of emigration or immigration, and no analysis of whether they are to do with the relative economic performances of different countries, asylum policy or international political situations. All the independent expert advisers to the Select Committee on

  847
  the Treasury said that it was an area of great uncertainty, yet the Government are not taking the principal projection of the Government Actuary. It is bizarre.
  I had the privilege the other day of discussing such matters with senior people at the Bank of England. They informed me—I was not aware of it—that the statistics on immigration and emigration are among the weakest there are. Unlike other countries, which require people to register with the local police, for example, when they enter the country, we do not. I support that policy, but it limits our ability to understand net migration. We do not have the figures, yet the Government base their increase in growth forecast on that. They may be right; perhaps we will achieve that underlying growth, but they need a slightly better analysis in order to convince us. We hope that they are right.
  It will be a long summer in the Finance Bill Standing Committee. We will have some long debates—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) tempts me, I can speak for a lot longer. In fact, I think I will make some remarks; the hon. Gentleman has really tempted me.
  I have a concern about the whole process that we are engaged in: the Finance Bill process. People who have to use the tax system say that it results in very poor scrutiny. The processes, the time and the whole ethos around the Standing Committee do not enable us to engage in constructive scrutiny.
  Like the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), I had the privilege of sitting on the Institute for Fiscal Studies tax law reform committee, which looked at the institutional processes behind a move towards tax simplification. That committee, which was staffed by experts, had a vigorous debate. It believed that the Finance Bill process is of second order and is failing this country, and that we need radical reform. As that is a process point, the Second Reading debate is the right place to make it.
  The Chancellor wanted to create consensus on NHS investment, which was a bold and courageous ambition. Unfortunately, the Conservative party has prevented that consensus from being established. The Chancellor cannot take any blame for that, but he can take the blame for the fact that he has alienated a number of taxpayers, particularly in the corporate sector, because he has developed a tax policy that is unfair, inefficient and over-complex. Had he chosen a different route, he would have had even greater support, and we would be far surer than we can be today that we will get the quality NHS that our country deserves as a result of all the extra money.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. John McFall: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Second Reading. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has gone on a lot. I could sum up his speech with the slogan, "More and simpler tax." Given the promises that the Liberal Democrats have made, they will end up as the party with the simplest tax system in the country: they will be taking 100 per cent. of everyone's wages. They have to do an awful lot to convince people that their policies are credible.
  It is the same with the official Opposition. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made an indelicate rant. I look forward to the day when he
  848
  improves and makes a delicate rant. Their whole argument is this. The shadow Chancellor, his boss, was on the radio and television today. In answer to a question, he said:
  "it is clear that the NHS needs more money—it needs reform",
  but when the questioner asked him what the next stage was, he said:
  "we will need to look…at how other countries do it".
  How can a party have any credibility in opposing the Second Reading of a Finance Bill when it cannot come up with its own proposals? That question will plague Conservatives throughout the land until they answer it.
  There was much ado about the Treasury Select Committee report. As the Chairman of the Committee, I wanted the opportunity to put the report into context. I feared that some people had their own gloss on it when I received a telephone call from a television station at 8 o'clock this morning, three hours before the report was published. However, let that be.
  It is my responsibility as Chairman to ensure that the principles of the Committee are adhered to. Those are simple: as a Back-Bench Committee comprising hon. Members on both sides of the House, we have a responsibility to undergo an intellectual inquiry into the Budget. Everything we have said in the report, particularly the draft report, centres on that intellectual inquiry. I will go through the report on that basis.
  The Select Committee report was preliminary. It was for the benefit of the House—to help it with the Second Reading. Paragraph 1 is clear:
  "We may wish to consider some of the Budget's measures and proposals in greater detail at some appropriate time in the future, when we have had time to fully assess their implications."
  In other words, we have not had time fully to assess their implications and we will come back to it. I tell the House and those on the Front Bench that we will come back to that particular issue. The statement is therefore provisional.
  The report does not criticise the Government's budgetary aims; in fact, it welcomes the Budget's redistribution from high to low earners.
  Mr. Laws: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Select Committee's report welcomes certain Budget measures, but does he acknowledge that some of the amendments welcoming Government policy were tabled by Opposition Members, and enjoyed the support of the entire Committee?
  Mr. McFall: Yes, but as I said, there were 25 amendments, and not all of them fell into that category. None the less, the hon. Gentleman is right and if he bears with me I shall mention some of the relevant issues.
  As I said, the Committee welcomed the redistributive effect. It also welcomed the sound economy that the Government have built over the years. Britain has the fastest growth of any G7 country, and we are very pleased that, since 1997, over 1.5 million more jobs have been created. We are also pleased that inflation is at its lowest level for 20 or 30 years, and above all that the Government have made finances transparent over the long term.
  Some of the experts to whom reference has been made spoke of a synchronised global slowdown, and said that the Government have forecast growth of about 2 per cent.

  849
  to 2.5 per cent for 2002, and of 2.75 per cent. to 3.25 per cent. for 2003. We think that that is wise, because as the Chancellor said in his pre-Budget statement,
  "No one country can insulate its economy"
  and stand on its own. He continued by saying that he is
  "cautiously optimistic about the prospects for the British economy."—[Official Report, 27 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 829–30.]
  I shall return to the Committee's comments on that issue.
  On the economic outlook, we agree with the OECD that the United States is leading the global upturn. Gross domestic product growth of 1.5 per cent. for 2002 has therefore been revised to 3 per cent. to 3.5 per cent. for 2003. Historically, the Government's growth projections have been on the low side, but that has changed. We took evidence from the Chancellor, Gus O'Donnell and other Treasury officials. Mr. O'Donnell's explanation of the growth prospects for 2002–03 seemed particularly realistic.
  As the report makes clear, according to commentators such as Goldman Sachs, the Government are being optimistic. The report states:
  "Whether the Treasury's growth forecasts are achievable remains to be seen, and we note the view that they are perhaps optimistic given the considerable uncertainties facing the global economy at the present time."
  That approach is a reasonable one for any Committee that is charged with taking evidence from a wide range of people, and with engaging constructively with the Government, and the Chancellor in particular. We put such points to the Chancellor because it is incumbent on us to probe these issues, and to satisfy our own minds that matters are in order.
  We are concerned about the imbalances to which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton referred. We are mindful of the comments of Mervyn King, the deputy governor of the Bank of England, who said that the weakness of net trade
  "cannot continue for many more years without leading to a trade deficit that would be painful to correct."
  The report asserts:
  "The imbalances between net trade and domestic demand, and in particular strong consumption growth, may present a challenge to the stability of the UK economy, and we encourage policymakers to remain alert to those risks."
  That is a valid comment for any Treasury Committee to make, particularly in respect of imbalances. Goldman Sachs told the Committee that the Budget has not done enough to dampen consumer demand, and that the Monetary Policy Committee should take that factor into consideration. We questioned the Chancellor about that, and he made clear his views, and those of the Government.
  The Government said that a trend growth of 2.75 per cent. had been established, but that was before they based their public finance forecast on the more cautious assessment of 2.5 per cent. When we considered those assumptions, the question of demographic changes and immigration arose. We should welcome the opportunity to debate immigration, but we should not tie it exclusively to the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. Countries such as the United States enjoy labour mobility, increased productivity and economic dynamism and interchange because they opened their doors and allowed people in. In that regard, immigration was seen as a valuable
  850
  component. No Government should be afraid to take on such issues, and we need a wider debate. The issue of demographic change should be debated upfront, rather than being buried in our deliberations on Second Reading and in Committee. If we do that, we will be looking ahead and can perhaps put our economy on a more sound footing.
  Mr. Flight: The hon. Gentleman used the analogy of the United States. In respect of the skills that it needs, it has rightly taken the economically sensible decision to make immigration open and simple. Is that the essence of the hon. Gentleman's point about UK policy?
  Mr. McFall: Exactly. Several universities in the north-east and north-west have recently been advertising for students from abroad. We give such students the skills, only for them to go back home. Why can we not have a green card system, so that such people can use their skills to the benefit of our economy, if they so choose? We need to consider these issues in a much more mature way, and that is the worthwhile contribution that the Committee is making to this debate.
  The Committee also commented on productivity. The Chancellor has made jobs growth and productivity two of the hallmarks of his chancellorship, and he and the Department of Trade and Industry have produced a joint report on productivity. I applaud such efforts, but I have some concerns about the achievement of productivity targets. America cites the "new economy" as a major factor in its productivity, but whereas much of America's growth occurred in the mid-1990s, it has taken time to bed in in this country. In the next year, the Committee will try to discover what can be learned from different parts of the country by examining the twin objectives of jobs growth and productivity in the context of regional economies. We do not want to be dominated by Westminster or London; we want to know what is happening in the rest of the country.
  As paragraph 21 of the report makes clear, examples of best practice could prove valuable to the general debate and to the Government's polices. It states:
  "We remain concerned about UK productivity which has lagged behind that of the United States. We agree with the Budget's aim to increase the rate of growth of productivity and recommend that the effectiveness of the various measures included in the Budget for this purpose should be closely monitored and reported on in future pre-Budget Reports and Budget Statements."
  We also considered the issue of fiscal policy and the Government's rules. They have two self-imposed targets, including the golden rule, but it is comforting to know that one of our experts, Carl Emmerson, from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, noted that even if the Treasury had not increased the assumed trend growth rate
  "the Treasury forecasts would still suggest that the fiscal rules were going to be met"—
  although less comfortably than currently forecast. That is important for long-term trends and for the EU growth and stability pact.
  Another aspect that we mentioned was underspending by Departments. That has a long history in Whitehall. The civil service mentality for years has been to take no risks. If individuals in Departments take no risks, they will never be accused of overspending. That is a cultural problem, and the Government must teach Departments

  851
  how to spend. Last year, out of £200 billion some £7 billion was not spent. If we want to repair our public services, that underspending must be attended to.
  Dr. Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the move to multi-year funding is a step forward because it can result in an underspend in one financial year being spent in the next? That is more sensible.
  Mr. McFall: It was a good move by the Chancellor to introduce the comprehensive spending review with a three-year spending programme. As I mentioned earlier, that is in its infancy still, but if the ambitious targets in the Budget—which I applaud—are to be met, we have to tackle the underspending. The Committee stated, in paragraph 38:
  "However, we remain concerned that some departments seem to be experiencing difficulties in delivering on the Government's agenda of increasing public sector investment, and that under-spending has been significant in some departments. We believe that the comparison of departmental spending with planned intentions should be reviewed quarterly in the process outlined to us by the Chancellor. We also welcome the Treasury's acceptance that the relevant quarterly figures will be made available to the Treasury Committee."
  It was one of the members of the Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard)—who asked for those figures to be provided quarterly, so that we can monitor the position and determine whether the total intended spending is achieved.
  In terms of the Budget's impact on monetary policy, the Committee made no real comments, although we noted the symmetrical 2.5 per cent. target. While the point is not explicitly made in the report, I suggest that many members of the Committee laud that target, for which the MPC has responsibility. I certainly believe that when we engage with our European partners in the stability and growth pact, we should ensure that the best elements of what we have in our policy should be adopted.
  The Committee commented on health spending. It is hard not to agree that the Government's health spending will be enormous, and that has to be welcomed. The NHS is one of the most treasured services in the country and its establishment was a cause of celebration for all the parties after 1948. If we can repair the NHS and ensure that the money supplied to it is spent wisely—that is a big issue, and the Committee hope that the Government will achieve that—everyone will applaud that. From the Wanless report and others, I have not learned of any provision elsewhere that matches the service we have, under which anyone who is sick receives comprehensive treatment locally, free at the point of use. I certainly enjoy that provision.
  I direct the Minister's attention to paragraph 46, in which the Committee states:
  "While the Chancellor told the House that the planned increase in NHS spending to 2007–08 represented a 43 per cent. increase, after inflation, the King's Fund"—
  a research body that examines health spending closely—
  "have estimated that the increase would be 62 per cent. in cash terms, but only 35 per cent, in volume terms, taking into account NHS-specific inflation. This means, they estimate, that 'just over half…of the cash it…receives will be available for expanding services'."
  852
  In the light of those comments, the Committee looks for further information from the Government on which to base our assumptions and conclusions. That said, we welcome the extra spending for the NHS and we want to see it used wisely and properly, not thrown into a black hole. I have made that point to the Chancellor and others.
  As a Scottish MP, and one who represents a constituency that has whisky interests—it is not awash with whisky, but we have some whisky plants—I have lobbied the Chancellor, along with my colleagues, not to adopt the strip stamp for whisky. I do not see any of my colleagues in their places—[Interruption.] I am sorry, there is a Scottish colleague in front of me and one behind, so I am well guarded. After massive lobbying, I am delighted that that measure was not in the Budget and I offer the Chancellor my congratulations on that.
  Sir Robert Smith: My constituency also contains distilleries, and one in particular was very worried by the possibility of the introduction of the strip stamp, given its cash flow projections and the extra investment that would have been required. Its absence from the Budget was most welcome, but I warn the industry that I have also in the past welcomed the Government's treatment of the oil industry as very positive and that has not continued in the long term. I hope that the present policy on whisky continues and that the Government stick to their guns.
  Mr. McFall: I received a letter from the Scotch Whisky Association that congratulated me, and others, on lobbying the Government on that issue. The Government have come up trumps and should be congratulated.
  Mention has been made of tax credits. The Committee considered the poverty trap and the marginal rates. In the Red Book, the Government have given figures for marginal rates of taxation varying from 70 per cent. down to 50 per cent. There are no more 100 per cent. marginal tax rates, which should be welcomed, but issues of concern still arise that we wish to bring to the Government's attention. In some cases, we cannot avoid marginal tax rates and we certainly welcome the fact that measures have been implemented to make work pay.
  In our report, we quote the comments that we have received from the Confederation of British Industry which indicated that workplace absences cost £10 billion in 1999. It is logical to conclude that if we improve the health service, we will benefit employees and employers. In that way, employers will also gain the benefit and that should be lauded.
  Employers are also benefiting from the R and D tax credit. The Government introduced it originally for small companies, but the move to include large companies has prompted favourable comments. For example, the CBI has said that it is pleased with the consultation and with the measures that the Government have introduced.
  Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I have listened very carefully to his speech—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am also trying to listen very carefully to what the Paymaster General is saying.
  Dawn Primarolo: I must have read your mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Just before you spoke, I realised that I should swivel around to face you. I apologise, and I shall start again.

  853
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as I want to emphasise that the CBI has welcomed the research and development tax credit. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) complained about complexity in the tax system, but does my hon. Friend consider that the CBI would rather do without the R and D tax credit, and that it would prefer that the relevant legislation did not appear on the statute book?
  Mr. McFall: Your power, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is clearly greater than mine, as my hon. Friend the Paymaster General turned her back on me as soon as you spoke. However, I heard her question nevertheless.
  The CBI has welcomed the R and D tax credit. It certainly wants the measure to be implemented. That is a plus for the consultation that has taken place between Government and industry.
  I turn now to the stability and growth pact, and I draw the House's attention to paragraph 33 of the Treasury Committee's report. It states:
  "We share the Government's view that the Stability and Growth Pact should be reformed to take account of issues such as the economic cycle, debt sustainability and the accounting for investment expenditure. We urge the Government to work with other Member States to find agreement on the definition and interpretation of the Stability and Growth Pact as soon as possible."
  The Committee is making a wide-ranging inquiry into Europe, and I hope in the next few months that we will be able to visit the European Central Bank and speak to Wim Duisenberg and others. However, we will go charged with the belief that the Government's actions with regard to the Monetary Policy Committee and independence for the Bank of England have been good. The Committee urges the Government to begin a dialogue with other countries to find the best solution to such matters.
  In conclusion, I am aware that the Government have tried, with this Budget, to build a consensus with regard to the welfare state. It is already clear that families will benefit from some useful measures. I used to be a schoolteacher, and I worked in a number of deprived areas, as they were termed. It warms me to know that child benefit, which in 1997 was worth £11 for the first child, has been raised to £16. Moreover. 5 million out 7 million families will now receive £27.50 for the first child, and poorer families will receive £54.50. That is of immeasurable benefit for families that have been at the margins of society.
  I am very pleased, too, about the Government's proposals for pensioners. We must be alive to the fact that we must be generous to pensioners who have got by on small pensions but who have been penalised by the system. The fact that the pensioner credit will be available to between 5 million and 6 million pensioners is a cause for celebration. The average pensioner will be £8 a week better off from October, so many elderly people will be able to stay in their homes longer and look after themselves in a better fashion.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that we should use the tax and benefits system to build a consensus with regard to the welfare state. However, we must remember that nothing can be delivered if sound economic policies and a sound economic platform are not in place. The Government have established those policies and that platform, and I urge that they be maintained.
  854
  I am also at one with the Government in their ambition to enhance and promote public services. For too long—for decades—those services have been in disrepair. I want the Government to communicate to the electorate the fact that we have a viable strategy, but they must also make people understand that its implementation will take time. However, if we do not repair the public services, we could lose them all. This Budget hinges on that question. I urge the Government to stand by their fairness agenda for families and pensioners.
  It is very important that Britain look outwards, to the EU and the third-world countries, so that we keep abreast of what is happening on the international stage. I shall be back, in another capacity, to urge the Government to do more about global poverty. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's admission that we survive in the global economy but that half the people in the world are not engaged in it. We must be outward looking, and ensure that the fairness agenda applies globally, and is not confined by borders.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: I am grateful to be called to speak. At the outset, may I remind the House of the declaration of my business interests in the Register of Members' Interests, and in particular my role as a non-executive director of a retail tile company?
  I listened to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) with interest. He spoke with the authority that goes with being Chairman of one of the most important Select Committees in the House, and he reminded us of some of the important economic parameters underpinning the Budget and this Finance Bill. The hon. Gentleman made clear the importance that he attaches—as do many others—to having good-quality public services in this country. I think that hon. Members of all parties share that view in connection with the health service. We are divided by a difference of opinion as to how we should achieve that, but that is probably healthy in its own way. Labour Members should not criticise the Opposition simply for the fact that we are still debating the matter and have not yet reached a decision.
  I should like also to recognise the work of officials in the Treasury and the Inland Revenue, who are not present in the Chamber and who cannot speak about the Finance Bill and the Budget. I used to be involved in putting together Finance Bills, and I recognise the singular contribution those officials make. Regardless of the contents of the Bill, a huge amount of work goes into producing it. I, for one, am grateful that the task has been performed with skill once again this year.
  Some of the measures in the Bill are very debatable, but there are others that I welcome. The simplification of VAT will certainly be welcomed by many small and medium-sized enterprises, and I know that hon. Members of all parties are united in their welcome for the important proposals to help sports clubs with financing.
  In addition, I was very pleased with the sections of the Bill dealing with combined heat and power, and with the proposal to modify the climate change levy, which will no longer be charged on the electricity sold by CHP systems into the national grid. When the climate change levy was introduced, I stood at this very location in the Chamber and made that same proposal, and I was supported by hon. Members from all parties. I am glad that the Government—the sinners on that occasion—have repented, but it is a case of, "I told you so."

  855
  If the Government are in repenting mood on the climate change levy, I hope that they will look again the position of the horticulture industry which, as the Paymaster General knows, is carbon neutral. I have entertained hon. Members before with detailed expositions as to why that industry should be given relief from the levy. Now that the light is dawning on the Government, it is possible that it will dawn again on the horticulture industry.
  I am especially pleased with clause 37, which introduces some important minor changes to the operation of schedule E. I am aware that the changes are a response to representations, if I can put it thus, from those involved in the tax law rewrite exercise. That has not happened before. Much had been said already about the complexities of our tax system, and I shall have more to say about that in a moment.
  I am pleased that the Finance Bill is being used as a way to aid the process—at least within the strictures of the rewrite exercise—of making our existing law understandable. It raises an interesting point. We praise that exercise for its clarity, but to pick up the point of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), there are in many cases more pages of clearer tax exposition. The real challenge for those of us who debate the length, weight and size of a Finance Bill is to decide what we want from our tax system in a complex world.
  I listened carefully to the analysis of some of the many pages that have been required on aggregates tax and changes in matters connected with petroleum, and probably they are too long. However, we have no mechanism to debate the efficient operation of our tax system. I think that the time is right for the Government to consider having a standing commission on the operation of the tax system. We have a Law Commission, and from time to time it makes important recommendations about how the law of the land could be changed and improved. I think that a similar mechanism is now required for the tax system so that we can examine in detail how to make it operate properly.
  I acknowledge that the legitimately elected Government of the day have the right to raise the money that they think fit, and we have the right to object to that if we disagree. However, there are ways, as the tax law rewrite exercise shows, in which the operation of the tax system can be made more efficient. A commission made up of experts with, if necessary, a political input, might be a way of creating neutral territory on which recommendations about the operation of our tax system can be made on a continuing basis.
  In welcoming parts of the Bill, may I also welcome the extension of the age allowance to many pensioners? That is right for someone who has worked hard, particularly when returns from pensions are under pressure—largely as a result of falling stock market returns. However, the Government are complicit because of the ending of the payable tax credit. Vicars, for example, are especially badly off as the Church of England is £12 million down in its pension scheme. That is the reality, and anything that can be done to ensure that there is tax relief for pensioners who may be living on more modest means is welcome.
  856
  To date, the debate has centred on the reaction of business to the Finance Bill. I was struck by this headline in the Financial Times:
  "CBI chief warns Brown of fading business support".
  The gin and tonic and prawn cocktail circuit surrounding the 1997 election may have left business with a warm and friendly feeling, but now, particularly with the national insurance changes, that is wearing thin.
  I come to some items that are not in the Bill. However, I would like them to be debated in Committee and I hope that the Government will consider them. I said in 2000 that in life assurance products, the way in which the I-E formula dealt with capital gains tax had not been amended to reflect changes in the capital gains tax regime as it applied to the individual. The Government did change, within that formulaic approach, the way in which personal taxation affected individuals.
  I mention that because such products are the basis of many people's saving expectations for the future. That area has not been attended to, but it would be simple to do so and the cost would he relatively modest. In a letter sent to me in 2000, the former Financial Secretary to the Treasury told me that it would cost £30 million. That would enable there to be a modest improvement in the return to those policies if the internal capital gains tax regime was brought into line with wider capital gains tax changes. The hon. Gentleman did me the courtesy, in writing his letter, to say that the matter had been considered carefully by the Treasury, but that it was not minded to make the change just yet. I have been very patient, and now suggest to the Paymaster General that the time is right to look at that. It is a relatively inexpensive way of ensuring that life assurance policies returns can be improved and that their internal tax regimes are in line with wider tax activity.
  In his concluding comments, the hon. Member for Dumbarton referred to the fact that large parts of the world are totally disconnected from the wealth and economic growth mentioned in the earlier part of his speech. I propose that the Government should give serious consideration to developing a tax credit to encourage investment by British companies in some of the least developed parts of the world. It would, by definition, be riskier, but what I have read about the workings of overseas aid leads me to believe that the private sector can make a positive contribution. British companies need some encouragement, and a credit such as I have described might be one way of addressing that issue.
  Dawn Primarolo: If the right hon. Gentleman casts his mind back to when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, he will recall that some of our double taxation treaties tried to address that point. Unfortunately, they were systematically misused, resulting in the loss of huge amounts of revenue to the Treasury and no gain to the developing nation concerned. The point made by both the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) is to be carefully considered, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will remember that, unfortunately, once something is in the tax system it can be used in ways that were never intended. That has certainly been our experience.
  Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the kind way in which she has responded to my point and for her

  857
  agreement that it should at least be considered. I accept that we must be concerned about the abuse of the tax system, which I shall talk about in the context of tax relief for films. However, the time has come to see what encouragement we can give to genuine investment efforts. The Government have talked about addressing the issue of the devil making work for idle hands; in areas that are potential hotbeds of world terrorism, this objective is worth re-examining.
  I am delighted to learn that companies such as Grosvenor Estates are in discussion with the Treasury and the Inland Revenue about section 13 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 and the way in which private companies can trade legitimately in terms of their capital gains without being unfairly affected, as they would judge it, by the current mechanism. Companies such as Grosvenor Estates, which are entirely legitimate and do not use mechanisms afforded to private companies for illegitimate activities, deserve a fair hearing, and I am delighted to learn that those discussions are continuing.
  I come now to the items in the Bill, and wish to focus on films, oil, capital gains tax, the oil strategy and associated matters. It is noteworthy that the Government's desire to restrict the tax relief on expenditure on the production of British qualifying films is buried in an Inland Revenue press release. I find it difficult to find an individual press release on the subject.
  In the Chancellor's Budget speech in 1997, he talked about wanting to help the talents of British film-makers. He said that they should be employed, wherever possible, to the benefit of the British economy. He was mournful of the fact that the British film industry had not, in his judgment, received the encouragement that it deserved.
  The Chancellor said that, after consideration, he would provide a three-year measure costing £30 million to encourage the British film industry. It has been interesting to see how, perhaps with typically cinematic imagination, the film industry has freeloaded on the Chancellor's tax generosity. As someone who gamely fought against giving relief to the film industry, because I could see no justification for helping that particular group of luvvies, I ask the Paymaster General to explain how assistance of £30 million to the film industry has led to the Treasury's estimate that next year, 2003–04, it will raise and recover £225 million, and £295 million in the following year. Perhaps the hon. Lady can enlighten us, either tonight or in the Standing Committee, as to what went wrong with the drafting of that relief; how the film industry freeloaded on the Government; how the Government were conned into the proposal in the first place; and why they have only now woken up to the fact that they have been taken—in common parlance—for "a right tater" by the film industry.
  On the question of the oil industry, here again the Government are seeking to raise revenue through the measure. Some heroic work is going on in the Treasury with the addition of the 10 per cent. supplementary charge on the corporation tax of continental fields. In the current financial year, we start off at £100 million; then we go to £450 million; and then, in a massive leap, to £600 million. That is why I asked the Chief Secretary if he would be kind enough to put the business case. I, for one, want to know what lies behind those heroic revenue increases. What analysis has been carried out with the oil industry to examine its investment opportunities?
  858
  The United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association reminded me that in this financial year, 2001–02, the Government have already raised £5.2 billion in tax from the oil industry—an increase of 25 per cent. over the previous year. In information furnished to me and, I am sure, to other Members, the UKOOA states that the measure, which came very much out of the blue, has shaken industry confidence. The association points out:
  "The 10 per cent. supplementary charge on North Sea profits will raise the UK marginal rate to 73.75 per cent."
  More tellingly, the UKOOA calculates that, in the period until 2010, the charge will remove £5 billion of capital resources from the industry. That is why we deserve to see some business modelling. What will be the effect on offshore development in the UK of taking £5 billion out of the industry?
  The experts at Wood Mackenzie have already been quoted. They point out that if the oil price falls to below $20 a barrel, the mathematics of the formula currently proposed by the Treasury mean that 10 per cent. is the wrong figure if the Government want to raise the £100 million cited in the Red Book for 2002–03. For example, Wood Mackenzie calculates that an oil price of $19.50 would raise £127 million. That gives rise to the question of how sensitive that levy is to changes in the oil price.
  Furthermore, the fact that the financing costs for debt cannot be set against the supplementary charge is a drawback to development. The UKOOA advises us:
  "Debt finance is vital to be able to develop projects and could represent up to 70 per cent. of a project's development funding."
  We shall have to go into some important questions in Committee if the Government are to justify that punitive measure.
  Mr. Flight: Has my right hon. Friend focused his mind on whether that 10 per cent. supplementary tax will or will not qualify in relation to double taxation treaties where a number of the North sea explorers are subsidiaries of overseas multinationals?
  Mr. Jack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that question, although it leads me into an area which now is not the time to go into—the whole question of the international competitiveness of investing in offshore activity in the United Kingdom.
  My third point relates to capital gains tax. When the Government came in, they changed the capital gains tax regime with their complex taper measures, making the express argument that the longer one held an asset the better it was and the more virtuous it was. Now, they are touting it around that two years is the chosen period during which one can achieve a very low rate of capital gains tax. That is quite remarkable. If the Government are the sinner that repenteth, where is the analysis that suddenly states that to get a 10 per cent. effective rate in two years is a good thing, whereas when they first introduced the tapered tax the period was significantly longer? Why not go the whole hog and get rid of that complex, unnecessary part of capital gains tax? If people could move their capital quickly on to more profitable activity, I cannot but believe that that would be an engine for growth.
  That is another example of where, instead of undertaking cost compliance modelling of their tax proposals, the Government should produce a well argued

  859
  business case. Too many of the Government's proposals on tax are based on ideas that have no justification in fact. It is clear that the long-term, up-to-10-year taper had no economic justification, just as the two-year period is not justified—so why not zero?
  The Red Book contains some further heroic work on oil fraud strategy. I welcome the proper working of the tax system and the proper collection of revenue, but how on earth are the figures in the Red Book to be achieved? The oil fraud strategy starts off at £100 million in 2002–03. In 2003–04, we suddenly find ourselves nearly three times better off and then there is a gargantuan leap to £550 million-half a billion. In 2004–05, we shall be five and a half times better at getting that money in than we were in 2002–03.
  How is that trick to be pulled? What is the extent of the oil fraud that is going on? The House needs more convincing details, especially from a Government who are confronting a National Audit Office report that states, in paragraph 5.8 of its summary, that we face a VAT fraud bill of between £6.4 billion and £7.3 billion. Where is the analysis of what the Government have been doing to try to ensure that that missing money was collected? That sum is the equivalent of at least one year's increase in the national insurance charge. That is a major leakage. I want to be convinced that the Government are not merely publishing heroic figures and that the Red Book contains justification for the claim that such a huge sum of money can apparently be raised through the oil fraud exercise, even though there is no mechanism for doing that.
  I am sure that we shall have many interesting and detailed discussions in the Finance Bill Committee. I hope that it might be possible for me to make a modest contribution to them. I also hope that when we debate the individual measures, the Government will, for once, give us much greater insight into what is going on and into the justification for the measures that they propose. I hope that the Government will not merely use their Committee majority to bludgeon through tax measures without giving us a thorough and proper explanation of what those measures are, what they do and how they will work. The Government must convince us that—unlike the film industry tax measures—they will actually work.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: I cannot pretend to have the same breadth of knowledge and experience of Treasury matters as the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), but I hope that I have some understanding of the issues involved in one part of the Bill. However, before I come to that, I want to say that, overall, the Budget was a good one, and therefore this is a good Bill.
  I strongly support its three main thrusts. The first of those is investment in the national health service. The second is support for those who work, especially those on lower incomes and those with children, although not only those with children. I welcome the redistributive—I had almost forgotten how to say the word—nature of the measure. In a society of high or full employment, work is the best form of social justice. I am also pleased by its third thrust: further measures to encourage enterprise, especially among small businesses, which employ most of the people in the country and in my constituency.
  860
  All our plans for investment in public services and social justice for poorer people, children and the elderly require a strong economy; the Chancellor's judgments over the last five years have given us that strong economy. I do not doubt his judgment that our economy is in good enough shape and the labour market strong enough to withstand the 1 per cent. increase in employers' national insurance contributions. With such a powerful record, one hesitates to call into question any aspect of the Chancellor's judgment, but I think that he has got it wrong with one measure in the Bill. In fact, it is so wrong that, in the medium and long term, I believe that it will have a negative effect on a key sector of the economy through lost investment and employment. Over time, the measure will produce less tax revenue, not more, and will add to our problems on energy policy. That policy is already the subject of the performance and innovation unit report, which offers the Government some difficult decisions to make.
  I refer to the proposed changes to the fiscal regime for North sea oil and gas. At first sight, taking £600 million and upwards from oil companies' profits might seem easy pickings—it does not look like a vote loser among the general public. I question this judgment, however, as I fear that it will have a profound effect on one of the country's most important industries—an industry that has accounted for 18 per cent. of total UK industrial investment over the last decade. I look at it in terms of what is in it for UK plc, not for the oil companies themselves and I do not like what I see. I will not argue that oil companies are unable to pay more tax when the oil price is high; it is currently $26 a barrel according to this morning's paper. The price stood at more than $30 a barrel 18 months ago, but it is not always high—it was $10 a barrel four years ago. The only certainty about the oil price is its total unpredictability.
  The real point is that the companies about which we are talking can make money by investing in activity anywhere in the world, because there is a world price for oil. As I represent a constituency in which the oil and gas industry is a major part of the local economy—that is why I chair the offshore oil and gas industry all-party group—I want that investment to be made in the UK continental shelf for as many years as it is technically possible to exploit the reserves. We need to remember that innovation is expanding the technical capacity all the time, and much of that innovation is British. The investment that we get means jobs, a safe and secure energy supply, and, with natural gas, environmental benefits. It also means continued tax revenues. We have so far had, for our benefit, £175 billion of tax revenues since oil and gas were first discovered in the North sea. I fear that the new extra 10 per cent. tax will drive away some of that investment.
  We must understand the nature of this industry. It is truly global in its investment pattern, and each multinational company operates in that way. There are lots of places in the world where oil and gas can be exploited, and capital investment patterns and plans can easily be redirected, albeit with a long lead-in time. It does not have to stay rooted in one area because that is where its skilled work force are; as we know, the work force are highly mobile. The product itself can be moved readily around the world, although nearness to market is of some advantage in relation to gas. The investment can

  861
  therefore easily be made anywhere in the world where oil and gas are found, and more reserves are still being found year by year.
  We must face up to the real truth—on a world scale, the North sea is not particularly attractive in terms of competing for further investment. It is what we call a mature province, with only small and technically difficult fields left to exploit. Those fields are called marginal fields—the costs of producing from them are comparatively high in world terms.
  When the Treasury carried out the review of North sea oil and gas taxation in 1997–98, it produced figures from consultants showing that, by international comparison, we had a low-tax regime in the United Kingdom. Those same consultants also showed at the same time that the North sea had the highest costs internationally. The Treasury eventually accepted that, and it called off the review. The threatened tax rise has now returned—not in a review but in a Bill.
  It is still true today that the UK continental shelf is a costly place from which to produce. A recent study by consultants Wood Mackenzie—to which reference has already been made—shows that the weighted average unit cost from post-1999 developments ranked the UK continental shelf 58th out of 59 energy provinces around the world.
  When oil and gas were first discovered here in the 1960s, it was thought that we had enough reserves for 25 years. Today, new fields are being worked on only because costs have been reduced and innovation put to use, but production reached a record level last year. We can go on for another 30 years, with all the benefits that we derive as a result, if we set the right conditions. My concern is that this measure does not help to set those conditions.
  We do have some advantages internationally in competing for investment. There is a good market for gas all around the North sea, but our key advantage is stability—not just political stability, but financial stability. We should have fiscal stability, too.
  Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely important set of points. Does he agree that, if the Government remain firmly in support of the proposal, it is very important that they make a detailed case for why they think that the UK offshore industry can bear more tax? In addition, they should provide some comparative data to address many of the international points that the hon. Gentleman is making.
  Mr. Blizzard: I look forward to seeing that information when it is deposited in the Library, which, earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary agreed to do.
  The stability about which I am talking breeds confidence. That is the crucial factor in making high-magnitude, extremely long-term investments, which are the particular feature of the oil and gas industry. Because no one can predict the oil price, as much stability and confidence as possible is required in the political system, Government policy and the fiscal regime. This country has enjoyed that advantage; indeed, it is our best advantage. Of course, only one thing undermines that advantage more than making a big change—doing so in a surprising way. Last week's announcement took me and
  862
  the industry by surprise because it was so inconsistent with previous policy and other current Government policies.
  One must question the Government's judgment because the policy is inconsistent with that of the previous five years and with the lessons that we appeared to learn from that previous policy. When Labour took office, a review of the North sea fiscal regime was announced. That in itself created uncertainty, and we saw levels of investment in new projects fall markedly. Then—this is not especially connected—the oil price fell and stayed at $10 a barrel for some time. Consequently, when the review was abandoned, people wondered whether it was because of the low oil price or because there was a recognition of the issues relating to maturity of the province—field size—about which I have spoken tonight. It took some time for the industry to be convinced that it was the latter reason. The Government's decision to set up the oil and gas industry taskforce, and, subsequently, Pilot helped the industry to be convinced.
  Through that initiative the Government and the industry worked together—Treasury officials were included on the Pilot committee, which was an unprecedented and very welcome move—and my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy acted as chairman. Through Pilot, a future was mapped out with targets for the industry to achieve. That worked. Last year, 21 new field developments were approved and £4 billion was invested, which was above the target that Pilot had set. Together with the £4 billion of operating expenditure, that investment supports 265,000 jobs in this country, many of them in communities such as my own.
  It helps to get a grip on such figures if we consider that, when £50 million or sometimes £30 million is invested to set up a new factory to make semiconductors, that makes national news. It is great and fantastic news, but the sums in the oil and gas industry dwarf those figures.
  Confidence was also restored because of the statements that were made. For example, in the pre-Budget report for 2000, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor resisted calls for a windfall tax when we were in the eye of the storm over fuel protests. He said:
  "It has been put to me that North sea oil companies earning higher profits from higher oil prices should be subject to special taxes, but I can tell the House that I am determined not to make short-term decisions based on short-term factors. The key issue is the level of long-term investment in the North sea. This will be the approach that will guide Budget decisions in future."—[0fficial Report, 8 November 2000: Vol. 356, c. 317.]
  That statement quite rightly recognises the greater prize of long-term investment.
  Many of us on the Back Benches told the industry, "If you want to avoid a windfall tax, invest." It did that but, arguably, the measure in the Bill may be worse than a windfall tax. The industry will be able to pay if the price of oil is $26 or $30, but what will happen if the price falls to $10? I am concerned that the proposal will affect medium and long-term plans for investment. At the moment, the industry always runs a project through to see if it will work by assuming a price of $16 or $18, but it will now have to add 10 per cent. to that figure. I therefore worry that fewer projects will compare favourably with those in other parts of the world. I am surprised by the proposal, because it is inconsistent with one of the key principles for which I admire my right hon. Friend, namely stability.

  863
  Less investment in the North sea will have an effect on jobs. Many of those jobs are concentrated in coastal communities, especially those on the east coast such as mine. Those jobs are not easily replaced, because few industries choose coastal or more remote locations. It is difficult to attract businesses to such areas. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury to consider the league table for unemployment in travel-to-work areas. Most of the top 20 communities in that table are coastal communities. Many towns—especially those with fabrication yards—have already had to deal with job losses in smaller-scale oil and gas activities that have resulted from cost reduction and replacement by innovation.
  Let us get it straight. The measure does not mean that the industry will pack up now. We expect committed projects to be seen through and there may still be future projects. However, I fear that there will less exploration and less development of new projects. There will be less frontier and leading-edge work in finding innovative and cost-effective solutions. That has another downside. The expertise that the industry has developed in harsh conditions is recognised throughout the world and is very exportable. One of Pilot's targets is to increase such exports. However, the measure will damage the prospect of that, and it seems inconsistent with the proposal to extend research and development credits with which most Members agree.
  Pilot faces a very difficult time. Many of those who have invested a lot of time in it have strong feelings about a surprise tax that seems to run counter to what the industry and the Government have been working towards together. I am concerned that the measure will only hasten the demise of the North sea oil and gas industry and not extend its life, which is what Pilot is all about.
  How does the measure join up with energy policy? My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy recently said that our policy is to
  "squeeze every last drop of oil and gas out of the North Sea."
  That was the mission of Pilot, and it is the right policy. It is good husbandry of natural resources to get everything possible out while we have the infrastructure in place. The policy is also important in terms of having a safe and secure energy supply. Let us also remember that natural gas has helped more than anything else to achieve our Kyoto environmental targets.
  The energy review shows that there is an upcoming gap in energy supply that will result from the forthcoming closure of nuclear power stations and from the natural decline in gas production from the mature fields that I have described. We are starting from a long way back with renewables and the coal industry, sadly, seems to be on its last legs. We surely do not want the gas gap—if I can call it that—to be bigger than it need be. I fear that gas that could be recovered will not be recovered if the investment needed to exploit it is directed to more attractive parts of the world as a result of this measure.
  I ask the Government to reconsider. We must all contribute to funding the national health service but another 10 per cent. on top—a 33 per cent. increase—is quite a lot. As the right hon. Member for Fylde pointed out, the debt needed to finance projects will no longer be deductible against the new tax, and that will further raise
  864
  the cost of financing North sea projects. Could not the tax be reduced or the finance charges be made deductible? Recent investment should certainly be exempted from the supplementary tax; otherwise the investment that has arisen as a direct result of Pilot and Government policy will be penalised. That does not seem right.
  There is a good proposal in the Budget to abolish the oil royalty, but that only slightly offsets the new tax. It will not overcome the fears that I have expressed today, but I hope that we will not spend a year consulting about it. I hope that the Bill will repeal the royalty as I am sure that the technical details can be sorted out quickly. Capital allowances of 100 per cent. are good, but they will kick in only if the industry has the confidence to go ahead with new projects and if it feels that it will receive a return in the long term and that there are no more surprises around the corner.
  Our Government's greatest strength is that they have looked to the long term. I ask right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury to look to the long term when they consider North sea taxation. If we can extend the life of the province, the Treasury and the taxpayer will gain too. I wonder whether I can appeal to the Treasury's most basic instinct to amass the revenue that it needs to bring about our mission to improve public services and to bring about social justice. My argument is that, in the long term, we shall receive more tax revenue through doing something else—or perhaps leaving things as they are—than we will from the measure in the Bill.
  6.57 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) made an eloquent and powerful speech. I know that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury heard most of it, but he did not hear the first part. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will read the speech, because the hon. Gentleman made important points on behalf of the North sea oil industry.
  I draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests and, in particular, to the fact that I am a director of the investment bank, Lazard.
  I shall have several disobliging comments to make about the Bill, but I wish to start by making it clear that, during my enforced sabbatical from the House, I watched the Chancellor's first five Budgets from the City. It has to be said that the right hon. Gentleman is highly respected in the City for those Budgets. His prudent phase was highly respected on three grounds in particular.
  The first is that he gave independence to the Bank of England. I can say with honesty—it is recorded in Hansard—that I was in favour of such a measure 10 or 12 years ago when the Conservative party was against it. Giving the Bank its independence was a brilliant move. The economy is still benefiting from the wisdom of that decision. I have always been opposed to allowing itchy-fingered interventionist politicians to get their hands on the levers of interest rate policy. It is much better to leave them to the structure that the Chancellor has put in place. I thoroughly support that.
  Secondly, the Chancellor is respected in the City because he read the crisis that took place in the Asian economies in 1997–98 correctly. Commentators, bankers and economists all said that the crisis presaged a systemic failure in the world economy that would ripple across Russia, creating defaults there and would intensify great

  865
  difficulties in Japan and problems in America. We were all wrong. The Chancellor was correct, and he earned enormous praise.
  Thirdly, the Chancellor has won great respect in the City for his work on third-world debt relief. He built on progress made under the last Conservative Government and has taken a major step forward.
  The Chancellor's first five Budgets—the Budgets of prudence, which I missed—were extremely good. The present Budget and Finance Bill were introduced against an encouraging international background. The United States is coming out of recession with an incredibly robust economy, and the United Kingdom will clearly be bolstered by that. Rates here will inevitably have to rise in future, but probably not before the end of the year. The Budget and the Bill have therefore been introduced against a comparatively benign and certainly improved economic background.
  Turning to the Bill, I agree that the Government are right to take another look at arrangements for domicile. It is offensive that a hard-working doctor in Sutton Coldfield earning £60,000 or £70,000 a year should pay 40 per cent. tax and national insurance, but a senior City professional living in London earning 10 times as much or even more should pay no national insurance and very little tax. Nevertheless, we operate in a tax-competitive market; many of the finest people who operate in such a regime can operate anywhere. When the Government look at that regime and the issues involved, they will have to bear in mind the fact that the City of London, with its enormous strengths, gains additional strength from its tax-competitive position.
  The Government operate within a global economy, as the Chairman of the Treasury Committee and my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) made clear. It is difficult for Governments to work within that framework. The economy of London has more in common perhaps with New York than with Sunderland. Much of the top end of the London property market is driven by non-UK concerns and the global economy, presenting a serious challenge to Governments wishing to tax it effectively and treat it aright. Nevertheless, it is right that the Government should take another look at that. I also welcome their measure on VAT simplification.
  I shall now turn to the reasoned amendment and make some critical comments about the Bill. The 500 pages of new legislation published seven days ago for the House to examine underline the fact that, despite his many virtues, the Chancellor is a compulsive meddler, changing things that he has already changed. The Liberal Democrat spokesman mentioned the Budd committee, a sub-committee of the tax law review committee created by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, upon which he, the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) and I served. During my time on that committee, I heard a number of practitioners talk about the way in which we scrutinise Finance Bills and about the effectiveness of Finance Bill Committees, and was struck by the inadequacies of the way in which legislation progresses as Parliament becomes virtually a rubber stamp.
  I served on five Finance Bill Committees—several with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury back in the late 1980s and early 1990s—and I believe that we must be self-critical in appraising the usefulness of the work done in Committee. If Parliament is to have a serious influence
  866
  on the development of Finance Bills, it should certainly look at the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde about establishing a Standing Committee on taxation. If it is to be involved in consultation, it should be involved at an early stage. I put it to the Chief Secretary that there is merit in having much more extensive debate after the pre-Budget report in November, perhaps even sacrificing a day or two from the spring part of the annual cycle, so that the Treasury and Treasury Ministers can listen to Members on both sides of the House during their consultation, rather than Parliament's putting in time and effort now.
  If Parliament is to be effective, it must be able to call expert witnesses. The Budd committee looked at whether there could be a Committee of both Houses. If the Government are unwise enough to proceed with their proposals for an elected second Chamber, perhaps that would remove some of the objections to a Joint Committee. The Budd committee questioned the extent to which Members of Parliament are willing to influence, or interested in influencing, the development of the tax regime. A challenge for everyone in the House is whether we can make any difference to Finance Bills when they reach this stage in their progress. I hope that the Government will seriously consider having a much more detailed debate on their proposals in November. They have been pretty generous and good about putting tax changes out to consultation; in this round, there were three specific areas on which there was extensive consultation with practitioners and professional bodies, which I welcome. The more that can be done, the better, if we are to have more effective consultation and introduce better tax legislation as a result.
  The amendment also deals with the burden of taxation. The House does not reflect strongly enough on its deep responsibility to justify every penny of taxation taken off the hard-working taxpayer. The burden of taxation since 1997 has increased enormously. There were approximately £270 billion of tax receipts in 1997, and we are now heading towards the staggering figure of £400 billion, which is a massive increase. Many people question the extent to which they are getting value for money. I do not wish to rehash points made in the Budget debates about spending on health care, transport, and law and order and tackling crime, but many people wonder whether they get value for money from the enormous amount of taxation that is raised. Looking at the Chancellor's assumptions about growth in the Budget and reading what the Item—independent Treasury economic model—club said, I wonder whether, after five prudent and sensible Budgets, this Budget is the other side of the coin and in due course will be seen as reckless.
  The Chief Secretary is the taxpayer's guardian. The enormous amount of taxation—every penny of it—must be justified to people who pay it. The House should be a great deal more careful to honour its duty to justify taking large amounts of money from hard-working people.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that headline tax figures alone do not reveal the whole story? Is he aware that even with projected increases over the next three or four years, the total

  867
  percentage of tax as a percentage of gross domestic product will be lower in 2005–06 than it was at any point under the Conservatives?
  Mr. Mitchell: One can do anything with the figures, as the hon. Gentleman eloquently made clear. My point is unanswerable: huge amounts of taxation are taken off hard-working people, and have to be justified. It behoves the House to honour that duty more often than is usually the case in our debates. Looking at the enormous amount of money recently loaded on to tax on income, we can only reflect on the fact that on the "Today" programme, on television in interviews with Mr. Dimbleby, and on page 10 of the last Labour manifesto, the Government made it clear that they had no intention of raising taxes on income, which is precisely what they have done. We can debate that, and the electorate will cast their judgment in due course. I merely point out that the Government have passed draconian and largely commendable legislation on the financial services industry, and that if they had issued a prospectus on tax on income, they would now be in serious trouble with the Financial Services Authority and would have got into hot water for producing such a misleading document.
  A great deal of extra money is to be spent on health care. The Government are guilty of a massive dereliction of duty in their failure to put the reforms in place before they put in the extra money. It is astonishing that the money should be provided as it has been. The leverage for getting the reforms that are desperately needed in the health service has been thrown away because of the way in which the matter has been handled.
  The Government will live to regret the fact that they have missed out on the key economic lesson of the past 50 or 60 years: that it is competitive, decentralised markets, not monopolistic, tax-financed institutions, which deliver for consumers. The NHS is not about a set of buildings or a set of staff. It is about a set of values. It is about being free at the point of need—[Interruption]—but the debate about whether or not the provision of health care should be private is a ridiculous debate.
  Those on the Labour Benches continually go on about the fact that the Conservatives have yet to produce their plan on health. They will have to wait for that. We are serving the public and the taxpayer well by ensuring that we look around the world at all the other ways of delivering health care, and that we come back and give our plans to the House when we are good and ready, not as part of the ebb and flow of debate with the Chief Secretary.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If I were a member of his Front-Bench team, I would be very worried about him. He congratulated the Chancellor on his first five Budgets, supported health care free at the point of delivery, and suggested that taxation on City investors should be higher than that on doctors—a radical suggestion. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to join us. Does he agree that extra money is needed for the health service, or is he saying that the health service that he wants, as we do, free at the point of delivery, is possible with the current amount of money available—yes or no?
  Mr. Mitchell: On the first point, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I would rather have my toenails pulled out without anaesthetic than cross the Floor to join him.
  868
  On the second point, I am making a serious point. Given the enormous increase in taxpayers' money that is to be spent on the health service, and my lengthy comments about showing respect for the taxpayer, it is right to examine delivery mechanisms, and the Government have made a terrible—indeed, a catastrophic—mistake in the way in which they have gone about providing the extra money, without having first put the reforms in place. I reiterate that it must be right for a responsible Opposition to study carefully all the other mechanisms around the world before deciding which is the right one to put before the British people at the next election.
  Mr. Laws: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. He has honestly acknowledged that his party does not yet have proposals for funding the NHS. Is he seriously suggesting, as was suggested from his Front Bench, that no additional money should go into the NHS while we wait for the Conservative party to go round the world and find a better funding solution?
  Mr. Mitchell: Those on my party's Front Bench have made it clear that additional money and resources will be needed for the health service. There is no question about that. The hon. Gentleman and his party will have to wait for the proposals to come before the British people and the House of Commons, but I can assure him that when they come, they will be well worth examining.
  Before I leave the subject of health, I shall make two other points. First, if one examines the highly respected research conducted by the company Dr. Foster, one can see that there are such enormous differences in the quality of health in different parts of the country—sometimes as much as a 76 per cent. variation in the likelihood of results between one hospital and another—that one cannot ignore the argument that systemic change is required in the health service.
  Earlier in the debate we heard about cancer survival rates in this country, which are below those of Turkey. That is why I particularly resent the accusations from Labour Members that the Conservative Opposition are wrong to examine in great detail and depth the lessons to be learned from overseas so that we can give all our citizens a better health service in the future.
  The third part of the reasoned amendment deals with the effects of the Finance Bill and the Budget on business and competitiveness. We were told throughout the Budget speech that this was a Budget for enterprise. The word "enterprise" was used so often by the Chancellor that by the time he sat down we all knew that that was certainly not true. The Budget is a tax on jobs. No doubt that will be discussed in detail tomorrow, but the CBI and many others have learned a valuable lesson about the Government. The effect of the changes will be to remove incentives to employ. The CBI said recently that of all our major trading partners, only France has a higher burden of business costs imposed upon it.
  The reasoned amendment mentions the "negative impact on competitiveness." You can say that again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The UK has fallen from ninth in 1997 to 19th in the world competitiveness league. Before 1997, when the Conservative party was in government, UK productivity growth was faster than in the United States. Under the present Government it is slower. Our share of world exports has fallen by more than 10 per cent. since 1997, according

  869
  to the International Monetary Fund. Last year business in Britain faced more than 4,000 new regulations. A business-friendly Budget this certainly is not.
  Mr. Tom Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman once again. I am enjoying his list of non-achievements on the part of the Government. Perhaps he would like to add, or perhaps he is not aware, that last year the British economy grew faster than any economy in the G7.
  Mr. Mitchell: That adds nothing to my list. If the hon. Gentleman is disputing any of the five facts that I gave him, which demonstrate that under the present Government the performance of business in the UK and the difficulties faced by business in the UK are much worse under the Government whom he supports than under the Government of whom I was a part, perhaps he would like to challenge those figures. He cannot do so, which is why he remains seated.
  The Finance Bill adds 500 pages to tax law. It is complex, meddlesome and burdensome to the taxpayer without giving value for money. It is hostile to business, bad for enterprise and destructive of competitiveness. It marks a sea change in the way in which the Chancellor will be perceived in the future, as compared with the way in which he was perceived in the past. I look forward to voting for the reasoned amendment tonight.
  7.17 pm
  Rob Marris: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell)—I often follow him on the Select Committee. I salute his contribution. It is hard for Opposition Members, particularly Conservative Members, to say very much about the current economic situation and the Budget because the economic indicators are so strong. We have high growth, low inflation, low interest rates and high employment.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who is no longer in his place, mentioned the complexity of the Budget. He referred to the 1979 Budget—the first one presented by the incoming Conservative Government. The 1979 Budget was part of a process that led to 3 million unemployed, so short Budgets are not necessarily a good thing, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. I knew that I had many differences with him, and I have found another. He stood up in the House and said he hoped that he was still growing; I hope that I am not.
  A measure of the difficulty in which the official Opposition find themselves is the wording of the amendment, which suggests that the Budget
  "will have a negative impact on competitiveness and the attractiveness of the UK as a location for investment."
  Implicit in that phraseology is a recognition by the official Opposition, and rightly so, that we are a competitive economy and an attractive place in which to do business. We on the Labour Benches want to further that process.
  I shall focus on productivity. When my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury opened the debate, he mentioned that capital investment—business investment—had gone up from 10 per cent. of national income to 14 per cent. of national income. That is to be applauded because productivity rests, like a three-legged table—a three-legged table should not wobble, nor should
  870
  productivity—on capital investment, on research and development and innovation and on labour force investment.
  It is interesting to consider some of the statistics on productivity—I will not bore the House with many—to show that we have some way to go, but that we have also made considerable progress under this Government. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned the high burden of business taxation in France. According to the productivity figures for 2000, if the United Kingdom is taken as 100 on an index, France is at about 118, the United States is at about 139, Germany at about 105 and, interestingly, Japan is at about 98. Japan and the US are low-tax economies. France is a relatively high-tax economy, as is Germany. We are a low to middling-tax economy, so there is no direct link between taxation and productivity.
  On our productivity gains, one of the publications issued with the Budget—"Trend Growth: Recent Developments and Prospects"—shows the trend in the United Kingdom's underlying productivity growth measured as output per hour. From quarter 2 of 1986 to 1997, the figure was 1.84. From 1997 to mid-1999, it was 1.55, so there was a fall when the Labour Government stuck to the out-going Conservative Government's spending limits. From mid-1999 to quarter 3 of 2001, the figure was 2.4, so there has been an increase in productivity under a Labour Government. That is extremely important, and we should make further progress, as the Budget will do.
  I urge the Government to consider one difficulty with productivity with which we have not yet grappled. In the submission of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research to the Select Committee on the Treasury, the report of which was mentioned a great deal earlier, Mary O'Mahony refers to the difficulties of measuring public sector productivity. It is obviously particularly important to grapple with that difficulty, given that a huge amount of extra resources will go into the national health service. Although those resources are very welcome, we ought to be able to measure any growth in productivity in the public sector, particularly in the health service, so that we know whether we are getting the right bang for the buck from the increased moneys.
  I welcome the reduction in the Budget in some of the red tape faced by small business. One of the major headaches for small business is, of course, VAT returns, and the Budget addresses that issue. That will help productivity in the small business sector. It is very difficult to tell whether the increase in employers' and employees' national insurance contributions to fund the change that we need in the health service will have a positive or a negative effect on productivity, but mention has been made of what the effect on employment may be. Of course, if labour is made more expensive in a capitalist economy, capital tends to be substituted for labour, which tends to increase productivity in that economy.
  I particularly welcome the changes on research and development in clause 52 and schedule 12. We need more research and development to push forward this country's productivity. We have historically underperformed in that respect. The Finance Act 2000 included tax breaks for small and medium-sized enterprises. Those tax breaks are now coming on stream for larger enterprises. We should be clear how beneficial those changes could be. As I understand that clause and schedule, a large company, like

  871
  a small or medium-sized enterprise, that invests in research and development will in effect get 125 per cent. of the money back. It will get the 100 per cent. write-off, plus a 25 per cent. premium, against its profits to encourage that activity.
  I welcome the fact that that proposal will cover qualifying bodies, such as Wolverhampton university in my constituency. Those bodies will be able to carry out research for larger enterprises, which will be able to claim that tax break. That will encourage large enterprises not only to carry out research and development in-house, but to farm it out to appropriate qualifying bodies, whether they be universities, charities or whatever.
  I hope that some of those productivity gains and the advances in research and development will encourage business in this country to invest in two areas where we have been missing the boat. I have told the House about them before, and I think that I did so when I spoke on Budget day. The first area is the design and build of medical equipment, and the second is the design and build of pollution control equipment. We in the west midlands could well do with playing our part in those markets, which are growing in this country and abroad.
  I have a minor request to make of the Minister. I am not an accountant but a non-practising solicitor, as my entry in the Register of Members' Interests shows, so I should like to know more about what happens when a company spends money on research and development and claims for staffing costs and consumable stores. I traced that provision back from the Bill to the Finance Act 2000, which introduced that research and development tax break for small and medium-sized enterprises. One of the schedules to that Act simply states:
  "For the purposes of this Schedule expenditure on consumable stores means expenditure that would be treated as expenditure on consumable stores in accordance with normal accounting practice."
  I was stumped by that and did no further research, so I hope that the Minister can enlighten me at some point about what that means. That request is not frivolous; it is intended to shed light on what can be claimed against that tax break. I do not know whether a claim could be made for a spectrometer. Would a spectrometer count as a consumable store, or as capital goods?
  I should also like to make some remarks about another issue that is central to productivity: the skills of our work force. We need the skills to carry out the research and development to which I refer. We need skills to boost productivity—I read out some figures earlier. As hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree, we need to move to a high-wage, high-skill economy.
  We need to develop skills to address the skills shortages that have developed for two reasons. First, the Conservative Government neglected to invest sufficiently in skills training. Secondly, although unemployment has dropped to a relatively low level under the Labour Government in the past five years, there are pockets of skills shortages throughout the country, especially in the south-east.
  I am pleased that the Budget and the ancillary documents refer to pilot schemes under which, initially in six areas of the country, small employers will be paid to send their workers on training courses. Paragraph 3.34 of
  872
  "Developing Workforce Skills: Piloting a New Approach"—one of the documents released with the Budget statement—states:
  "Pilots will provide small firms with financial support of up to 150 per cent. of the average wage costs of low-skilled staff for the required period of time off."
  That time off will be used for training.
  I wholeheartedly support that push to encourage skills training; it is a part of the Budget that has been under-remarked upon. Lower-skilled workers tend not only to earn less but to be less productive. Paragraph 1.10 of that document states:
  "Research at the worker level finds that holding a tertiary qualification (e.g. a degree) in the UK increases productivity by between 30 and 100 per cent. when compared to a worker with no qualifications."
  That would be a massive productivity gain for our economy. We hope to push forward on that with the Government target of getting 50 per cent. of that age cohort into university by 2010. That should have huge gains for future productivity, directly and indirectly.
  I welcome the sector skills councils that are being set up throughout the country to increase skills training and productivity. Box 2.1 of the document from which I have just quoted says that they
  "will be strategic bodies with the sole purpose of identifying the skills and productivity needs of their sectors and galvanising action to tackle priority issues."
  Ancillary to that, I welcome the Employment Bill now going through the House and on whose Standing Committee I served, under which trade union learning representatives will be given time off, paid for by their employers. That is a step towards encouraging a learning culture, which, in due course, will have increasingly beneficial effects on productivity in our economy as well as enriching the lives of the people who undergo that education and training.
  I should like the Government to consider the sort of tax break for training that they have given for research and development—the 25 per cent. premium in addition to writing off 100 per cent. of training costs against taxation. Effectively, there would be the same 125 per cent. regime for training in certain circumstances that this Budget introduces for research and development in large companies and which there has been for the past two years for small and medium-sized enterprises.
  I finish with a quote from the Treasury Committee's report, which has already been used by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). When the Government are criticised about targets, it is salutary to remember that we need real measures and to keep on top of them. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned that indirectly in terms of the health service. Paragraph 21 states:
  "We remain concerned about UK productivity which has lagged behind that of the United States. We agree with the Budget's aim to increase the rate of growth of productivity and recommend that the effectiveness of the various measures included in the Budget for this purpose should be closely monitored and reported on in future Pre-Budget Reports and Budget Statements."
  If, like me, one has a great desire to increase productivity in order to catch up with the United States, to continue pulling ahead of some of our EU competitors and to catch up with France, and so on, we need to be able to tell which measures are working and which are not.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Mark Field: It is a great honour to represent the City of London and to be speaking today for the first time on a Finance Bill. Times have changed from a bygone era, even on this day when many of us have dressed in our best suits for the event in Westminster Hall earlier today. Back in the post-second world war era, it was apparently de rigueur during Budgets and Finance Bill debates for Members of Parliament—in those days there were two representing the City of London—to wear large black top hats. My association deputy chairman, Jacob Rees-Mogg, the son of Lord Rees-Mogg, offered to borrow such apparel, but I decided that discretion was the better part of valour, at least on this occasion.
  The more disparate nature of financial services in this era, certainly since the big bang in 1986, means that the City can no longer be said to speak with a single voice. In any event, my duty is to the residential population—the 6,000 residents within the square mile of the City of London. None the less, it is a great honour to be able to say a few words tonight on the Finance Bill as it affects the financial services and the business community.
  My own record is as a small business man and I probably express the view of many who have a background in business in lamenting the detachment between the business and political classes—something that has been mentioned many times in recent years. I wish to speak briefly on two main aspects—enterprise and globalisation. It has been a much-vaunted if somewhat overspun goal of this Government to promote enterprise. Those words were used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by the Chief Secretary earlier this afternoon.
  I serve on the Standing Committee considering the Enterprise Bill, which is why I could not be here throughout today's debate, for which I apologise. That legislation is flawed in its rather overbearing regulation on merger controls and cartels, as well as in its somewhat simplistic analysis of the reform of insolvency law.
  The Chancellor's instincts, as manifested in the sheer size of the Finance Bill, are all too often to complicate and meddle in taxation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made clear, the Bill is 488 pages long with 140 clauses and 39 schedules. It is a Budget for the most enterprising among the accountancy profession, but perhaps not for many more.
  It would be unfair and churlish not to recognise that the Budget contained a number of positive changes, which manifest themselves in the Finance Bill. I support the cut in capital gains tax, from which I have benefited, having sold a business within a few months of entering the House. I also support many of the venture capital trust changes, which allow a merger and wind-up without losing the tax benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) has become something of an expert on that issue, and I am sure he will refer to it in his comments later. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) rightly identified the credits that will be available for research and development, which are also to be supported.
  Equally, there has been a downside for British business. All in all, we have had a tax-raising Budget and those taxes have been on jobs, making people more expensive to employ, with an attack on the oil industry and on
  874
  foreign companies. I appreciate that the debate on national insurance contributions will take place at greater length tomorrow, but surely it would have been far better to have scrapped employers' national insurance and to have increased corporation tax rates. That would have simplified matters for companies, cut the compliance bill and encouraged employers to employ people.
  Mr. Tom Harris: We have heard many warnings from Conservative Members about measures contained in this and previous Budgets impacting on the number of jobs. The hon. Gentleman may recall that the Conservative party claimed that the national minimum wage would destroy a million jobs, but in fact a million jobs have been created. Is not that a worthy point to take on board?
  Mr. Field: To claim that a million jobs have been created by the minimum wage is a rather large step to take. Other jobs may well have been lost. The minimum wage was set at a sufficiently competitive level, so a number of our concerns did not come to pass. Like many people in the mid-1990s, I ran a small business, albeit one in central London that paid even the lowest paid employees considerably more than any projected minimum wage. However, it is clear that jobs have not been lost. It is also well established that the Conservative party has changed its position on that.
  With effect from 17 April, a new supplementary charge has been introduced on 10 per cent. of the profits of oil companies for the production of oil and gas in the UK and the UK continental shelf. Given the seat that he represents, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) probably has deeper day-to-day concerns, but the City of London and the great number of international oil businesses based there will also be heavily affected by the provisions. It is a tax in addition to the standard 30 per cent. rate of corporation tax; it has rules similar to corporation tax, save that the financing costs will not be deductible. I suspect that the Financial Secretary will point out later that, as a sweetener, the Government have increased oil capital allowances from 25 to 100 per cent. and intend the matter to be subject to some consultation. However, the abolition of royalty payments does not appear to be taken into account in the Red Book, and the payments themselves are pretty small and affect only the older oilfields.
  The United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association, which represents some 30 of the largest 70 licence holders that are active in the North sea, said that the new surcharge
  "could undermine investor confidence in the long-term viability of the North Sea."
  The policy comes at an especially crucial time, given the difficulties in the middle east. It will be interesting to see how oil supplies are affected by those difficulties in future years.
  Shell Expro, the second biggest company in the North sea, which combines the operations of Shell and Esso there, said only a couple of weeks ago that although it welcomed the increased capital allowance and the possible phasing out of royalties—as I said, the latter affects only the older oilfields—they were
  "not expected to come close to offsetting the supplementary charge"
  that would be put in place. A number of people have also been very concerned that the higher tax rate will result in fewer discoveries being commercially viable in the years ahead.

  875
  I should like to say a few words about globalisation, as financial and business services remain the powerhouse of the City's economy. They account for some 6.6 per cent. of the UK's gross domestic product and 600,000 new jobs are likely to be created in London in the next 15 years—if the Mayor of London is to be believed. On this matter at least, I have no reason to disbelieve him. More than 500 foreign banks will be active in the City and we would obviously wish those circumstances to be maintained.
  The City relies on technology and massive labour mobility. The great worry is the flip side in a high-tax economy. We can attract the best workers world wide and, indeed, the crème de la crème of our graduates, but we must accept that work done in London can be done elsewhere increasingly easily, and will be relocated if the City ceases to be such an attractive place in which to do business.
  Many hon. Members have spoken on a number of occasions about the severe infrastructure issues that central London faces. I spoke only a fortnight ago in an Adjournment debate on the future of Bart's hospital, which is obviously close to my heart. Likewise, there are transport issues relating to crossrail, the tube and the proposed congestion charge. There is a great worry that too many foreign banks that employ a highly skilled work force are fast reaching the end of their tether. The Bill contains measures that may tip some of them over the edge.
  We have discussed controlled foreign companies—companies that are not resident in the UK, but are controlled by individuals who are resident here. Clause 88 provides for a reserve power to make regulations specifying overseas jurisdictions to which the exemptions from CFC rules would not apply. As a result, all CFCs located in those jurisdictions could be taxed under the controlled foreign companies rules. As many hon. Members know, Conservative Members voted against Budget resolution 41, which relates to that new measure. We are concerned that the measure will increase substantially the powers of the Inland Revenue. It is directed especially at the Crown territories of the Channel Islands, including Jersey and Guernsey, and at the Isle of Man, and concerns subsidiaries of groups whose headquarters are situated in the UK.
  I believe that that matter has nothing to do with money laundering—a red herring that various Ministers and others have referred to—and relates solely to tax competition. The uncertainty that will result from the legislation will put at risk the UK's position as a future location for the headquarters of multinational companies.
  There is also an issue in relation to UK branches of multinationals. I had wanted to deal in some detail with foreign companies that operate in the UK through a branch, as the matter obviously has a strong effect on the City of London. Such companies have long been able to debt fund their branches and thus obtain tax deductions for payments of interest to their foreign head offices. However, those rules are set to change. For accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January next year, the rules will be changed, as UK branches will be dealt with on the basis of the equity capital that they would need if the branch were an independent free-standing company.
  876
  That could have a major effect. I know that Ministers will be aware of the concerns that have been expressed and will have received a great number of representations in that regard, but as well as hitting the banking sector, which is clearly a big issue for the City, the measure will also add complexity to the tax affairs of a great number of multinational groups that have UK branches. Indeed, I understand that the Association of British Insurers said:
  "There is a concern that the measure could also disincentivise foreign firms from being established in London, given the sums involved."
  Given the precarious nature of the insurance market and of Lloyd's in particular, that would be a great problem.
  A number of hon. Members mentioned growth, on which the Government's proposals seem unduly optimistic. In a sense, time will tell, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham pointed out, figures released only last Friday suggested that first quarter growth this year was only 0.1 per cent., which is much lower than the expected 0.4 per cent. and the projected growth of more than 2 per cent. this year and 3.5 per cent. next year, on which many of the Bill's spending plans were predicated.
  I shall draw my remarks to a close, as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. On the generality of the financial position in which the country finds itself, I accept as a relatively new Conservative Member of Parliament that it would be graceless not to recognise that the Chancellor often commands the Exchequer with great stature. I suspect that he may well be judged in the long term to have been in the upper ranks of holders of that office. Indeed, not to acknowledge that would be as graceless as many of the Front-Bench Treasury team have been in not acknowledging that they were bequeathed a golden economic legacy by the outgoing Government in 1997. They have built on that legacy. Many of us had great concerns in 1997—they were genuine, given the track record of many former Labour Governments—that things would fall apart very quickly. It is only right that a certain amount of credit should be given to the Government for having been able to marshal the economy as well as they have done in the past five years.
  One must also accept, however, that the inheritance that the Government received in 1997 was the product of 15 years of often thankless domestic economic performance. Similarly, the work of the current Chancellor and the results of some of his much-vaunted changes to public finances in the past three Budgets—as well as the ones proposed in the Bill—will not become fully apparent until the first half of the next decade. While I am quietly confident that, by then, it will be my party that is sitting on the Government Benches, I am less sure that we shall not have to untangle an unholy mess in our country's finances by that time.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Wayne David: There are two clear themes in this year's Budget: fairness and enterprise. To the Labour side of the House, the fairness of the Budget is self-evident. We have unprecedented investment in the national health service, confirming its principles but at the same time ensuring that modernisation takes place. We have two new tax credits that will help the less well-off: the child tax credit and the working tax credit. Assistance is being provided to the long-term unemployed and single parents to help them secure long-term employment, and there is much else besides.

  877
  It is important that, taken as a whole, the Budget is progressive in character. Numerous references have been made to the Treasury Committee's report. It is important to note that the draft report states that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has calculated that, when all the measures are examined in total,
  "the effect is a redistribution from the top half to the bottom half of the income distribution."
  I think that that makes the Budget an historic one. It is an excellent Budget for that reason and many others.
  It is significant that when we refer to the national health service, the Opposition fail to offer any alternative proposals. We have heard about their grand tour of Europe and their various experiences in different European Union member states. We can only hope that that infatuation will lead them to a more genuine appreciation of some of the benefits that the European Union can bring to this country.
  If we have had a Budget for fairness, is it a Budget for enterprise? It is true that several employers' organisations have expressed reservations—for example, the CBI is worried that national insurance increases will be unfair on employers and impede job creation. In all fairness, however, we should bear in mind several factors. There is a moral argument in favour of increasing national insurance contributions. As everyone benefits from an improved national health service, it is only right that everyone contributes.
  We must recognise the need, in economic parlance, for a healthy labour supply. Many employee absences in British industry are due solely to illness. In 1999 alone, £10 billion was lost as a result of the large number of people away from work because of illness.
  We should not forget that in recent times the national insurance system has been reformed, nor that projections show that this country's gross domestic product growth will probably increase from 3 per cent. to 3.5 per cent. in 2002–03. That will lead to greater prosperity and, in turn, more jobs.
  The Bill also contains a whole panoply of provisions that will encourage enterprise. including greater support for research and development, simplification of the VAT regime and reduction of red tape. Other measures will help those parts of the United Kingdom that are less prosperous than the south-east of England. It is therefore a shame that no Plaid Cymru Members are taking part in the debate.
  Mr. Weir: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru are a joint group in this Parliament, and I shall speak on behalf of both parties.
  Mr. David: That is a pretty lame excuse for Plaid Cymru's absence from the debate. I am talking not only about the present moment, but about the whole afternoon from 3.30 pm onwards, during which not one single member of the Welsh National party has set foot in this Chamber. That is a complete and utter disgrace, because parts of the Budget will help areas like Wales—for example, the community investment tax credit, which will help disadvantaged communities, and the positive changes to stamp duty, which will help small and medium-sized enterprises, including those in Wales.
  The Budget as a whole is as much an enterprise Budget as a Budget for fairness. The two concepts go hand in hand. Over the past few years, an enterprise culture has
  878
  been created throughout the United Kingdom—a culture that the Government are helping to nurture and to sustain at every opportunity. It has become part of the psyche of the nation, and long may that continue. The Budget takes a positive step further in that direction.
  The Treasury Committee report refers to the European stability and growth pact. On the Budget deficit, Treasury forecasts show that public finances will be within the confines of the stability and growth pact in 2002–03, but there is a question mark over whether that will continue into 2005–06 and 2006–07. The operation of the growth and stability pact has already demonstrated greater flexibility as regards the attitude taken towards the position of Portugal and Germany. It would be useful if that flexibility were to be enshrined more permanently to create a more prudent and sensible approach. The growth and stability pact needs to be reformed to take account of the economic cycle, debt sustainability and investment expenditure. I am grateful that the Government have acknowledged that point, and that it is being addressed by the European Union through the Economic and Financial Affairs Council—ECOFIN. I hope that that debate will reach a successful conclusion.
  Today in this country, 28.4 million people are in work and the lowest number of people are claiming unemployment benefit for 25 years. That is a record. The Labour party's goal is to achieve sustainable full employment. That goal can be achieved in the near future, and the Budget takes us closer towards it. In essence, the aim of the Budget is to create a country that is prosperous and compassionate. In other words, it is about fairness and enterprise.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Michael Weir: Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru Members welcome the central tenet of the Budget, namely that there should be more investment in the national health service and that it should come from general taxation. It is heartening to note that the Chancellor has finally accepted the position of the SNP, which has called for that for some considerable time. It is worth recording that in 1999, the SNP sought to reject the Chancellor's 1p cut in income tax and said that priority should be given to investment in public services. We were roundly condemned by new Labour at the time, but we seem to have come full circle. Indeed, I am told that some Labour Members are describing the measure as 1 p for Scotland—vindication indeed.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm whether the 1p for Scotland policy will remain part of the SNP's manifesto at next year's Scottish Parliament elections?
  Mr. Weir: As the hon. Gentleman knows, our manifesto for the Scottish Parliament elections will depend on matters within the Scottish Parliament, not on the Bill.
  The Bill makes no change to income tax—it provides instead for a rise in national insurance contributions—but that is merely to spare the Prime Minister's blushes. All hon. Members know, as does everyone outside the House, that what has happened is a rise in taxation. The mental gyrations performed by Labour Members to justify that method of raising revenue have been a wonder to behold.

  879
  In effect, it does not matter to the average employee whether the increase is in direct taxation or national insurance contributions—it is still an increase in the amount of tax that they pay.
  That method of raising revenue has a serious impact. Clauses 30 to 32 impose changes in corporation tax, especially in relation to small companies. Although that is generally welcome to small companies, it does not address the needs of the vast majority of small businesses in Scotland, as more than 75 per cent. are not incorporated and therefore do not pay corporation tax.
  Kevin Brennan: While the hon. Gentleman is talking about the effect of the changes on small businesses, and as he is speaking on behalf of Plaid Cymru as well, will he give his reaction to the response to the Budget by the CBI in Wales and the Trades Union Congress in Wales?
  Mr. Weir: The changes to corporation tax will be beneficial to companies in many ways. When I asked the Chief Secretary about the difference between companies and unincorporated bodies, he gave a great deal of detail about the effect of the changes on companies. They will benefit, but the point is that unincorporated bodies will not. Far from being a Budget for business, it is a Budget for big business, as the Bill reveals.
  Last week, in its Budget coverage, The Financial Times gave the example of Safeway in relation to national insurance contributions. It pointed out that because a large number—40 per cent., I think—of Safeway's employees were part time, they did not cross the national insurance threshold. A further 25 per cent. crossed it by so little that it made a marginal difference to the company. It makes a big difference to those enterprises with a small number of well-paid employees. That is often the case with innovative small businesses in Scotland, not least because of the difficulties that they experience when they seek bank finance.
  Kevin Brennan: And Wales?
  Mr. Weir: No doubt that also applies to Wales. The two Labour Members from Wales may feel free to keep interrupting.
  Unincorporated business receives no benefit from the reduction in corporation tax. Most small businesses will pay increased national insurance contributions personally and for their employees but will not receive the benefit of reduced taxation. They are therefore doubly penalised. That is patently unfair. By raising national insurance contributions, the Chancellor is not taxing profit, but increasing the cost to business, which must be met even if there is no profit. It is worth noting that the average self-employed business owner in Scotland makes approximately £14,000 per annum, compared with a UK average of £22,000.
  Unincorporated business will not benefit from the change in the research and development grant.
  Mr. David: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Weir: No, I want to continue with the point. I suspect that the same problem affects small businesses
  880
  in other parts of the UK, certainly in Wales. There will be increased costs but little benefit for small, unincorporated businesses. John Downie of the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland said:
  "The Chancellor has given a little but taken a lot."
  The fiendishly complex system of tax credits may ameliorate the increase to some extent for the lower paid, but it is worth noting that since October 1999, the Chancellor has introduced five new tax credits for families, scrapped four of them and devised two new ones to take effect from April 2003. That was before the Budget changes. That is an average of a new tax credit for families every six months. Business complains that the complexity of the tax system increases its costs. That was one of the four matters that most disturbed businesses according to the survey by the Federation of Small Businesses. There is approximately £3 billion in unclaimed benefits largely due to the complexity of the system. As I said, that complexity means costs for businesses.
  By going down the national insurance route, the Chancellor has also effectively reduced the amount that will be invested in the NHS and other public services. It should be remembered that the NHS is a major employer. A large proportion of its costs is wages and salaries. All will be subject to the changes to employers' national insurance contributions and some £26 million every year will be taken out of the NHS in Scotland and given back to the Treasury. Local authorities will pay more than £35 million. Overall, we calculate that the cost to the public sector will be £1.2 billion.
  Mr. David: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Weir: No, I shall not give way on this occasion.
  I want to refer to some specific clauses. Clause 90 changes North sea oil taxation. I am not sure about its effect in Wales, but it will make a great impact in Scotland. The changes in royalties are largely red herrings because they affect only pre-1982 fields. The new 10p tax is more important and could have a detrimental effect on employment in the North sea, especially on the utilisation of marginal fields. Earlier, the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) made the good point that many fields in the North sea are marginal. Indeed, the UK Offshore Operators Association said that the changes
  "could undermine investor confidence in the long term viability of the North Sea."
  In constituencies such as Angus, there is substantial employment in the offshore oil industry and there are worries about the possible knock-on effects of the changes on employment. Has the Financial Secretary considered the new regime's effects on North sea oil jobs? The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is no longer in the Chamber. He asked for the business case for the changes to be placed in the Library. It would be interesting to read it.
  The Government are ushering in a substantial change in a vital industry, apparently without undertaking any public-economic assessment of its effect on the 264,800 jobs that depend on the industry. The changes will reduce industry net cash flow, and that will have a negative effect on exploration, which is already low. Exploration and appraisal have decreased by approximately 55 per cent. since 1996. We tabled an amendment in the debate on the Budget; alas, it was unsuccessful, but we may return to it.

  881
  The Chancellor must know about the huge damage caused to the rural and remote parts of Scotland by the high cost of fuel. The Budget did not increase fuel duty, but froze it. That is cold comfort to those who experience steadily rising prices. The most cynical among us—that must include most of us—wonder how much of the new 10p North sea oil tax will be passed on to consumers at the pumps. Fuel duty may be frozen, but taxation of fuel may effectively rise. Will the Financial Secretary take any action to ensure that it is not passed on to customers in rural petrol stations?
  Perhaps the Financial Secretary will not be surprised to learn that we also have severe difficulties with clauses 126 to 130, which cover the aggregates levy. It is likely to have a disproportionate effect on Scotland's economy. In Scotland, many small quarries will experience dramatic increases in costs through the levy. It is a flat rate levy; that means that the increase will be proportionately greater in Scotland where aggregates are cheaper than in England.
  However, the greatest impact of the aggregates levy will be on local authorities and projects such as coastal improvements. In my constituency, Angus council is dualling the notorious A92 road. The levy will add £2 million to the cost of the work. The council tax payer will ultimately bear that cost. That will happen throughout Scotland and Wales because 40 per cent. of all aggregates are used by the public sector.
  The aggregates levy will have an impact much further down the line on those who manufacture added-value aggregates products such as pre-cast concrete. I recently visited Montrose Concrete Products, a manufacturer in my constituency. I was told that its products were already undercut by those from Northern Ireland. It appears bizarre, but I am told that the majority of some pre-cast products that are used in construction in Aberdeen come from Northern Ireland.
  The Bill provides for transitional relief for Northern Ireland but not for Scotland. That is patently unfair. I do not begrudge Northern Ireland its relief, but Scotland and Wales should receive similar consideration. I appeal to the Government to reconsider the matter. Again, we tabled an amendment in the Budget debate. We received some support from the Ulster parties and some from Liberal Democrats, but not from the main Opposition.
  The Chancellor painted a rosy picture of Britain under new Labour, as did the Chief Secretary when he opened the debate.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Weir: No, I shall take no more interventions.
  There are wide variations in growth. In the United Kingdom, Scotland is held in a state of managed decline. Although United Kingdom growth has been 2.5 per cent. over the past 10 years, Scottish GDP has grown by 2.1 per cent. resulting in an opportunity cost of £3 billion. Growth in the UK may be set at 2.2 per cent. now, but as the Secretary of State for Scotland recently admitted, growth in Scotland is only 1.2 per cent.
  The Bill shows yet again that the priority for Scotland is winning fiscal independence for the Scottish Parliament. Scotland is a wealthy country that can and should stand on its own fiscal feet, legislating to combat its unique challenges and to take advantage of its unique opportunities.
  8.8 pm
  Kevin Brennan: I emphasise at the outset that I have never met the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) outside the House, despite his remarks. He described the Chief Secretary as Vesuvius, but it was the hon. Gentleman who brought a volcanic metaphor to mind. He resembled a miniature Stromboli, huffing and puffing and showering the Chamber with rhetorical sparks, but ultimately destructive and negative, leaving a lingering whiff of bad eggs. At least he did not speak for as long as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who rumbled on and on without threatening to erupt into life. I should congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), who spoke on behalf of Plaid Cymru as well as the Scottish National party.
  Rob Marris: At least his speech was short.
  Kevin Brennan: It was, at least, short, as my hon. Friend says. I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus on the detailed knowledge of Welsh affairs that he extemporised during his speech. At least we were spared a speech from the moody mullah of misery, the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price), who normally speaks for Plaid Cymru on Treasury matters.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Unfortunately, I was not able to intervene on the hon. Member for Angus. Does my hon. Friend agree that now would be a good opportunity for the Scottish National party to volunteer to serve on the Standing Committee for the Finance Bill, as it has missed previous opportunities to do so and bitterly regretted that afterwards?
  Kevin Brennan: As always, my hon. Friend finds an ingenious way to make his point, and he has done so very well in that intervention.
  The Bill provides us with the legislative means by which most of the changes announced in the Budget can be put into effect. I disagree with the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton who—if I heard him correctly—said that the Bill was about more than national insurance. It is not about national insurance at all; those provisions are not in it.
  There is no doubt in my mind that this Budget is the best in recent history because this represents the moment at which the Government took the steps required literally to insure the health of the nation. It is possible to introduce the measures in the Bill—and the associated changes in the Budget, including the changes to national insurance contributions—because of the favourable macro-economic position over which the Government have presided. There was a time, not long ago, when any economic textbook would have said that it was impossible simultaneously to have low inflation—a record low, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) pointed out earlier—low unemployment and high growth, relatively speaking, all at the same time. I remind Opposition Members that our economic growth is very strong at a difficult period for the G7 countries, yet unemployment is at its lowest for more than a generation.
  Mr. Weir: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Kevin Brennan: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he was kind enough to give way to me earlier.
  Mr. Weir: Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on the differential growth between areas of the UK? As I pointed out, the growth in Scotland is less than half that of the UK as a whole.
  Kevin Brennan: The growth in different parts of the country is a matter of concern, and we need to ensure that we have regional policies to deal with that. I have no doubt, however, that the Government's overall macroeconomic strategy is correct, or that the nationalists' policies would bankrupt Scotland and Wales. Indeed, the policies of Plaid Cymru, of which the hon. Gentleman has a detailed knowledge, are all to do with public subsidy and devaluation, and provide no answers as to how they would be paid for by the taxpayers of Wales.
  As I was saying, unemployment is at its lowest for more than a generation—in Wales, as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom. In some parts of the country, the only unemployment that is left is frictional unemployment. There is hard-core, long-term unemployment in some parts of the country—let us be honest about that—and I am glad that the Chancellor referred to it in his statement, and that the Government are introducing measures, such as the step-up programme that is being piloted in my constituency, to deal with some of the hard-core, micro-level, supply-side problems of unemployment.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: My hon. Friend mentioned regional unemployment. Is he aware that in most Scottish constituencies, as in England, we have the lowest level of long-term unemployment and youth unemployment, and the highest level of employment, of the last 20 years?
  Kevin Brennan: I was aware of that, and I can confirm that that is also true of Wales. To listen to Opposition Members sometimes, anyone would think that we were presiding over an economic wasteland. That is a false impression; they do not make their case well when they exaggerate those issues.
  We should remember that all this has been achieved by growth in labour market participation. Inflation, too, has been pegged back and subdued, threatened only, perhaps, by the possibility of cost-push inflation from overseas, which could result from the instabilities in the middle east. Nevertheless, we have a remarkable record. Growth, as I mentioned earlier, is strong compared with that of the other G7 countries. Last year, the UK topped the league, and we have every reason to suppose that that will continue in the next year as the world economic position recovers.
  It is against the background of a strong economy that we can debate the Finance Bill, which will help to build the strong public services that we need in the years to come, and help to rebuild the national health service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has often said—and might say again if he were here now—"You can't do nowt without brass." The Government's record on that is very effective. Against
  884
  this backcloth, the Government have rightly understood the key factors that will ensure that this sound long-term economic base is sustained.
  In the first instance, the Government understand that enterprise—the creation of wealth, and the continuing quest for growth in productivity—is the foundation stone of prosperity. Secondly, they understand the need for strong public services, first-class education, help for those who cannot help themselves, and a modern, efficient national health service that preserves the principle of health care free at the point of use according to need—a principle that the Conservative party will not pledge to preserve.
  The difference between this Government and their Conservative predecessor is the clear understanding that those two goals are complementary rather than in conflict with each other, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly pointed out so eloquently in his speech. Prosperity and social justice go hand in hand. You can't do nowt without brass, but you can't earn the brass without a well-educated, healthy work force. The Tory way was to squeeze public services in the belief that every penny taken out of the public sector would be better used in the private sector. They got the balance completely wrong, however, and our schools crumbled, our health service declined, our people failed to reach their potential and our economy became unstable during that period of boom and bust. The Bill, and the associated measures allied to it, are part of the continuing process of redressing that balance, to allow public services to be rebuilt.
  Current United Kingdom public spending stands at 39.5 per cent. of gross domestic product, compared with 43.2 per cent. in Germany and 49.3 per cent. in France. Even when the measures outlined in the Bill and the Budget take effect, UK public spending will still be more than 3 per cent. lower than the European Union average. It is, therefore, false to portray these measures as profligate or as ones that will endanger UK economic growth.
  I shall turn to some specific measures in the Bill. The Chancellor will have thought long and hard about the best way to raise the revenue that we need to invest in the NHS, and to find the £40 billion increase needed by 2007–08—the 43 per cent. uplift in real terms that is to come for our health service. He could have raised it by increasing income tax. Indeed, some revenue will be raised from that source through the freezing of thresholds. But there is little scope for that at a time of low inflation, and there are problems with that approach when inflation is higher, because revenues are raised. Raising income tax rates would also have affected many pensioners.
  The Chancellor could also have raised VAT. In fact, clause 23 simplifies VAT for small businesses. Raising VAT was a favourite approach of the Conservatives when they were in office. When they first came to power, they almost doubled it from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent. I do not remember that being in their manifesto. They then used it to pay for the total debacle that was the poll tax, by raising it from 15 per cent. to 17.5 per cent. They brought in the council tax at that point. They then famously tried to put up VAT on fuel.
  But the Chancellor did not put up VAT because he knew what the Tories knew, which was that, although it is an ad valorem tax, it is a regressive tax that impacts most on those on-ow incomes, such as pensioners. It is

  885
  paid even by children when they spend their pocket money, which is in stark contrast to the thinking behind the child tax credit introduced by the Government. In short, VAT was an ideal tax for the Tories to increase, but not for us.
  The Chancellor could have increased excise duties in many different ways, but those, too, are regressive taxes that impact most on the less well-off. Despite Lord Liverpool's 19th century warning not to interfere with the people's pleasures, that was a favourite option for modern Tory Chancellors. It is true that the Bill puts up the tax on cigarettes, but it does so in a way that is predicted to be revenue neutral, suggesting that there will be a fall in demand in equal proportion to the price rise. That will promote better health, as the Budget should, and as it is intended to do in the long term by targeting smoking, while raising revenue.
  Yes, the tax on alcopops has been raised to remove the anomaly of treating them like wine, but the tax on beer produced by small breweries has been cut, and excise duties on spirits have been frozen for the fifth year in a row. Moreover, the tax on bingo has been abolished.
  This Budget, however, is about more than beer, bingo and Bacardi Breezers. The decision to fund the necessary investment with national insurance contributions was surely appropriate. As the House knows, because the hon. Member for Buckingham tried in a rather silly way to make a debating point about it—I am sorry that he is still not present—national insurance does not feature in the Bill, because national insurance contributions are paid into the national insurance fund rather than the consolidated fund. National insurance changes do, however, exercise a powerful gravitational influence on the Bill, and it is therefore appropriate to say something about them now.
  Funding the investment with national insurance rather than tax contributions is right, because it emphasises that the NHS provides the best possible insurance scheme. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly said, it is right for both worker and employer to pay. Good health care is as fundamental to the business as it is to the individual, but the market alone will not allocate health care in the interests of the economy and the nation as a whole—as the Conservatives will doubtless discover when they are announce their proposals in due course.
  These measures have been built on the economic prosperity created by the Government. They encourage enterprise, and contribute to public services the investment that the nation needs. In marrying economic prosperity with social justice, the Government are pursuing the agenda that we all need. Their priorities are the NHS, education and jobs—the things that will make the nation healthy, wealthy and wise.
  8.21 pm
  Sir Robert Smith: The Bill clearly has many aspects. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) seemed to think that he could talk about national insurance while others could not. We should bear in mind the fact that the vast bulk of NHS funds still come from general taxation; it is the additional funding that the Government propose to take from national insurance. Besides, as was pointed
  886
  out by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), our alternative Budget would not have required the national insurance changes.
  Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to 1948, when we embarked on the creation of the NHS? Admittedly, he may well not have been born then.
  The national insurance system, surely, was intended to cover unemployment benefit, the basic state pension and the health service. Is that not provided for in the National Assistance Act 1948, and is it not entirely appropriate for a Chancellor who wishes to increase NHS funds to do so through national insurance?
  Sir Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman should wonder why, having included such proposals in the Budget, the Chancellor suddenly discovered that he did not understand the procedures of the House and the workings of national insurance, and therefore had to make emergency changes to the business of the House to make his plans feasible. That is typical of the tortuous circles that the Government are having to negotiate—the hoops through which they are having to jump—to avoid the fact that they made certain promises with which they hoped to buy the last general election. They tried to keep the back door open in order to do what we told them they would have to do—find extra money for the health service. If they had not tried to close the front door, we would not be having these rather farcical discussions about their having to use national insurance.
  Others wish to speak, and although we could go on for ever I think the aim is to finish at a sensible hour. I apologise to the Government for the fact that, in the interests of time, I may concentrate more on concerns my constituents will have than on all the good news in the Budget and the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton and the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) spoke of efforts to bring about a simpler tax system and a more effective way of dealing with big policy changes that Governments want to make. They said that fundamental shifts in taxation should be separate from day-to-day tidying up of tax legislation. Any progress in that regard would be welcome. In the last Parliament we tended to sit until much later and we often had debates in the early hours. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and others used to make rather good speeches at that time of night about the need to simplify and improve the tax system.
  I enjoy Finance Bill debates in which we move away from the political aspects and where there is some good cross-party recognition of ways in which we could improve tax and finance arrangements to the general benefit of the country and the political system. We still have not got there, and I urge all with greater minds than mine who have applied themselves to the task to keep up the good work. That would be much appreciated by those who must currently fill in some of the most complex tax returns, and interpret some of the most complex signals sent by the Budget.
  Others have touched on issues that will affect my constituency. A measure of the complexity of all this is the fact that, in the Bill, we are still trying to sort out the aggregate tax that the Government claimed to have sorted out last year. It would be nice if they admitted that they could perhaps restrain themselves, step back and look again at the impact of that tax.

  887
  The assessment of the environmental impact focused very much on the local impact of quarrying, in terms of environmental costs attributed to it. However, tax is being collected to the centre and being distributed throughout the country. Those from whom the tax is collected do not necessarily see the benefit of undoing any potential environmental damage.
  This Budget poses an additional problem. Because of difficulties involved in the introduction of the tax, it will now affect large boulders from quarries. That will hit coastal defences. Given increasing flood threats and the growing need for such defences, it seems perverse to impose a major tax on the cost of building them. Even if the Treasury cannot look at the global nature of the tax, perhaps it could look at the margins. It has made other exemptions. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) mentioned the extra costs affecting the breakwater at Peterhead. The rock used will be transported only three miles from the quarry. Adding to the cost of the breakwater strikes me as an unfortunate side-effect of the tax.
  As has been said, fuel duty is being kept down this year. That is bound to be welcomed in the north of Scotland—indeed, in the whole of Scotland. As it is so far from any markets, any move to reduce costs and avoid extra burdens is welcome. I hope the Treasury will resist pressure from the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) to extend fuel duty to parts of the economy such as agriculture, fishing and, indeed, heating.
  I am pleased about the proposal to charge foreign hauliers for road use, and to level the playing field between them and our hauliers. Some find it frustrating that it may not be implemented for several years. It is indeed frustrating that the announcement has been made so often, but implementation is still only on the horizon.
  Haulage is important to my constituents and to the north and north-east of Scotland because, as I have said, we are further from the markets. Another important industry in my constituency is agriculture. A wider debate on finance and the general state of the economy still concerns the high pound versus the euro. Nothing in the Bill explains how the Government will square the circle, and help to remove some of the pressure.
  There is still the possibility of access to agrimonetary compensation. If the Treasury could allow the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs access to the money this year, it would redress some of the hangovers of the foot and mouth outbreak. I suppose it would help if DEFRA asked the Treasury, but I hope the Treasury will tell it that it can use the money this year, although it may not be able to in future. The Government should try anything that is available to them to repair the damage of last year's major foot and mouth outbreak.
  One of the frustrations for the farming sector is that we are in the European Union, with free trade in agricultural products and a common system of agricultural support, yet the Government deny UK farmers access to the support that is available to competition abroad. UK taxpayers are in effect paying for foreign farmers to take jobs away from agriculture in this country. It would be a great gesture if the agrimonetary compensation were accessed in the last year in which it could be accessed.
  888
  We have already touched on national insurance versus tax. It goes back to one of the sad things about the way in which the Government approached the last general election. There is common cause between Liberal Democrat and Labour Members about the need to invest in the health service. Some of us are disappointed that the Government are looking to launch the first year of major investment in the health service when we had hoped to be in the fifth year of it, but at least there is common agreement about that investment.
  The Government are in danger, however, of undermining the message that we tried to get across to the public at the election—that investment must be paid for through fair taxation. By not making that point at the election and by trying to use back—door methods to find the funding, the Government could undermine the credibility of the core message that we need to get across. The Government have a last chance to ensure that there is effective delivery of health care. For the sake of future generations, they have a major responsibility not to destroy the fundamental belief in an NHS free to users and paid for out of public funds. This is the last chance to get it right. Having made a mess of how to raise the money, I hope that they do not make a mess of how to spend it.
  As the Paymaster General knows, I have major concerns about the Government's proposals for North sea taxation. In many ways, they were most effectively put by the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard). I hope that the Treasury will look at his speech extremely carefully and I hope that the tenor of his arguments have convinced those on the Treasury Bench that he is expressing a genuine concern; it is not a matter of political point scoring. Many in the industry had thought that there was much greater understanding in the Treasury of the complexities of the financial arrangements that apply in the North sea than appears from its presentation of the Budget.
  I welcome the promise of the Chief Secretary to put in the Library detailed workings of the Government's assumptions and calculations. I hope that those detailed workings will go some way to explaining the figures that the Paymaster General gave in her reply to the Budget debate last Monday.
  Malcolm Bruce: My hon. Friend will know that, as his neighbour, I share his concerns about the implications of the proposed tax changes. He will know that, on the day before the Budget, members of the all-party group on the UK offshore oil and gas industry met the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association, which clearly had not the slightest indication that the Government had such proposals in mind. Those of us who have contacted members of that organisation since then know how shocked they are that the Government, having apparently developed a constructive relationship over five years, blew it out of the window without any notice. That has inflicted incalculable damage on confidence and investment in the North sea, and may be extremely damaging to the British economy.
  Sir Robert Smith: I welcome that intervention. My hon. Friend has long experience of the importance of the industry. He has seen at first hand its impact on the north-east economy for longer than I have, and understands the industry's early stages of development,

  889
  its progression, the way it integrates into the economy and the way it is affected. He is right about the all-party group. A sad message has gone out to people that they should ask for more than they want rather than enter into a genuine dialogue and reach a common understanding.
  Those in the industry are genuinely shocked. Some people have put a lot of time and effort into trying to make the taskforce and Pilot work and to develop something from which we would all benefit. That is the important thing—the aim was to gain something from which we would all benefit. Obviously, the industry has its own interests, shareholders and finances to worry about. If the industry's financial interests differed from those of my constituents and the economy, I would have to part company from it but there was a commonality of purpose. The Treasury stood to benefit in the long run because, if we get more oil and gas out, we get more revenue. Jobs would benefit from long-term investment, and security of supply would benefit from the fact that we were taking our gas out of the North sea, rather than importing it. All those things seem self-evident.
  On various platforms and in various debates, including in Grand Committee, I have often praised the Government for the way in which they handled Pilot. I praised Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry for the way in which they took that initiative forward. Sadly, the Government have now done a lot of damage. We looked at other sectors, including fishing, and we said that Pilot was a model for the way forward for business and growth, a way of achieving financial understanding and dialogue between those affected by Government decisions and Government. That relationship has been broken, which is extremely damaging, and I hope that the Government will try to repair it.
  I hope that it is possible to place the relevant information and figures in the Library before the Committee stage. If the Finance Bill receives its Second Reading and the motion goes through as on the Order Paper, the clauses will be debated next week. It would help if the Government were to provide the background and analysis to inform that debate. I suppose that to expect a change of heart by next week would be to expect a miracle. However, if, in the light of the debate, the Treasury concludes that it has got some of its assumptions and analysis wrong, it would be helpful if the Paymaster General offered the hope that the proposals might be revisited on Report, so that the damage can be undone.
  Having listened to the Treasury make its case, I think that it has misunderstood where the North sea is at in terms of drilling, exploration and production. Current oil fields are tiny, and the cost of finding and developing them must therefore be met out of a much smaller return. Even though a huge field off Angola, say, would involve the payment of a higher tax return, it would still make much more money than a field in the North sea, on which less tax is paid.
  The Treasury has lost the ability to strike a balance and ensure that the North sea's investment potential is maximised. It has not recognised the differential in costs and returns, and that we are dealing with much smaller fields. It has not dealt with the long life cycle of oil investment, and it has failed to recognise that profits aid investment in the next stage of exploration. Nor has it acknowledged that companies have to consider the long-term cycle of low and high oil prices, and the total
  890
  return over the life of the risk. It has not considered the fact that every hole that a company drills that fails to yield oil has to be paid for through the successful fields.
  One of the most fundamental and depressing facts for my constituents—many of whom have recently lost their jobs to make the industry competitive, and many more of whom may do so—is that the tax hits investment in the United Kingdom alone. If a company chooses to invest abroad, the Government do not impose that tax burden. Other Members have pleaded with the Government to consider measures such as interest costs and royalty relief. That would be a welcome development, but when the Government place the figures in the Library, they should recognise that, as we have shown, they have got them wrong. Doing so would offer some hope to my constituents, and for the long-term future of this country's prospects. The Government should be good enough to tell the House that the figures and the assumptions are wrong, and that they will happily revisit the tax regime on Report and do more to invest in this country's future.
  The oil and gas so far extracted from the North sea are equivalent to the remaining reserves; in other words, we are perhaps only half way through its development cycle. However, if the Government kill off the investment and the larger platforms that provide the hubs for small fields, such fields will never be developed. Our future generations will not get the tax revenues from those fields, they will not get the jobs and we will lose the export industry that we have built through expertise. I urge the Government to think again about this extremely damaging and ill-thought out manoeuvre. Such a manoeuvre may be politically easy to achieve, but sometimes in government—and especially in the Treasury—it is a matter of more than easy political hits. Careful, structured decisions need to be taken that do not do long-term damage but long-term good. The rewards are for future generations, but the decision as to whether those generations will get them is in the Treasury's hands.
  8.38 pm
  Jon Cruddas: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), I want to concentrate on the debate on productivity, which the Chancellor developed in his pre-Budget report and in the Budget itself.
  Historically, our economy's productivity performance has been weak. In the post-war period, there was a trend shortfall between the UK and many of our competitor industrial economies. I am pleased that the Government have acknowledged that productivity improvements are the key to long-term growth and sustained increases in living standards, and I wish briefly to consider some of the elements that account for this deficit with our competitors. For example, why are our productivity rates so weak that, despite comparatively low labour costs, relative unit labour costs are uncompetitive? Before considering such issues, I wish briefly to consider the Government's general economic strategy since 1997.
  There are four core pillars of Government strategy, the first of which is economic stability. Long-term interest rates are at their lowest for 35 years. Inflation is at its lowest for 30 years, and is expected to remain close to our 2.5 per cent. target. We have the lowest mortgage rates since the early 1960s, and debt estimates stand at a healthy 31 per cent. through to 2004. That is partly

  891
  because Labour's first term witnessed a fiscal transfer to the Exchequer through the effects of growth, and because tax receipts were hoarded as we retained inherited expenditure plans. At the same time, last year Britain was the fastest growing economy in the G7. This year, growth is forecast at a range between 2 per cent. and 2.5 per cent.
  The second pillar is reinvestment in public services. Owing to the mixture of caution and growth, we are now in the middle of a spending cycle characterised by sustained investment in public services. Through this spending cycle, spending on health will rise in real terms by an average of more than 6 per cent. a year; on education, by 5.6 per cent; on transport, by 14 per cent; and on police in England and Wales, by 3.9 per cent. In that period, expenditure on health will rise in cash terms by some £17.2 billion; on education, by £12.2 billion; on transport, by £5.1 billion; and on the police, by £1.6 billion. In total, that is £36.1 billion extra annual cash expenditure on the public services by 2003–04. Moreover, the Budget also announced a further £33.5 billion investment in health between 2003–04 and 2007–8.
  The third pillar is attacking poverty here and abroad. That will mean £5 billion of extra help for pensioners, especially poorer pensioners through the minimum income guarantee. As we saw in the Budget, the new pension credit builds on that by rewarding thrift. We have introduced the national minimum wage and more help for families through record rises in child benefit and a new tax credit regime. The new working tax credit and the child tax credit will develop that strategy further. Internationally, we have increased Britain's aid budget by some 45 per cent.
  The fourth pillar is full employment. Countless economists have had to alter their assumptions about the trade-off between unemployment and inflation—the so-called non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment. We have seen more than 1 million extra jobs and the new deal has confronted long-term unemployment among young people. Unemployment is at its lowest since 1975 and full employment is once again a core aspect of public policy.
  In terms of general economic management and growth, public service reinvestment, confronting poverty and tackling unemployment, the Government have established a robust platform. It is against that general background that the issue of productivity should be considered. I welcome initiatives announced in the Budget such as changes in corporation tax, including the reduction in the starting rate and the small firms rate cut; the new research and development tax credit; stamp duty exemptions to promote enterprise and investment in disadvantaged areas; and direct cash help to small firms that file tax returns on line. All are welcome stimulants to improve productivity, given the link between it and entrepreneurship.
  I wish to focus on another element of our weak comparative productivity—the human capital side of the equation. According to OECD comparative statistics, Britain had become a centre for relatively cheap labour as early as the 1960s. For total hourly labour costs, which are the sum of total hourly earnings and social charges, we are well down the international league tables. After the second world war, Britain remained a relatively high-wage economy, but by 1970, of our leading
  892
  competitors, only Japan had lower labour costs. Since then the gap has narrowed between Britain and the US, but not with France, Japan and Germany.
  The cost of labour is one part of the equation: the other is the efficiency of its utilisation, or labour productivity as gross domestic product per man hour. The evidence reveals a substantial and enduring shortfall in productivity levels in Britain compared with the US, Japan and other leading western market economies. The differential with the US opened up earlier in the century. The gap with workers in Europe developed during the 1950s and 1960s, following post-war reconstruction. By the 1970s, the pattern had become entrenched.
  A decade of poor, often negative, annual rates of productivity growth through the 1970s was followed by more rapid advances during the 1980s. That is often taken as evidence by the Conservative party that the supply-side reforms of the 1980s amounted to some form of economic transformation. The cornerstone of the strategy was the attack on individual and collective rights of people at work and, more specifically, an assault on the institutions held responsible for delivering those rights—the trade union movement. Alongside that, we saw the removal of sector-based training provision and the institutions that sought to put a floor under wages—the wages councils. Compared with the 1970s there was an improvement, but the argument that that produced an economic turnround in our fortunes is unconvincing.
  The actual improvements in our productivity record averaged some 2.3 per cent. between 1979 and 1988, which was broadly in line with our leading competitors. The result is that in terms of our general economic performance we remain disadvantaged.
  Rob Marris: Does my hon. Friend agree that the statistical productivity gains in the 1980s were bought at the expense of 3 million unemployed? While productivity per person hour may have increased, for the economy as a whole—taking into account the 3 million, if not 4 million, unemployed—productivity did not really increase between 1979 and 1988.
  Jon Cruddas: I concede that productivity increased, but only because shedding 2 million in hoarded jobs and creating an army of nearly 3 million unemployed people will show up as productivity gains when one divides aggregate output by man hours, across the whole economy. However, the 1980s entrenched certain long-term patterns of low wages and low skills in the country's industrial organisation. Instead of turning our economic fortunes around, the 1980s tended to compound rather than resolve our long-term structural problems.
  The result is that, in terms of general economic performance, we remain disadvantaged. Unit labour costs—total labour costs divided by the productivity of labour—remain relatively high, despite the low cost of labour in this country. In short, since the post-war period we have witnessed a general and sustained era of low comparative productivity, based on a history of low wages and weak systems of skill formation.
  Some commentators in the 1990s argued that we were embarking on the so-called new economy—a new period of productive prosperity, driven by expanding production of knowledge and new technology and the erosion of traditional work in manufacturing and industry. Indeed,

  893
  paragraph 20 of the Treasury Committee report refers to the new economy, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) spoke earlier about the respective productivity gains to be engineered through the so-called new economy revolution. If those gains are real, we should expect improvements in the structure of the labour market and in our productivity record. However, none seems to be being registered in the statistics.
  The UK has a record of continuous employment growth since 1992. That provides a good test for the argument that paid employment is moving decisively away from low-value production and service activities to new knowledge-intensive sectors, and leading to a schism with our low-wage, low-productivity past.
  The labour force survey data collected by Professor Peter Nolan, the director of the Economic and Social Research Council's "Future of Work" programme, permits an analysis of whether a more productive industrial research structure is developing. As I did on Third Reading of the Tax Credits Bill, I shall refer briefly to some of Professor Nolan's findings, as they are germane to both debates.
  The ESRC data show that, between 1992 and 1999, the category "White Collar Professionals" accounted for 1.5 million of the 2.3 million increase in employment. Yet the "Traditional Services" category—covering clerical and secretarial, personal and protective, sales, postal and cleaning jobs—and the category "Manual, Manufacturing and Construction Workers" still account for nearly two out of three jobs in the British economy.
  When we inspect this analysis closely, we find that the fastest-growing occupations have been four long-established services—sales assistants, data input clerks, storekeepers and receptionists. The second-fastest growing group comprised people in the state-dominated education and health service sectors, and the third fastest group was the caring occupations—care assistants, welfare and community workers, and nursery nurses. In the 1990s, the fastest-growing occupation was hairdressing.
  Those occupations could scarcely be said to be at the cutting edge of the new economy. The fastest-growing manual occupation since 1992 is housekeeping, which has grown by 368 per cent.
  In short, key areas of growth through the 1990s, in terms of the demand for labour, have been in traditional low-paid, unskilled and routine employment, much of it carried out by women. At the same time, there has been no overall improvement in our comparative productivity shortfall.
  We might conclude that a key long-term structural problem of the British economy is our weak productivity record, and an over-reliance on relatively low-skill, low value-added products and services. That pattern appears to have been consolidated through the deregulatory 1980s, and it is reflected in the contemporary structure of the labour market and a large part of its growth sectors. The Government's strategy of putting issues to do with productivity at the centre of our future economic strategy is therefore absolutely correct.
  Boosting education and skills provision is critical in overcoming those entrenched structural problems. The key measures in the Budget in this area must therefore be welcomed—the pilot schemes allowing time off for training, and the £30 million set aside for the Investors in People scheme.
  894
  The skills agenda is key to boosting the productive capacity of the economy. It will work alongside the other recent reforms to the vocational system, which include innovations such as the learning and skills councils, the sector skills councils and modern apprenticeships.
  Mr. Flight: On the other side of the coin, does the hon. Gentleman believe that growing job subsidies and the resulting payment of a wage that bears no relation to the skills and the market value for the job are an important disincentive to upping skills and productivity improvement?
  Jon Cruddas: Does the hon. Gentleman mean through the tax credit regime?
  Mr. Flight: Yes.
  Jon Cruddas: I would say that that is a correct and focused strategy to reactivate the supply of labour which has been proving effective in terms of the pattern of unemployment reduction and job generation over the past four or five years, of which the tax credit regime is a part. I agree that there could be disincentives to increased productivity where job subsidies disincentivise capital investment. That is orthodox economic theory. However, I emphasise the other pillar of the Government's economic strategy—namely, the move towards full employment and towards reactivating the stock of labour through an active labour market policy which carries with it the non-accelerated inflation rate of higher unemployment. There is a trade-off between inflation and unemployment. Such a policy would be deemed successful under its own terms of reference.
  The search for greater economic regional balance and regeneration is central to sustaining productive growth. As Member of Parliament for Dagenham, I represent an area central to the industrial regeneration of east London and the broader Thames gateway. The emphasis on skills formation will be critical in our strategy of rebuilding the centre of manufacturing for London in Dagenham—the lowest wage economy in greater London, with low basic skills provision and staying-on rates.
  The new centre for manufacturing excellence that is being built and the new Ford engine plant on the Dagenham estate will be key elements in this strategy. That is working hand in hand with the London development agency and the education and skills providers in the locality across the public and private sector. Already we are beginning to see results.
  This sub-regional strategy complements the strategy developed in the Budget. The objective is to build a virtuous cycle of high-wage, high-skilled production alongside much-needed infrastructure development. That is beginning to happen in Dagenham, in collaboration with the devolved agencies and the Government. At the same time, the strategy is to retain macro-economic stability, rebuild our public services and confront poverty.
  Overall, I welcome the fact that issues around productivity are moving centre stage in our economic debates. I congratulate the Government on the coherence of their strategy, and strongly support the Bill.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Mark Hoban: I begin by building on the comments of the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), who is not in his place. He raised a very important point for a large number of small business people—the treatment of unincorporated businesses and the impact that this Budget and preceding Budgets introduced by the Government have had on the balance between incorporation or remaining an unincorporated small business.
  An article in Taxation magazine in March 2002 highlighted through the use of numbers the dilemma that many businesses face. I am not one for wading through huge volumes of numbers—I am rebelling against my previous occupation as a chartered accountant by not doing so—but I want to put on record the impact, prior to the Budget, of changes in the tax rates.
  In the tax year 1996–97, comparing the tax on a net income of a taxpayer earning £42,000 as an unincorporated sole trader and the tax paid by an incorporated business, the benefits of being an incorporated business were relatively marginal, at about £1,300. By the financial year 2000–01, that benefit had increased to £3,500, showing that the unincorporated businesses were suffering as a consequence. Whereas in the last financial year, a trading income of £20,000 would yield a difference of about £2,000 in favour of an incorporated business, as a consequence of the Budget, with the extension of the starting rate for corporation tax of zero to £10,000, an incorporated business is some £3,300 better off than one that is unincorporated.
  As a result, many small unincorporated businesses, such as plumbers, small builders or shopkeepers, think that they should incorporate because the tax position has become so advantageous for them. In doing so, however, they will of course incur additional costs, such as setting up the company, filing returns and the preparation of accounts which, although not audited, need to be filed with Companies House. That is a major concern. At a time when businesses are suffering from an increase in regulation, there seems to be a general drift towards incorporation in Government policy.
  Previously, one of the barriers to incorporation for sole traders was the amount of pension contributions that they could make, because tax-free pension contributions were limited to salary. That pushed people to remain unincorporated: they paid themselves high salaries and received tax benefit on their pension contributions. However, with the introduction of stakeholder pensions by the Government, an incorporated sole trader need only pay himself a decent salary in one year and then for the remaining four years he can use that year-one salary as a reference point for his pension contributions. There is no longer a barrier to incorporation owing to differential treatment of pension contributions.
  The Federation of Small Businesses asked whether that was a deliberate policy of the Government. The Inland Revenue assured the federation that the policy was deliberate and was intended to encourage enterprise. However, I am at a loss to understand how incorporation in itself is an encouragement to enterprise. I should have thought that we should be encouraging small businesses to be set up according to whichever format suited them rather than directing them—as the goal of Government policy—towards incorporation.
  896
  That affects not only sole traders, but partnerships. Today, I spoke to someone who runs his business as a partnership but is taking the route of incorporating it, as it is more tax-efficient to do so as a consequence of the tax changes made by the Government.
  The situation will worsen in the financial year 2003–04. Personal allowances may be frozen, but the thresholds for corporation tax may rise in line with inflation and national insurance contributions will be higher. That will be an impetus to force more and more small businesses down the route of incorporation.
  Small business men throughout the country would welcome an explanation from the Government as to why their conscious policy is to head down the route of forcing—or encouraging—small businesses to be incorporated. Perhaps the Paymaster General will take the opportunity of this debate to provide that explanation. It certainly has not yet reached small business men; they are angry about that drive to incorporation and feel that, as a consequence of this and previous Budgets, the Government are not interested in enterprise or indeed fairness as regards their businesses.
  Several Opposition Members have drawn attention to the length of the Finance Bill; it is the third longest in history. The measure is complex. All the commentators on it are consistent in their remarks. On 25 April, Edward Troup of Simmonds and Simmonds said:
  "Companies which in the past have not had to worry about any special rules are now getting rules that they do have to worry about."
  On the same day, John Battersby, a tax partner at KPMG, said:
  "We really need a slowdown in this torrent of legislation to provide businesses with the opportunity to assess where they are and concentrate on their business."
  Certainly the message that I am receiving from businesses and accounting practices in my constituency is that the rate of change in the tax system is becoming unmanageable for many businesses. Business men spend more time dealing with regulation than running their businesses.
  Dawn Primarolo: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the tax system should try to keep up with the massive and rapid changes that are occurring in business to ensure that those decisions that businesses take are on the basis not of distortions in the tax system but on the basis of what is best for their business? Therefore, if business changes, the tax system—if it is to provide the best environment for business—must also change.
  Mr. Hoban: The Paymaster General makes a valid point. There is a distinction, however, between those changes that are driven by the way in which businesses change—to which the tax system must therefore respond—and the changes that the Government have introduced over the last five years in the tax credits scheme. As I said in Committee earlier this year, a series of different tax credit schemes exist. Those are changes in the tax system that the Government have imposed, with which employers and their advisers need to keep up. Keeping up with legislation is therefore a problem. I accept the Paymaster General's comment that there is a need for tax legislation to reflect change in business, but the Government must also recognise their responsibility for change in the tax system.

  897
  Clive Lewis, the secretary of the Institute of Chartered Accountants enterprise group, has summarised the problem with the burden of red tape and tax administration:
  "Not only does the volume and complexity of regulation eat into the resources of business but it absorbs time that could be spent more valuably on survival and expansion."
  That point is reiterated time and again by businesses across my constituency and by business men whom I meet here and elsewhere. The Bill adds to that complexity, and not merely through its length.
  In his opening remarks, the Chief Secretary referred to the community investment tax credit, which will cost the Exchequer £5 million in the next fiscal year. The Bill includes 27 pages of regulation to administer a scheme that the Government estimate will raise only £100 million in investment in deprived areas. I am not clear what behavioural impact this tax change will have. I expect that a lot of money that would have already gone into deprived areas will simply be rebadged under the scheme so that people benefit from the generous tax credits over the life of the scheme. I question whether we need 27 pages of regulation to administer what appears to be a relatively small and inexpensive relief on offer to businesses that would invest in deprived areas.
  The other area that causes me concern in the Budget is the tax relief for community amateur social clubs and sports clubs. The Government have been relatively generous in allowing merely six pages of regulation to cover that. When I look at the detail of those pages, however, it concerns me that many treasurers, who are not accounting or tax experts, may find categorisation of expenditure and the way in which non-qualifying expenditure can be clawed back from relief in previous years to be not worth the candle and too complicated to try to find ways of recovering some of the tax benefits offered by the Government. If we are to offer community groups the opportunity for tax relief, we should try to make sure that the schemes that we offer them are relatively simple and straightforward. By offering complex schemes, the take-up rate, as is seen so often with changes introduced by the Government, will be surprisingly low.
  In a debate in Westminster Hall earlier this year, I commented on the way in which reliefs and changes to the tax system give rise to the risk of tax avoidance. I want to conclude by quoting from the Treasury Committee's report on the Budget. It referred to the film tax relief, which will be abolished in the Bill—
  Mr. Edward Davey: It will not.
  Mr. Hoban: I am sorry. It will be amended in the Bill. Interestingly, when the relief was initially suggested in 1997, the estimated cost was some £20 million over two years. Remarkably, the saving to the taxpayer from the restriction of the relief is £500 million over two years. That shows how reliefs can be manipulated.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that the relief should be abolished?
  Mr. Hoban: I am not here to make tax policy on behalf of those on the Opposition Front Bench. However, I generally take the view that the fewer reliefs there are,
  898
  the lower the general tax rate is and the harder it is to avoid tax. I therefore conclude with a quote from the Treasury Committee report. Paragraph 73 says:
  "We are concerned that the recent proliferation of tax reliefs, allowances, and credits will increase the scope for tax avoidance, and we urge the Treasury to consider carefully such issues before bringing forward additional tax reliefs of this kind."
  A simpler tax system is in the interests not just of taxpayers, but of their advisers and the Exchequer generally.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Iain Luke: Although my contribution comes late in the night, I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will appreciate that it will be a quality contribution with more light than heat.
  The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) is no longer in his place, but I agree with his estimation of the stature of the current Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman made the point that my right hon. Friend was one of the best Chancellors that we have had. The quality of the Budget that we are discussing provides clear evidence of that.
  The outcome of this Budget process is to raise money to ensure that finance is available to meet the objectives of the Government's spending plans that have been set to satisfy the needs of the people. It is therefore right that the major point of these proposals is the need to provide funds to put Britain's public services, especially health, on a sound footing.
  It is clearly evident from the public's reaction to the Budget and to the national insurance contribution increases to be introduced next year that the Bill faces up squarely to the top priorities of the British electorate. Last week's opinion polls clearly indicated widespread support for the proposals, with 74 per cent. of those sampled giving support for the increase in national graduated contributions that aims to brings this country's health expenditure up to the levels enjoyed in Europe and to satisfy consumer and customer expectations.
  Public support for the Government's proposals to protect and enhance public services was clearly underlined by someone who is one of the Government's severest critics and one of the strongest supporters of public service provision. John Edmonds, who is not often kind to the Government, pointed out last week that we had witnessed:
  "A rare event in British politics, an honest and courageous Budget, putting need before greed."
  Within that catchy slogan lies the fundamental difference between those on the Government Benches and the Opposition.
  This Government cater and care for the many; Opposition Members care only for those who can care for themselves. The Conservative party—which in the past created such a hue and cry about Labour's so-called stealth taxes—now cries wolf again at the people's health tax, a tax increase brought forward as part of a balanced and carefully constructed series of initiatives to maintain the UK's impressive economic performance and to safeguard continued growth in the economy and the UK's long-term prosperity.
  Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of growth to the economy.

  899
  Will he perhaps tell the House the growth figures for the Scottish economy and whether he is happy with them? Can he name another of our close neighbours that has a growth figure lower than that in Scotland? Does he agree with his colleague, the Member of the Scottish Parliament for Dundee, East, John McAllion, who said recently:
  "I do not think the financial system in the Scotland Act is working very well. We should take time to do this, certainly before the next Scottish elections"?
  In order words, we should give Scotland financial independence.
  Mr. Luke: My colleague, the MSP for Dundee, East, is entitled to his views. We are an open and democratic party.
  At the recent meeting we held with the members of the Scottish chambers of commerce, the Scottish growth rate, which is significantly lower than the growth rate for the United Kingdom, and manufacturing gave rise to concern. However, their representatives told us that consumer spending in Scotland was on the up, house prices were increasing and there was an improved uptake of tourism. Although the Scottish economy is perhaps not performing as well as the UK economy, they are clear indicators that there are significant grounds for optimism. Those aspects of the Budget which I welcomed last week will certainly increase the efforts of Scottish manufacturing and assist Scottish growth, but I am sure that we will return to that later.
  At the end of the day, there has been a lot of criticism of the Budget proposals. Industry's response has been a cranking-up of the campaign in which it claims that despite tax benefits to improve productivity and encourage investment, the increases in national insurance will undermine confidence, destroy jobs and damage future growth prospects. I understand its concerns, but its Cassandra-like prophecies of doom are vaguely familiar. Were those arguments not used in opposition to the minimum wage? Were we not told by the Opposition that British business could not afford the minimum wage, which would destroy jobs, ruin the economy and stifle growth? However, in fact, growth has continued to increase and jobs have continued to be created.
  It was heartening to read the speech that Mr. Mervyn King, the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, delivered to the British chambers of commerce last week. He argued that the increase in national insurance would help to moderate consumer spending and house price inflation. If that step dampens down consumption and has a deflationary impact on housing prices, it may deal with the problem of the Nationwide figures in today's papers which show house prices at record highs, even in Scotland, so we may not have to face up to an early rise in interest rates, a point reinforced by The Daily Telegraph in a headline to a report of Mr. King's speech—"Tax Rises Good for Growth, Bank Argues".
  While business has signalled its opposition to the Budget proposals in the round, and is clearly upset at having to pay its share for a better health service—a social cost—surely it must see their economic logic if they help to avoid dearer money and keep interest rates at the historically low levels achieved by successive interest rate cuts last year. In building his Budget, the Chancellor has
  900
  taken steps to ensure that the macro-economic factors that determine consistent, balanced economic performance are in equilibrium. It may be a tax-and-spend Budget, but it is certainly not a boom-and-bust Budget; it is a just Budget and has been well received by the public.
  I should like briefly to address two areas of the Budget relevant to my constituency which have been mentioned by other Members this evening: the new levy on North sea oil introduced by the Chancellor and the new research and development tax credit for larger companies. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on his contribution, in which he expressed concerns about the oil levy. I am a member of the all-party offshore oil and gas industry group and represent a coastal community which was mentioned by my hon. Friend and which missed out on the biggest boom in the oil industry as it is at the margins of the business, primarily innovation and supply.
  The current oil price of $26 has been sustained over the past few years, as was said in a debate last week with the chief executive of BP. Given the current production costs of $8 a barrel, the levy is acceptable in the short term. However, to ensure the long-term viability of British operations, I join Members who have urged the Treasury to engage with industry to ensure a long-term productive future.
  I warmly welcome the research and development tax credit for larger companies. The future of British and Scottish industry, as well as manufacturing jobs, can be secured only through investment. I speak as a Member representing a constituency whose economic history is littered with industries that have suffered and disappeared through lack of investment. I can also cite glowing examples of companies in my area that have to their credit invested heavily in research and development, as evidenced by their continued profitable existence.
  NCR recently opened a large R and D facility in Dundee to help plan and promote the automated cash machines that will be used globally in years to come. The Michelin tyre company's investment in machinery and its work force has enabled it to survive and prosper in a hugely competitive market, producing high-quality products at a distance from their market. In both instances, high-quality, well-paid jobs have been sustained to fuel the local economy, which would be much poorer without such jobs.
  I believe firmly that the Government's economic strategy has been correct over the past five years, although that has often been hidden by the stormy squalls of political debate in the Chamber and in the pages of a steamed-up press. The strategy was clear: first, get the economy right; secondly, ensure that the structures needed to build a fair society are in place; and lastly, be brave enough to raise taxes when required and spend the money on the programmes necessary to bring relief and succour, to provide jobs and credible incentives to work, and to sustain a flexible work force on which the long-term prosperity of the UK and Scotland depends.
  In conclusion, as the Chancellor made clear in his Budget statement, we are perceived as being at a crossroads in the life of this country. It is now time to make fundamental long-term choices as to whether the national consensus that has existed for half a century in regard to our public services is to be renewed for the years ahead. It is clear that the national consensus supported by

  901
  most of the parties in the Chamber, which was referred to by the Chancellor, is still as firm as ever in favour of public services and the national health service. However, there is no political consensus on the issue.
  The issue of the national insurance increases highlights the bankruptcy of the major Opposition party, whose vision for public services—whether transport, education, housing or health—is a vision of services provided by the private sector, paid for by increased charges and private insurance. The Budget proposals and the Finance Bill put clear blue water between the Government and the Opposition, a situation that I welcome. There is a clear choice between my party—a Government who believe in public services and are willing to put money to good use to sustain and enhance them—and the Opposition, who are seeking to revive and renew the old Thatcherite agenda, which would dismantle them.
  I will gladly go into the next general election confident that the banner of social justice, the people's flag, has once again been hoisted by the people's party, which will carry the day.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. David Laws: I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate. I shall follow on from the comments made by the Chairman of the Treasury Committee on the Committee's Budget 2000 report, which was released today. I commend the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) for his measured and sensible comments about the contents of the report, which contrasted with the unusually intemperate comments of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), who I am pleased to see back in his place.
  The hon. Member for Broxtowe gave a rather unfair description of the activities of the Treasury Committee yesterday when it drew up the report. He gave the impression that the Opposition members had been on the rampage yesterday in Committee Room 6, forcing into the report all sorts of bizarre and overtly political conclusions that were not warranted by the Committee's deliberations.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to reflect on those comments, especially as he is usually an extremely temperate and moderate member of the Committee, and I hope that when he reflects on the report, he will study carefully the conclusions set out at the back of the report. In particular, I hope that he will study conclusion (s) on the redistributive nature of the Budget, conclusion (j) on the trend rate of growth, and conclusion (h) on the stability and growth pact.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the fact that, in all those areas, amendments were tabled during the Committee hearings that altered the draft report in a way that was more sympathetic to the Government. I expected some praise from the hon. Gentleman for having proposed two of those amendments myself, including one which, surprisingly, won the support of Conservative members and is now being echoed from the Government Back Benches—that is, the amendment that appears in conclusion (s), which states:
  "We welcome the fact that, within the context of a tax raising Budget, the budget measures are broadly redistributive from those on higher incomes to those on low incomes".
  Not only did we get surprising support from Conservative Members, but we have now even managed to encourage Labour Members to use the word "redistributive".
  902
  How can it possibly be the case that the Opposition Members who serve on the Treasury Committee were making irresponsible additions to the report, given that they forced in such amendments—more Labour than the hon. Member for Broxtowe himself—and that they voted to include amendments such as that which now appears as conclusion (k)? That conclusion states:
  "We share the Government's view that the Stability and Growth Pact should be reformed to take account of issues such as"—
  the precise issues that appear in the Budget documents are then listed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect carefully on those issues and perhaps now withdraw his earlier comments, and I give him the opportunity to do so.
  Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am not totally impressed by the brace of fig leaves that he offers. Does he not feel on reflection that it is an undesirable precedent for a Select Committee to determine a report on something as central as the Budget not by consensus, but effectively by 25 whipped votes?
  Mr. Laws: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment. It is a great precedent that hon. Members who draft Select Committee reports should consider any case on its merits, not on the basis of whether the arguments embarrass the Government. Some hon. Members would like the Select Committees to be the Government's poodles, but many more hon. Members believe that Select Committees should be willing to be the terriers that pursue the Government and which occasionally nip at their heels when they make mistakes.
  I have mentioned the parts of the Select Committee report that support the Government's policies. I hope that all Labour Members welcome that support, as it gives the lie to the idea that Opposition Members who serve on the Treasury Committee irresponsibly amended the report. The Select Committee supports some of the Government's policies, but it warns the Government about some issues, such as the change in the growth forecasts. Many outside commentators regard that change as not being particularly prudent, and certainly as having removed the prudence element that was previously in the Government's growth forecast, leaving only as a prudent cushion the surpluses that the Government are projecting on the current balance—something that the Select Committee welcomed in the Government's policy.
  I shall deal further with the criticisms in the Treasury Committee report that were backed by Opposition Members, in spite of the reticence of some of the Labour Members who serve on the Committee. If the argument, used by the hon. Member for Broxtowe, that Opposition Members were being irresponsible was well founded, one would expect there to be a huge divergence between the evidence on those issues given to the Select Committee and the wording of the report, but there is no such divergence. That is shown exactly in respect of the Government's decision to increase employers' and employees' national insurance contributions—the first major item of criticism made by the Treasury Committee.
  Andrew Dilnot of the Institute for Fiscal Studies gave evidence to the Select Committee on the Treasury. The Chairman asked Andrew Dilnot:
  "Are the Budget proposals to increase the National Insurance contribution rates rather than income tax going to ensure that the burden is 'spread as widely and fairly as possible'?"

  903
  Andrew Dilnot, who is well respected, replied:
  "I cannot see what coherent strategy for raising tax can be met by these National Insurance employee changes".
  He described
  "better-off pensioners and those living off unearned income"
  as
  "not groups that I think it is easy to imagine reasons for excluding."
  That justifies the Treasury Committee's criticism on that point.
  Chris Grayling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Laws: I am sorry, but I will not give way because of the time. I regret not giving way because I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would make a pertinent point.
  Whom can we turn to on the Government's proposal to increase employers' national insurance contributions, on which no assessment has been made of the employment consequences? Whom can we turn to in support of the Treasury Committee's concerns about the employment effect of that measure, which will increase the tax on jobs? The answer is none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, who seemed to have forgotten when he came before the Treasury Committee a few days ago that just two years ago when he introduced the climate change levy he cut employers' national insurance contributions and argued in a Treasury press release that the cut in that tax on employment would boost employment.
  Apparently, the economic rules have now been overturned, and two years later the Chancellor can increase employers' national insurance contributions without that having any effect on employment. That is a miraculous change, just as miraculous as the fact that the Chancellor can effectively, without in his view abolishing the upper earnings limit on employees' national insurance contributions, extract money through employees' national insurance contributions from every person who now earns more than what used to be the upper earnings limit.
  Two other fundamental criticisms of the Budget were made in the Treasury Committee's report. The first has been mentioned by a number of individuals, including the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) in his helpful speech. He warned about measures such as the films tax relief, which was introduced with great fanfare in 1997 and altered in 2001. That was to be a limited cost measure—£15 million in the first year—directed towards great British films, which would be stimulated. Now we discover from the Chancellor that programmes such as "Coronation Street", "Ground Force" and "Emmerdale" are being made with that tax relief—that the money going into the Exchequer from hard-working families is being wasted on such reliefs.
  The concern about the Government's tax policy that was expressed clearly in the Treasury Committee's report is not only that we are getting an increasingly complicated tax system but that those complications open up precisely those types of loopholes. No doubt we shall find that other measures, such as the reduced rate of beer duty for small breweries, will open up exactly such problems in the future. No doubt we shall find that the Chancellor of the
  904
  Exchequer will return in a couple of Budgets' time to announce to much less fanfare that he is closing loopholes and recovering large amounts of money.
  It is easy to welcome such measures when they are announced individually, but one would have hoped that the Treasury, of all Departments, would be conscious of the fact that there are no free lunches and that money that is given to the film industry and to "Coronation Street" potentially comes from other areas that could be higher priorities for the Government, such as the Government's agenda on social exclusion, lifting people out of poverty and raising tax thresholds. Surely those priorities should be higher up the agenda than the introduction of silly tax reliefs and gimmicks that merely end up being loopholes that are abused by accountants and others in the private sectors.
  In respect of the last major criticism of the Budget that was made in the Treasury Committee's report, surely the measures that my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) criticised earlier—the oil tax and the foreign companies tax measures—should have been consulted on in the pre-Budget report. Many people inside and outside the House welcomed the idea of a pre-Budget report and the opportunity to consult on tax changes before they were brought in so that they could be more sensibly constructed; yet two major tax measures in the Budget, on oil and foreign companies, have been brought in without proper consideration and deliberation and will no doubt be all the worse for that and will have to be unwound in future Budgets.
  I hope that the Chief Secretary and others on the Treasury Bench will take that to heart and use their innovation of a few years ago for the purpose for which it was intended, rather than as the sort of mini-Budget for the Chancellor's gimmicks that it has become.
  The hon. Member for Broxtowe said earlier that the type of activity in which the Treasury Committee had engaged yesterday brought Parliament into disrepute. I could not disagree with him more on that point. What depresses people about Parliament, particularly at present, is the Executive's huge power—the Government's disproportionate majority—which means that proper debate about measures in the House can be suppressed, which in turn has helped to make the House increasingly irrelevant. If we have more debates and more reports such as the one produced yesterday by the Treasury Committee, the House will be all the better for it.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: I declare my interests as set out in the register.
  This has been a surprisingly good and valuable debate on a Finance Bill that is rather irritating, as it does not cover the Budget's main tax-raising measure and cannot cover two important proposals that are still out to consultation, relating to domicile and residence and the taxation of overseas banking branches in the UK.
  However, some interesting political points have been made. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) made it clear that, in principle, the Liberals would be prepared to tax and spend more. They are certainly committed to a 50 per cent. top rate of tax. I was surprised to hear their confidence in the unsubstantiated

  905
  assumption that greater NHS spending would improve delivery, but they agreed with the Opposition that the Finance Bill is not good for business.
  The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, gave an extremely balanced and decent review of the Committee's report. In essence, he made the point that it was very much on the basis of evidence given by the professionals who appeared before the Committee that the report questioned whether growth assumptions were too optimistic and whether the Finance Bill would add to, rather than correct, imbalances in the economy. He also made a valuable suggestion about adopting in the UK an arrangement such as the United States green card system to enable people coming from overseas to attend university in this country to add their skills to our economy by working here subsequently.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) made a full and thoughtful contribution. He stressed that the difference between the Opposition and the Government was about how to achieve better quality public services and not about the objective. He welcomed—as we do—the measures that will simplify VAT, help sports clubs and moderate the climate change levy proposals. He also made a very valuable comment on clause 37, addressing schedule E changes. He said that he would like the capital gains tax regime for life assurance products to be addressed in Committee and brought into line with changes to capital gains tax for individuals.
  My right hon. Friend was also the first to address in detail criticisms of the proposed 10 per cent. additional tax on North sea oil extraction. In essence, he pointed out that the Government risked causing a major contraction of the North sea oil industry, given the marginal nature of operations in the North sea compared with other parts of the world.
  Mr. Connarty: Has the hon. Gentleman taken the trouble to consider the Royal Bank of Scotland's analysis of the impact of the changes, which says that there will be no diminution in the attraction of investment in the North sea? It also said that the assets are so profitable that if anyone wants to divest themselves of them, there are plenty of takers who want to get into the North sea and make money, despite the tax.
  Mr. Flight: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but perhaps he was not present when the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), chairman of the all-party group on the offshore oil and gas industry, very strongly criticised many of the proposals and set out in a balanced and measured way precisely why they were a threat to the North sea oil industry. As he may be aware, the industry does not agree with the Government's assertions that the capital allowances will offset the additional taxation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) contrasted the Chancellor's previous phase of prudence and popularity in the City of London with the Budget measures. He drew attention to the compulsive meddling aspect of much of the Bill, and agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde that it might be sensible to consider a Standing Committee on the tax system that could make use of expert witnesses.
  The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) rightly stressed the importance of skills training. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London
  906
  and Westminster (Mr. Field) referred to the damage that could be done to enterprise and the dangers of the oil tax, while giving credit to the positive measures in the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) explained how the Budget might help Wales, and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) reviewed the different options that had been available to the Government for increasing tax revenues.
  The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) noted that the Budget was negative for small innovative companies, of which there are many in Scotland. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) pointed out that the aggregates tax issue has still not been adequately resolved and stressed the risks associated with additional North sea oil taxation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) drew attention to the major bias in favour of incorporation that the Bill introduces in relation to small businesses. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) gave a useful and balanced review of the Treasury Committee's conclusions and why it had reached them.
  At the beginning of the debate, the Chief Secretary said that through the Bill the Government aim to build a stronger enterprise culture. Clearly, that has not been the perception of business, and I do not believe that it is likely to be the main effect of the measures in the Budget and the Bill. Conservative Members and business welcome many specific modernising tax measures in the Bill, including, self-evidently, those that are helpful to business. Overall, however, the Budget is manifestly bad for business and has attracted near universal criticism and hostility from that quarter.
  The Budget will further reduce our international competitiveness. Over the past five years, we have fallen from ninth to 19th place in the league tables. Since 1997, business taxation has increased by £6 billion a year.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that results out today show that we have leapt up the international competitiveness league tables?
  Mr. Flight: I think that the Economic Secretary will find that the tables merely show that we have crept back to the levels at which we stood in 2000, and that we are still well down on 1997 levels. In any case, I assure her that if the Bill is enacted unamended we will drop considerably, because to the £6 billion per annum of additional taxes levied on business since 1997 it will add between £4 billion and £5 billion per annum of additional taxes through a mixture of higher national insurance contributions and the extra £1.1 billion raised by the Finance Bill. UK corporate taxation is 13.2 per cent. of gross domestic product, whereas it is 12.7 per cent. in Germany and 9.5 per cent. in the USA. The measures in the Budget will take the UK proportion considerably higher than 13.2 per cent.
  I want to make a specific point about encouraging entrepreneurship. As Ministers know, the limited nature of approved share option schemes and the complexities of the management incentive scheme for small businesses mean, in an overwhelming number of cases, that unapproved share option schemes have to be used to incentivise management. One of the effects of the Budget is that the tax rate will go up to more than 52 per cent.,

  907
  as individuals will not only pay additional national insurance contributions themselves, but, under legislation passed in the previous Parliament, will almost always also pay employers' NICs. The UK share option incentivisation situation is wholly unattractive, and it is particularly unfavourable by comparison with that of the United States.
  The Chancellor deliberately put the maximum spin on the corporation tax reduction measures for small business. The Red Book shows that they are worth approximately £265 million in the first year, increasing to about £350 million in the second year. It does not make the point that the national insurance contribution costs to small businesses are £1.3 billion. It is hardly surprising that the Federation of Small Businesses objects strenuously to the total package and is lobbying many Members of Parliament throughout the country.
  Some 455,000 incorporated small businesses will benefit from the lower corporation tax rates, but there are 3.5 billion unincorporated, self-employed business activities. They will have a 14 per cent. increase in their NIC charges, from 7 to 8 per cent. Why do the Government want to encourage sole traders to incorporate? That is a waste of money and anti-consumer. To put it crudely, there is less transparency in incorporation than in being a sole trader. It is also likely to lead to loss of tax revenue. I should like to know the Government's motivation for encouraging mass incorporation of small businesses.
  Hon. Members may have seen the Inland Revenue package for small businesses, complete with employer CD-ROMs and some 200 pages. Representatives of small businesses in my constituency that employ three, four or up to 10 people have thrown up their hands in horror. Again, the Federation of Small Businesses rightly objects to the complexity of PAYE administration that small businesses must now undertake.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) rightly criticised the length and complexity of the Bill, which does not even cover the main ingredients of the Budget. Although tax measures need to be kept up to date with changing business practice, it is crucial that the rate of change be manageable, especially for smaller businesses. It must be less complex for smaller businesses. The amount of time that people with a small business have to spend simply understanding everything is far too great when they should be concentrating on their business.
  Let us consider specific provisions in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham made clear, we have strong reservations about the 10 per cent. oil supplementary tax. As I said in an intervention, we would like to know how it will work out in relation to double taxation treaties, and whether it will be treated as corporation tax or whether it will be excluded and disadvantage multinationals with UK operations.
  The Bill includes several anti-avoidance measures, the motivation for which is understood and justified. However, many accounting firms have pointed out a danger of overkill and unfairness. That applies especially to the new rules for foreign exchange, which have a lack of definition for "unallowable purposes". I hope that we will sharpen that up in Committee.
  908
  The stamp duty proposals run the risk of unfair treatment for genuine transfers of business. The vehicle excise duty on cars that are not on the road constitutes yet another burden on loss-making farmers. The proposals for taxing company cars and fuel, when provided, contradict the incentives for companies that provide lower-emission vehicles. I hope that we shall also sort that out in Committee.
  The lower duty for one-man breweries carries the risk of helping them but damaging small regional breweries.
  Clause 88 is unnecessary. The Treasury needs to agree fair arrangements with the Crown territories in relation to the Primarolo proposals on EU unfair tax competition. It is unwise to add to the tax regime items that contribute uncertainty to multinationals that are based in this country. Doubtless we shall discuss that in more detail.
  Lynne Jones: The hon. Gentleman has talked a great deal about company taxation. Will he tell the House whether the Conservative party will oppose the decision to freeze personal tax allowances for non-pensioners?
  Mr. Flight: The hon. Lady may already be aware that that is one of the items that we have put down for discussion in Committee on the Floor of the House next week. We shall make clear our proposals then. We are highly critical in principle of abandoning the Rooker-Wise principles in the area of indexation of personal allowances.
  Nationally, the Budget and the Finance Bill are bad news for the British economy. Whatever the justification, they bring back "tax and spend" and the risk of returning to the path that led to the British economy becoming the sick man of Europe back in the 1960s and 1970s. Tax revenues have already increased by £100 billion per annum over the last five years and, if allowances are made for the changes in accounting, the share of GDP taken in taxation, according to the Red Book figures, will have gone up by 5 per cent. between 1997 and 2006—from approximately 35 to 40 per cent. Sadly, it is the view of most of the economists who have commented that therein lies the economic risk.
  We have heard a great deal in the debate about productivity. The growth in real GDP per employee has been only 1.3 per cent. per annum on average since 1997—the worst performance since the 1950s, and half the level achieved under the Major Government. The Government say that they are not assuming an improvement in productivity growth. Indeed, the Budget and the Finance Bill will weaken the supply side further, and—at risk of overstating this—my fear is that, as with reunited Germany, a major increase in taxation and Government spending will lead to a reduction in the sustainable rate of growth and to an increase in unemployment. Only last night, someone—not a member of the Conservative party—who heads one of the main charities in this country made the point to me, without being prompted, that that was precisely his reaction to the dangers opened up by the measures in the Budget.
  The scale of tax credits will reduce labour markets' ability to allocate employees to where they will be most productive. It will also discourage skills training and productivity growth, and—as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has pointed out—be an invitation to fiddling.

  909
  Economists, doctors and the public are rightly sceptical that the increase in NHS spending—if the Government are able to deliver it; so far, they have been unable to—will succeed in improving the delivery of health care without radical reform of the system. That is our essential message. There is a danger that the extra spending will be swallowed up by inflation costs as the Government are forced to increase public sector pay. Indeed, the Government's own figures show that they expect inflation to eat up most of the extra cash. Since 1999, public sector wages have increased by 4 per cent. more than those in the private sector. Nearly half the taxation collected is not going to the NHS; it is going on tax credits.
  I fear that the Government's real policy objective in increasing taxes is to bring ever more of the economy and ever more of people's lives under Government control and patronage. The biggest beneficiaries of this will be the public sector unions—the Labour party's paymasters.
  9.49 pm
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I understand from the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) that Her Majesty's Opposition have a new way of describing their performance in the House. It is "critical in principle, but no policies yet".
  I hope to deal with some of the issues raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), for Caerphilly (Mr. David), for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) and for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke). I also hope to deal with points made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and the hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), for Angus (Mr. Weir), for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and for Yeovil (Mr. Laws). [Interruption.]
  I am so sorry. I was trying so hard not to forget the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), and I intended to be suitably gentle in raising my slight disagreement with him on some points relating to North sea taxation.
  The Budget demonstrated the need to raise revenues for essential investment in public services. It also demonstrated that that would not deflect the Government from the path we had specified in previous years of encouraging enterprise, modernising the tax system and creating new opportunities for business. With the changes in national insurance, we have sought to achieve a balance that is as fair and equitable as possible—an approach that recognises the interconnected interests of business, the individual and the community in devoting the proper amount of investment to our health service.
  In a speech on 27 April, the president of the British Chambers of Commerce told that organisation:
  "Now any of us in business know that we get what we pay for. If we want a world class health service in the UK we need to pay more. The advance of medical science, new treatments, more advanced drugs mean costs are increasing.
  The question is not whether we need to pay more".
  910
  The British Chambers of Commerce recognised—as have my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Health—that by paying more we ensure that the service is modernised and delivers improved services.
  Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Dawn Primarolo: I will give way later. I should like to make some progress first.
  Sickness and loss of working days cost business employers some £10 billion or more a year, and cost society as a whole £23 billion. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mentioned the Budgets of Lord Howe of Aberavon. I remind the House that the first of those Budgets cut public expenditure by £4 billion, raised VAT to 15 per cent. and later to 17.5 per cent., froze child benefit and froze the real value of pensions. During their 18 years in office, the Conservatives also raised national insurance contributions from 6.5 per cent. to 10 per cent.
  The hon. Gentleman raised other issues, including one on which a number of speakers have concentrated. I refer to the complexity of the Bill, and its size. I must point out that 152 pages contain tax-relieving measures—I do not want to detain the House at this hour, but I would be happy to read out each clause—and 160 pages contain measures to simplify the tax system. More than 200 pages of legislation have been repealed. More than 300 pages—60 per cent. of the Bill—have been published in advance of the final decisions or have been consulted on. Therefore, the idea that there has not been consultation is simply ridiculous.
  Many hon. Members raised the issue of complexity and the need to have a responsive tax system. There were references to the tax law rewrite, and the importance of making our legislation simple and of ensuring that it is clear. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton complained that measures to help small brewers were too complex and a waste of time, but that a measure on film makers was too simple and therefore open to abuse. On the one hand, he complained about targeting—
  Mr. Edward Davey: May I put it on the record that I called for the film tax relief to be totally abolished?
  Dawn Primarolo: Indeed, the hon. Gentleman did. I understand that he is not a fan of the film industry, but he criticised a simple measure and a complex measure too.
  Loan relationships, derivative contracts and FOREX have been widely consulted on. Three different sets of reforms were brought together in the Bill. The research and development tax credit, a boost to R and D in industry, was widely consulted on before it was put into the Bill. Again, the measures on substantial shareholdings and intellectual property rights were widely consulted on before they were put into the Bill.
  Lynne Jones: I support the decision on R and D tax credits. I am sure that few hon. Members, particularly Labour Members, would disagree with the need to raise revenues for greater investment in the health service and other public services, but there is concern that the freezing of personal tax allowances adds to the complexity of the tax and benefit system, particularly for poor people,

  911
  and that raising employers' national insurance is a tax on jobs. Why have the Government concentrated on taxing jobs rather than taxing affluence?
  Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend will have heard the Chancellor explain that the decisions on national insurance were to ensure that all those who contribute to that insurance scheme for the national health service pay a fair share. I am at a bit of a loss to understand why she believes that the Government should shy away from giving money through tax credits to the very poorest in society. I am also surprised that she does not recognise that over 1 million jobs have been created in the economy while this Government have been in office.
  A number of hon. Members referred to North sea oil. I know that we will return to that not only on the Floor of the House, but in Committee, but the Government believe that the current North sea fiscal regime fails to strike the right balance between promoting investment and taking an adequate share of profits for the nation from that resource. We believe that introducing reliefs on capital investment alongside the reviews of royalty payments provide the necessary commitments to future investment.
  Malcolm Bruce: What signal does the Paymaster General think it sent the oil and gas industry when, having engaged in a two-year consultation about the appropriate tax regime, which the industry thought it had agreed with the Government, the Government unilaterally, without any notice, introduced a change that has shattered confidence in investment in the North sea?
  Dawn Primarolo: The presence of 100 per cent. capital allowances gives a clear steer to the industry of the Government's continuing commitment to investment in the North sea.
  A number of hon. Members referred to some of the anti-avoidance mechanisms that are dealt with in the Budget and in particular the question of overseas branches. I remind the House that the measure mainly affects branches in the banking system. Currently, there is no limit on debt attributed to UK operations, and large deductions for interest occur, leading to smaller profits in the UK. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has undertaken consultation on this issue. The UK's rules are separate from those of other member states such as France and Germany—they are even separate from those of the United States—and the proposals in the Budget bring our laws into line with those countries.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham also referred to clause 88, which deals with controlled foreign companies. It concerns the ability to take a reserve power to protect the United Kingdom, where necessary, against harmful tax practices. I should make a few points clear to the House. The clause will give the Treasury the reserve power, if necessary, to designate jurisdictions, whereby all controlled foreign companies would automatically fall within the tax charge in the United Kingdom. It is a regulating power that is subject to affirmative resolution procedure, so the House would be required to debate the jurisdictions named, and why they are named.
  912
  There is a precedent in that regard. In 1971, two double taxation treaties with dependent territories were terminated to defend the UK against tax abuse. In 1985, the then Conservative Government secured provisional powers against a unitary tax system that was an issue with California at the time. Those provisions are still on the statute book. There is therefore a considerable history of all Governments taking reserve powers to defend themselves.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West asked a rather complex question about consumable stores. I have the answer, but given the time available it would be better if I wrote to him with it. The hon. Member for Angus complained about the lack of measures for unincorporated companies. However, if he looks at the Budget and the Government's record, he will see that—in addition to further suggested reforms to the VAT system—the 40 per cent. first-year allowances, the 100 per cent. capital allowances, the over-indexation of the 10p starting rate, the cut in the basic rate of tax, the maximum for quarterly payments on pay-as-you-earn, and the discount for small employers paying tax credits are all about helping small, unincorporated companies. It is not a question of the Government making companies choose between incorporation or unincorporation—a point raised by the hon. Member for Fareham—but of demonstrating clearly the steps to help businesses, whether incorporated or unincorporated, and of allowing them to make that decision.
  Much of this evening's discussion has concentrated on the world competitiveness of the UK economy. Today, the Institute of Management Development released its annual competitiveness report. Not only does it show that the UK is now in 16th place; most importantly, on other indicators it demonstrates how the UK has fared better. The UK has the third most resilient economy, ahead of the USA and Germany, but behind Australia and Norway. It is the largest direct investor abroad, followed by France and the USA, and it attracts the third largest amount of inward investment.
  Mr. Edward Davey rose—
  Dawn Primarolo: The IMD states that the United Kingdom has better withstood the uncertainties of the global economy. The Government have put in place a comprehensive set of measures aimed at raising competitiveness and closing the UK's productivity gap with our major competitors.
  This is a Finance Bill that takes forward investment in our families and communities, in those who are disadvantaged, in enterprise, in the future growth of the British economy, and in the national health service. I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 360.

  Division No. 222]

  [10.4 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Baldry, Tony

  Amess, David

  Barker, Gregory

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Baron, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Bercow, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Bacon, Richard

  Blunt, Crispin

  913

  Boswell, Tim

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Brady, Graham

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Brazier, Julian

  Malins, Humfrey

  Burns, Simon

  Maples, John

  Burnside, David

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Butterfill, John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Cash, William

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Chope, Christopher

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Norman, Archie

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Conway, Derek

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Ottaway, Richard

  Cran, James

  Page, Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Paice, James

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Paterson, Owen

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Pickles, Eric

  Dodds, Nigel

  Prisk, Mark

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Randall, John

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fallon, Michael

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Flight, Howard

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Flook, Adrian

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ruffley, David

  Francois, Mark

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Garnier, Edward

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gibb, Nick

  Simmonds, Mark

  Gray, James

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Grayling, Chris

  Soames, Nicholas

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Greenway, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Spink, Bob

  Hammond, Philip

  Spring, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hayes, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Heald, Oliver

  Swire, Hugo

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Syms, Robert

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hendry, Charles

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hoban, Mark

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Taylor Sir Teddy

  Horam, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Turner Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tyrie Andrew

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Viggers Peter

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Walter, Robert

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Whittingdale, John

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Wilkinson, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Willetts, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Wilshire, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lidington, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Loughton, Tim

  Dr. Julian Lewis and

  Luff, Peter

  Mr. Desmond Swayne.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Austin, John

  Allan, Richard

  Baird, Vera

  Allen, Graham

  Banks, Tony

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Barnes, Harry

  Barrett, John

  Barron, Kevin

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Battle, John

  914

  Beard, Nigel

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Beggs, Roy

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  David, Wayne

  Bell, Stuart

  Davidson, Ian

  Benn, Hilary

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bennett, Andrew

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

  Benton, Joe

  Berry, Roger

  Dawson, Hilton

  Best, Harold

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Betts, Clive

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Blackman, Liz

  Dismore, Andrew

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Blizzard, Bob

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Doran, Frank

  Borrow, David

  Doughty, Sue

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Dowd, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Drew, David

  Breed, Colin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Brennan, Kevin

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Edwards, Huw

  Efford, Clive

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Ennis, Jeff

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Etherington, Bill

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Bryant, Chris

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Fisher, Mark

  Burden, Richard

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Burnett, John

  Flint, Caroline

  Burnham, Andy

  Flynn, Paul

  Burstow, Paul

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Cairns, David

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Gapes, Mike

  Gardiner, Barry

  Caplin, Ivor

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Casale, Roger

  Gerrard, Neil

  Caton, Martin

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Chaytor, David

  Goggins, Paul

  Chidgey, David

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Grogan, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clelland, David

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Harvey, Nick

  Coaker, Vernon

  Havard, Dai

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Healey, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Heath, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Corston, Jean

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cotter, Brian

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cousins, Jim

  Hermon, Lady

  Cox, Tom

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Cranston, Ross

  Hill, Keith

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hoey, Kate

  Cummings, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Hope, Phil

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Howells, Dr Kim

  915

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Miliband, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hurst, Alan

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Mole, Chris

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Illsley, Eric

  Moore, Michael

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Morgan, Julie

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Morley, Elliot

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mudie, George

  Jamieson, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Joyce, Eric

  O'Hara, Edward

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Olner, Bill

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Organ, Diana

  Keetch, Paul

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Kelly, Ruth

  Owen, Albert

  Kemp, Fraser

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pearson, Ian

  Kidney, David

  Picking, Anne

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pickthall, Colin

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Pike, Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Plaskitt, James

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Pond, Chris

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pound, Stephen

  Lamb, Norman

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Lammy, David

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Laws, David

  Price, Adam

  Laxton, Bob

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Leslie, Christopher

  Purchase, Ken

  Levitt, Tom

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rapson, Syd

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Linton, Martin

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lloyd, Tony

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lucas, Ian

  Rendel, David

  Luke, Iain

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Lyons, John

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  McCafferty, Chris

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Rooney, Terry

  MacDonald, Calum

  Ross, Ernie

  McDonnell, John

  Roy, Frank

  MacDougall, John

  Ruane, Chris

  McFall, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Salter, Martin

  McKechin, Ann

  Sanders, Adrian

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sawford, Phil

  McNulty, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McWalter, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mann, John

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marris, Rob

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Meale, Alan

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

  Merron, Gillian

  Soley, Clive

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Southworth, Helen

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  916

  Squire, Rachel

  Vaz, Keith

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Watson, Tom

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Watts, David

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Webb, Steve

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Weir, Michael

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Tami, Mark

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Willis, Phill

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Wishart, Pete

  Thurso, John

  Woolas Phil

  Timms, Stephen

  Worthington, Tony

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wray James

  Todd, Mark

  Wright Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Touhig, Don

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tyler, Paul

  Mr. John Heppell and

  Tynan, Bill

  Mr. Graham Stringer.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 358, Noes 141.

  Division No. 223]

  [10.19 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Allan, Richard

  Allen Graham

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Bryant, Chris

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Austin, John

  Burden, Richard

  Baird, Vera

  Burnett, John

  Banks, Tony

  Burnham, Andy

  Barnes, Harry

  Burstow, Paul

  Barrett, John

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Barron, Kevin

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Battle, John

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Beard, Nigel

  Cairns, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bell, Stuart

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Benn, Hilary

  Bennett, Andrew

  Caplin, Ivor

  Benton Joe

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Berry, Roger

  Casale, Roger

  Best Harold

  Caton, Martin

  Betts, Clive

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Chaytor, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Chidgey, David

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clapham, Michael

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Borrow, David

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Breed, Colin

  Brennan, Kevin

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  917

  Clelland, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Clwyd, Ann

  Havard, Dai

  Coaker, Vernon

  Healey, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heath, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hendrick, Mark

  Corston, Jean

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cotter, Brian

  Hermon, Lady

  Cousins, Jim

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Cox, Tom

  Hill, Keith

  Cranston, Ross

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hoey, Kate

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cummings, John

  Hope, Phil

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hurst, Alan

  David, Wayne

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Davidson, Ian

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Illsley, Eric

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

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jamieson, David

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Doughty, Sue

  Joyce, Eric

  Dowd, Jim

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Drew, David

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Edwards, Huw

  Keetch, Paul

  Efford, Clive

  Kelly, Ruth

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ennis, Jeff

  Khabra, Piara S

  Etherington, Bill

  Kidney, David

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Fisher, Mark

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Firtzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Flint, Caroline

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Flynn, Paul

  Lamb, Norman

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lammy, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Laws, David

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Laxton, Bob

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Foulkes, George

  Leslie, Christopher

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Levitt, Tom

  Galloway, George

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gapes, Mike

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Linton, Martin

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lloyd, Tony

  Gerrard, Neil

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lucas, Ian

  Gidley, Sandra

  Luke, Iain

  Goggins, Paul

  Lyons, John

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Grogan, John

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McDonnell, John

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  MacDougall, John

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McFall, John

  Hanson, David

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McIsaac, Shona

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McKechin, Ann

  918

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sawford, Phil

  McNulty, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McWalter, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mann, John

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marris, Rob

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Meale, Alan

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

  Merron, Gillian

  Soley, Clive

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Southworth, Helen

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Miliband, David

  Squire, Rachel

  Miller, Andrew

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mole, Chris

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Moore, Michael

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Morgan, Julie

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Morley, Elliot

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mudie, George

  Tami, Mark

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Thurso, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Timms, Stephen

  Olner, Bill

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Todd, Mark

  Organ, Diana

  Touhig, Don

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Owen, Albert

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pearson, Ian

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Picking, Anne

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tyler, Paul

  Pike, Peter

  Tynan, Bill

  Plaskitt, James

  Vaz, Keith

  Pond, Chris

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pound, Stephen

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Watson, Tom

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Watts, David

  Price, Adam

  Webb, Steve

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Weir, Michael

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Purchase, Ken

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Rapson, Syd

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Willis, Phil

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Winnick, David

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rendel, David

  Wishart, Pete

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Woolas, Phil

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wray, James

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ross, Ernie

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Roy, Frank

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Ruane, Chris

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Salter, Martin

  Mr. John Heppell and

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mr. Graham Stringer.

  919

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Leigh, Edward

  Amess, David

  Liddell—Grainger, Ian

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Lidington, David

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Loughton, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Luff, Peter

  Bacon, Richard

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Baldry, Tony

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Barker, Gregory

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Baron, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Bellingham, Henry

  Malins, Humfrey

  Bercow, John

  Maples, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Blunt, Crispin

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Boswell, Tim

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Brady, Graham

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Brazier, Julian

  Norman, Archie

  Burns, Simon

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Burnside, David

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Butterfill, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Cash, William

  Page, Richard

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Paice, James

  Paterson, Owen

  Chope, Christopher

  Pickles, Eric

  Clappison, James

  Prisk, Mark

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Randall, John

  Conway, Derek

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Cran, James

  Robathan, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Ruffley, David

  Evans, Nigel

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Fabricant, Michael

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Fallon, Michael

  Simmonds, Mark

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Flight, Howard

  Soames, Nicholas

  Flook, Adrian

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Francois, Mark

  Spink, Bob

  Garnier, Edward

  Spring, Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gray, James

  Steen, Anthony

  Grayling, Chris

  Swire, Hugo

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Syms, Robert

  Greenway, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hammond, Philip

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hayes, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Trend, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Hendry, Charles

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hoban, Mark

  Viggers, Peter

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Walter, Robert

  Horam, John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Watkinson, Angela

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Whittingdale, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Wiggin, Bill

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Willetts, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Wilshire, David

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Dr. Julian Lewis and

  Lansley, Andrew

  Mr. Desmond Swayne

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63(3) (Committal of Bills),
  That—
  After Second Reading of the Finance Bill, to move that—

  (1) Clauses 4, 19, 23, 26 to 29, 87 to 92, 131 and 134 and Schedules 1, 5 and 38 be committed to a Committee of the whole House;

  (2) the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee;

  (3) when the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

  Question agreed to.
  Committee tomorrow.

  FINANCE BILL
  Ordered,
  That, during the proceedings on the Finance Bill, the Standing Committee on the Bill shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
  10.33 pm
  Mr. Simon Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will shortly put motion No. 6 on the Order Paper to the House. It will establish a Joint Committee between this House and the other place to consider the Draft Communications Bill.
  As you will be aware, the usual channels in this place do not include the minority parties. We are shortly to establish a Committee that will have no representative from Wales even though Wales is the only part of the United Kingdom with a distinct broadcast environment. No representative of any minority party will be on the Committee. As the Leader of the House has made it clear that there will be more of these Joint Committees, is there anything in your remit to protect the interests of the minority parties from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland so that we at least obtain information about such motions coming before us and can liaise correctly with the Whips and with other Front-Bench spokesmen on such matters? We would then, at least, be informed about such motions. Is there any way tonight in which you can re-examine the motion to see whether further consideration needs to be given to the make-up of the Committee?
  Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I would like to put it on the record that minority parties, no matter how small in the House, should always get the protection of the Chair. I look forward to the appropriate Whip from the hon. Gentleman's party coming to see me. On the question of the Order Paper, the Speaker has no control over what is included in it; the Government have control over that, so the main point made by the hon. Gentleman is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you be kind enough to confirm that the motion is amendable if an amendment

  921
  is tabled in time? It would therefore be possible, if hon. Members wished, to table an amendment changing the composition of the Committee.
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's question was whether the motion was amendable if the amendment was tabled in time. If an amendment was tabled in time, that is the case; it would be examined and looked at.

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

    POLICE.
    That the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Visual Recording of Interviews) Order 2002, dated 11 th April 2002, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th April 2002. be approved.—[Mr. Woolas.]
    Question agreed to.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
  That this House, at its rising on Friday 24th May, do adjourn till Monday 10th June.—[Mr. Woolas.]
  Question agreed to.

  DRAFT COMMUNICATIONS BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE)
  Motion made,
  That the Lords Message of 29th April relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on any draft Communications Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown be now considered.
  922
  That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution relating to the said Joint Committee.
  That a Select Committee of six honourable Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider any such draft Communications Bill.
  That the Committee shall have power—

  (i) to send for persons, papers and records;

  (ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

  (iii) to report from time to time;

  (iv) to appoint specialist advisers;

  (v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom; and

  That Paul Farrelly, Mr. John Grogan, Nick Harvey, Miss Anne McIntosh, Anne Picking and Brian White be members of the Committee.—[Mr. Woolas.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION

  Occupied Territories
  10.36 pm
  Dr. Brian Iddon: I would like to present a petition on behalf of 1,900 of my constituents who condemn the illegal occupation of the west bank and the Gaza strip by the Israeli defence force.
  The petitioners request the Government to do everything in their power
  "to effect the withdrawal of the Israeli Defence Force from the occupied territories and support a sovereign Palestinian state";
  to end all arms sales to Israel immediately; and to aid
  "a UN led Commission of Enquiry (into the recent events in the Jenin camp)"
  with access to all areas in the occupied territories.
  To lie upon the Table.

Recycling
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Woolas.]
10.37 pm
Mr. Denis Murphy: I am grateful to the House for granting me this debate.
The issue of waste and the way in which we recycle and dispose of it is a major problem for every nation on earth. The current systems of waste disposal—landfill and incineration—are generating much public opposition. Damage to the environment is still the main reason for objections, but there is a growing realisation of the value to our planet of the materials that are being destroyed unnecessarily. There is a new awareness that our society faces a waste crisis which, quite rightly, has moved the issue of waste management from the margins to the centre of political debate. While much has been done since the 1970s to reduce both the pollution from waste and the amount of waste that we produce, the problems have continued to increase. Future projections are quite alarming.
Mr. Waller-Hunter, the director of the environment at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development stated in 1999:
"Despite nearly 30 years of environmental and waste policy efforts in OECD countries, the OECD-wide increase in waste generation is still in one-to-one proportion to economic growth."
A 40 per cent. increase in the gross domestic product since 1980 has been accompanied by a 40 per cent. increase in municipal waste during the same period. Consumer spending also follows those trends. According to colleagues in the Economics and Statistics Directorate, GDP is expected to rise between 70 per cent. and 100 per cent. by 2020. I would not like to imagine a world where municipal waste generation was also 70 to 100 per cent. higher than the already high current levels. What was initially conceived as a confined policy problem had, by the late 1990s, become a gathering environmental nightmare, which led to waste being named as one of the red light issues in the environment statement of 2001.
Of course, that doomsday scenario need not materialise. We can dramatically reduce those figures. Waste minimisation and recycling should play the main role in that reduction. I read recently of a waste strategy introduced in Halifax, Nova Scotia. In the late 1980s in the Halifax region of Nova Scotia, with a population of 350,000, there was intense public opposition to the expansion of a landfill site in Sackville. The joint councils proposed as an alternative an incinerator capable of dealing with 500 tonnes of waste per day. That, too, was strongly opposed.
The local action groups raised money and hired their own consultants from Seattle, who proposed a cheaper alternative plan for a recycling-led strategy. Subsequently, the council rejected the incinerator proposal and agreed the development of intensive recycling. The council also decided to involve the action groups in designing the scheme. Consensus was the order of the day, and the conclusion from the process was that no organic waste, toxic materials or recyclables should go to landfill. Anything going to landfill had to be stabilised first through composting. The landfill was renamed a residual disposal facility and it is notable for its complete lack of odour and birds.
924
The result is that from a level of 3 per cent. in 1997, Halifax has reached 60 per cent. recycling within three years. The civic groups estimate that the recycling rate will increase to 88 per cent. within 10 years. There is nothing to prevent us here in the United Kingdom from achieving those targets and working towards the ultimate goal of zero waste in 20 years.
We are fortunate to have in my constituency a company called SENREC, which stands for south-east Northumberland recycling. I had the pleasure of officially opening the plant three weeks ago. The site first opened in 1999 and recycled just a small amount of municipal waste. It was not until March 2001 that the three local councils in the area introduced a twin-bin collection scheme. From less than 1 per cent. being recycled 12 months ago, 11 per cent. is now being recycled and the local authorities are confident that the 25 per cent. target will be reached this year, well in advance of the Government's deadline.
I am pleased to say that in setting the plant up, there was extensive public consultation. The company and the councils worked closely with the community to ensure that it was involved in developments both on and off-site. For any recycling programme to be successful, it relies upon the co-operation of the local population. The residents of Wansbeck should be congratulated on the way in which they have embraced the concept of recycling.
I have only one minor complaint about the setting up of SENREC which concerns a small amount of financial assistance for which the company applied. It was advised to apply for a regional enterprise grant. Unfortunately, the person advising the company went off sick, causing a delay which meant that the operation was up and running before the grant was processed. It was not a lot of money but the company was entitled to it, and I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to give the matter favourable consideration.
The company's recent investment of £750,000 will enable the plant to increase its capacity from 12,000 tonnes to 35,000 tonnes per annum. That will enable all the local authorities in Northumberland to achieve their recycling targets well in advance of the Government deadline. Although that is good news and a huge step in the right direction, it represents only a small part of the facility's capacity. Proposals are being drawn up by the main company, SULO, Wansbeck district council and Blyth Valley borough council to form a public-private partnership to develop a refrigerator recycling plant on the site.
It is estimated the plant could deal with more than 100,000 fridges per annum. It would cover an area from southern Scotland to Cleveland, including Glasgow, Edinburgh, Carlisle, Newcastle upon Tyne and Middlesbrough—almost a quarter of the United Kingdom.
David Hamilton: In that case, would it not be appropriate for the same proposal to cover the whole of Scotland, so spreading that responsibility throughout Scotland and England?
Mr. Murphy: I am sure that that would be appropriate, and I shall deal with that point in a moment.
The proposals for the plant would include state of the art technology, tried and tested by SULO in Germany, where the parent company now operates a refrigerator

925
disposal plant. That would remove a huge burden from local authorities, which are currently storing fridges, or even transporting them to Germany for recycling.
The two local authorities have applied to DEFRA for a one-off grant of £330,000. That would represent their contribution to the capital costs of the plant and its first-year running costs. It is proposed that any profits from the recycling would be ring-fenced by the local authorities to assist in greater recycling and to develop further their respective waste strategies. The DEFRA grant will be an important component in setting up the new company. Again, I would appreciate my right hon. Friend's ministerial support in securing the funding.
It is possible, with the co-operation of local people, the planning authorities and the other agencies involved with such a proposal, to have a brand new state of the art refrigerator recycling plant up and running in under eight months from now. Again, I would urge the Minister to give the proposals his full support, once he is satisfied with them.
It has been estimated that we need at least four plants of that size to deal with the fridges that need to be disposed of in the United Kingdom. It is important therefore that we get this right. I am very confident that we have the right partnership and the right site.
The site itself is ideally placed to take refrigerators from the whole of the north of England and southern Scotland. The deep-water port of Blyth is situated just over a mile away. The railway line comes to within 50 m. requiring only the construction of a siding. The dual carriageway linking the Al and the A 19 runs past the site, giving it a perfect transport infrastructure. The site is designated for that type of use in the district council's local plan. It has the added advantage of being a brownfield site, situated on an old colliery.
We have a huge national problem with the disposal of refrigerators. The plant could be a demonstration project for best practice in the United Kingdom. It would provide employment, recover valuable materials and safely dispose of CFCs. I am confident that it will be a success, and it would be nice if my right hon. Friend could leave a space in his busy schedule to perform the opening ceremony.
There is also scope on the site to take recycling a stage further. Why should we wait until 2004 to comply with the white goods directive to recycle other electrical equipment? We have an opportunity immediately after the construction of the refrigerator recycling plant to build phase 3 and recycle all electrical equipment. We have demonstrated in Wansbeck that, if the political will exists and the correct partnerships are formed, local authorities can advance very quickly towards the modest targets set by our Government.
In conclusion, I ask that my right hon. Friend lend the full support of the Government to the scheme that I have outlined. I ask him to consider introducing a target of zero waste and to set a goal of 20 years to achieve it. I also ask him to allow the House at a later date the opportunity to debate the much wider issue involved.
10.48 pm
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I congratulate my lion. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) on securing this debate.
926
I certainly believe that the environment is one of the most important issues and that such issues are not discussed enough in the House. Waste management, in particular, is an issue of very great importance to the Government and the public.
My hon. Friend was absolutely right to refer to the worrying increase in the amount of waste. As he said, it is increasing at about 3 per cent. a year—roughly in line with economic growth. However, we as a nation need to decouple economic growth, which we want, from waste generation, driving it down from plus 3 per cent. a year towards nought and preferably a minus figure, but we are some way from doing that. But if we do carry on at 3 per cent. a year, in about 25 years the level of waste generated will double, as my hon. Friend said, and that, I think all parties will accept, is intolerable.
I was interested to hear my hon. Friend's views on recycling, and on developments in Wansbeck in particular. The EU landfill directive is driving the policy. It requires the level of municipal waste which goes to landfill in Britain, currently between 80 and 85 per cent.—one of the highest figures in the EU—to be reduced to scarcely more than a third of that by 2016, although there is a four-year leeway, but within 18 years at most. That is a huge shift away from landfill.
To help achieve those legal obligations, we have set some fairly tough, but, I am sure, achievable, national targets for recycling, which I hope are well understood by all hon. Members and local authorities, to double recycled waste within a three-year period by 2003–04 and to treble it within a five-year period by 2005–06. That is underpinned by statutory targets for each local authority.
As my hon. Friend said, increased recycling is absolutely essential. If one goes up the waste hierarchy, landfill is at the bottom; incineration may well have a role but is not popular; and recycling, re-use and recovery are unquestionably the best options. They are almost always the best environmental options, although the very best options are waste minimisation and not generating the waste in the first place. We have to incentivise that more than we have so far managed to do.
The system of tradeable landfill permits will also help local authorities to reduce landfilling by limiting the amount of biodegradable waste that can be disposed of in this way. That system will be enforced by financial sanctions.
I am aware that Wansbeck, and other parts of the north-east, have in the past had low recycling rates, and I would be the first to admit that Oldham in my constituency comes into that category too. Too often the recycling rate is as low as 1, 3 or 5 per cent., and such rates must be significantly increased. The national recycling rate when the Government took office in 1997 was about 6 per cent. and it is now about 11 per cent., but it has to reach 25 per cent. by 2005–06.
I understand that Wansbeck has made much progress. My hon. Friend said that the 11 per cent. recycling rate has been achieved and the 25 per cent. rate would be reached well in advance of the Government's target, and that is excellent news. He also talked about a waste management facility substantially increasing its throughput during the next few years.
My hon. Friend was certainly looking for a substantial grant—I wondered at what point there would be an appeal for money, and I did not have to wait long—for a fridge

927
recycling plant. He will not be surprised to hear that we need investment in plant which can remove CFCs, not just from the coolant but from the foam in fridges. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not have a sum of £330,000 for that purpose, but my colleagues and I will be glad to consider whether it is possible to find some alternative funding. I make no promise, but I am ready to consider it, whether in the form of regional development grants or whatever. My hon. Friend also mentioned the importance of recycling other electrical equipment in advance of the waste, electronic and electrical equipment directive.
As I have indicated, the Government are very much committed to increasing recycling. We are assisting local authorities through a variety of measures to develop new and existing initiatives. We understand that, as my hon. Friend said, recycling and sustainable waste management in general can involve short-term costs, especially while the necessary infrastructure and markets are being developed. That is why financial support to help local authorities with waste management has increased substantially in recent years.
The 2000 spending review included an annual increase in the relevant local authority spending block. By 2003–04, that spending block will have risen by £1.1 billion on the 2000–01 provision—a very substantial rise. It is for local authorities to decide what proportion of that spending block is directed at waste management and recycling projects. It is the Government's aim under the agenda on modernising local government to give that option and discretion to local authorities, but they must meet the statutory recycling targets.
We have also provided an additional ring-fenced pot of £140 million for local authority waste minimisation and recycling. Wansbeck district council and all local authorities in England can apply for grants from the fund for recycling projects. Applications for funding from that pot of money are being submitted at the moment, and grants will be distributed in August for first-year funding. Obviously, I cannot speak about specific bids.
Mr. Roy Beggs: While we continue to promote recycling, does the Minister agree that we need to fund the products that have been made through recycling and help them to become acceptable in the marketplace?
Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right; he has anticipated what I was going to say later, so in answer to his question, I shall say it now. There is very little point in increasing recycling unless there is a commercial purpose to which it can be put, which means either that there is an input into another industrial process or that what is produced can be sold on in the form of recycled products. There is little point in collecting recyclates and then having to landfill them because of the lack of a market. If recycling projects are to be successful, we must have a strong market for recycled products.
That is why last year we established the waste and resources action programme with £40 million of Government and devolved Administration funding. Its focus is on creating stable and efficient markets for recycled materials and its remit extends across the
928
industrial, commercial and municipal waste streams. WRAP, as it is called—it is one of those wonderful Whitehall acronyms—has already put together a consortium and awarded a grant that will increase the UK's newspaper reprocessing capacity by 300,000 tonnes a year. That is very important in the paper sector. It also intends to fund a project for the sorting and reprocessing of plastic, which is perhaps the most difficult material in this context. That should result in an additional 20,000 tonnes of plastic bottles a year being diverted from the waste stream.
I mentioned the £140 million ring-fenced fund. We consulted widely on proposals for the distribution of the fund. The consultation paper stressed that it is intended not as a replacement for funds that authorities should be spending anyway, but as an extra boost for recycling capacity. A proportion of the fund has been earmarked—I am very keen on this approach—to assist poorly performing authorities that require such a boost in order to get meaningful recycling off the ground. If we are going to get the bottom quarter of local authorities into the middle of the range, they will need support. I am determined that part of the fund will enable them to make that change and that there will be no possible complaint that they have not had full assistance in doing so. That is not a reward for failure, but recognition of the need for additional assistance. A proportion of funding is also earmarked for high-performing authorities, which will tackle the more difficult and resource-intensive waste streams, such as plastic. I mentioned that earlier. I hope and believe that recycling projects in those areas will pave the way for others and help determine the best way to tackle new waste streams.
Future funding for local authority waste management and recycling projects is a matter for this year's spending review. I cannot pre-empt its outcome; I hope that there will be an announcement before the summer. However, I know that central Government need to work closely with local authorities.
Let me use a buzzword that is nevertheless meaningful—partnership. Working in partnership is important, and a proportion of the £140 million fund has been set aside for such working between authorities. We encourage all local authorities to work together—that is often more effective than working separately—and with the community sector.
The community sector has an important role to play and a further proportion of the £140 million fund has been set aside to help to develop community sector initiatives. In addition, the new opportunities fund is distributing £39 million of lottery money for community sector waste re-use, recycling and composting projects across England. I urge all local authorities to engage with local groups in order to achieve their targets.
We recognise that local authorities may have to make large capital investments in recycling facilities. My hon. Friend made that clear. To help deal with that, £220 million of private finance initiative credits have been set aside for waste projects. Perhaps the project that my hon. Friend mentioned can be assisted in that way.
Some local authorities will have the opportunity to be closely involved in working up and bringing forward local projects that are supported by the aggregates levy sustainability fund and linking them with other initiatives. The fund provides nearly £30 million per year for England

929
for two years. The money will support projects that minimise the demand for primary aggregates, promote environmentally friendly aggregates extraction and transport, and reduce the local effects of aggregate extraction.
My hon. Friend referred at length to fridges. I recognise that the fridge issue is especially worrying to local authorities. The new rules that require the removal of chlorofluorocarbons from fridges are entirely consistent with the general drive to increase recycling rates. Up to the end of last year, many fridges were simply sent to landfill sites. That is not a sustainable form of disposal for an electrical white goods product such as a fridge. Under the new controls, all fridges will be sent to specialist facilities where harmful CFCs and other ozone depleters will be removed and the metal content recycled.
Central Government have worked closely with local authorities on the fridge issue. We have facilitated meetings—I have chaired many—between local authorities and processors to kick-start the development of treatment facilities. There is already one fridge recycling plant operating in the United Kingdom and several more should be up and running during the summer. By the end of June, we expect to be processing more than 50,000 fridges a month.
I am also working with retailers, the voluntary sector and the waste industry to encourage the re-use of fridges that can be restored to full working order. A proportion of them—perhaps 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of those that would be returned to retailers under the take-back scheme—can be refurbished and sold on. We want to maximise that if possible. On the question of money, we have already provided local authorities with additional
930
funding of £6 million, and I will be making an announcement on future funding—which I recognise is needed—soon.
Generally, I recognise that we still have a long way to go on recycling, and a long way to go to deliver the Government's vision of more sustainable waste management set out in our waste strategy 2000. I liked my hon. Friend's reference to zero waste. That is a meaningful concept, but we are a long way from it. It is ultimately the objective that we should have. That is why we have asked the Government's performance and innovation unit to review the strategy. Its findings will help to identify what extra instruments, changes to targets or regulations and, perhaps, additional funding may be required to ensure that we meet the EU landfill directive.
The direction of travel is clear, however. We must recycle a great deal more to meet the kinds of averages that have already been achieved in many EU countries, and we must landfill a great deal less. Our statutory targets must be met, and I am determined that they will be. I appreciate the inroads that local authorities have made, and the need to continue to make substantial progress in this area. They need to look to the full range of partnerships to deliver this vision—partnerships with the waste industry, other local authorities, the community, packaging compliance schemes—these are very important—and, of course, central Government.
I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to have this debate, which has been very useful. With imagination and drive, I am sure that we can achieve what needs to be done.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Eleven o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Sentence Review
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many applications he has received in the last 12 months via(a) the CPS, (b) members of the public and (c) hon. Members for the review of unduly lenient sentences; and how many in each category have (i) been rejected as out of time, (ii) been reviewed resulting in referral to the CPS, (iii) been reviewed resulting in referral to the courts and (iv) resulted in increased sentences. [51992]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General have the power (under sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998) to refer a sentence for certain categories of offences to the Court of Appeal for review, if it appears to be not merely lenient but unduly so.

  The law requires a reference to be lodged with the Court of Appeal within 28 days of the date of sentence. This period cannot be extended.

  During the last year (from 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) the Crown Prosecution Service sent 191 cases to the Law Officers for a review of the sentence as an unduly lenient sentence.

  In addition the Law Officers received similar applications in 17 cases from members of the public, and a further five cases from Members of Parliament. The Law Officers have also received three ULS referral cases from HM Customs and Excise.

  In all, during the relevant period, the Law Officers have received applications for a referral in 216 cases.

  Two (out of the 17) cases referred by members of the public were received beyond the 28-day time limit for referral and therefore could not be considered for a reference to the Court of Appeal.

  Of the 216 cases sent to the Law Officers, 110 were referred by the Law Officers to the Court of Appeal for a review of the sentence.

  According to our records, of these, to date, the Court of Appeal has heard 49 cases. Of the 49 cases heard, the results known to date indicate that the Court of Appeal granted leave in 45 cases and found the sentence to be unduly lenient in 44 cases. Despite concluding that a sentence is unduly lenient, the Court of Appeal can, in the circumstances of a particular case, apply its discretion and decide not to increase the sentence. In eight of the cases the Court of Appeal, applying its discretion decided not to increase the sentence. However it increased the sentence in 36 cases.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Free School Meals
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will rank each constituency in England by the percentage of school children eligible for free school meals. [51288]

  John Healey
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Litigation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many cases(a) her Department and (b) its agencies have defended in (i) industrial tribunals and (ii) the courts in each year since 1997; how many were concluded in their favour; and what the total cost to his Department of litigation was in each year. [41115]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department for Education and Skills (DfES), and its predecessor the Department for Education and Employment and the Employment Service, defended the following Employment Tribunals in the years from 1997:

  Cases

  Concluded in Department's favour

  1997

  3

  2

  1998

  4

  4

  1999

  1

  1

  2000

  —

  —

  2001

  —

  —

  2002

  —

  —

  The total cost to the Department of defending Employment Tribunal cases each year is not available.

  The DfES has no agencies.

  Relocation
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to relocate executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies under the remit of her Department to Scotland. [47949]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: This Department does not have any executive agencies. It has twelve non-executive non-departmental public bodies, one of which, the Student Loans Company, is located in Scotland. There are no plans to relocate any others.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the ILA providers against whom complaints which remain unresolved were(a) received by Capita and (b) passed to her Department, showing the number of complaints. [49880]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: Capita notified the Department of some 8,600 complaints relating to non-compliance with the ILA programme rules and ILA accounts being accessed without the ILA account holder's consent. Following a data cleansing exercise some 1,400 complaints have been removed relating to complaints cleared, correction of duplicate complaints

  635W
  received by, for example, telephone and letter and correction of other anomalies. The remaining 7,200 unresolved complaints relate to 658 registered learning providers. It is not possible to list the 656 Individual Learning Account (ILA) providers as this information is treated as commercially sensitive.

  The revised total complaints figure is some 17,100.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what responsibility her Department had to put the learndirect database into a form in which it could be used to accredit ILA providers; and when, and what, action has been taken to give effect to that responsibility. [49881]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: The learndirect database holds details of over 500,000 learning opportunities. The intention is to work towards a comprehensive coverage of all UK learning opportunities. To have their course included on the database providers simply apply via the learndirect website. There is no charge for this service. Inclusion on the database does not imply endorsement, quality assurance or accreditation of providers or their provision and there are no plans to change this approach.

  ILA providers were encouraged to list their courses on the learning opportunities website to ensure that Individual Learning Account holders could get information and advice about the learning that was available through learndirect. However, this did not constitute an ILA accreditation process. Full integration of the ILA and learndirect databases was not pursued because of the technical difficulties surrounding data incompatibility.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money was claimed in total for individual learning account payments of more than £200 in the period from September 2000 to 20 October 2000; how many claims for ILAs in that period were for amounts(a) less than £200, (b) in the range £201 to £500, (c) in the range £501 to £1,000 and (d) above £1,000; how many providers submitted individual claims for more than £1,000; and if she will make a statement. [51960]

  John Healey
  Between September 2000 and 20 October 2000, Individual Learning Account discounts totalling £18,389,766.66 were paid to learning providers who had claimed a discount of more than £200 for a single account holder. A further breakdown is provided that, in addition, includes the number of payments made to learning providers who had claimed a discount of less than £200 for a single account holder.

  Range

  Number of learning episodes

  Less than £200

  30,590

  £200 to £500

  1,390

  £501 to £1,000

  2,300

  More than £1,000

  6,558

  During the same period 164 learning providers submitted at least one claim of more than £1,000 for a single account holder.
  636W
  Following 20 October 2000 a number of appeals made in relation to the introduction of the cap on the per cent. discount were upheld. As a result, a further £3,459,209 was paid to learning providers.

  Asylum Seekers (Education)
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the availability of appropriate teaching staff in the proposed accommodation centres. [52101]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  No such assessment has yet been made as the sites of the proposed accommodation centres have not been decided by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  Rural Bus Routes
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will examine the case for subsidising councils to fund rural bus routes to schools and to help families furthest from schools. [50922]

  John Healey
  I am aware of the increasing costs for home to school transport faced by councils in rural areas. We are considering these costs in working up a new local education authority funding system which will be introduced in 2003–04.

  Pay Gap
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress the Government have made in closing the pay gap between teachers in schools and colleges. [51303]

  Mr. Timms
  Teachers in maintained schools are subject to national school teachers' pay and conditions. Further education sector colleges are run by independent corporations established under the Further Education and Higher Education Act 1992 and there is no national pay structure in place. Colleges are free to establish pay scales that meet their needs and can be agreed with their staff. This Government have acknowledged the historic funding gap between schools and FE and we have pledged to bring up levels of funding and ensure upward convergence over time. The Teaching Pay Initiative (TPI) budget is £311 million over the period 2001–04. This is to reward excellent teaching and is over and above any general pay rise. The additional investment we are making in the FE sector through normal core funding will also make an important contribution.

  Education Act
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which children are excluded from the exercise of a local authority's functions under section 14 of the Education Act 1996. [51800]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]: Section 14 of the Education Act 1996 (the 1996 Act) sets out the duty of the local education authority (LEA) to provide sufficient primary and secondary schools for its area. Schools must be sufficient in number, character and equipment to provide education for all pupils, suitable to their age, ability and aptitude and the different periods for which they may remain at school, including appropriate practical instruction and training.
  637W
  Section 14 does not impose any duty in respect of children under five. It allows an LEA to provide education for people over compulsory school age and under 19, including those from other areas.

  In exercising its functions under section 14, an LEA must have regard to the need to provide primary and secondary education in different schools, the need to secure special educational provision for pupils with special educational needs, and the expediency of securing boarding provision where necessary.

  The duty is general and does not give rise to a specific duty for an individual child or for a class of children.

  None of the LEA's duties under the 1996 Act applies in respect of any person who is in custody because of a court order or an order of recall made by the Secretary of State.

  Further Education (Incomplete Courses)
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of further education college students failed to complete their courses in the last two years. [52280]

  John Healey
  17 per cent. in both 1999–2000 and 1998–99.

  Students may take more than one qualification and complete a proportion of them, so the completion rate is calculated on the basis of qualifications. The figures relate to qualifications due for completion in these years in further education colleges in England.

  PFI/PPPs
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if she will make a statement on the criteria that were used to decide on the recent allocations of PFI/PPP to local authorities; [52325]

  (2) what bids were received from Gloucestershire local education authority for access to PFI/PPP funds in the recent round; and what discussions took place between her officials and local authority officers as a result, including debriefing on the bid. [52326]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: The Department issued guidance to all local education authorities on 31 July 2001 setting out the criteria against which all bids for capital allocations, including PFI credits, would be assessed. Paragraph 2.5.12 of that guidance sets out in some detail the specific criteria for PH bids.

  Gloucestershire local education authority submitted a bid for PFI funding in the recent round to replace three secondary schools. A meeting has been arranged between local authority officers and a senior official from the Schools Private Finance Team on 26 April 2002, at which debriefing on the unsuccessful bid will be given.

  School Funding
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills by what means she will ensure that the additional payments to primary and secondary schools, referred to in the Chancellor's Budget, reach the schools. [52363]
  638W
  John Healey
  All the direct funding for schools of which the Chancellor gave examples in his recent Budget speech goes to schools. It is for schools themselves to decide how this money is used within the context of standard guidance.

  The Chancellor announced additional capital funding of £85 million for schools and colleges in England in 2002–03, which will be delivered to schools as an additional allocation of the existing New Deal for Schools devolved formula capital programme. This money is allocated by formula with a fixed amount per school plus a fixed amount per pupil. It is channelled through local education authorities, which must allocate it to schools using the standard national formula, and may not retain any part of the grant. Schools can hold this grant in their own suitable bank accounts, on request.

  The Chancellor also included school standards grant in his examples of what typical schools will receive in 2002–03. This recurrent funding is again passported to schools through local education authorities, which must pass on 100 per cent. of the grant. Schools can use this grant for their priorities to improve educational attainment.

  Salaries
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent on salaries in schools in England in 2001–02. [52514]

  Mr. Timms
  The total teachers' pay bill for the financial year 2001–02 was £13,585 million and covered 421,300 qualified and unqualified full-time equivalent teachers in maintained schools in England. My Department does not record the cost of salaries of non-teaching staff in schools.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average annual salary is for(a) a newly qualified teacher in mainstream secondary schools in England and (b) a newly qualified lecturer in colleges and further education in England. [52586]

  Mr. Timms
  In the financial year 2001–02 the average pay of newly qualified teachers in maintained secondary schools in England and Wales was estimated to be £17,480.

  The Department does not collect data on average pay of new entrants to lecturing in Further Education colleges in England and Wales.

  Compensation Awards
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what has been the total amount of compensation awards against schools and colleges in each of the past five years. [52527]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department does not collect central records of compensation claims against schools and colleges.

  Teacher Training
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher training places have been available in each of the past 10 years. [52524]
  639W
  Mr. Timms
  The number of available places on courses of initial teacher training (ITT) at institutions in England is shown in the table.

  Number of available places to ITT in England, 1992–93 to 2001–02.

  Academic year

  Number of available places

  1992–93

  24,370

  1993–94

  27,905

  1994–95

  29,590

  1995–96

  29,115

  1996–97

  30,400

  1997–98

  30,550

  1998–99

  30,600

  1999–2000

  28,610

  2000–01

  29,715

  2001–02

  29,890

  Source: DfES

  The figures do not include places available through employment-based teacher training schemes.

  Sixth Forms and Colleges
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment her Department has made of the value to teachers(a) in further education colleges and (b) in schools with sixth forms of this year's pay proposals. [52563]

  Mr. Timms
  Sixth form teachers in schools have received a pay award of 3.5 per cent. with effect from 1 April, together with a new allowance of £33 in respect of the cost of the fee payable to the General Teaching Councils for England or Wales. Teachers below the maximum of the main pay scale may also receive assimilation increases when the scale is shortened from nine to six points on 1 September. The 2002–03 pay negotiations between the Association of Colleges and representative further education unions started on 16 April and are currently ongoing. I am unable to make an assessment of the value to further education teachers and lecturers at this time.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on teacher morale in(a) further education colleges and (b) schools with sixth forms. [52567]

  Mr. Timms
  We are taking action together with the School Teachers' Review Body and the school teacher employers and unions to address the problem of teacher workload; and pay for a good experienced classroom teacher who has passed the performance threshold has increased by nearly 30 per cent. since 1997. We take very seriously the need to raise the status and morale of the teaching profession. The assessment of further education staff morale is a matter for further education colleges, as independent employers, to address in consultation with the relevant unions, just as the terms and conditions for staff are a matter for colleges to determine in discussion with relevant unions. We acknowledge that colleges need help to ensure that they have the right arrangements to recruit, reward and retain excellent teachers. Over the period 2001–04, significant extra resources amounting to an additional £311 million have been made available to the further education sector to reward high calibre staff through our Teaching Pay Initiative.
  640W
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate her Department has made of the average number of hours per week worked by teachers in(a) further education colleges and (b) schools with sixth forms over the last 12 months. [52568]

  John Healey
  Information about hours worked is collected for the School Teachers Review Body by the Office for Manpower Economics. The latest information relates to March 2000. It showed average weekly hours as follows:

  Average weekly hours

  Head teachers

  60.8

  Deputy head teachers

  58.6

  Heads of department

  52.9

  Other teachers

  51.3

  These figures are based on diaries kept by teachers in a survey undertaken during a typical term-time week. Averages have not been estimated over 12 months, i.e. including school holidays.

  Comparable information is not available for teachers in further education.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of average class sizes in(a) further education colleges and (b) schools with sixth forms. [52569]

  John Healey
  In January 2001 in maintained secondary schools the average class sizes for National Curriculum Year Groups 12 and 13, for classes taught by one teacher, were 11.9 and 9.4 respectively.

  Information on class sizes in FE colleges is not available.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on(a) pay scales for teachers and (b) the allocation of funds per A-level student in (i) further education colleges and (ii) secondary schools with sixth forms. [52571]

  Mr. Timms
  Pay scales for schools teachers have increased by 3.5 per cent. with effect from 1 April, and a new allowance of £33 created in respect of the cost of the fee payable to the General Teaching Councils for England or Wales. The main pay scale now has nine points from £16,599 to £25,713. This will reduce to six points from £17,595 to £25,713 with effect from 1 September. The upper pay scale for post-threshold teachers has five points from £27,861 to £32,217. The pay spine for advanced skills teachers runs from £28,917 to £46,131. The pay spine for the leadership group runs from £30,531 to £85,671. Further education sector colleges are run by independent corporations established under the Further Education and Higher Education Act 1992 and there is no national pay structure in place. Colleges are free to establish pay scales that meet their needs and can be agreed with their staff. We continue to encourage employers and unions to work together to ensure that further education staff receive reasonable pay given the substantial extra funding that has been made available for the further education sector.

  The figures for school and college funding have not been calculated on the same basis and cannot therefore be used to make comparisons. The further education unit

  641W
  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. 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 further education sector colleges per year in England for 2001–02 is estimated to be £3,660.

  Press Subscriptions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if she will list the newspapers subscribed to(a) Monday to Saturday and (b) on Sunday by her Department, stating for each subscription (i) the number of copies taken, and (ii) the annual cost; [52817]

  (2) if she will list the magazines and periodicals subscribed to by her Department, stating for each subscription the (a) number of copies taken and (b) annual cost. [52818]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: This information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Digital Equipment
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many digital radios are owned by her Department for use in departmental buildings from which Ministers work; and what the(a) cost and (b) date of purchase of each radio was. [52850]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: The information requested could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Productivity Growth
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what performance indicators and targets she has established by which to assess her Department's contribution to the Government's objective of raising the UK's sustainable rate of productivity growth. [52933]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Education and Skills policy is central to achieving the Government's objective of raising the UK's sustainable rate of productivity growth. The Department's objectives and targets have a crucial role to play in achieving this.

  The DTI UK Competitiveness Indicators Report suggests that economic performance has been held back by poor basic skills and a shortage of intermediate-level qualifications. Our targets to raise the proportion of 19-year-olds achieving level 2 and level 3 qualifications will help to address this.

  By 2010, it is forecast that 80 per cent. of new jobs will be in higher level occupations, which are the ones graduates are most likely to fill. This illustrates the importance of our target to increase participation in higher education to 50 per cent. of 18 to 30-year-olds by 2010.

  Isolating the effect of education and skills policy on productivity is not straightforward, but productivity is strongly linked to earnings. We are committed to reducing
  642W
  the number of adults who have poor literacy or numeracy skills by 750,000 by 2004. The returns to better numeracy skills are estimated to be between 6 per cent. and 10 per cent. of earnings, and the returns to better literacy skills up to 6 per cent.

  In addition, there are significant social returns to post-compulsory academic and vocational qualifications. For example, the social rates of return to A levels and first degrees are estimated to be in the range of 14–21 per cent. and 8–10 per cent. respectively.

  Further Education (Achievement)
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of students in further education achieved the qualification for which they were studying in the last two years. [53060]

  John Healey
  Achievement rates for Further Education colleges in England are defined as the number of qualifications achieved as a proportion of the number of completed qualifications. The achievement rate in 1999–2000 was 73 per cent. of completed qualifications and the figure for 1998–99 was 71 per cent. Individual learners may be taking more than one qualification.

  Qualifications
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made in achieving national targets for Level 2 qualifications. [53088]

  John Healey
  We have already achieved our target for 2002 for 50 per cent. of pupils to achieve five or more GCSEs at grades A*-C (or equivalent). On current trends the target of 85 per cent. of 19-year- olds achieving a Level 2 qualification by 2002, set in 1998 with advice from the National Advisory Council for Education and Training Targets, is unlikely to be reached. We are working closely with the Learning and Skills Council to ensure maximum progress is being made by implementing specific local and innovative approaches to improving level 2 attainment. The Government are introducing a range of new initiatives which will increase participation in learning and attainment by young people post 16 including Education Maintenance Allowances, Connexions and the reforms to the 14–19 curriculum published in the Green Paper (14–19—Extending Opportunities; Raising Standards) though these will not impact by 2002.

  Jobcentre Plus
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of Jobcentre Plus's capacity to support her Department's policies to improve adult literacy and numeracy skills; and what steps she is taking in conjunction with the Department for Work and Pensions to increase the number of referrals from Jobcentre Plus to providers of basic learning skills. [53092]

  John Healey
  The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is working with us to implement "Skills for Life": our national strategy for improving adult literacy and numeracy skills. DWP has developed and increased Jobcentre Plus's capacity to do this, including, from April 2001, national screening for basic skills need of jobseekers and those on voluntary New Deals at the six month stage of unemployment. The impact of these
  643W
  changes is now being evaluated. In addition, we are examining the early results of six pilots, testing the effect of new approaches to improving the basic skills of those on jobseeker's allowance, which ran from September 2001 to March 2002. These measures, together with the continued training of Jobcentre Plus staff, will ensure that the number of referrals from Jobcentre Plus to providers of basic learning skills will continue to increase and that by working effectively across Government, we can together achieve our target of 750,000 adults with better basic skills by 2004.

  Sector Skills Development Agency
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she expects to announce the location for the Sector Skills Development Agency. [53337]

  John Healey
  I announced on 25 April that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has chosen the Callflex business park in the Dearne valley, south Yorkshire as the location for the Sector Skills Development Agency. The business park is a new office development in the Dearne valley enterprise zone that was developed as part of the Dearne valley regeneration strategy, in the wake of coal mine closures in the 1980s.

  Solar Panels
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what buildings owned by her Department have solar panels installed. [53497]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Buildings owned by my Department have no solar panels installed.

  Teachers
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many supply teachers are working in each local education authority area; and what percentage supply teachers comprise of the total number of teachers in each case; [53664]

  (2) pursuant to the publication of Teachers in Service and Teacher Vacancies, January 2002 (Provisional), if she will provide a breakdown by local education authority of each of the 12 tables. [53670]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is not yet available for every local education authority.

  Information on teachers and vacancies by local education authority will be published in the Teachers in England statistical volume in December 2002.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers have passed through the performance threshold, expressed as(a) a total and (b) a percentage of these eligible to do so. [53666]

  Mr. Timms
  About 194,000 maintained sector teachers in England were assessed as meeting the threshold standards in the first (2000) round of assessment. This is equivalent to about three quarters of those estimated to have been eligible to apply. The outcomes of the second (2001) round are still being analysed.
  644W
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers in each local education authority were teaching a subject for which they had no relevant subject qualifications on the date of the 2002 Teacher Census; and what percentage this was of the total number of teachers in post in that LEA area. [53668]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested was not collected in the 2002 Teacher Census. It will be collected at national level as part of the Secondary Schools Curriculum and Staffing Survey. Preparations for the next survey are in hand.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if she will provide a breakdown, by country of origin, of teachers in maintained schools in England without qualified teacher status and not on routes to QTS, giving the number of teachers from each country; [53669]

  (2) how many teachers without qualified teacher status in maintained schools in England came from (a) outside and (b) within the European economic area. [53671]

  Mr. Timms
  Information is not collected on country of origin of teachers.

  Maintained Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will place(a) documents, (b) circulars, (c) questionnaires and (d) consultation papers which DfEE or DES have circulated to maintained schools in the last five years in the Library. [53672]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department already places all legal documents and key policy documents in the Library, but not ephemeral items such as questionnaires. The Library has a full list of titles sent to schools following an answer given to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) on 6 March 2002.

  Electronic copies of all communications sent to schools since September 2001 are on the Internet at http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/Mailing, and most documents sent in the two years before then on the DIES website: http://www.dfes.gov.uk.

  Apprenticeships
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many modern apprenticeships were completed in the last 12 months, broken down by local learning and skill council area. [53091]

  John Healey
  The latest available information about numbers starting, and in-learning, on modern apprenticeships was published in a statistical first release, SFR 03/2002, on 22 March 2002. Numbers of completions by local learning and skills councils are not available.

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many vacant(a) deputy head teacher, (b) head teacher and (c) teacher posts existed in (i) primary schools, (ii) secondary schools and (iii) special schools in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [47505]
  645W
  Mr. Timms:
  [pursuant to his reply, 10 April 2002, c. 217W] The published figures were incorrect in that the figures for head teacher and classroom teacher vacancies in special schools were transposed for the years 1997 to 2000. The revised answer and tables have been placed in the Libraries.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Solar Panels
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Government buildings owned by his Department in the United Kingdom have solar panels installed. [51191]

  Mr. MacShane
  At present there are no solar panels installed on any of the buildings managed by the FCO in the United Kingdom. However their use is being investigated with other measures to reduce carbon emissions, as part of the FCO's energy strategy.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the action taken by the Iraqi Government via the International Court against the UK for the use of depleted uranium by the UK forces in Southern Iraq. [51637]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government are not aware of any legal case brought by Iraq against the UK for the use of depleted uranium during the Gulf War.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Iraqi Government concerning the attempted assassination of Dr. Baham Salih. [51636]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  None. It is not clear who was responsible for the assassination attempt on Dr. Barham Salih.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the stability of the(a) PUK and (b) KDP in Northern Iraq. [51635]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) have had de facto control of the three northern Iraqi governorates since the Iraqi administration withdrew in October 1991. There are no indications of instability within either of these two political parties. In recent years there has been increasing cooperation between the PUK and KDP, particularly in dealing with humanitarian issues such as the implementation of the "oil for food" programme and the return of internally displaced people to their home towns.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has collated about the attack sites and the weapons used by the Iraqi Government on northern Iraq. [51572]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 26 April 2002, Official Report, column 486W.

  Burma
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Burma about the persecution of Christians. [51757]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Respect for human rights, including freedom of religion, is a central part of UK and EU policy towards Burma. It is a consistent theme in all our activity, both bilaterally and in multilateral fora.

  The EU is currently working on a resolution on human rights in Burma at the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. As in previous years, it will cover instances of infringements and abuses of the right to practice religion freely.

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage the Government of Burma to improve their human rights record. [53601]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Respect for the rule of law is the only long-term guarantee for human rights in Burma. That is why we have been pressing so consistently for the return of constitutional rule in Burma. In the meantime, we continue to work with EU colleagues and through the United Nations to focus attention on Burma's human rights record. On 25 April the UN Commission on Human Rights adopted an EU sponsored resolution on the human rights situation in Burma.

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the establishment of a human rights commission in Afghanistan; and if he will name those appointed to the commission and their terms of reference. [51462]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Four standing working groups were established at the Afghan National Workshop on Human Rights held in Kabul on 9 March. These working groups will take forward the human rights provisions of the Bonn agreement, including the establishment of the independent Human Rights Commission, the investigation and monitoring of human rights abuses, and the provision of human rights education.

  The UN Assistance Mission to Afghanistan will continue to support the Interim Authority and the Human Rights Commission in their work. According to the UN Secretary General, a senior Human Rights Co-ordinator in the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General will serve as the principal contact for the independent Human Rights Commission. Staff, including Afghan nationals, will be equipped to perform the human rights aspects of their work, including the integration of rights-based and gender-sensitive approaches in the mission's relief and reconstruction activities.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements have been put in place to ensure women's participation in the regional ballot of the emergency loya jirga, which began on 15 April. [51464]
  647W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  On 31 March, the Special Commission for Convening the Emergency Loya Jirga announced the criteria for the selection of delegates for the Loya Jirga, including the arrangements for selection of candidates by regional ballot. These include a quota of seats reserved for women (100 out of the 1,051 seats being decided by regional ballot). A further 60 seats will be reserved for women out of the quotas reserved for members of the Interim Authority, refugees, members of civil society, internally displaced persons and professionals. This will give a total allocation of 160 out of 1,450 seats.

  The Loya Jirga process has received wide publicity in Afghanistan via radio and print media. The commission, whose 21 members include three women, are also travelling to the regions to explain the process and to encourage women to take part.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what part women will play in the new police force and national army being established in Afghanistan. [51463]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Reform of the security sector will he crucial in establishing security across Afghanistan. The process is at an early stage. While Afghan women are not members of the recently established First Battalion of the Afghan National Guard (trained by ISAF), we hope that Afghan women will play an important role in the security sector, including in the police, the judiciary and the armed forces.

  Tanzania
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the explanatory statement in the case of Mrs. L. Odedra, a constituent, was dispatched from Dar-es-Salaam Ref: ECR/419/00 104792. [51523]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is not our practice to disclose details of individual entry clearance cases in a public forum. I will write to my hon. Friend about this case in the next few days.

  Middle East
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from hon. Members concerning the situation in the middle east. [51553]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have received representations in recent weeks from many hon. Members on the situation in the middle east. 35 Members spoke in the debate on the middle east on 16 April alone. All expressed concern about the perilous situation in the region, and a desire to see a just and lasting political settlement between the parties.

  Criminal Damage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost has been of criminal damage to his Department's buildings in each of the last four years. [44845]
  648W
  Mr. MacShane
  It is not possible to provide figures for the cost of criminal damage to FCO buildings in each of the last four years for the following reasons:(a) Repairs to buildings following such incidents are funded from many different sources among them local budgets, command budgets, estates budgets and occasionally from Estate Strategy Unit's (SSU) budget. They would be in most cases identified as routine maintenance charges, rather than specifically connected to an incident of criminal damage in the accounts.
  (b) Many posts do not report minor incidents of criminal damage, but simply get on with the job of repair required, funding them from their local budget. Centrally held records within SSU are, therefore, only indicative of reported incidents, and do not accurately reflect the true picture.
  (c) Records of damage caused by criminal activity to HQ buildings in the UK are kept, but logged only as an incident in the normal incident logs. To identify the cost involved, after the fact, would involve trawling through all the incident logs, then checking jobs logged to the Facilities Management Helpdesk during the same period and finally comparing any related jobs with invoices, presented by the relevant service provider, from the same period. This is a highly labour intensive process, far in excess of the cost where it becomes disproportionate to the answer.

  Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when consulate officials last met(a) Mr. Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh and (b) members of his family; and if he will make a statement on recent developments in this case. [51795]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have sought information on Mr. Sheikh's detention, and are awaiting a response from the Pakistani authorities. If Mr. Sheikh is a dual UK/Pakistani national, the Pakistani authorities are not obliged to give us consular access or information. Mr. Sheikh's family have not made contact with our consular officials, although they are welcome to do so in either Pakistan or London.

  The case is currently before a Pakistani court and is still sub judice.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 15 March from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Tanveer Bibi. [51791]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton, on 16 April.

  Ascension Island
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received about democratic rights for those living on Ascension Island: and if he will make a statement. [52059]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A petition on taxation without representation was received by the FCO on 23 March. A response, indicating that there would be full consultation with the residents of Ascension Island over the form of democratic representation to be introduced, was sent by officials on 26 March.
  649W
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to introduce a democratically elected Government for those living on Ascension Island; and if he will make a statement. [52096]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Overseas Territories Constitutional Adviser visited Ascension in October last year. A summary of his recommendations appeared in the island's newspaper on 7 March. A further consultation document was issued by the Governor at a public meeting on 10 April. This outlined two options: a county/district model of government, or an Advisory Island Council with provision for regular consultation with St. Helena representatives on areas of mutual interest. We hope that a decision on the form of democratic representation, based on the preferred choice of the residents of Ascension Island, will be taken shortly.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what account he will take of British public opinion before reaching decisions on the future of Gibraltar. [52151]

  Peter Hain
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House on 18 March 2002,Official Report, column 29, it is manifestly in the interests of the people of Britain, Spain and Gibraltar to find a proper modus vivendi for the future. We have repeatedly made clear that it would be for the people of Gibraltar to decide in a referendum whether any proposals that emerge from the current Brussels Process talks should be implemented.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the heads of agreement reached between the UK and Spain on the issue of Gibraltar. [52594]

  Peter Hain
  No agreement has been reached with Spain. Talks under the Brussels Process are continuing. Our aim remains, if possible, to reach agreement by the summer. As I said in the House on 16 April 2002,Official Report, column 452, over the past months, the Government have kept Parliament fully informed. We will continue to do so.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on(a) the terms of reference and (b) the outcome of the meeting which took place on 23 April in Madrid between the Foreign Secretary, the Minister for Europe and representatives of the Spanish Government regarding the future status of Gibraltar. [53123]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 24 April 2002, Official Report, columns 294–95W, regarding the Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial meeting held in Valencia on 22 and 23 April.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will visit Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [54008]

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he or his Ministers will next meet the Spanish Foreign Minister to discuss Gibraltar. [53239]
  650W
  Mr. Straw
  I will visit Gibraltar on 3 May. Talks with the Spanish Government under the Brussels Process are continuing. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will be meeting his Spanish counterpart in London on 2 May.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when he or his Ministers last met the Spanish Foreign Minister and his Ministers to discuss Gibraltar; where this meeting took place; how much advance notice was given of it; what was discussed; and what conclusions were reached; [53241]

  (2) whether he estimates that he and his Spanish counterpart will meet their target of concluding a comprehensive agreement before the summer, as stated in paragraph 56 of the Barcelona Conclusions, in relation to shared sovereignty with Spain over Gibraltar. [53240]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 24 April 2002,Official Report, column 295–96W.

  Colombia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funding the UK(a) bilaterally and (b) through the European Union, (i) has contributed in the last five years and (ii) plans to contribute to (A) Plan Colombia and (B) the Andean Regional Initiative. [53674]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK has not contributed to either Plan Colombia or the Andean Regional Initiative, either bilaterally or through the European Union. There are no plans to do so.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what training the UK has(a) provided in the last five years and (b) plans to provide for Colombia's (i) customs officers, (ii) anti-narcotics police and (iii) other law enforcement personnel; and if he will make a statement. [53673]

  Mr. MacShane
  Colombia remains the world's principal source of cocaine. Its Government is committed to tackling the illicit drugs trade and the problems of crime and violence with which it is linked. We support the Colombian Government's commitment to tackling these areas and continue to provide assistance where we can.

  The British Government has provided a range of training to the Colombian Anti-Narcotics police, the Colombian Customs Department as well as other law enforcement personnel over the last five years. We have also provided funding for a Colombian NGO to train the police in areas such as community relations, conflict resolution and peace strategies.

  Wine
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much(a) UK produced wine and (b) wine produced by the rest of the world, broken down by value and volume, UK embassies world wide have provided in the last year. [R] [52613]
  651W
  Mr. MacShane
  Our Posts overseas are not required to keep such information and it could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much(a) UK produced wine and (b) wine produced by the rest of the world, broken down by value and volume, Government hospitality departments have provided in the last 12 months. [R] [52611]

  Mr. MacShane
  Government Hospitality Section of Conference and Visits Group provides hospitality services to all Government departments. In the financial year 2001–02 Government Hospitality used approximately 1,100 bottles of English and Welsh wines at a cost of around £4,600.

  During the same period Government Hospitality used approximately 6,850 bottles of wine from other countries. It is not possible to give a meaningful breakdown by value of these wines.

  Council of the European Union
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for May; and if he will list the major European Union events for the period between 31 May and October. [54007]

  Peter Hain
  The information is as follows:

  May 2002

  7 May—ECOFIN—Brussels

  1. Adoption of the Agenda

  2. Approval of the list of "A" items

  Month

  Venue

  Event

  June

  3

  Brussels

  Employment and Social Affairs Council

  3

  Brussels

  Eurogroup (Evening)

  4

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN

  6-8

  Brussels

  Foreign Affairs Council (ASEM Ministers)

  6-7

  Brussels

  Convention on the Future of Europe—Plenary Session

  6–7

  Brussels

  Industry and Energy Council

  10–11

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  10–11

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  11

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  13–14

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  17–18

  Brussels

  Transport and Telecoms Council

  17–18

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  21–22

  Seville

  European Council

  24

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council (Evening)

  24–25

  Brussels

  Convention on the Future of Europe—Plenary Session

  24–25

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  25

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN

  26

  Brussels

  Health Council

  July

  6

  Copenhagen

  ASEM Ministers for Finance

  11–12

  Brussels

  Convention on the Future of Europe—Plenary Session

  12

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  12–13

  Kolding

  Meeting of Employment and Social Policy Ministers (Informal)

  15–16

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  19

  Brussels

  Budget Meeting

  19–21

  Århus

  Environment Ministers meeting (Informal)

  22–23

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  652W

  3 Broad economic policy guidelines Commission recommendation

  4. Directives and reports in the financial services area

  Market Abuse

  Political agreement

  Financial holdings

  Political agreement

  5. (poss.) Taxation of energy Council conclusions

  6. Preliminary draft Community budget for 2003

  7. (poss.) Recasting of the Financial Regulation

  8. Other business

  2—Washington—EU/US Summit

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

  6—Brussels—Eurogroup (Evening)

  8—Toledo—EU/Canada Summit

  13—Brussels—General Affairs Council and Defence Ministers Meeting

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

  21—Brussels—Internal Market, Consumers and Tourism Council

  23—Brussels—Culture and Audio-visual Council

  23–24—Brussels—Convention on the Future of Europe—Plenary Session

  24–26—Palma de Mallorca—Environment Council (Ministerial Informal)

  27–28—Brussels—Agriculture Council

  30–Brussels—Development Council

  30—Brussels—Education and Youth Council

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

  The following are the principal events in the EU between 1 June and October 2002 (certain relevant events are also included: the list is based on the information available at the date of issue).
  653W

  Month

  Venue

  Event

  August

  31–1

  Elsinore

  Gymnich (Ministerial Informal)

  September

  6

  Brussels

  ASEM Economic Ministers Meeting

  6–8

  Copenhagen

  ECOFIN (Ministerial Informal)

  8–10

  Nyborg

  Agriculture Council (Ministerial Informal)

  12–13

  Copenhagen

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (Ministerial Informal)

  22–23

  Copenhagen

  ASEM Meeting

  23–24

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  26

  Brussels

  Internal Market, Consumer Affairs and Tourism Council

  27

  Tent

  ACP-EU Ministers Meeting

  30

  Brussels

  Research Council

  30–1

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  October

  3–4

  Brussels

  Transport and Telecommunications Council

  8

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  8

  Brussels

  Employment and Social Policy Council

  14

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  14–15

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs, and Civil Protection Council

  15–16

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  17

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  18–19

  Aalborg

  Internal Market, Consumer Affairs and Industry Meeting (Ministerial Informal)

  21–22

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  24–25

  Brussels

  European Council

  US Co-operation (International Appointments)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the US Government with regard to appointments to international bodies with specific reference to(a) the control of chemical weapons and (b) global warming. [52320]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had a discussion with the US Secretary of State Colin Powell on the position of the Director General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) at the end of March. There have been further discussions at official level on the matter.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs discussed the chairmanship of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) earlier this month in Washington. Since then the subject has been discussed on further occasions at official level with members of the US Administration.

  Bhutan
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received concerning the treatment of Christians in Bhutan; and if he will make a statement. [53074]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have received occasional NGO reports suggesting mistreatment of Christians in Bhutan, and have expressed our concern to the Bhutanese Government that the right to choose, declare, and practice one's religion should be respected.

  Chechnya
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations 654W
  he has made to the Russian authorities to register officially displaced Chechen persons in the republics neighbouring Chechnya. [53056]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have not made any recent representations to the Russian Government about this issue. The main focus of our dialogue has been the human rights situation in Chechnya. However, the UK has supported a Council of Europe project aimed at speeding up the registration process and the issue of identity cards to Chechen internally displaced persons.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made and to whom for an independent international inquiry into violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Chechnya. [53055]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK has not called for an international inquiry into allegations of human rights violations in Chechnya. Instead, we have, with our EU partners, pressed the Russian Government to establish, in accordance with recognised international standards, a national, broad-based and independent commission of inquiry to investigate alleged violations of human rights and breaches of international humanitarian law committed in the republic. We last raised this in mid-April at the 58th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.

  Digital Equipment
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [52857]
  655W
  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. We do not maintain central records of different types of radio receiver.

  Chemical Weapons
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has collated on the US Government's compliance with its obligations under the chemical weapons convention. [52056]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The United States is a state party to the chemical weapons convention. We have no reason to believe that it is not fully compliant with its obligations.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will support the efforts of the US Government to remove the Director General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons; and if he will make a statement. [52054]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on 24 April 2002,Official Report, column 294W.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to encourage the UN Security Council to back OPCW's bid to persuade the Iraqi Government to sign the chemical weapons convention. [52055]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  United Nations Security Council Resolution 1284 mandated the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to inspect, monitor and, if necessary, destroy Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and its ballistic missile systems. The first priority must be to ensure that UNMOVIC has access to Iraq to carry out its mandate and to uphold the authority of the United Nations.

  The UK fully supports OPCW's efforts to achieve universal ratification of the chemical weapons convention. Iraq could, of course, ratify CWC tomorrow, but this should not in any way undermine UNMOVIC's mandate.

WALES

  Department Contracts
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the 30 largest contracts awarded by his Department from(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999, (c) May 1999 to April 2000, (d) May 2000 to April 2001 and (e) May 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available, stating in each case the values of the contracts and the companies with which the contracts were placed. [43680]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer to the answer I gave the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) on 6 March 2002.Official Report, columns 365–66W.

  Better Quality Services Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of the services of his Department have not been reviewed under the better quality services initiative; and when they will be reviewed. [50310]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The better quality services programme was launched in 1998 as a means of delivering continuous improvements in the quality and effectiveness of Government activities and services. My Department was established on 1 July 1999 and has always sought to secure best value in contracts for services and will continue to do so.

  Recruitment
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many net additional staff his Department has recruited in each month since June 2001 at(a) executive officer and (b) administrative level. [52439]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since June 2001 this Department has taken on one additional staff member in November 2001 at executive officer level.

  Public-Private Partnerships
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the difference was between the price offered in reaching preferred bidder stage and the final contract price for PPP contracts let by his Department in each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [45681]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: My Department has entered no PPP contracts since it was created in July 1999.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the difference was between the price offered in reaching preferred bidder stage and the final contract price for the five largest PFI contracts let by his Department in each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [45683]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: My Department has entered no PFI contracts since it was created in July 1999.

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on energy costs incurred by his Department in each of the last 10 years. [42452]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department came into existence only on 1 July 1999. Its headquarters building is heated by the Whitehall Standby Distribution Service which, in the interests of efficiency, serves a number of buildings around Whitehall from a common source.

  Railways
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has made representations to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, regarding the full devolution of powers for the railways to the National Assembly for Wales. [32227]
  657W
  Mr. Touhig
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales nor myself have made any such representations. Current UK Government policy is that railway powers should remain a reserved matter, particularly since the majority of the main rail routes start or end in England.

PRIME MINISTER

  MOD Pensions
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness West (Mr. Kennedy), about MoD pensions, if he will make a statement on the letters the MoD have sent to MoD pensioners about arrangements for collecting their pensions in post offices; and how many such letters have been sent. [53079]

  The Prime Minister
  Letters were sent to some 6,700 recipients of occupational pensions from the armed forces in December last year informing them about revised arrangements, to be introduced from April 2002, for those who collected their pensions at Post. Offices. The revised arrangements offer a more secure system of payment, and are most cost-effective. Pensioners may continue to draw cash at Post Offices subject to having an account with the following banks—The Alliance and Leicester, Barclays, Cahoot, Lloyds TSB, Smile or the Co-Operative Bank. These new arrangements apply to armed forces occupational pensions and not to state pensions.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Coin-in, Coin-out Machines
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the value of transactions through coin-in, coin-out machines in(a) licensed and (b) unlicensed premises. [52402]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department itself has made no such assessment. However, information provided separately by Business in Sport and Leisure (BISL) and the British Amusement Catering Trades Association (BACTA) suggests that the total gross yield to legitimate operators of gaming machines is within the range of £1.3 billion to £1.5 billion per year; while the British Beer and Pub Association have estimated that the annual contribution to the pub economy from gaming machines is in the region of £0.5 billion to £0.6 billion.

  Lottery
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what progress she has made in the review of the procedures for reviewing the Lottery licence at the end of the prescribed licence period; [53004]

  (2) what progress she has made with the review of the procedure for the allocation of the Lottery licence. [53449]
  658W
  Mr. Caborn
  It is our intention to publish, before the summer recess, a consultation document inviting comments on options for changes to the current arrangements for licensing and regulating the National Lottery.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will provide a breakdown of amounts(a) allocated and (b) retained by each of the bodies allocating Lottery money in each of the last 12 months. [52985]

  Mr. Caborn
  This information is not readily available. I will, however, write to the hon. Member as soon as it has been collated, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Political Donations
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if Ministers in her Department are informed of donations to political parties made by any(a) individuals, (b) companies and (c) organisations (i) before and (ii) after a meeting with them. [52882]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: Ministers deal with the issues raised in meetings on their own merits and on a case by case basis. Ministers may be made aware of donations to political parties only if it is relevant to the matter being discussed and no central records are kept.

  Cultural Property
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the Government will accede to the UNESCO 1970 convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property. [53820]

  Dr. Howells
  I am very please to announce that the convention has today been published as Command Paper 5500 and laid together with an explanatory memorandum. We hope to achieve our aim of acceding to the convention by July.

  Voluntary Service
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the new award for voluntary service by groups in the community. [53821]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Queen's Golden Jubilee Award (for voluntary service by groups in the community) is announced today. This new, annual award is for groups and teams in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, rather than for individuals. The award will be given in recognition of outstanding voluntary activity that enhances and improves the quality of life and opportunity for others in the community. Groups must be nominated for consideration, for example by beneficiaries of their work, members of the public, representatives of public bodies, or other voluntary groups. Initial selection will be by local panels in the devolved Administrations and Government regions, with final selection being done centrally by the Queen's Golden Jubilee Award Committee. The award illustrates the importance the Queen places on community and voluntary service by dedicated and committed teams and groups, and provides
  659W
  an opportunity for communities to nominate and celebrate the invaluable contribution they make. Up to 200 awards will be given each year and the first ones will be announced on 2 June 2003. I have placed details in the Libraries of both Houses and will be writing to all hon. Members later this week enclosing further information.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Policing Arrangements
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans have been made for the review of Northern Ireland's policing arrangements that arose from the discussions at Weston Park; and when legislation will be introduced. [54009]

  Dr. John Reid
  Following discussions at Weston Park last year, the Government committed itself to a review of policing involving the Oversight Commissioner.

  We intend to introduce legislation as soon as practicable thereafter to amend or clarify certain provisions as set out in the implementation plan, to reflect more fully the Patten recommendations.

  Tom Constantine, the Oversight Commissioner, will, under his terms of reference, review and report on the progress made in implementing Patten on the basis of experience during the first year of the board's operation. The Government will draw on his detailed reports in implementing its stated objectives.

  Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary, Dan Crompton, will conduct his annual inspection of the PSNI during the summer. He will study the impact of the new arrangements on police effectiveness and will look at the security situation. He will report to me by the end of October.

  Where detailed administrative or legislative issues arise, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, as Minister with responsibility for policing, will be the main point of contact. She will take submissions from interested parties and invite the political parties to meetings.

  Independent Commissioner for Detained Terrorist Suspects
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to publish the ninth annual report of the Independent Commissioner for Detained Terrorist Suspects. [53944]

  Dr. John Reid
  I have today arranged for copies of Dr. Bill Norris' annual report for 2001 to be placed in the Library of both Houses.

  I welcome Dr. Norris' report and I will consider it carefully. I will respond as soon as possible.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many terrorist-related incidents, excluding murder, have taken place in Northern Ireland from 1969 to 10 April 1998 for which no person has been convicted; and if he will list each of them. [44326]
  660W
  Jane Kennedy
  The information is unable to be provided in the format requested. A table listing the number of shootings and bombing incidents and deaths as a result of the security situation since 1969 to 10 April 1998 has been placed in the Library. These cannot be linked to any subsequent charge or conviction. Statistics on paramilitary style attacks are only available from 1973.

  Scheduled Offences
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been convicted in Northern Ireland of scheduled offences committed before 10 April 1998 between(a)11 April 1998 to 31 December 1998, (b) 1 January 1999 to 31 December 1999, (c) 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000, (d) 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001 and (e) 1 January 2002 to present. [44328]

  Jane Kennedy
  There were 114 convictions for scheduled offences between 11 April 1998 and 31 December 1998, which had been committed before 10 April 1998. Statistics for subsequent years cannot be provided as the data on scheduled offences are unreliable. A new database is currently being developed for courts and criminal records data since 1999. This development work has been required due to a change in the way in which the PSNI collect and store this information. It is unlikely that this system will be available for use before early summer 2002.

  Compensation Agency
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will announce a decision on the future of the Compensation Agency. [53946]

  Dr. John Reid
  I have agreed that the executive agency status of the Compensation Agency should be continued until 31 March 2004. My decision follows the completion of Stage 1 of a quinquennial review which examined the past performance of the agency and the other organisational arrangements available for the administration of compensation schemes. Stage 2 of the review will look at ways of improving the delivery of services.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Communications
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs if she will list(a) consultation papers, (b) circulars and (c) forms issued to farmers by her Department in the past 12 months. [37532]

  Margaret Beckett
  As DEFRA was created in June 2001, twelve months have not elapsed yet. The Department lists its print production work using sequential alphanumeric job number/s. To transcribe and list these by title would incur a disproportionate cost.

  Our records show that since DEFRA was set up;

  (a) 38 consultation papers were issued.

  (b) 418 items categorised as circulars/information literature documents were produced.

  (c) 225 forms targeted at farmers and ancillary organisations were produced.

  661W

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what was the average level of compensation paid to farmers for(a) sheep, (b) cattle, (c) pigs and (d) other animals during the foot and mouth outbreak in (i) the UK, (ii) France, (iii) Ireland and (iv) the Netherlands; and if she will make a statement. [48558]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The information is as follows.
  (i) The average level of compensation paid to farmers for sheep, cattle, pigs and other animals during the foot and mouth outbreak in the UK is as follows:

  Type of livestock

  Average level of payment per animal (£)

  Sheep

  137.43

  Cattle

  970.88

  Pigs

  76.11

  Others

  454.93

  (ii) The average level of compensation paid to farmers for cattle in the Netherlands was £471 per animal. No other information for France, Ireland or the Netherlands is readily available.

  Voluntary Environmental Groups
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received from voluntary environmental groups concerning the availability of insurance cover. [51987]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]: At a recent meeting in Allendale my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs discussed with a representative from the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV) the availability of public liability cover. BTCV have also discussed the issue with my officials, and wrote to me on 17 April providing further information. We are considering whether there is any need for the Government to intervene, and shall respond shortly.

  Voluntary Service Councils
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to support the development of voluntary service councils in rural areas. [51986]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]: My Department does not support Councils for Voluntary Service directly. We provide support via the Countryside Agency to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (£90,000 for the 2001–01 financial year), and to Rural Community Councils (£2.984 million, plus staff costs for a community development worker in each county, for the same year). Rural Community Councils work closely with Councils for Voluntary Service in their area; indeed some operate as Councils for Voluntary Service. The National Association of Councils for Voluntary Service receives funding through the Active Communities Unit at the Home Office.

  We are exploring ways to strengthen the capacity of the voluntary and community sectors in rural areas. In particular the Cross-Cutting Review of the Role of the Voluntary Sector in Delivery of Public Services, as part
  662W
  of the current Spending Review, is examining the way in which the Government work with the voluntary sector, in urban as well as rural areas.

  Energy Crops
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to encourage the planting of energy crops; and if she will make a statement. [51990]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]: My Department has allocated support of £29 million to solid biomass crops through the Energy Crops Scheme, part of the England Rural Development Programme. Working with other Departments we are putting in place schemes with funding of £70 million which will develop markets for biomass, including purpose grown energy crops and material from forests, in heat, combined heat and power and electricity generation. We are also working closely with the Countryside Agency which has launched the Community Renewables Initiative to help local communities develop renewable energy projects. The Renewables Obligation permits the co-firing of energy crops with fossil fuels. In the Budget my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, confirmed the new duty rate for biodiesel set at 20 pence per litre below the rate for Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel. The Government are considering carefully the recommendation of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food that duty on biofuels should be reduced to the rates applied to other clean fuels. The Government have also welcomed the publication of the Energy Review by the Performance and Innovation Unit, which draws attention to the key role of renewable energy sources, including energy crops, in moving to a low carbon economy. The Government plan a public consultation on the key recommendations of the report leading to a White Paper in the autumn.

  Fly Tipping
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to increase the penalties for fly tipping. [51993]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]: The penalties available for those convicted of fly tipping are severe. For non-special waste, the maximum penalty for conviction in Crown Court is an unlimited fine and/or up to two years imprisonment. For special waste, the maximum prison sentence is increased to five years. There are no plans to raise these penalties further.

  In March 2000, the Sentencing Advisory Panel advised the Court of Appeal to issue a sentencing guideline on environmental offences, including flytipping. The court of Appeal has not yet issued such a guideline. In September 2000, the Magistrates' Association issued new Sentencing Guidelines for offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, including flytipping. The Government are now considering whether further awareness raising activities, in partnership with regulators would be helpful.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what
  663W
  arrangements she has made for the contaminated land exposure assessment and guidance to be made available to local authorities. [51985]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]: The Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) Model and associated guidance reports are available to local authorities, and any other interested parties, in hard copy from the Environment Agency Research & Development Dissemination Centre at Swindon. They are also available on the Department's website.

  Recycled Ash
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the health implications of using recycled ash in building materials. [18546]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: We have no evidence that the use of recycled incinerator bottom ash (IBA) in building materials is a significant source of human exposure to any substance, but we are undertaking research in order to make further quantitative estimates of exposures by this route.

  As regards exposure to dioxins, latest industry figures for IBA going into the construction industry indicate dioxin levels of less than 25ng/kg I-TEQ (1999 AEAT figures for normal urban soils in the UK show a mean of 28ng/kg I-TEQ). There is limited information available on the levels that may be found in other construction materials, and there are no recommended acceptable levels. However we are awaiting the results of independent research into the health and environmental implications of using IBA in construction (including roads and the manufacture of building blocks). Initial indications are that exposure to dioxins from roads constructed with material incorporating IBA is negligible.

  The Environment Agency is currently carrying out a full investigation into the destination of ash from incinerators, the environmental implications of its use and what steps may be needed in the light of these findings. The results of the investigation will be made public and any necessary action will be taken.

  Rio Earth Summit (Implementation)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps have been taken by the Government since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 to(a) set goals on environmental protection and (b) improve eco-efficiency and resource productivity relating to biodiversity issues; and what these (i) goals and (ii) improvements have been. [44340]

  Mr. Meacher
  Biodiversity: The UK Action Plan, was published in 1994 as the UK Government's strategy for implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity, signed at Rio as part of the Earth Summit in 1992. S74 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 placed a duty on Ministers and Government Departments to have regard to the purpose of conserving biological diversity in accordance with the Convention. 436 action plans have been published for individual priority species and habitat types. Each of the Action Plans contains goals and targets for the conservation, enhancement and sustainable management of these habitats and species within their eco-systems in the UK. A report, "Sustaining the variety 664W
  of life: 5 years of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan" was published by the UK Biodiversity Group in March 2001, and shows the progress that has been made. The 1994 UK Action Plan is in the House libraries and other relevant documentation and the March 2001 report can be found on www.ukbap.org.uk

  Plastic Bags
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans the Government have to introduce a levy on plastic shopping bags; [51601]

  (2) what recent steps her Department has taken to promote the (a) environmental and (b) economic advantages of re-using plastic bags to consumers and businesses. [51588]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 22 April 2002]: I am aware that the Irish Government have recently introduced a levy on plastic shopping bags. I have asked officials for a full assessment of the effects of this measure on litter and waste reduction and on consumer behaviour.

  Meanwhile, measures imposed under the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended) include cost incentives both to reduce the amount of packaging handled and to re-use packaging as far as possible.

  In addition, the Envirowise programme has undertaken a number of initiatives aimed at companies in the retail sector to encourage resource minimization and re-use.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if radioactive technetium is stored in the Sellafield B30 nuclear waste storage facility. [51963]

  Margaret Beckett
  The B30 facility at Sellafield was commissioned in the 1960s for interim storage of spent Magnox fuel in water-filled concrete ponds and the subsequent removal of cladding from the fuel prior to it being reprocessed. The facility no longer undertakes these operations and is now undergoing post-operational clean out. However, several hundred tonnes of spent fuel remain in the B30 storage ponds. The spent fuel contains a range of fission products including technetium-99.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received on the Sellafield MOX plant since the decision to endorse the go-ahead for the Sellafield MOX plant. [15574]

  Margaret Beckett
  Since the decision on 3 October that MOX manufacture was "justified", my Department has received approximately 70 oral or written representations from hon. Members or others in the UK, and from Governments or others abroad, seeking information or expressing concerns about the implications of the decision. This compares with around 7,000 responses to our final consultation on MOX held in July-August 2001.

  Home Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of pensioners in each region are eligible for HEES Plus, within the Warm Front programme; and how many HEES Plus grants have been made in each social services local authority area since the commencement of the scheme. [42955]

  Mr. Meacher
  At the time of the announcement of the New Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) it was estimated around 3.7 million households in England were eligible for New HEES Plus.

  In total, 172,102 HEES Plus Grants were awarded between June 2000 and the end of March 2002.

  The information requested could not be provided in the format requested without incurring disproportionate costs. I have previously written to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and placed data in the Library of the House in respect of grants awarded under the scheme, by postcode, from June 2000 to March 2001.

  Composting
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent steps have been taken by her Department to assess the risk of contamination from raw waste meat in composting; and if she will make a statement. [52389]

  Mr. Meacher
  DEFRA has commissioned an assessment to determine the risks to public, animal and plant health from the land spreading of kitchen/catering wastes after treatment by composting or in a biogas plant and to compare these with the risks from other disposal routes. This work should be completed in May and the results will be made public thereafter. A subsequent stage of the project will assess the risks from such treatment of slaughterhouse waste and other low-risk animal by-products.

  Air Quality
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to improve air quality standards; and what levels of emissions were recorded(a) in the Teesside region and (b) on average in England at the latest date for which figures are available. [52460]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's policies on air quality standards and objectives are set out in the air quality strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, published in January 2000. We consulted in September 2001 on proposals to tighten our policy objectives for three pollutants (carbon monoxide, benzene and particulate matter) and to introduce for the first time a policy objective for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

  The National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (available at www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual) records UK emissions to air of all key pollutants. 1999 is the latest year for which comprehensive data for both the UK and Teesside are available. Nationally, emissions of most air pollutants fell significantly between 1990 and 1999, as table 1 shows.
  666W

  Table 1: National emissions

  Pollutant>

  Emissions in 1990 (kilotonnes)

  Emissions in 1999 (kilotonnes)

  Percentage reduction

  Sulphur dioxide

  3754

  1187

  68

  Oxides of nitrogen

  2760

  1605

  42

  Particles (PM 10)

  305

  186

  39

  Carbon monoxide

  7160

  4760

  34

  Lead

  2.831

  0.55

  81

  Benzene

  54.42

  29.69

  45

  1,3 butadiene

  13.31

  6.17

  54

  Table 2 gives a summary of the emissions of key pollutions in Teeside in 1999.

  Table 2: Emissions in Teesside

  Pollutant

  Emissions in Teesside in 1999 (kilotonnes)

  Percentage of national total

  Sulphur dioxide

  36.997

  3.1

  Oxides of nitrogen

  39.639

  2.5

  Particles (PM 10)

  4.969

  2.7

  Carbon monoxide

  185.805

  3.9

  Lead

  0.018

  3.3

  Benzene

  0.657

  2.2

  1,3 butadiene

  0.231

  3.7

  Information on air quality levels in Teesside and the rest of the country is also available at www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual. This information is updated on an hourly basis. Figures for the year 2001 show that across the country as a whole the average number of days of moderate or poor air quality recorded by individual monitoring stations in urban areas of the UK was 21 days. This total has declined steadily over the last decade as measures to deliver cleaner air have started to take effect.

  There are four automatic air quality monitoring sites in Teesside affiliated to the national air quality monitoring network. These are at Billingham, Stockton-on-Tees, Redcar and Middlesbrough. The average number of days of moderate or poor air quality recorded in 2001 at each of these four sites was 16 days. This figure is lower than the national average.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she plans to increase the number of air quality monitoring stations in the Teesside region. [52459]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are currently four automatic and 11 non-automatic air quality monitoring stations in the Teesside region. These are part of the UK air quality monitoring networks. In addition, a non-automatic benzene monitor has recently been installed in Middlesbrough as part of the UK non-automatic hydrocarbon monitoring network. There are currently no plans to increase the number of automatic monitoring stations in the region. I am not aware of any plans to further increase the number of non-automatic stations in the region, which are the responsibility of local authorities.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire
  667W
  dated 18 March and 18 June concerning Mr. A. Tabbenor of Youlgrave in Derbyshire and his suckler cow premium. [7351]

  Mr. Morley
  A response was sent to the hon. Member's letters on 10 February 2002.

  I am sorry that the hon. Member's parliamentary question tabled in October was not answered when the response was sent.

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the boundary definition for areas of outstanding natural beauty was last reviewed; what plans she has to review the boundaries; and what plans the Government have to create further areas of outstanding natural beauty. [52239]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 empowers the Countryside Agency to designate an area in England as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) for the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area.

  Boundaries for AONBs are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The last boundary variation was made to Dedham Vale AONB on 19 September 1991. Establishing AONBs, and varying their boundaries, is the responsibility of the Countryside Agency. They have no plans to create any new AONBs or to vary the boundaries of any of the existing ones, except in so far as a National Park in the South Downs might replace two AONBs.

  Boundary reviews are very time consuming and expensive: So the Countryside Agency believes it is better to focus resources on managing existing AONBs, and maximising the opportunities offered by the new Countryside and Rights of Way Act, rather than pursuing minor variations. I support this view.

  Meat Imports (Argentina)
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many tonnes of meat were imported into the UK from Argentina during 2001. [51558]

  Mr. Morley
  The table shows the volume of meat imported into the United Kingdom from Argentina during 2001.

  Tonnes

  Beef

  2,276

  Beef preparations1

  9,595

  Sheep meat

  240

  Other meat and offal

  572

  Total

  12,683

  Mainly corned beef

  Note:

  The importation of fresh meat and offal of the bovine, ovine, caprine and porcine species and other biungulates (including game) into the United Kingdom from Argentina was banned from 14 March 2001 until 1 February 2002.

  Wildfowl
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures 668W
  her Department undertakes to control the population of wildfowl within London; and which species it monitors. [52258]

  Mr. Meacher
  All wild birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which implements the EC wild birds directive in Great Britain. Some species of wildfowl and waterfowl are listed under schedule 2 part I of the Act and can be killed or taken during the open season. Outside the open season birds, their eggs and nests can be controlled only under a licence issued by DEFRA where specific criteria are met.

  The Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS), which is jointly funded by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the British Trust for Ornithology and the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust monitors all species of non-breeding waterbirds in the UK. Greater London has a number of sites which support non-breeding waterbirds at levels of international and/or national significance.

  Canada Geese
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment her Department has made of the population of Canada geese within London. [52260]

  Mr. Meacher
  Although the Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS), which is jointly funded by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the British Trust for Ornithology and the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, monitors the non-breeding population of Canada geese no attempt to calculate the numbers present at all sites in the London area has been made.

  Fruit Growers
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how negotiations are progressing over the implementation of the environmental impact assessment regulations as they affect top fruit growers. [52596]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: DEFRA has not received any requests to enter into negotiations about the implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Uncultivated Land and Semi-natural Areas) Regulations 2001 as they affect top fruit growers.

  I have written to you to explain how orchards will be treated under the regulations, in response to the concerns raised in the hon. Gentleman's letter of 25 February 2002.

  Departmental Website
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when the application form for(a) the licence for the movement of sheep and goats for export, (b) the individual movement licence for the export of sheep and goats, (c) the licence to gather animals and (d) sole occupancy authority will be available in Welsh from the Government website; [52618]
  669W
  (2) when the information and guidance notes on (a) the cleansing and disinfection of commercial vehicles, (b) sole occupancy authority, (c) animal gatherings-veterinary compliance visit report and (d) animal gatherings-veterinary licensing visit report will be available in Welsh from the Government website. [52619]

  Mr. Morley
  Arrangements are in hand to make the application forms for licences to move sheep and goats available in Welsh from the website of the National Assembly for Wales. We expect these documents will be available in May 2002. The other documents referred to will be available in Welsh as soon as possible.

  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she plans to make it possible to download AMLS licences in Welsh from her Department's website; and if she will make a statement. [52617]

  Mr. Morley
  There are no plans to make it possible to download AMLS licences in Welsh from the DEFRA website. Welsh licences contain references applicable to the animal health legislation for Wales and are not valid for movements from premises in England. However there are links from the DEFRA website to the National Assembly for Wales' website which should enable Welsh licences to be downloaded, once they are on that website.

  Heathrow
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what recent discussions she has had with BAA regarding the prevention of water pollution from water draining from the proposed new terminal at Heathrow; [49018]

  (2) what recent discussions she has had with the Environment Agency regarding the cleanliness of water in the three holding reservoirs draining Heathrow airport; and when tests were last carried out: [49019]

  (3) what recent discussions she has had regarding the adequacy of the Mayfield Farm reedbed system to clean water draining from Heathrow airport. [49017]

  Mr. Meacher
  No recent discussions have been held. Surface water drainage and pollution control measures were considered at the Terminal 5 public inquiry and in the Inspector's report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions' decision to approve the development of Terminal 5 and his reasons were set out in full in his decision letter of 20 November 2001.

  The Environment Agency, as environmental regulator, will consider detailed plans for drainage from the site, including the holding reservoirs and capacity at Mayfield Farm sewage treatment works, when they are submitted by the British Airports Authority to the London borough of Hillingdon in due course. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's decision letter required that:
  "Development pursuant to this permission shall not begin on any part of the site until a scheme for the disposal of surface water has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in respect of that part."
  The condition specifies certain aspects to be included in the scheme, including the disposal of run-off contaminated by substances used for de-icing.

  Marine Stewardship Report
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to publish the Marine Stewardship report; and if she will make a statement. [53919]

  Margaret Beckett
  Tomorrow I will publish the first Marine Stewardship Report-Safeguarding Our Seas: A Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Development of our Marine Environment.

  The report sets out our vision for the marine environment—clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas. It is underpinned by the principles of sustainable development, integrated management, the conservation of biological diversity, robust science, the precautionary principle and stakeholder involvement.

  It outlines how we are adopting an ecosystem-based approach to marine management to better integrate marine protection objectives with sustainable social and economic goals. It covers the broad spectrum of policies that affect the marine environment. As well as describing past achievements and progress made, it contains new ideas and initiatives to turn our vision into reality.

  Our initiatives will improve marine conservation. We will undertake our proposed regional seas pilot scheme in the Irish Sea as the next stage of our review of Marine Nature Conservation. The report also commits us to consult later this year on the regulations to extend the Habitats and Birds Directives out to limit of jurisdiction of UK waters. It also contains a commitment to explore with other countries the case for, and feasibility of, marine protected areas on the high seas.

  The report announces our intention to review the regulations that affect development in coastal waters with a view to simplifying the regulatory system and protecting the marine environment. It also includes initiatives to explore the role of spatial planning for our seas at the regional level and provide a focal point to build on existing seabed mapping.

  In addition, Safeguarding Our Seas commits us to review current arrangements for marine scientific research to ensure that we have the proper science base to deliver our vision. It underlines our commitment to develop our framework for environmental monitoring and that we will produce an integrated assessment of our seas by 2004.

  The report emphasises the importance of involving stakeholders in making the decisions that affect them. It announces that we will hold a joint conference of the English, Scottish and Welsh coastal fora, together with stakeholders from Northern Ireland, on how to implement the EC Recommendation on Integrated Coastal Zone Management.

  Some policy matters covered in the report are the responsibility of the devolved Administrations. The Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales were integral to the preparation of the report. The Northern Ireland Executive has monitored progress of the report and will consider the implications for Northern Ireland.
  671W
  The report is a valuable first step in turning our vision into reality. I will place copies of the report in the Library of the House. It will also be available at: www.defra.gov.uk/environmentimarine/.

  Sustainable Development
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government(a) has taken and (b) plans to take to co-operate with developing countries on developing policies and processes for combating poverty and promoting sustainable development. [44359]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are committed to working in partnership with developing countries with large numbers of poor people to tackle poverty and promote sustainable development. It is essential that developing countries lead the process of reform and poverty reduction. My Department is seeking to focus the efforts of all international development agencies on supporting the development and implementation of nationally owned and led poverty reduction strategies.

  My Department also continues to work internationally to promote a more favourable environment for sustainable poverty reduction in developing countries. At both the World Trade Organisation Conference in Doha and the UN Financing for Development Conference in Monterey, agreement was reached on the nature of the partnership between developed and developing countries. Developing countries have committed to actions on good governance and the creation of a domestic enabling environment. Developed countries have committed to support these efforts with action on aid volume, aid effectiveness, building capacity, investment and competition. We are contributing to preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in August to help ensure better understanding of the links between poverty reduction and globalisation, and more effective management of environmental resources.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Engagements
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 982W, if he will publish an itemised list of his engagements since 8 October 2001. [49887]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: In addition to meetings relating to departmental, Cabinet and Cabinet Committee and parliamentary business, I have undertaken the following engagements:

  16 October
  Attend the European Council of Transport Ministers in Luxembourg.

  19 October
  Visit to Cambridge to discuss a range of departmental issues with representatives of regional interests.
  Visit to Atherstone, Warwickshire to discuss a range of departmental issues with representatives of regional interests.
  672W
  25 October
  Attend British Chamber of Commerce dinner to discuss transport and planning.

  26 October
  Visit to Exeter to discuss a range of departmental issues with representatives of the regional Assembly and local government.

  30 October
  Visit in London to discuss a range of departmental issues with representatives of local government in London.
  Visit in London to discuss with representatives from the south-east departmental issues.

  31 October
  Visit to Lewisham to discuss action needed to tackle the problem of abandoned cars.

  2 November
  Meeting to discuss regeneration and transport needs in Leigh and Wigan with local MPs, representatives of local authorities and business interests.

  5 November
  Speech to Foreign Press Association in London.

  6 November
  Address CBI conference, Birmingham.

  9 November
  Visit to Leeds to discuss a range of departmental issues with representatives of the regional Assembly and local government.
  Visit to Tyneside to discuss a range of departmental issues with representatives of the regional Assembly and local government.
  Received presentation and had discussions with the north-east Assembly in Newcastle on their proposals for regional government.

  15 November
  Dinner with train operating companies.

  16 November
  Visit to Derby to discuss a range of departmental issues with representatives of interests in the east midlands.
  Visit to Stretford to discuss a range of departmental issues with representatives of the north-west region.

  20 November
  Discussion on urban renewal at dinner organised by English partnerships with institutional investors.

  3 December
  Opening of Lemington Bridge in Newcastle.

  5 December
  Speech at Rail Passenger Council's conference.

  6 December
  Officially commence work on the extension of East London Line.

  11 December
  Attend Paddington Survivors Group Rail Summit.

  14 December
  Speech at UNISON conference on public services.

  18 January
  Speech to Local Government Association conference.

  23 January
  Speech at conference organised by Rail Magazine, London.

  6 February
  Speech to parliamentary Press Gallery.

  8 February
  Inspect improvement works to the London underground.

  27 February
  Presentations and speech at the AA awards dinner.
  673W
  13 March
  Visit to Camden Housing Development and Alexander House Hostel.

  18 March
  Speech to the National Coalfields conference, York.

  25 March
  Speech on planning, transport and other issues at the CBI president's dinner.

  28 March
  Visit to Belsize fire station, London.

  12 April
  Speech on regeneration and regional issues at the Core Cities Summit in Manchester.

  12 April
  Visit to Birkenhead to inspect work in progress on new ferry terminal and the regeneration of the riverside area.

  19 April
  Meeting with West Midlands Passenger Transport Authority at Birmingham to discuss regional transport issues.

  23 April
  Dinner with Regional Development Agency chairs to discuss a wide range of departmental issues.

  Building Projects
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the building projects under construction; and what coolant will be used for the building services water chilling system for such projects. [52048]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions currently has no significant building projects under construction. Wherever possible, building projects will be planned to avoid or minimise the use of air-conditioning. Where the need for air-conditioning and associated water chilling systems cannot be eliminated, the use of coolants that contribute to climate change will be avoided wherever this is safe, cost effective and technically feasible to do so.

  2004 GLA Elections
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards a freepost mailshot to London electors during the 2004 GLA elections. [52064]

  Mr. Byers
  The Greater London Returning Officer has recently consulted on a range of issues relating to the 2004 GLA elections including the delivery of election addresses. We are awaiting his recommendations.

  Infrastructure Charging Research
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what infrastructure charging research work his Department is funding. [52090]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]: No such work has been commissioned by my Department. The former Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions, commissioned the following work which is ongoing:

  Demonstration of Interoperable charging and telematics Systems (jointly with Leeds City Council and Highways Agency);

  674W

  Dynamic Freight Analysis;

  Economic geography of congestion charging;

  Trade-off between practical and optimal cordon congestion charging;

  Charging Appraisal Frameworks;

  Scheme Design and User Acceptance;

  Measuring social—spatial inclusion and exclusion in charging infrastructures.

  Fares Policy Review
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Strategic Rail Authority will report to his Department on its review of fares policy; and if he will make a statement. [52386]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No firm date has yet been decided by the Strategic Rail Authority.

  Network Railcards
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he has met the Association of Train Operating Companies since 7 June 2001 to discuss ATOC's proposals for changes to network railcards; if he will publish the minutes and list the actions arising from these meetings; and if he will make a statement. [52385]

  Mr. Jamieson
  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.

  Vehicle Fuels
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of vehicles registered to households in(a) Dumfries and Galloway, (b) Scotland and (c) the UK are (i) diesel engined, (ii) petrol engined and (iii) powered by other means. [52904]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The proportion of currently licensed vehicles registered to keepers with addresses in the Dumfries and Galloway unitary authority, Scotland and the United Kingdom powered by diesel, petrol or other means is shown in the table. The information for Great Britain is as at 30 September 2001; the information for Northern Ireland included in the United Kingdom total is as at 31 December 2001. The data include vehicles registered to companies and other entities as well as to individuals.

  Proportion of vehicles by propulsion method

  Percentage

  Area

  Diesel

  Petrol

  Other

  Dumfries and Galloway unitary authority

  32.7

  67.2

  0.1

  Scotland

  23.6

  76.3

  0.1

  United Kingdom

  21.9

  78.0

  0.1

  Merchant Fleet
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the size of the UK registered merchant fleet was in each of the last five years. [52906]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The size of the fleet in both numbers of ships and tonnage is given in the following table.

  UK registered fleet (all vessels)

  UK registered fleet (trading vessels)1

  As at 31 December

  Number of ships

  Gross tonnage (Thousand gt)

  Number of ships

  Gross tonnage (Thousand gt)

  1996

  1,506

  4,437

  381

  3,291

  1997

  1,498

  3,961

  369

  2,822

  1998

  1,498

  4,389

  378

  3,081

  1999

  1,456

  4,603

  379

  3,200

  2000

  1,518

  5,971

  417

  4,579

  2001

  1,527

  6,280

  427

  5,035

  1 'Trading' vessels are those which carry cargo or passengers for commercial purposes. The remainder of the fleet consists of vessels which are deemed to be 'non-trading'. Examples of non-trading vessels are dredgers and trawlers, but vessels which were constructed for 'trading' purposes can also come into this category, if they have been converted to a non-trading use, e.g. storage or a floating restaurant.

  Rail Safety
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many road barriers have been erected to increase safety and prevent road vehicles falling onto railway lines since the Selby crash; [52455]

  (2) what recent measures have been taken to ensure adequate protection and fencing at intersections between roads and railways. [52456]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Following the road/rail accident last year at Great Heck, near Selby, two working groups were set up, both of which published their reports on 25 February 2002. The Minister for Transport has accepted all 19 recommendations in the two reports and commended to highway authorities and rail infrastructure authorities the risk assessment framework prepared by the CSS (formerly County Surveyors Society) and Railtrack.

  The highway authorities and rail infrastructure authorities are working closely together and are examining the relevant sites on their networks to consider what, if any, mitigation measures might be appropriate to help prevent the incursion of vehicles on to the railway. Details of measures taken where roads meet, cross or run close to railways is not held centrally.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many road to rail accidents have been recorded in each year since 1997. [52458]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information held by the Health and Safety Executive on the number of incidents each year since 1997 where road vehicles have encroached on to railway lines is contained in the table.

  Incidents of road vehicles obstructing the line not at a level crossing

  Total

  1997–98

  23

  676W

  Incidents of road vehicles obstructing the line not at a level crossing

  Total

  1998–99

  33

  1999–2000

  28

  2000–01

  31

  Health and Safety Executive
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trasport, Local Government and the Regions what technical support contracts were awarded by the Health and Safety Executive between 1 January and 31 December 1998. [53071]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Construction Industry
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many self-certification schemes are in operation relating to the construction industry; and what the cost is of joining each scheme. [53001]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Five schemes are operating self-certification under the Building Regulations in England and Wales. These are for installers registered with the Council for Registered Gas Installers (CORGI); the Oil Firing Registration. Scheme run by the Oil Firing Technical Association for the Petroleum Industry (OFTEC); the Registration Scheme for Companies involved in the Installation and Maintenance of Domestic Solid Fuel Fired Equipment run by HETAS Ltd.; the Approved Contractor Person Scheme (Building Regulations) run by the Institute of Plumbing; and the Fenestration Self-Assessment Scheme run by FENSA Ltd.

  We understand the costs for joining each scheme are as follows:
  For an installer registered with CORGI the joining fee is £189, with an annual membership fee of £170 included in the first year's costs. Where the registered installer is a company, they can register additional employees at £49 per annum.
  For OFTEC the annual fee is £36 for an individual, and £20 for a company, payable five years in advance. An individual must be employed by an OFTEC registered firm.
  For HETAS the first year's fee is £150 for a firm followed by and annual membership fee of £100. For an individual the fee is £25 per annum. An individual must be employed by a HETAS registered firm.
  For the Institute of Plumbing we understand that there will be no separate charge for membership of the Approved Contractor Person Scheme, but it will be necessary to be a member of the Institute of Plumbing (IoP). There is an IoP joining fee of £30 and an annual membership fee of £50.50.
  For the Fenestration Self-Assessment Scheme all firms are required to pay a standard registration fee of £100, in addition to the vetting fee of £200. The vetting fee is not required, however, if the firm has already been vetted by another body which has standards comparable to FENSA. There is also an annual membership charge of £50 included in the first year's costs. Registered firms are required to purchase Approved Documents L1 and N which provide details on how to comply with the Building Regulations.
  677W
  These costs are exclusive of VAT. There will be additional associated fees for training and assessment for CORGI, HETAS and OFTEC and in some cases the IoP.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what criteria the Government used to determine who should he consulted regarding the Building (Amendment) Regulations 2002. [53002]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The criteria used were the same as normally followed when introducing a new initiative under the Building Regulations. There was an initial consultation with the Building Regulations Advisory Committee (BRAC), followed by two extensive written consultations with interested representative bodies. This was followed up by further consultation with BRAC, including the creation of a separate BRAC working party. There was final consultation on the detailed regulations with BRAC along with requests for comments from the schemes involved and individual experts.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who will he responsible for policing the self-certification schemes introduced by the Building (Amendment) Regulations 2002. [53000]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The scheme operators will be responsible for maintaining the standards necessary for their members to self-certify their work. Working with the scheme operators my Department will monitor the extent to which standards have been maintained and improved as a result of the self-certification initiative.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how the self-certification schemes introduced by the Building (Amendment) Regulations 2002 will operate in connection with the existing quality mark scheme. [53005]

  Dr. Whitehead
  In the consultation document 'Taking Forward Self-Certification Under the Building Regulations' we noted that the first stage of self-certification would develop a body of experience which it might be able to apply more widely when other bodies join. It was also noted that this process would "allow synergies to develop with the quality mark initiative …". We have started this process. In relation to the Fenestration Self-Assessment Scheme (FENSA), quality mark members are eligible for a discount on initial membership, and further discussions are currently taking place between the Department of Trade and Industry and FENSA over how the two schemes can work more closely together over the coming months. We will also be working with the other schemes during this first stage to see how they can work more closely with the quality mark initiative.

  Vehicle Numbers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many cars are registered on UK roads. [52981]

  Mr. Jamieson
  At the end of September 2001, 24,980,000 cars were registered to keepers in Great Britain. The latest figures for Northern Ireland relate to the end of December 2001, when the number of registered cars was 657,000.

  Network Rail
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether his Department has formally applied for state aid approval for Network Rail. [53220]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No. If the Network Rail bid is successful, any state aid to be provided to the company would be notified as and when appropriate.

  Alternative Road Fuels
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on the creation of a nationwide distribution network for liquid hydrogen for use in cars. [53219]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The discussion draft of the Government's "Powering Future Vehicles" strategy for supporting the shift to low-carbon vehicles and fuels identified the Government's important role in supporting the development of new fuel infrastructures, as the need and demand for them arose. Hydrogen looks likely to be a key component in the long-term shift to low-carbon transport. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget announced that the Government intended both to exempt hydrogen from fuel duty for a period to encourage its further development and early take-up, and also to provide enhanced capital allowances for installing hydrogen fuel infrastructure. Additionally, the Government is already providing financial support for the pilot trials of hydrogen fuel cell buses to be carried out next year by Transport for London, including the hydrogen refuelling station to support the initiative.

  Humber Bridge
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reasons the carriageway repair work being carried out on the Humber Bridge is not being carried out on a 24-hour basis. [52969]

  Mr. Spellar
  After consultation with the local environmental health department, the Humber Bridge Board has decided to limit repair work to regular working hours during the week in order to reduce noise levels for local residents and in order to reduce repair costs. Resurfacing repairs should be completed by September 2002.

  Peak District National Park
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) which organisations were consulted on the decision to change the policy on mineral working in the Peak District National Park in the Regional Planning Guidance for the east midlands (RPG8); [52603]

  (2) if he will define the exceptional circumstance set out in MPG6 for permission for mineral working as it applies to the Peak district; [52605]

  (3) if he will list the criteria against which decisions to permit mineral working in the Peak district will be taken; [52604]
  679W
  (4) on what date it was decided that the policy on mineral working in the Peak district national park set out in the Regional Planning Guidance for the east midlands (RPG8) should be changed; and when the public consultation period on the Regional Planning Guidance closed. [52602]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: Regional Planning Guidance for the east midlands was published on 24 January 2002, following consultation that ended on 15 June 2001. The final wording was intended to be more concise than earlier versions but did not change national planning policy guidance as it applies to mineral development in the Peak district. Thus paragraphs 70 and 71 of Minerals Planning Guidance Note 6 advise that major developments should not take place in national parks, such as the Peak district, save in exceptional circumstances. All minerals applications must be subject to the most rigorous examination, and should be demonstrated to be in the public interest before being allowed to proceed. The factors to be taken into account in considering minerals applications in such areas include:

  a) the need for the development in terms of national considerations of mineral supply; and the impact of permitting the development, or refusing it, on the local economy;

  b) whether alternative supplies can be made available at reasonable cost; and the scope for meeting the need in some other way;

  c) any detrimental effect of the proposals on the environment and landscape and the extent to which that should be moderated; and

  d) in the case of extensions to existing quarries, the extent to which the proposal would achieve an enhancement to the local landscape.

  Minerals policies in the RPG for the east midlands should be read within that context.

  Community Transport Groups
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his oral answer of 23 April 2002,Official Report, column 137, on community transport, by what means community transport groups in south Gloucestershire will have access to the longer term funding to which he referred. [52595]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his answer, we will carefully consider the general point of how far the benefits of three-year spending programmes can be extended to those bodies involved in community transport provision. More specifically, the position on funding for the south Gloucestershire projects currently supported under the Rural Bus Challenge scheme was described in my answers of Monday 4 February 2002, Official Report, column 743W, and Tuesday 29 January 2002, Official Report, column 202W.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the practice of local authorities writing off debts accrued by tenants in council-owned homes. [53102]

  Ms Keeble
  The Code of Accounting Practice applicable to local authorities requires them to write off debts known to be uncollectable. They are also required 680W
  to make financial provision for the proportion of current debts which in due course are likely to turn out to be uncollectable.

  Each local authority will, in addition, have procedures set out in their own financial regulations requiring proper authorisation for write offs.

  Local authorities are obliged to obtain best value in carrying out their housing management functions. Performance, including that on rent collection, is reported annually to the public in an authority's best value performance plan.

  Motorway Restrictions
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much of the A43 between the M40 and the MI is expected to be(a) wholly and (b) partially open by the weekend of 5 to 7 July; and if he will make a statement on action being taken to accelerate the works. [52255]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Tim Boswell, dated 30 April 2002:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the A43 between the M40 and the M1.
  To help traffic during the British Grand Prix weekend on Saturday 6th and Sunday 7th July, at least two lanes of the new Silverstone Bypass between the A413 junction and Dadford Road (the main access to the Circuit) will be available for access by coaches and official race traffic to and from the north.
  In addition, we aim to use existing A43 through Silverstone, to Towcester Bypass, as a one-way system as we did last year, making four lanes between the A413 junction and Dadford Road available to traffic to and from the north.
  The new Whitfield Turn and Brackley Hatch section is not sufficiently advanced to be used so we intend to make the existing A43 at Syresham and Pimlico one-way to ensure two-lane access to and from the Circuit from the south on Saturday 6th and Sunday 7th July.
  Traffic not intending to travel to the Grand Prix will be advised by signs, including the variable message signs on the motorway network, to use alternative routes. Traffic using the A43 between Brackley and Towcester, and not going to and from the Grand Prix, will be diverted.
  The improved A43 between the M40 and B4031 Barley Mow Roundabout will be operating as a two-lane dual carriageway. Junction 10 on the M40 should still be operating in its present form.
  Overall, there should be at least two lanes between MI and M40 available for traffic going to and from the Grand Prix.
  The existing lengths of dual carriageway between M I (Junction 15A) and the Abthorpe Road roundabout at Towcester and from the Barley Mow roundabout, around Brackley Bypass to Whitfield Turn are unaffected and will operate in their normal way.
  Ministers consider it important to support the Grand Prix as a showcase for an important UK industry whose success reflects positively on the UK. The Agency, the race organisers, the police and the contractor have successfully adopted a partnered approach to developing an accelerated programme to complete and use as much of the scheme as is required to allow a successful event.

  Public Service Agreements
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what
  681W
  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. [53638]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Dr. Whitehead), to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) on 29 April 2002,Official Report, column 557W.

  Disabled Access
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many stations have been refurbished to ensure full disabled persons' access to railway platforms; and how many more are planned for completion by the end of 2002. [53258]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: The information is not held centrally. However, the Strategic Rail Authority has recently written to all train operating companies requiring them to review their disabled peoples protection policies (DPPPs). As part of the review, operators will be required to identify the work that needs to be done at their stations to meet the standards of the authority's Code of Practice "Train and Station Services for Disabled Passengers". Following the review a programme of works to improve facilities for disabled passengers will be developed, part funded by the authority.

  Solar Panels
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what buildings owned by his Department have solar panels installed. [53494]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Temple Quay House (Bristol) has a solar panel, which is used to power an atrium display.

  E-Government
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress made by local government in the field of e-government. [53423]

  Dr. Whitehead
  All local authorities in England except one have demonstrated their commitment to e-government by preparing and submitting Implementing Electronic Government statements. These statements show how the local authority expects to implement local e-government to achieve the 2005 target and the progress made to date.

  An assessment by local authorities in July 2001 showed that, on average, 29 per cent. of services were available electronically at that time. This was expected to rise to 45 per cent. by March 2003, 73 per cent. by March 2004 and 100 per cent. by the end of 2005. New information on the electronic availability of local services will be available later this year.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received on the implications for road safety of the sale on the open market of the speed trap detector device, Snooper S5; and if he will make a statement. [53457]
  682W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The device in question is but one of a range of speed enforcement detection devices currently available in the UK. Successive Governments had believed such devices were banned under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, but a court ruling in 1998 found this was not the case. My Department have consulted on proposals to introduce secondary legislation to ban the use of these devices in motor vehicles, and is considering how to proceed.

  Health and Safety (Computers)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will take steps to amend the Health and Safety (Display Equipment) Regulations 1992 No. 2792 to ensure that the positioning of a computer monitor screen is at eye level when a user is sitting upright in front of it. [53302]

  Dr. Whitehead
  No. The minimum requirement for work stations, as set out in the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992, already require that display screens should suit the needs of the operator or user.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which NDPBs in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland are accountable to the Government. [52509]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  All public bodies in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are accountable, through their sponsoring Departments, to the relevant Minister, and therefore to Government. An index of public bodies is available in the Cabinet Office publication, 'Public Bodies 2001', a copy of which is held in the Library, and which is available on the internet.

  Devolved public bodies and their public appointments are the responsibility of the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales. The Northern Ireland Office retains responsibility for a number of public bodies post devolution.

SCOTLAND

  Dungavel Detention Centre
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the Home Office concerning Dungavel detention centre. [51350]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I have regular discussions with Home Office Ministers on a range of issue. The operation of Dungavel detention centre was considered at a recent meeting.

  Scottish Parliament
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she will publish the results of her consultation on the size of the Scottish Parliament. [51351]
  683W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The consultation period closed on 29 March. Over 230 responses were received from organisations and individuals from across Scotland. I will publish my conclusions in due course.

  Asbestosis Victims
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met the insurance industry to review progress in paying compensation to asbestosis victims in Scotland. [51352]

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in securing the payment of compensation to asbestosis victims in Scotland. [51364]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I had a meeting on 24 April with the Association of British Insurers, the Chester Street scheme administrators, Iron Trades Management Services (ITMS), the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, Thompsons and Eversheds. This was a further meeting to discuss the handling of claims against Chester Street Insurance Ltd.

  This was a productive meeting. ITMS produced statistics showing the progress of claims since I chaired a previous meeting on Chester Street on 6 March. These figures showed that, at the end of February, 10.6 per cent. of settled claims against insolvent policyholders had been paid. By 19 April, 40.7 per cent. of these claims had been paid.

  The meeting agreed that a service standard would be laid down covering claims against Chester Street where the original policyholder is insolvent. Under this service standard, acceptance documents will be sent to claimants' lawyers within 20 working days of a claim being agreed. Once claimants' lawyers return the acceptance documents, cheques will be released within five working days.

  Payments totalling over £3 million have now been made by the Association of British Insurers and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, who are the two bodies responsible for organising payments of claims where the policyholder is insolvent.

  I am determined to ensure that agreed claims against Chester Street are paid as quickly as possible. I will continue to monitor progress very carefully.

  Drug Dealers
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the action being taken to seize the assets of major drug dealers in Scotland. [51353]

  Mr. Foulkes
  In the year from 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002, 32 confiscation orders relating to the proceeds of drugs were secured in Scottish courts. The value of these orders totalled over £530,000.

  Regeneration
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether she has recently visited Glasgow to examine economic regeneration. [51354]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have visited a number of projects which contribute to the city's economic regeneration.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the performance of the manufacturing sector of the Scottish economy. [51355]

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on prospects for manufacturing industry in Scotland. [51365]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on 30 April 2002,Official Report, column 791.

  Post Offices
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on the future of post office services in Scotland. [51356]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on a wide range of matters. In addition, I have recently had meetings with the General Secretary of the Communication Workers' Union, executives from Consignia and the Chief Executive of PostComm, the industry regulator, to discuss Post Office services in Scotland.

  Poverty
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues and others on the impact of health spending on strategies for alleviating poverty. [51358]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with UK Ministers and Scottish Ministers on a wide range of issues. Expenditure on the NHS in Scotland, however, is a devolved matter.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made about the impact of the Budget upon child poverty in Scotland. [51363]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Budget showed our continued determination to tackle child poverty. Around 450,000 families in Scotland will benefit from the introduction of the new working tax credit and the new child tax credit in 2003. The children's allowance in income support and job seeker's allowance will increase by £3.50 a week from October 2002, benefiting around 113,000 workless families in Scotland. We have also announced improvements to the new deal for lone parents, which has already benefited almost 15,000 people in Scotland.

  The Department for Work and Pensions has also recently issued a consultation paper on "Measuring Child Poverty", to seek views on the best way of monitoring long-term progress.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action is being taken against employers in Scotland who are failing to pay the national minimum wage. [51359]
  685W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The Inland Revenue has two specialist teams, one based in Aberdeen, the other in East Kilbride, who are responsible for enforcing the national minimum wage in Scotland. In the period April 2001—March 2002 over 500 investigations have been conducted, recovering £322,068 in wage arrears for Scottish workers. The Government have also run national publicity campaigns to raise awareness and the Inland Revenue regularly hold information seminars.

  Defence Industry
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the Ministry of Defence about jobs in Scotland which are(a) directly and (b) indirectly related to the defence industry. [51360]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have had a number of recent discussions with my right. hon. Friend the Secretary of State on defence-related matters. Defence expenditure on equipment is estimated to support 6,000 jobs in Scottish businesses directly and a further 10,800 jobs indirectly.

  Disability Rights Commission
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action she is taking to promote the work of the Disability Rights Commission in Scotland. [51361]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I took part in a number of events last year publicising the role of the Disability Rights Commission in Scotland, including a seminar for Scottish MPs. In February, I held a reception in Edinburgh celebrating the commission's work which my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People co-hosted.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Rosemary McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make an assessment of the impact of the Budget on SMEs in Scotland. [51362]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My right hon. Friend's Budget statement announced a package of reforms to the business tax system which will benefit small and medium-sized enterprises and provide longer-term economic stability and a competitive business environment. The simplification of the VAT regime will be of benefit to 107,000 small businesses in Scotland. The small firms rate of corporation tax will be reduced from 20 per cent. to 19 per cent., benefiting some 33,000 small firms in Scotland and some will now pay no tax at all on the first £10,000 of their profits. Small businesses in Scotland with turnover up to £150,000 will also benefit from the removal of automatic VAT penalties.

  Future of Europe
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps she is taking to ensure Scotland's interests are represented in the debate on the future of Europe. [51366]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government wish to encourage a wide ranging public debate on the Future of Europe in advance of the Inter-Governmental Conference in 2004. I will continue to contribute to that debate. For example, on 15 April I spoke at a Spanish Government seminar in Segovia on the Future of Europe.
  686W
  I am also a member of the Cabinet Committee on European Policy and the Joint Ministerial Committee (Europe), as well as the Ministerial Committee on European Co-ordination (MINECOR). The Scottish Executive participates directly in the latter two committees. The Government are committed to involving and consulting the devolved administrations in line with the terms of the Concordat on the Coordination of EU Policy Issues.

  NHS (Border Areas)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health and Health Ministers from the devolved Administration to discuss NHS provision in border areas. [51367]

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health and Health Ministers from the Scottish Executive to discuss NHS provision in border areas. [51368]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with UK Ministers and Scottish Ministers on a wide range of issues. The most recent meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on Health took place on 22 October: my hon. Friend the Advocate General for Scotland represented the Scotland Office. The NHS in Scotland is a devolved matter.

  Rural Economy
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she will next visit Galloway and Upper Nithsdale to discuss the rural economy with representatives from the farming industry. [51369]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I visited Dumfries on two occasions last year to discuss the local rural economy. I have at present no plans to visit Galloway and Upper Nithsdale.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with rural businesses in Scotland regarding the aggregate tax. [51370]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I met with the British Aggregates Association on 21 January to discuss issues relating to the aggregates tax and rural business in Scotland.

  Scottish Interests
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what steps she is taking to represent Scottish interests to the Treasury in setting net borrowing attributable to Scotland; [46353]

  (2) what steps she is taking to represent Scottish interests to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Budget negotiations; [46354]

  (3) what steps she has taken to represent Scottish interests to the Treasury in agreeing levels of services and their associated expenditures for Scottish residents; [46350]

  (4) what steps she is taking to in represent Scottish interests to the Treasury in agreeing levels of tax on Scottish residents and enterprises; [46351]
  687W
  (5) what steps she is taking to represent Scottish interests to the Treasury on the Comprehensive Spending Review. [46352]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with Treasury Ministers on a wide range of issues affecting Scotland.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had about support for the textile industry in Scotland since 11 September. [53235]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I work closely with colleagues in the Department for Trade and Industry to ensure that the national strategy for the UK textile and clothing industry and DTI's support for British designers is implemented in Scotland. I also work closely with Scottish Executive Ministers in the delivery of their three-year strategy for Scottish textiles.

  I am delighted that Johnstons of Elgin have recently won a Queen's Award for Enterprise. This demonstrates what can be achieved in overseas markets with innovative and well-designed products. My aim is that all of our textile industry can achieve that kind of success.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive about the setting up of a public inquiry into the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [51357]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) on 14 March 2002,Official Report, column 1207W.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Devolution
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Advocate-General what devolution issues she has considered in respect of the Land Reform Bill and the European convention on human rights. [51315]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill completed stage 1 in the Scottish Parliament on 20 March. This means that the general principles of the Bill were approved. I examine all Bills of the Scottish Parliament as they progress and when a Bill is passed I decide whether to refer it to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. My consideration of this Bill will cover a variety of matters, including its human rights aspects.

  Legislation
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Advocate-General which Scottish Parliament Bills she has assessed since June 2001. [51314]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  My powers under the Scotland Act allow me to refer a Bill, or a provision of it, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for a decision as to the Bill's competence. Since June 2001 I have assessed 19 Bills passed by the Scottish 688W
  Parliament. Those Bills have included important legislation concerning community care and health; housing; the International Criminal Court and the water industry. I have arranged for a complete list to be placed in the Library.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Members' Cars
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals he has to discourage hon. Members from bringing their private vehicles into central London. [51338]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Traffic in London is the responsibility of the Mayor of London. I agree that we should all do our best to reduce vehicle usage in central London. Members have travel warrants and bicycle allowances to encourage us to leave our cars at home. I am sure my right hon. Friend would be interested in any suggestions the hon. Member has.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Public Information
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals he plans to put before the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons for improving the system of public information relating to proceedings in the House. [51341]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Much is already happening. Work is in hand on a redesign of the parliamentary website, and an experiment in web casting proceedings in the House and its Committees is underway. The new visitor cafeteria and interpretation centre is scheduled to open on Tuesday 14 May.

  My right hon. Friend will keep this work under review, and make further proposals as necessary.

  Select Committees
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the President of the Council what steps he is taking to take forward reform of Select Committees; and if he will make a statement. [51342]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

  Welsh Bills
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to bring forward proposals to provide more opportunities and mechanisms for the debate of Bills relating exclusively to Wales. [51343]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Standing Orders already provide a variety of mechanisms for debating Bills relating exclusively to Wales, and this Government will continue to bring forward such Bills.

  People's Peers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council when the House of Lords Appointments Commission is to take its roadshow around the country to solicit applications from aspiring people's peers. [51340]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I understand that the Commission has yet to finalise plans for its forthcoming programme of regional visits.

  Modernisation
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement on his proposals for reform of the sitting times of the House and the parliamentary calendar. [51332]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons is currently considering the proposals contained in my memorandum of December 2001. (HC 440).

  I would like to see changes to our sitting patterns which would fit in better with the needs of modern life, and increase the House's ability to hold the Government to account.

  Carry-over Bills
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement on his proposals for carrying over Bills from one Session to another. [51345]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My right hon. Friend's proposals are contained in his memorandum to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons published in December 2001 as HC440.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Child Care Facilities
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission if he will make a statement on the progress being made to improve child care facilities on the parliamentary estate. [51344]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The House of Commons Commission is committed to family-friendly employment policies, and provides child care vouchers for staff with young children and a subsidised summer holiday play scheme. The Director of Finance and Administration has recently commissioned a consultancy study of options for child care in the parliamentary estate and in the Westminster area. I understand that the results of the study are expected in May.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Guardians Ad Litem
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what evaluation her Department has made of the effectiveness of the recent reforms of the guardians ad litem. [51324]
  690W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The functions of the guardians ad litem and reporting officers, the Family Court Welfare Service and the Children's Divisions of the Official Solicitor were combined to form the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service in April 2001.

  CAFCASS is subject to independent inspection by HM Magistrates Court Service Inspectorate (MCSI). Its first report was published on 19 March and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  Citizenship
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps the Department is taking to involve magistrates in promoting citizenship initiatives for young people. [51327]

  Mr. Wills
  The Department, over many years, has funded the outreach work of the Magistrates Association, which grew out of its schools project. Last year we provided just over £50,000 for this work. In addition my Department contributes £20,000 towards the cost of the annual Magistrates Court Mock Trial Competition, which is organised by the Citizenship Foundation in conjunction with the Magistrates Association.

  Judges' Lodgings
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the current cost of judges' lodgings. [51328]

  Mr. Wills
  The hon. Member will be aware that the Lord Chancellor has decided that any changes to the means of accommodating High Court Judges while on circuit will only take place in the context of relevant recommendations of Lord Justice Auld's report. Consultation on the report has closed and Ministers are currently considering the comments received prior to publication of a White Paper.

  In the meantime, administrative improvements in the existing lodgings' network are being implemented.

  Family Support Services
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans she has for CAFCASS to provide a bilingual service in Wales. [51329]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  CAFCASS plan to appoint a Welsh language officer in Wales this year, to provide translation services and support implementation of CAFCASS's diversity strategy in Wales and their Welsh Language Scheme.

  Police Time
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the results of co-operation between the courts and the police to ensure efficient use of police time during court hearings. [51330]

  Mr. Wills
  Co-operation on this aspect of inter-agency work takes place in a number of ways. HM Magistrates Courts Service Inspectorate, jointly with the Inspectorates for the police and Crown Prosecution Service, are
  691W
  undertaking a joint thematic inspection of listing. Fieldwork has commenced and their report is expected in the autumn.

  Sir David O'Dowd is chairing the Reducing Bureaucracy Task Force that has been set up to identify and reduce bureaucratic burdens in the criminal justice system and in particular on police officers. This includes work on the role of the courts. Fieldwork through this task force has commenced and a final report is due in July. There is close co-operation between the Inspectorates and the work being done by the O'Dowd task force.

  In 2001, the national Trials Issues Group issued guidance to all criminal justice areas, pointing out the huge cost implications of calling officers to court on their rest days, or at the end of a late turn of duty, etc. The advice raised awareness of the cost and manpower implications of court listings and it is hoped that the good practice advice contained therein has led to further improvements. At a local level, there is on-going consideration in relation to the efficient use of all court users' time through local Trials Issues Group meetings and the Area Criminal Justice Strategy Committees.

  The Crown court are currently running the Xhibit pilot project in Chelmsford which is look to use IT better to inform parties to a case on how the case is progressing. This includes sending electronic messages from the courtroom to pagers and mobile phones and means that witnesses do not have to wait in the court building to give evidence but can be contacted as and when needed. Although not specifically targeted at police officers, it allows the officers to remain in their station (if it is relatively close to the court building) and carry on with other duties while they are waiting.

  In relation to "cracked and ineffective" trials in the Crown court, a study commenced in Manchester on 16 April in conjunction with other agencies and is looking at the best ways to avoid unnecessary attendance at court by the parties and their witnesses. In the magistrates courts, a new data collection exercise commenced in April 2002, which will consider the reasons for "cracked and ineffective" trials and this will also impact upon police officers' role in court.

  QCs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent discussions she has had with the Law Society concerning the procedures for appointing QCs. [51319]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has had no recent discussions with the Law Society about the procedures for appointing Queen's Counsel.

  Better Quality Services Initiatives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which of the services of his Department have not been reviewed under the Better Quality Services Initiative; and when they will be reviewed. 1503091

  Mr. Wills
  The Better Quality Services programme was launched in 1998 and adopted by the Cabinet Office in the Modernising Government White Paper of 1999 as 692W
  a means of delivering continuous improvements in the quality and effectiveness of Government activities and services. It requires all 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.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department's wide ranging programme of policy, service and organisational reviews forms the basis of its BQS programme and provides comprehensive coverage of functions. The review of activities and services started in 1999. A major part of this programme is the Quinquennial Review of the Court Service. The Review has just been completed and will be published shortly.

  There are a number of office service and supply activities that are due to be reviewed within the next couple of years before the current contracts expire. This will complete the Department's current BQS programme.

  Recruitment
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many net additional staff her Department has recruited in each month since June 2001 at(a) executive officer level and (b) administrative level. [52429]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The number of staff recruited by the Department are as follows:

  Recruitment since June 2001

  (a) Executive officer level staff

  Higher/senior executive officer level staff

  (b) Administrative level staff

  LCD HQ and associated offices

  june 2001

  1

  0

  0

  July 2001

  3

  1

  0

  August 2001

  1

  0

  0

  September 2001

  10

  2

  1

  October 2001

  1

  3

  11

  November 2001

  0

  2

  5

  December 2001

  0

  1

  7

  January 2002

  0

  0

  5

  February 2002

  0

  6

  3

  March 2002

  1

  9

  1

  The Court Service

  June 2001

  2

  0

  43

  July 2001

  3

  0

  37

  August 2001

  9

  2

  43

  September 2001

  15

  1

  69

  October2001

  20

  1

  77

  November 2001

  3

  1

  51

  December2001

  4

  0

  29

  January 2002

  4

  0

  100

  February 2002

  3

  1

  59

  March 2002

  2

  0

  43

  The Public Guardianship Office

  June 2001

  4

  0

  3

  July 2001

  1

  1

  1

  August 2001

  1

  0

  0

  September 2001

  1

  0

  0

  October 2001

  0

  7

  0

  November2001

  0

  0

  0

  December 2001

  1

  1

  0

  January 2002

  0

  1

  0

  February 2002

  3

  3

  1

  March 2002

  6

  2

  2

  It is not possible to determine how many of these are

  693W
  "net additional staff". Many of these recruits will be to replace staff who have left the Department, through resignation, retirement, transfer etc., and only a small proportion will be to fill new vacancies. A more accurate measure would be to compare the numbers of staff from one year to another, as shown in the annually published Civil Service Statistics, but even that would include transfers from other Government Departments as well as new recruits.

  Contact Centres
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what systems are in place to monitor the work of contact centres. [39369]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Child contact centres are run by the voluntary sector. Many contact centres are affiliated to other organisations, principally the National Association of Child Contact Centres (NACCC). The Lord Chancellor's Department is working with NACCC and other key organisations in this field, to develop national definitions of contact and more consistent and safer referral processes. The Department provided grant-in-aid funding during 2000–01 and 2001–02 to assist these organisations in developing their respective models of contact. The Government are also currently considering as a matter of priority the recent recommendations on contact centres made by the Children's Act Sub-Committee, of the Lord Chancellors Advisory Board on Family Law, in its report "Making Contact Work" published on 8 February 2002.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what training is given to staff running contact centres. [39370]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Child contact centres are run by the voluntary sector. Many contact centres are affiliated to and trained by other organisations, principally the National Association of Child Contact Centres (NACCC). The Lord Chancellor's Department is working with NACCC, and other key organisations in this field, to develop more consistent and safer referral processes which includes training of staff. The Department provide grant-in-aid funding during 2000–01 and 2001–02 to assist these organisations in developing their respective models of contact which included training packages. The Government are also currently considering as a matter of priority the recent recommendations on contact centres made by the Children's Act Sub-Committee, of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law, in its report "Making Contact Work" published on 8 February 2002.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she will reply to the questions from the hon. Member for Winchester of 26 February (refs 39369 and 39370). [52346]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for not replying to his questions of 26 February. I regret that this was due to an administrative oversight. I have answered both questions today.

  Autistic Spectrum Diisorders
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance is given 694W
  to (a) magistrates and (b) the judiciary about court proceedings involving people with autistic spectrum disorders as (i) witnesses and (ii) defendants. [51325]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) which is an independent non-departmental public body. It is chaired by Lord Justice Waller.

  All judges are supplied on appointment with a copy of the Equal Treatment Bench Book, which contains guidance on different aspects of disability, including autism. The Equal Treatment Bench Book is also available to Magistrates through their Magistrates Courts' Committees.

  Smart Card Technology
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the use of smart card technology in the Department and in the areas for which it is responsible; and what discussions he has had with private companies about the use of smart card technology within his Department. [50478]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has not made extensive use of smart card technology to date. Future plans for the delivery of electronic services are set out in our e-Business Strategy (www.lcd.gov.uk/ebus/stratcont.htm). This is accompanied by a supporting technical strategy for Information and Communications Technology (www.courtservice.gov.uk/info/reps/ictstrategy.pdf) which is fully compliant with central standards laid down by the Office of the e-Envoy. Smart cards are one of a large number of technologies discussed in this document and it is within this framework that any future deployment of smart cards will be delivered.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what new initiatives his Department has taken in 2001–02 to assist in achieving its Public Service Agreement targets. [47187]

  Mr. Wills
  Information about progress on PSA targets will be published in the Department's 2002 Departmental Report.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if he will list for each of the last five years the total amount of money spent by Ministers in his Department on food, alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks for entertainment purposes; [47207]

  (2) how much was spent by departmental special advisers on food, alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks for official entertainment purposes in each of the last five years. [46849]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  I have previously provided total entertainment expenditure figures for Ministers and Officials relating to the financial years from 1998–99 to 2000–01 and I refer

  695W
  the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley on 6 March 2002, Official Report, column 405W.

  User Consultation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what new steps her Department took in 2001–02 to consult the users of its services about their wishes and expectations; and if he will publish the findings. [47308]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Court Service has initiated a programme of regular customer satisfaction surveys of court and tribunal users. A press notice was released in April last year, giving details of the first findings. The second part of the survey was completed in November 2001 and the third is in progress: these results will be published in the summer of 2002. All magistrates' courts carry out two court user surveys a year. The results are published and can be found in the House Library.

  The Public Record Office and HM Land Registry conduct formal customer surveys each year. The Public Record Office conducted four customer satisfaction surveys of visitors to Kew and the Family Records Centre and achieved an average user satisfaction figure of 95.6 per cent. The highlights of the survey will be published in the Keeper's Report.

  The results from the Land Registry 2001 annual survey show that 99 per cent. of respondents were either "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with the Registry's services. The results are published on the Land Registry website.

  In addition the Lord Chancellor's Department conducts a programme of research across its responsibilities which bear on service users and their wishes and expectations. The results are published. Details of the research programme are available from the Department's website.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department also issues consultation documents from time to time. These are published on the Department's website. In line with the Code of Practice on Written Consultation summaries of responses to consultation papers are published and are also available from the Department's website.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the target time will be in 2002–03 for(a) Ministers to reply to letters from hon. Members and (b) officials in his Department to reply to letters received directly from members of the public. [44943]

  Mr. Wills
  The target times for(a) Ministers to reply to letters from hon. Members in the 2002 calendar year and (b) officials to reply to letters received direct from members of the public in 2002–03 business year will be as follows:

  All figures in working days

  (a) Letters from MPs

  (b) Letters from public

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  20

  15

  Court Service

  115

  15

  Public Guardianship Office

  115

  15

  Hon. Member Land Registry

  120

  5

  696W

  All figures in working days

  (a) Letters from MPs

  (b) Letters from public

  Public Record Office

  120

  10

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  120

  15

  1 Agency Chief Executives to Members of Parliament

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which public service agreement targets scheduled to be met in 2002 will not be achieved by the due date. [44812]

  Mr. Wills
  Information about progress on PSA targets will be published in the Department's 2002 Departmental Report.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for a Resource Accounting and Management Information System for the Lord Chancellor's Department by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49662]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Probate Records Centre for the Lord Chancellor's Department by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49669]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Local County Court Systems for the Lord Chancellor's Department by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49661]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Libra project for the Lord Chancellor's Department by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49550]

  Mr. Wills
  Before the award of the contracts for the Resource Accounting and Management Information System (ARAMIS), the Local County Court Systems (LOCCS) and the Libra project the contract values were compared with public sector comparators and demonstrated value for money.

  Since the award of these contract additional work has been commissioned which was not included in the original comparison. It is not possible to produce a lifetime 'comparative' savings figure for these contracts because of work that has taken place since contract award. However, additional work commissioned under these contracts is subject to an evaluation process to ensure that value for money is achieved.

  Savings over the lifetime of the contract for the Probate Records Centre are estimated at £16.4 million.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people employed by the non-departmental public bodies for which she is
  697W
  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. [49607]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on the New Deal programmes has never been collected centrally for non-departmental public bodies. Only one of our NDPBs, the Legal Services Commission, has employed people under the New Deal and they do not record data in a way that would enable an answer to be given to the exact question. However, one person was employed by their predecessor body, the Legal Aid Board, under the New Deal in October 1998 and subsequently became a permanent member of staff.

  Staff Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost in 2001–02 was of the pay increase to staff in his Department, agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible; and what the cost of the forthcoming increase will be in 2002–03. [50421]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The cost of the pay award for staff in the Lord Chancellor's Department, including its agencies and NDPBs, in 2001–02 was as follows:

  LCDHQ and associated offices—£.1,125,529.

  Court Service—£6,240,000

  Public Guardianship Office—£276,000.

  The Legal Services Commission—£792,000.

  The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) came into existence in April 2001 and pay was previously the responsibility of the services which preceded it.

  Proposals for pay in 2002–03 are still under consideration.

  Staff (Locally Elected Representatives)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many members of staff at his Department are locally elected democratic representatives; and if he has a strategy for his Department to encourage members of staff to become locally elected democratic representatives. [44538]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department actively supports staff members in undertaking voluntary public service by the provision of special leave with pay. For example, an elected member of a local authority, including Mayors in their Mayoral year and Chairpersons of Councils, are entitled to up to 18 days paid leave each year. However, we keep no central record of numbers.

  Information Disclosure
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the(a) amendment and (b) repeal under section 75 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 of legislation prohibiting the disclosure of information. [53819]
  698W
  Mr. Wills
  We have identified 155 items of primary legislation and 83 items of secondary legislation that contain provisions prohibiting the disclosure of information. We have also identified a further 62 items of primary legislation and 18 items of secondary legislation which contain provisions providing discretion to disclose information.

  We have identified 36 items of legislation to be repealed or amended under the provisions in section 75 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. 57 items of legislation have been identified which fulfil our international obligations. It will be necessary to retain these.

  A list of all the legislation identified will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Decisions on the repeal or amendment of legislation governing the disclosure of information relating to devolved matters in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive. The repeal or amendment of legislation within the devolved authority of the Northern Ireland Assembly will be a matter for consultation with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland Executive.

  Each item of legislation not already identified as a candidate for repeal or amendment and not fulfilling an international obligation is now being reviewed to determine whether it may be so repealed or amended in light of the provisions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000. A further update will he given in the annual report in November on implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

  Death Penalty
  Jean Corston
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether the UK intends to sign and ratify Protocol 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights, on the death penalty, when it is opened for signature. [54031]

  Mr. Wills
  Yes. The Government will sign Protocol 13 with a view to ratification when it is opened for signature at the next Council of Ministers meeting at Vilnius on 2 and 3 May. We will seek Parliament's approval under the Human Rights Act to add this Protocol to the Convention rights set out in that Act.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Children's Rights
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the UK reservation on the United Nations convention on the rights of the child; and if he will make a statement. [31155]

  Angela Eagle
  The United Kingdom ratified the United Nations convention on the rights of the child in 1991. The reservation in respect of article 22 in no way inhibits the discharge of our obligations under the convention. It is there to safeguard the right of the United Kingdom to determine its own immigration and nationality laws. We have carefully reviewed the reservation in the light of
  699W
  recent requests that it should be withdrawn. However, we are convinced that it remains necessary in the interests of maintaining an effective immigration control.

  Press Office
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [46804]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The total cost of running the Home Office press office in 1996–97 was £1,229,000. This does not include the cost of the then separate Prison Service Media Relations Unit, for which no detailed central records exist. The costs for the year 2001–02 were £2,415,606 including a cost of £358,399 for media relations for the Prison Service, now integrated into the Home Office press office.

  Staff numbers increased when a 'breaking news' press team was established in 2000. This was one of the recommendations from the independent external consultants who carried out a review of the structure and operation of the press office in 1999. One of the benefits has been that media calls to the press office, one of the busiest in Whitehall, are now being answered within four rings 90 per cent. of the time. Previously there were occasions when up to 40 per cent. of media calls were being 'lost'.

  Accountancy Contracts
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the(a) number and (b) value of contracts awarded by his Department to (i) Arthur Andersen, (ii) Deloitte Touche, (ii) Ernst and Young, (iv) KPMG and (v) PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants in each year since 1997. [34989]

  Angela Eagle
  The available information on the number and value of contracts awarded by the Home Department to (i) Arthur Andersen, (ii) Deloitte and Touche, (iii) Ernst and Young, (iv) KPMG and (v) PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants in each year since 1997 is as follows:

  Company

  Number of contracts

  Value £

  1997–98

  Ernst and Young

  1

  10,665

  KPMG

  2

  178,756

  1998–99

  Ernst and Young

  1

  35,250

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  2

  70,440

  KPMG

  2

  178,973

  1999–2000

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  5

  7,119,027

  KPMG

  1

  25,000

  Ernst and Young

  2

  311,000

  Deloitte and Touche

  1

  130,000

  2000–01

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  3

  253,999

  Ernst and Young

  2

  1,166,913

  2001 to date

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  3

  128,855

  Deloitte and Touche

  1

  15,800

  Ernst and Young

  1

  429,000

  Note:
  700W
  The Home Office has not awarded any contracts to Andersen for the period in question.

  Contracts were awarded following civil service rules.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times Ministers in his Department have travelled abroad at taxpayers' expense since March 2001; what countries they visited; and what the total cost of each visit was. [47103]

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

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

  Theft of Identity
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the change in incidences of theft of identity and his initiatives to tackle this crime. [47578]

  Mr. Denham
  The recorded crime statistics do not record specifically incidence of identity theft as this often forms part of another crime such as credit card fraud.

  However, it is generally acknowledged that the incidences of identity theft and identity fraud are rising. The Government estimate that the current cost of identity theft and fraud to the United Kingdom economy is at least £1.2 billion per annum, though it is difficult to isolate the cost of identity theft and fraud from the cost of other types of theft and fraud.

  Following an extensive study on identity fraud which has been led by officials in the Cabinet Office, the Home Office will co-ordinate the development and implementation of a work programme to counter identity theft and fraud and the private sector will be invited to participate. The Government will seek views on potential initiatives to counter identity fraud in a consultation paper. I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) on 5 February 2002, Official Report, column 872W.

  Some of the potential initiatives on which the Government will be consulting will include:

  (i) strengthening the procedures for issuing current identity documents such as driving licences and passports;

  (ii) establishing a public sector database of known and suspected fraudsters against which applications for Government services could be cross-checked;

  (iii) making identity theft a specific offence in itself rather than relying on offences being committed after the identity has been stolen;

  701W

  (iv) establishing a database of stolen identity documents that can be checked when they are produced as forms of identification.

  Illegal Entrants
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal entrants were detained when entering the UK by truck through Dover in each quarter of 2001. [49933]

  Angela Eagle
  In 2001 the Immigration Service at Dover eastern docks detected and initially detained a total of 2,835 illegal entrants attempting to enter the United Kingdom concealed in vehicles, mainly lorries. By quarter, the figures for Dover in 2001 were 572 (January to March), 596 (April to June), 871 (July to September) and 796 (October to December).

  Solar Panels
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what Government buildings owned by his Department have solar panels installed. [51188]

  Angela Eagle
  At present no Home Office buildings have solar panels installed. However, a pilot study to install solar water heaters at Her Majesty's Prison Prescoed is out to tender. If successful, consideration will be given to extending the use of solar water heaters to other prison establishments. A new unit at Her Majesty's Prison Askham Grange is also to include solar water heating panels.

  Mrs. Dayekh
  Mr. Malin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Woking dated 7 November 2001 and 9 January on the subject of Mrs. Dayekh on appeal (ref no VV 03010/2001). [50865]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Rooker wrote to the hon. Member on 24 April 2002. I am sorry for the delay in replying.

  Mr. Mohamed
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the Department has not responded to the application for consideration of political asylum for Mr. Mohamed, an Iraqi national, port reference EDD/01/20967 and HO reference M1051379, which was submitted on 10 April 2001; and if he will make a statement. [51132]

  Angela Eagle
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 29 April 2002.

  Ms Yoko Sibthorp
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce his response to the outcome of the appeal by Ms Yoko Sibthorp for the right to remain permanently in the United Kingdom. [51426]

  Angela Eagle
  The appeal by Ms Yoko Sibthorp was allowed in a determination promulgated on 8 April 2002. The Secretary of State has decided not to challenge the 702W
  decision and the papers have now been passed to the relevant caseworking department for the necessary leave to be granted.

  Voluntary Sector Funding
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Mr. Selous) of 25 January 2002,Official Report, columns 1185–86W, on Government funding of the voluntary sector, what information is collated on the contributions made to the state funding of the voluntary sector by (a) central Government, (b) local government, (c) the European Union, (d) the National Lottery and (e) other state sources. [51406]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: Information on funding from all these sources is not routinely collated by Government.

  The most recent estimates available to the Home Office on funding to the voluntary sector, in the categories identified, are for 1999–2000 and are totals for the United Kingdom as follows:

  (a) Central government—£1,220,069,420

  (b) Local government—£1,611,387,000

  c European funds—£232,061,849

  (d) National Lottery—£1,118,315,366,

  (e) Other state sources—£878,400,000

  Note:

  Other state sources include health authorities and trusts, police and fire authorities.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding the Government have given to the(a) National Council for Voluntary Organisations, (b) Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action, (c) Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, (d) Wales Council for Voluntary Action, (e) British Youth Council, (f) Charities Aid Foundation, (g) Community Action Network, (h) Community Development Foundation, (i) Charity Finance Directors Group, (j) National Association of Councils for Voluntary Service, (k) Council of Ethnic Minority Voluntary Sector Organisations and (l) Ethnic Minority Foundation in each of the last five years. [51218]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: Information on Government funding to these organisations is currently only available for 1998–and 1999–2000. Data for 2000–01 are in the process of being collected. Total Government funding is as follows:

  £

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  British Youth Council

  49,000

  52,277

  Charities Aid Foundation

  6,000

  1,608,000

  Charity Finance Directors Group

  0

  1—

  Community Action Network

  107,481

  45,000

  Community Development Foundation

  901,800

  13,829,916

  Council of Ethnic Minority

  0

  42,000

  Voluntary Section Organisations

  Ethnic Minority Foundation

  0

  1—

  National Association of Councils of Voluntary Service

  239,893

  342,003

  National Council of Voluntary Organisation

  1,037,887

  990,000

  Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action

  1—

  1—

  Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations

  377,150

  3,199,199

  Wales Council for Voluntary Action

  768,564

  1,091,537

  1 No data

  Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the budget is for the OISC in 2002–03. [51519]

  Angela Eagle
  The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC's) budget has been provisionally agreed for the year 2002–03 as £3,462,466. This is subject to approval by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State at the Home Office (Lord Rooker).

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints he has received concerning immigration advisers since the establishment of the OISC. [51521]

  Angela Eagle
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate do not keep a central record of complaints received about immigration advisers. If any are received, the complainant is advised to contact the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) or other relevant authority.

  I understand that, as of 31 March 2002, the OISC had received or initiated 417 complaints about immigration advisers since their establishment.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the staffing arrangement is for the OISC. [51520]

  Angela Eagle
  Both the Immigration Services Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are appointed by the Secretary of State. The Commissioner recruits his own staff and is currently authorised to employ a maximum of 55; the breakdown, with civil service equivalent grades shown, is as follows:

  Grade1

  Number of staff

  Senior Managers

  (SEO)

  7

  Dupty Managers

  (SEO)

  2

  Investigators

  (SEO)

  4

  Caseworkers

  (HEO)

  20

  Assistant Caseworkers

  (EO)

  3

  Support

  (HEO)

  8

  Support

  (EO)

  2

  Senior Secretary

  (SPS)

  1

  Admin Officers

  (AO)

  8

  Total

  55

  1 Civil service equivalent

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received from hon. Members concerning the work of the OISC. [51554]

  Angela Eagle
  Since 1 January 2002, three hon. Members have each written once to Home Office Ministers about the work of the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC). In the same period, there have been two parliamentary questions on this subject.

  Experience Corps
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of each of the regional branches of the Experience Corps was. [51010]
  704W
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 22 April 2002]: The Experience Corps is a single initiative and the Experience Corps Company has been allocated a total of £19.9 million for the period until 31 March 2004 to deliver said initiative.

  The Experience Corps Company is a private company limited by guarantee. It is obliged to produce and publish an annual report, which includes audited accounts, no later than 30 September of each financial year.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the shareholders of the Experience Corps; and what system of financial accountability is in place in relation to funds provided by his Department. [51012]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 22 April 2002]: The Experience Corps has no shareholders; it is a private company limited by guarantee.

  An appropriate system of financial accountability is in place, details of which are contained within the Financial Agreement. The Home Office and National Audit Office do have access to all relevant documents relating to the expenditure of the grant in aid.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place a copy of the Financial Agreement of September 2001 between the Home Department and the Experience Corps in the Library. [51009]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 22 April 2002]: Yes, I will place a copy of the Financial Agreement in the Library.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the budget for communications, publicity and advertising of the Experience Corps is. [51011]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 22 April 2002]: The grant in aid allocation to the Experience Corps Company for publicity, marketing and branding is £6 million.

  The Experience Corps Company is a private company limited by guarantee. It is obliged to produce and publish an annual report. which includes audited accounts, no later than 30 September of each financial year.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many public appointments he has made since 1 January; and if he will list the names and remuneration of those appointed. [51502]

  Angela Eagle
  The table lists 42 appointments and reappointments made by the Home Office to public bodies between 1 January 2002 and 31 March 2002.
  705W
  It is the practice not to publish the names of those appointed to the Board of Visitors in prison establishments in England and Wales because of concerns for their personal safety, but a total of 83 appointments and 428 re-appointments were made between 1 January 2002 and 31 March 2002.

  Public body/appointee

  Remuneration

  Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs

  Dr. Dima Abdulrahim

  Nil

  Lord Victor Adebowale

  Nil

  Mr. Norman Bettison1

  Nil

  Dr. Margaret Birtwhistle

  Nil

  Rev. Martin Blakeborough1

  Nil

  Dr. Cecilia Bottomley

  Nil

  Mr. Roy Boyjoonauth1

  Nil

  Ms Carmel Clancy

  Nil

  Professor Ilana Crome

  Nil

  Ms Robyn Doran

  Nil

  Mr. Robert Eschle

  Nil

  Professor Hugh Edmondson

  Nil

  Ms Viviene Evans1

  Nil

  Professor C. Robin Ganellin

  Nil

  Dr. Laurence Gruer1

  Nil

  Mr. Paul Hayes1

  Nil

  Mr. Andrew Hayman

  Nil

  Mr. Russell Hayton1

  Nil

  Mr. Peter Housden1

  Nil

  Mr. Roger Howard1

  Nil

  Mr. Alan Hunter1

  Nil

  His hon. Judge Trevor Joseph

  Nil

  Dame Judith Kilpatrick

  Nil

  Dr. John Marsden

  Nil

  Mr. Peter Martin

  Nil

  Professor David Nutt1

  Nil

  Mr. Richard Pates

  Nil

  Mr. Trevor Pearce

  Nil

  Mr. Arthur Preddy

  Nil

  Mrs. Kay Roberts1

  Nil

  Mrs. Patricia Roberts1

  Nil

  Dr. Roy Robertson1

  Nil

  Dr. Mary Rowlands

  Nil

  Mr. Hywel Sims

  Nil

  Dr. Polly Taylor

  Nil

  Ms Monique Tomlinson

  Nil

  Animal Procedures Committee

  Reverend Professor Michael Banner1

  £206 per day

  Community Development Foundation

  Mrs. Mavis Best1

  Nil

  Jagwant Singh Johal1

  Nil

  Peter Latchford1

  Nil

  Prof. Ruth Lister

  Nil

  Ms Avila Kilmurray1

  Nil

  1 Re-appointment

  Drug Abstinence Order
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug abstinence orders have been issued. [51471]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 22 April 2002]: Drug abstinence orders and drug abstinence requirements were made available to the courts covering the three pilot sites, Nottingham, Staffordshire and Hackney on 5 November 2001. As at 28 February 2002, seven drug abstinence orders and 85 drug abstinence requirements have been issued.
  706W

  Drug Policy (Brixton)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on progress made on the new drug policy in Brixton; [51615]

  (2) what plans he has to extend the drug scheme in Brixton to the rest of the country; [51614]

  (3) when he last met police representatives to discuss the drug policy in Brixton; and what was concluded. [51616]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 24 April 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not met police representatives to discuss the drug policy in Brixton, but he has been following the progress of the Lambeth cannabis pilot very closely. I have met officers in Brixton additionally, officials from the Home Department meet regularly with representatives from the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Metropolitan police to discuss this and other issues.

  The Home Secretary recognises that it is important to address policing cannabis issues such as those raised by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, so as not only to bring consistency to policing practice on the streets but also to make the most effective use of police time.

  I understand that the Metropolitan police are continuing their evaluation of the policy being operated in Lambeth to assess more accurately its precise impact. I further understand that the Metropolitan police have no plans to extend the operational pilot to other areas in advance of a full evaluation of all the issues being available.

  Henry Kissinger
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from Spain concerning the visit of Henry Kissinger to the UK. [53675]

  Mr. Blunkett
  A letter of request from Spain for mutual legal assistance involving the evidence of Henry Kissinger was received in the Home Office on 19 April 2002. This request was refused on 22 April, since it did not comply with United Kingdom legislative requirements. No representations were received from Spanish authorities in this connection.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many induction, accommodation and removal centres for asylum seekers there are in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales; where they are; and how many people each of them holds. [46981]
  707W
  Angela Eagle
  Currently there is one induction centre in Dover. Generally speaking asylum seekers requiring accommodation will spend approximately one week in the induction centre before being dispersed. Other asylum seekers requesting either subsistence only support or who do not require support will spend between one and two days at the centre. We are proposing to open further induction centres over the coming months close to major ports such as Heathrow and Gatwick and a small number in the regions. There is no ceiling on the number who can be accommodated in an induction centre but typically there are between 200 and 500 in the centre at any one time.

  There are no accommodation centres at present but we intend to establish a number of these with a total capacity of 3,000 to accommodate a proportion of new asylum seekers from application through initial decision and any appeal. This will be taken forward on a trial basis. We have identified eight potential sites for accommodation centres. Six of these are in England, one in Scotland and one in Wales.

  They are located as follows:

  QinetiQ (the Defence Establishment Research Agency formerly (DERA)) Pershore, Worcestershire

  Royal Air Force (RAF) Hemswell, West Lindsey, Lincolnshire

  Sully Hospital, Cardiff

  Hooton Park, Ellesmere Port. Cardiff

  Land vacated by Ministry of Defence (MOD) Logistics, Bicester, Oxfordshire

  Air West Edinburgh (formerly RAF Tumhouse), Edinburgh

  RAF Newton, West Bridgeford, Nottinghamshire

  National Energy Site Killinghome, Grimsby, North Lincolnshire.

  The Government are committed to ensuring that the long-term mix of facilities for the support of asylum seekers and management of the asylum processes is based on evidence of what works. The operation of the trial accommodation centres will be thoroughly evaluated, taking account of a number of factors including costs, processing times, ease of access to integration programmes for those granted refugee status and the rate of returns in cases which are refused.

  The following removal centres are located in England and Scotland.

  Removal centers

  Location

  Total capacity1

  No of family beds

  Campstield

  Kidlington, Oxford

  184

  —

  Harmondsworth

  West Drayton, Middlesex

  550

  72

  Tinsley House

  Gatwick airport

  137

  14

  Dover2

  Dover, Kent

  316

  —

  Lindholme

  Doncaster

  112

  —

  Haslar

  Gosport, Hampshire

  160

  —

  Dungavel

  Strathaven, South Lanarkshire

  150

  54

  1 Including family beds

  2 From end April 2002

  708W
  The total detention capacity at immigration removal centres is 1,609. This figure excludes the 400 places at Oakington Reception Centre and the provision of detention places at Yarl's Wood Removal Centre that is currently unused.

  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how detained asylum seekers are informed of rights they have to apply for bail. [48281]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The notice (IS91R) served on detainees to inform them of the reasons for their detention also contains details of their rights to apply for bail. The immigration officer serving the notice must sign this form to confirm that the detainee has been informed of these rights. If the detainee does not understand English, the immigration officer must ensure that the form's contents are interpreted.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many families there were awaiting a final decision on their asylum application in each of the last six months. [51742]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]: Information on the number of families awaiting a final decision on their asylum application is not readily available and would be obtained only by examination of individual case files to get information on the outcomes of initial decisions, of subsequent appeals to the Immigration Appellate Authority and to the Tribunal, which would incur disproportionate cost.

  An initial decision has been served for around two thirds of asylum applications from families received in April to September 2001 (the latest period for which such data are available).

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the most recent Ofsted inspection of education provision in each(a) detention and (b) removal centre in England took place. [51661]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]: There have been no inspections by Ofsted of the children's education provision at the two immigration removal centres which have such provision as neither Harmondsworth nor Dungavel have been operating long enough to warrant such an inspection.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) separated children and (b) children in families arrived in the UK and made an asylum application in each of the last six months. [51743]
  709W
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]: The table shows the number of unaccompanied children under the age of 18 who have made an asylum application in the period March to August 2001, inclusive. August is the latest month for which data are available.

  Unaccompanied children1,2,3, aged 17 or under, applying for asylum to the United Kingdom, March to August 2001

  Month

  Total applications

  March

  281

  April

  216

  May

  281

  June

  331

  July

  305

  August

  471

  Total

  1,885

  1 Unaccompanied at the point of their arrival, and not known to be joining a close relative in the United Kingdom

  1 Figures exclude disputed age cases

  3 Provisional data

  Reliable information on the number of children who have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom, accompanied by an adult, is not readily available and could be obtained only by examination of individual case records and is, therefore, only available at disproportionate cost.

  Information on unaccompanied minors is published annually in the statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom", a copy of which is available in the Library and from the RDS website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Parole
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the outcome is of the review of parole and lifer processes announced by the right hon. Member for Brent South in February 2000. [53948]

  Beverley Hughes
  The report of the comprehensive review of parole and lifer processes was published today on the Prison Service website, www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk. A copy has also been placed in the Library. The report concluded that the Parole Board for England and Wales should continue to function as an executive non-departmental public body sponsored by Her Majesty's Prison Service. The report also recommended a series of improvements to the parole and lifer processes, consolidate and continue improvements over the last few years, which will now be taken forward.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the information-gathering powers contained in the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 will be brought into effect. [54010]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Social Security Fraud Act contains important new powers for the Department and local authorities to get information from organisations such as banks and utility companies to help in the fight against benefit fraud. These new powers come into effect from today and a revised Code of Practice has been laid before Parliament.
  710W
  Further sections of the Fraud Act are also brought into effect from today. These include new powers for the Department and local authorities to offer financial penalties to benefit offenders, on behalf of each other, as an alternative to prosecution, rather than each having to offer a separate penalty as was previously the case; and for the Department and local authorities to offer financial penalties to employers who collude with their staff in the commission of benefit offences, again as an alternative to prosecution.

  These new measures should send out a strong message to all benefit cheats and would-be cheats, and those who collude with them, that we are on to them. From today, the odds on getting away with it have lengthened.

  Benefits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) of 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 261W, how many households are estimated to be eligible for one or more of (a) pension credit, (b) housing benefit, (c) council tax benefit, (d) child tax credit, (e) working tax credit, (f) income support and (g) income-based jobseeker' s allowance. [50429]

  Mr. McCartney
  Estimates are not available on a household basis.

  Child Support
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the average time taken by the CSA Appeals Service to deal with appeals over the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [45759]

  Maria Eagle
  This is a matter for Neil Ward, chief executive of the Appeals Service. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Neil Ward to Mr. Vernon Coaker dated 19 April 2002:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what assessment he has made of the average time taken by the Appeals Service to deal with Child Support appeals over the last 12 months.
  The Appeals Service handles all appeals relating to Social Security, Child Support, Housing/Council Tax benefit, Vaccine damage and Compensation Recovery.
  The average waiting time over the 12 month period, ending February 2002, in respect of Child Support appeals was 18.2 weeks.
  The average waiting time over the 12 month period, ending February 2002, for all types of appeal, including Child Support, from date of receipt by the Appeals Service until first hearing, was 13.3 weeks. This is well within the Secretary of State's target of 14 weeks.
  Child Support appeals invariably incur longer waiting times due to their complicated nature compared to other appeals, i.e. Child Support appeals require more further evidence, and often have more Parties to the Proceedings attend, than other appeals.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what performance targets he has set for the Child Support Agency for 2002–03; and when he will publish business plans for the Child Support Agency, Child Benefit Centre and the Disability and Carers Service. [54011]
  711W
  Mr. Darling
  The targets I have set the Child Support Agency are given as follows:Further information on the Child Support Agency plans for 2002–03 is contained in their business plan, which has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.
  Business plans for the Child Benefit Centre and the Disability and Carers Directorate have also been published today and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Child Support Agency targets 2002–03

  Existing cases:
  Accuracy—accuracy on the last decision made for all assessments checked in the year to be correct to the nearest penny in at least 80 per cent. of cases.
  Case compliance—to collect child maintenance and arrears from 71 per cent. of non-resident parents with maintenance liability due to be paid through the agency's collection service.
  Cash compliance—to collect 68 per cent. of child maintenance and arrears due to be paid through the agency's collection service.

  New cases:
  When the new child support scheme is ready to be implemented I will set targets for new cases.

  Voluntary Sector Funding
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer to the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) of 25 January 2002,Official Report, columns 1185–86W, on Government funding of the voluntary sector, if he will list the grant schemes and other mechanisms by which his Department distributes funding to voluntary sector organisations. [51407]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: The voluntary sector is a key partner in the Departments efforts to help people back into work, particularly those facing the greatest disadvantages. Organisations in the voluntary sector receive funding under contract to the Department for delivering a range of our employment and training programmes, including for example elements of the New Deal. We also have key relationships with, and make grants to, the voluntary sector in: helping people with disabilities to live more independently in the community; providing mobility related assistance; and free help and advice to members of the public regarding their company, stakeholder or personal pension scheme.

  Pensions
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will introduce proposals to require employees to pay into a joint insurance policy to underwrite employees pension schemes. [51372]

  Mr. McCartney
  We have no plans to introduce proposals requiring employers to contribute to a joint insurance policy to underwrite employees pension schemes. Compulsory mutual insurance to support the pension fund of an insolvent company was among the options considered when we consulted on the future of the minimum funding requirement in September 2000, but it received little support. Such an arrangement could lead to schemes neglecting their obligations knowing that their liabilities would still be met in the event of insolvency. Many employers sponsoring well-funded schemes would object to subsidising firms which neglected their obligations.
  712W
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will take steps to remove company representatives from the management of pension funds. [51373]

  Mr. McCartney
  We have no plans to remove company representatives from the management of pension funds.

  Pension schemes are set up voluntarily by employers for the benefit of their workforce, and the financial commitment this involves means they have a legitimate interest in the running of the scheme. Where decisions made by trustees have a direct implication for the financial position of the employer, it is understandable and right that the employer wants to be part of that decision making process.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of people who had to make a claim for the 2001–02 winter fuel payment; and of that number how many failed to do so by 31 March. [50990]

  Mr. McCartney
  Pursuant to my written answer on 23 April 2001.Official Report, column 205W.

  For winter 2001–2, an estimated 500,000 people became newly entitled to a Winter Fuel Payment. At least 255,000 of these people were paid automatically.

  Exact numbers of people who need to claim are not available. However, by the deadline of 30 March, around 220,000 claims forms have been received. It is up to the individual to choose whether to claim.

  Departmental Functions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the functions of his Department that have been(a) market tested and (b) outsourced in each of the last five years, specifying the (i) money saving and (ii) percentage saving in each case. [43005]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown

  £

  Money saving (£)

  Percentage saving

  Market tested functions:

  Corporate Document Services

  403,803

  3

  Accommodation and Office Services

  41.5 million

  17.6

  Outsourced functions:

  Benefits Agency Medical Services

  62.2 million

  14

  Estates Management Services

  560 million

  22

  Employment Service HR and payroll

  11 million

  27.5

  Strategic Outsourcing of IS/IT

  72 million

  3

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases have been brought against his Department under the Human Rights Act 1998; and what has been the cost in(a) legal fees to defend cases and (b) compensation payments. [45064]
  713W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We do not collect central records of all cases in which the Human Rights Act 1998 is relied on. Human rights are now integrated in the general law and are rarely the sole basis for a challenge.

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

  Departmental Contracts
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the 30 largest contracts awarded by his Department from(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999, (c) May 1999 to April 2000, (d) May 2000 to April 2001 and (e) May 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available, stating in each case the values of the contracts and the companies with which the contracts were placed. [43670]

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the 30 largest contracts awarded by his Department from(a) May 1997 to April

  Awards between May 2001 and February 2002 by value

  Contract or Agreement

  Supplier (current name)

  IS/IT distribution, implementation and disposal services (DIDS) business allocation under ACCORD

  Arcway (BT led consortium)

  Rail travel booking services framework

  Qjump

  Travel services framework

  Lonsdale Travel

  Desktop stationery framework (2 suppliers)

  Banner Business Systems Guilbert UK Ltd

  Computer consumables framework (3 suppliers)

  Banner Business Systems Guilbert UK Ltd Orion Media Marketing and Supplies

  Paper framework (5 suppliers)

  Banner Business Systems Bunzl Fine Paper Guilbert UK Ltd Premier Paper Glenmore Business Papers

  Vehicle leasing framework

  Arval PHH

  Envelopes framework

  Banner Business Systems

  Social Fund
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what his assessment is of(a) the incidence of fraud in Social Fund applications and (b) the cost of such fraud in the last 12 months for which figures are available; [51045]

  (2) how many applications for Social Fund payment have been investigated as a result of suspected fraud in each year since 1997; how many of them have resulted in (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions; and if he will break down the figures by the sentences imposed in cases which resulted in convictions. [51046]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the understanding of Social Fund applicants of (i) the conditions of eligibility for each of the Social Fund payments and (ii) the basis on which decisions are taken relating to their Social Fund payments. [51047]
  714W
  1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999, (c) May 1999 to April 2000, (d) May 2000 to April 2001 and (e) May 2001 to the latest date, indicating in each case the values of the contracts and the companies with which the contracts were placed. [38725]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001. The information requested on contracts let by the ex-Employment Service and ex-Department of Social Security is not held centrally in the new Department and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  The Department for Work and Pensions lets a large number of contracts in a year, most of which are for low value purchases let by distributed units. The cost of collecting and analysing information on centrally let deals since the department was formed is provided in the table. The table includes a range of commercial deals including framework agreements under which individual contracts can be let at set terms, conditions and prices. Contract value are not provided because of commercial confidentiality.

  Malcolm Wicks
  In 1999–2000 research was commissioned from the Personal Finance Research Centre at the university of Bristol which explored customers' views of the application process for the new Social Fund budgeting loan scheme introduced in April 1999. The research report was published' in the autumn of 2000 and confirmed that the sample of users welcomed the new budgeting loan scheme for its easier access and quicker decisions.
  1Whyley, Claire, Collard, Sharon and Kempson, Elaine, Saving and Borrowing: Use of the Social Fund Budgeting Loan Scheme and Community Credit Unions. Department of Social Security, research report no. 125, 2000.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Benefits Agency offices in England where the public attend have no security grilles. [31715]
  715W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Benefits Agency ceased to exist at the end of March 2002. All the social security offices within the new Jobcentre Plus network which previously belonged to the Benefits Agency network where the public attend have security screens.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of prosecutions brought as a result of investigations carried out by the Benefits Agency resulted in convictions in each year since 1997. [45330]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In each year since 1997, over 98 per cent. of prosecutions brought by the Benefits Agency have resulted in convictions.

  Note:
  Data underlying these figures have been collected from several sources and past definitions have varied. Figures may therefore differ slightly from those previously published.

  Departmental Expenditure (Publications)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in each of the last four years. [30087]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001 from the former Department of Social Security and parts of the Department for Education and Employment.

  The expenditure by the new Department for Work and Pensions between June 2001 and the end of March 2002 on newspapers, magazines and periodicals was £96,368.15.

  Publicity Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the total real terms expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity in each of the years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole of the present year; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (A) advertising and (B) press and public relations. [36172]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is not held in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions further to his answer to the hon. Member for Hertsmere of 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 633W, on Jobcentre Plus offices, when he expects to receive the report from the Health and Safety Executive on Jobcentre Plus offices; and if he will publish it. [40201]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have written to the Department's Director of Human Resources following the HSE's inspection of three Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices. A copy of this letter has been placed in the Library.

  The Director of Human Resources has met with representatives of the HSE to discuss the issues raised and has, in conjunction with the chief executive of Jobcentre
  716W
  Plus, taken steps to ensure that these issues are dealt with effectively. A copy of his reply has also been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans the Government have to increase security at the new Jobcentre Plus centres; and if he will make a statement. [51232]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Fifty six integrated Jobcentre Plus offices are already open and operating effectively—with positive feedback from staff and customers. For each of these offices a full health and safety risk assessment has been conducted and its recommendations implemented in full. These risk assessments have also been reviewed in the light of experience of live operations.

  The measures implemented to support the safety of staff and improved customer service as a result of the risk assessments include:

  Closed circuit television;

  Better management in each office to avoid difficult situations building up, for example floor managers to greet customers and guide them through their visit;

  Where recommended by risk assessments, security guards with clear instructions as to when to intervene;

  In each pathfinder area screened facilities to deal with situations likely to give rise to particular risk;

  A clear zero tolerance policy under which determined action will be taken against, anyone threatening or abusing Jobcentre Plus staff.

  Public-private Partnership (Consultants)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total external spending by his Department was on public private partnership consultants in each of the last four years; how many full-time equivalent consultants were employed over this period; how many billed consultancy days there were per year; what the implied average cost of each PPP consultant was; how many consultancy firms were used by his Department over this period; and if he will make a statement. 143189]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department does not record information about the use of PPP consultants in the form requested and an answer could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Newspaper Advertising
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much has been spent by his Department and its agencies on newspaper advertising, in each year since 1992. [46469]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is not held in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Better Quality Services Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which of the services of his Department have not been reviewed under the Better Quality Services Initiative; and when they will be reviewed. [50316]
  717W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Better Quality Services (BQS) programme was launched in 1998 and adopted by the Cabinet 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 Department for Work and Pensions was established in June 2001, specifically to improve customer service, and two new executive agencies, Jobcentre Plus and The
  718W
  Pension Service, were launched on 1 April 2002. During this period the Department did not carry out any Better Quality reviews. We are now considering where they would be appropriate.

  Shared Residency Orders
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has had with the Lord Chancellor's Department regarding the effect of shared residency orders on the benefit entitlement of non-resident parents when custody is divided equally. [29790]

  Malcolm Wicks
  This Department has regular discussions with other Government Departments. This includes the Lord Chancellor's Department as necessary.

TREASURY

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of the total expenditure on working families tax credit went to each income decile in each year since the introduction of the working families tax credit; [50061]

  (2) what percentage of the total expenditure on family credit went to each income decile in each of the last five years of family credit payments. [50060]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: The estimated distribution for working families tax credit (WFTC) in 2000–01 is shown in the table. Note that to derive their decile groups people are ranked by their net incomes including WFTC.

  Estimates for other years, and reliable estimates for family credit, are not available.

  Percentage of total weekly expenditure on WFTC in each decile group of income, 2000–011

  Decile group of income2

  Percentage of WFTC expenditure

  Bottom

  11

  2

  20

  3

  20

  4

  16

  5

  14

  6

  9

  7 to 10 (Top)3

  10

  Total

  100

  1 Estimated from families reporting receipt of WFTC in the 2000–01 Family Resources Survey. The estimates are subject to sampling error. They are rounded to the nearest 1 per cent., but should not be taken as accurate to this level.

  2 Recipients of WFTC have been allocated to the decile group of income of the household in which they live (the household may include other people as well as the family in question). The decile group of each household is established by ranking individuals by the net income of the household, equivalised using the McClements scale. Net income is defined as including WFTC, after deducting tax and national insurance contributions, and before deducting housing costs.

  3 The small sample size means that separate reliable estimates for the four top decile groups are not available.

  Contracted-out Rebates
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to paragraph C48 on page 221 of the 720W
  Budget Red Book, if he will provide his estimate of how much lower grant in the contracted-out rebates is than was expected in the pre-Budget report; and if he will provide his estimate of higher receipt in the later years of the forecasts. [51949]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]: Lower growth in contracted out rebates than assumed in the pre-Budget report is estimated to result in an increase of £0.2 billion in net receipts from social security contributions in 2002–03. Estimates of higher receipts from Budget measures on a national accounts basis from 2003–04 are given in rows two to four of Table A.1 in the April 2002 Financial Statement and Budget report, and estimates of social security contributions as a percentage of GDP to 2006–07 are shown in Table C9.

  EU Code of Conduct
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the application of the EU Code of Conduct to the Channel Isles. [51478]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]: The report of the Code of Conduct Group on Business Taxation to the ECOFIN Council on 29 November 1999 lists 66 tax measures in European Union member states and their dependent or associated territories which are considered to have harmful features. Nine of these are in the Channel Islands. The United Kingdom wishes to see the harmful aspects of all 66 measures removed.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of(a) how many employees in the United Kingdom are covered by private medical insurance schemes provided by their employer and (b) the additional cost to those employers of the rise in national insurance contributions. [53267]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: Over 2 million employees receive benefit from private medical and dental treatment or insurance arranged and paid by employers. This does not include self-employed individuals, or company policies provided for retired employees or for employees with earnings below the P11D threshold.

  An additional I per cent. class 1 A national insurance contribution from 2003–04 on the amount of private medical and dental benefit provided by employers is estimated to raise around £10 million per year.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total UK revenue collected from direct taxes and National Insurance contributions in 2000–01. [49062]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The total revenue collected from Inland Revenue taxes net of tax credits and National Insurance contributions in 2000–01 was £209.4 billion.

  Pay Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the cost in 2001–02 was of the pay increase
  721W
  to staff in his Department, agencies and the non-departmental public bodies tor which he is responsible; and what the cost of the forthcoming increase will be in 2002–03; [50404]

  Department, agency or non-departmental public body

  Cost of pay increase in 2001–02

  Cost of forthcoming increase in 2002–03

  HM Treasury

  The cost is estimated to be £924,000 at the time of settlement

  Costs cannot be given because the pay increase has not yet been agreed

  Royal Mint

  The cost is estimated to be £804,000 at the time of the settlement

  Royal Mint do not propose to increase pay rate in 2002–03

  National Savings and Investments

  The cost is estimated to be £5,232 at the time of the settlement (includes accrued expenditure that is still in the process of being refined

  Cost cannot be given because the pay increase has not yet been agreed

  ONS

  The cost is estimated to be £2,387,000 at the time of settlement

  Cost cannot be given because the pay increase has not yet been given

  GAD

  The cost is estimated to be £105,000 at the time of the settlement

  Cost cannot be given because the pay increase has not yet been agreed

  DMO

  The cost is estimated to be £82,000 at the time of the settlement

  Costs cannot be given because the pay increase has not yet been agreed

  VOA

  The cost is estimated to be £4.862 million at the time of the settlement

  Costs cannot be given because the pay increase has not yet been agreed

  OGC

  The cost is estimated to be £913,000 at the time of the settlement

  Costs cannot be given because the pay increase has not yet been agreed

  Inland Revenue

  The cost is estimated to be £34.3 million for staff below the SCS and £1 million for SCS staff at the time of the settlement

  Costs cannot be given because the pay increase has not yet been agreed

  Customs and Excise

  The cost is estimated to be £17 million at the time of the settlement

  Costs cannot be given because the pay increase has not yet been agreed

  Statistics Commission

  The cost is estimated to be £10,000 at the time of the settlement

  Costs cannot be given because the pay increase has not yet been agreed

  The Statistics Commission has been in existence for just under two years. The total salary costs are as follows: 2000–01 £135,528 (taken from published accounts); 2001–02 £199,000 estimated as 2001–02 accounts have not yet been published.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the(a) total cost and (b) cost per claimant of administering (i) working families tax credit, (ii) children's tax credit, (iii) child tax credit and (iv) working tax credit in the last 12 months. [50991]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers given to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 9 November 2001,Official Report, column 438W, and the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on 29 June 2000, Official Report, column 590W.

  1999–2000

  Departments

  HC No.

  Cmd No.1

  Laid

  Published

  Workign days between laying and publishing

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme—MOD

  4

  —

  13 December 2000

  13 December 2000

  0

  British Trade International

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cabinet Office

  —

  5053

  30 March 2001

  5 July 2001

  64

  Cabinet Office: Civil Superannuation

  —

  5061

  30 March 2001

  29 March 2001

  -1

  Central Office for Information

  190

  —

  31 January 2001

  19 April 2001

  54

  Charity Commission

  191

  —

  31 January 2001

  28 March 2001

  40

  Crown Estate

  192

  —

  31 January 2001

  19 April 2001

  54

  Crown Prosecution Service

  193

  —

  31 January 2001

  30 March 2001

  42

  Customs & Excise

  165

  —

  31 January 2001

  31 January 2001

  0

  DCMS

  181

  —

  31 January 2001

  31 January 2001

  0

  Defence—MOD Consolidated

  50

  —

  31 January 2001

  1 February 2001

  1

  Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions

  —

  5054

  30 March 2001

  29 March 2001

  1-1

  722W
  (2) what have been the total salary costs of each of the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible in each of the last five years. [50294]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is as follows:

  There is no administrative cost attached to child tax credit and working tax credit in 2000–01.

  Resource Accounts
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when each of the resource accounts for 2000–01 were published; what the(a) greatest, (b) median and (c) least number of days that elapsed was between each of the resource accounts being (i) laid formally upon the Table and (ii) made generally available to the public; what the median number of days that elapsed was between each of the resource accounts for 1999–2000 being (A) laid formally upon the Table and (B) made generally available to the public; and if he will make a statement. [51467]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The dates on which Departments' resource accounts for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 were published and laid are shown in the following table.
  723W

  1999–2000

  Departments

  HC No.

  Cmd No.1

  Laid

  Published

  Working days between laying and publishing

  Department of Health

  194

  —

  31 January 2001

  22 March 2001

  36

  Department of National Savings

  830

  —

  2 November 2000

  3 November 2000

  1

  DFEE

  182

  —

  31 January 2001

  22 March 2001

  36

  DfID

  116

  —

  31 January 2001

  3 May 2001

  66

  DfID—Superannuation Pensions

  187

  —

  31 January 2001

  3 May 2001

  66

  DSS

  183

  —

  31 January 2001

  16 February 2001

  12

  DTI—Main

  11

  —

  20 December 2000

  1 February 2001

  27

  ECGD

  51

  —

  20 December 2000

  20 December 2000

  0

  FCO

  195

  —

  31 January 2001

  30 March 2001

  42

  Food Standards Agency4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Food Standards Agency Consolidated4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Forestry Commission

  196

  —

  31 January 2001

  27 April 2001

  62

  Forestry Commission Pension Scheme

  201

  —

  31 January 2001

  22 March 2001

  36

  GAD

  153

  —

  31 January 2001

  31 January 2001

  0

  HM Treasury

  —

  5062

  30 March 2001

  11 May 2001

  30

  Home Office

  —

  5055

  30 March 2001

  27 April 2001

  20

  Inland Revenue

  129

  —

  24 January 2001

  24 January 2001

  0

  Intervention Board Executive Agency

  833

  —

  9 November 2000

  9 November 2000

  0

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  —

  5056

  30 March 2001

  30 April 2001

  21

  MAFF

  —

  5057

  30 March 2001

  27 April 2001

  20

  National Investment and Loans Office

  798

  —

  22 November 2000

  22 November 2000

  0

  NHS Pension Scheme (England and Wales)

  188

  —

  31 January 2001

  11 May 2001

  72

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  199

  —

  31 January 2001

  30 March 2001

  42

  Northern Ireland Office

  —

  5058

  30 March 2001

  27 April 2001

  21

  Office for National Statistics

  185

  —

  31 January 2001

  2 April 2001

  43

  Ofgem

  24

  —

  20 December 2000

  20 December 2000

  0

  Ofsted

  155

  —

  25 January 2001

  15 February 2001

  15

  Oft

  75

  —

  31 January 2001

  31 January 2001

  0

  Oftel

  151

  —

  31 January 2001

  31 January 2001

  0

  Ofwat

  176

  —

  31 January 2001

  31 January 2001

  0

  ORR

  184

  —

  31 January 2001

  21 March 2001

  35

  Postal Services Commission4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Privy Council Office

  197

  —

  31 January 2001

  9 February 2001

  7

  Public Records Office

  134

  —

  25 January 2001

  25 January 2001

  0

  Scotland Office

  186

  —

  31 January 2001

  27 April 2001

  62

  Security and Intelligence Agencies

  —

  5059

  4 April 2001

  12 April 2001

  6

  Serious Fraud Office

  198

  —

  31 January 2001

  7 March 2001

  25

  Teachers Pension Scheme

  189

  —

  31 January 2001

  22 March 2001

  36

  Treasury Solicitors

  —

  5060

  30 March 2001

  30 April 2001

  21

  UK Atomic Energy Authority—DTI

  10

  —

  20 December 2000

  31 January 2001

  27

  Wales Office

  96

  —

  24 January 2001

  24 January 2001

  0

  2000–01

  Departments

  HC No.

  Cmd No.1

  Laid

  Published

  Working days between laying and publishing

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme—MOD

  245

  —

  21 November 2001

  21 November 2001

  0

  British Trade International

  526

  —

  30 January 2002

  13 February 2002

  11

  Cabinet Office

  —

  5443

  28 February 2002

  —

  —

  Cabinet Office: Civil Superannuation

  554

  —

  31 January 2002

  18 March 2002

  —

  Central Office for Information

  566

  —

  31 January 2002

  31 January 2002

  0

  Charity Commission

  565

  —

  31 January 2002

  27 February 2002

  19

  Crown Estate

  544

  —

  30 January 2002

  30 January 2002

  0

  Crown Prosecution Service

  540

  —

  31 January 2002

  31 January 2002

  0

  Customs and Excise

  530

  —

  30 January 2002

  26 March 2002

  39

  DCMS

  469

  —

  9 January 2002

  9 January 2002

  0

  Defence—MOD Consolidated

  443

  —

  17 December 2001

  18 December 2001

  1

  Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions

  536

  —

  31 January 2002

  4 February 2002

  2

  Department of Health

  567

  —

  31 January 2002

  15 April 2002

  52

  Department of National Savings

  121

  —

  24 October 2001

  24 October 2001

  0

  DFEE

  551

  —

  31 January 2002

  18 February 2002

  12

  DfID

  512

  —

  30 January 2002

  26 February 2002

  19

  DfID—Superannuation Pensions

  514

  —

  30 January 2002

  26 February 2002

  19

  DSS

  491

  —

  31 January 2002

  31 January 2002

  0

  DTI—Main

  503

  —

  23 January 2002

  23 January 2002

  0

  ECGD

  441

  —

  10 January 2002

  10 January 2002

  0

  FCO

  553

  —

  31 January 2002

  7 March 2002

  24

  Food Standards Agency4

  513

  —

  31 January 2002

  7 February 2002

  6

  Food Standards Agency Consolidated4

  594

  —

  5 February 2002

  55 February 2002

  0

  Forestry Commission

  527

  —

  31 January 2002

  —

  —

  724W 725W

  2000–01

  Departments

  HC No.

  Cmd No.1

  Laid

  Published2

  Workign days between laying and publishing

  Forestry Commission Pension Scheme

  535

  —

  31 January 2002

  —

  —

  GAD

  284

  —

  31 October 2001

  31 October 2001

  0

  HM Treasury

  573

  —

  31 January 2002

  14 March 2002

  30

  Home Office

  —

  5444

  28 February 2002

  —

  —

  Inland Revenue

  425

  —

  12 December 2001

  12 December 2001

  0

  Intervention Board Executive Agency

  123

  —

  31 October 2001

  31 October 2001

  0

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  568

  —

  31 January 2002

  —

  —

  MAFF

  —

  5447

  28 February 2002

  —

  —

  National Investment and Loans Office

  321

  —

  31 October 2001

  31 October 2001

  0

  NHS Pension Scheme (England and Wales)

  569

  —

  31 January 2002

  1 March 2002

  21

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  570

  —

  31 January 2002

  3 April 2002

  44

  Northern Ireland Office

  —

  5445

  28 February 2002

  11 April 2002

  30

  Office for National Statistics

  122

  —

  31 January 2002

  —

  —

  Ofgem

  170

  —

  19 July 2001

  19 July 2001

  0

  Ofsted

  403

  —

  5 December 2001

  5 December 2001

  0

  Oft

  538

  —

  30 January 2002

  30 January 2002

  0

  Oftel

  416

  —

  12 December 2001

  12 December 2001

  0

  Ofwat

  313

  —

  21 November 2001

  21 November 2001

  0

  ORR

  490

  —

  30 January 2002

  14 February 2002

  11

  Postal Services Commission4

  495

  —

  30 January 2002

  30 January 2002

  0

  Privy Council Office

  571

  —

  31 January 2002

  11 February 2002

  7

  Public Records Office

  362

  —

  21 November 2001

  21 November 2001

  0

  Scotland Office

  531

  —

  31 January 2002

  6 February 2002

  4

  Security and Intelligence Agencies

  —

  5446

  28 February 2002

  14 March 2002

  10

  Serious Fraud Office

  572

  —

  30 January 2002

  18 March 2002

  33

  Teachers Pension Scheme

  552

  —

  31 January 2002

  8 February 2002

  6

  Treasury Solicitors

  574

  —

  31 January 2002

  24 April 2002

  59

  UK Atomic Energy Authority—DTI

  504

  —

  23 January 2002

  23 January 2002

  0

  Wales Office

  288

  —

  28 November 2001

  28 November 2001

  0

  1 With the agreement of the NAO, these accounts were presented to Parliament on a non-statutory basis as Command papers with a target date of 30 March 2001 for the 1999–2000 accounts 24 April 2002 for the 2000–01 accounts.

  2 Where no date is shown the accounts were not published by 24 April 2002.

  3 This non-statutory resource account was published the day before it was presented to Parliament.

  4 These organisations did not prepare resource accounts in 1999–2000.

  5 Formal resource accounts were not separately published but included in the Food Standards Agency's annual report and accounts (HC 488). The publication date of HC 488 os given in the table.

  As at 24 April 2002, and excluding those Departments which had not published their resource accounts by that date, the greatest, median and least number of working days elapsing between resource accounts for 2000–01 being laid formally upon the Table and made generally available to the public are:

  Greatest: 59

  Median: 1

  Least: 0.

  There are eight accounts still to be published and the Treasury is following up late publication with the Departments concerned.

  The median number of working days elapsing between resource accounts for 1999–2000 being laid formally upon the Table and made generally available to the public was 21.

  Business Cars
  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 enhanced capital allowances for the purchase of business cars with carbon dioxide emissions not exceeding 120 grammes per kilometre, as announced in the Budget; [52394]
  726W
  (2) to how many cars, broken down by make, vehicle excise duty was applied at a rate of a £30 reduction for carbon dioxide emissions of 120 grammes per kilometre in each month since March 2001; and to how many that rate will be applied in each of the next three years; [52392]

  (3) to how many cars, broken down by make, enhanced capital allowances for the purchase of business cars with carbon dioxide emissions not exceeding 120 grammes per kilometre as announced in Budget 2002 will apply (a) at the outset of its introduction and (b) projected in the next three years. [52391]

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cars in the UK this year will benefit from the new vehicle excise duty band of 120 g/km of carbon dioxide. [52982]

  Mr. Boateng
  The 120 gm/km band for vehicle excise duty (VED) applies to new licences commencing from May 2002. It is expected that about 34,000 cars will qualify in 2002–03 rising to 105,000 cars in 2004–05.

  Enhanced capital allowances for cars with carbon dioxide emissions of up to 120 gm/km are expected to support about 7,000 new business car purchases in 2002–03 rising to over 10,000 purchases in 2004–05. It is estimated that the cost of enhanced capital allowances over the three years from 2002–03 will be £5 million/£10 million/£10 million. There are no stock projections for individual makes of vehicle.

  Electronic Filing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons the incentives for small employers to switch to electronic filing will be introduced in 2004–05 and not 2003–04. [52368]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Incentives for small employers to switch to electronic filing will be introduced in 2004–05, so that as many businesses as possible can be ready to qualify for the first year's incentive payment.

  Deferred VAT Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when and how he will consult on his proposal to allow approved companies to defer paying VAT on imports until they submit their VAT returns. [52372]

  Mr. Boateng
  HM Customs and Excise have already initiated discussions on these proposals with affected businesses, and will issue a formal consultation document in due course.

  Customs and Excise (Scotland)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional resources are being provided to HM Customs and Excise in Scotland prior to the commencement of ferry services to the continent from Rosyth; and if he will make a statement. [52584]

  Mr. Boateng
  HM Customs and Excise are funded, according to risk assessment, to provide Customs controls at all UK entry points, including Rosyth. In addition to £2 million funding for a mobile scanner that will be regularly used at Rosyth, £245,000 has been allocated for the provision of the latest technical equipment to be used in the detection of drugs and other contraband. Customs staff will be deployed regularly at Rosyth on a risk basis, both from flexible multi-functional teams currently located in Scotland and, as required, from UK national strike force teams.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Customs and Excise staff were employed in Scotland in each of the last five years; and what the staff complement is. [52909]

  Mr. Boateng
  HM Customs and Excise does not have a "staff complement" for Scotland, as they deploy their resources across the United Kingdom according to risk.

  The numbers of staff employed as are follows:

  Year

  Headcount

  FTE

  2002

  1,215

  1,184.7

  2001

  1,294

  1,258.6

  2000

  1,324

  1,289.5

  1999

  1,413

  1,376.2

  1998

  1,488

  1,449.2

  Note:

  Numbers of staff in Scotland are given both in headcount and full-time equivalent, and are based on data for the 1 April in each year. They include all staff working in Scotland. The full-time equivalent figures for 1998 and 1999 are not available and have therefore been estimated.

  National Insurance (Scotland)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what value of employers' national insurance contributions was paid by employers in Scotland in the last financial year. [52582]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that the Government Actuary's Department could provide a reliable answer only at disproportionate cost.

  Alcohol Imports
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a voluntary system of prior approval for legitimate import of alcohol for personal use. [52557]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to his last question on this subject on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 260W.

  Contraband Goods (Scotland)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated value of contraband goods confiscated by Customs and Excise staff based in Scotland in the last three years. [52583]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not available. Customs records of seizures are typically based on quantity rather than value.

  Aggregates
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the reasons for the change of policy regarding the taxation of uncrushed rock, with specific reference to armourstone; and if he will make a statement. [52957]

  Mr. Boateng
  Following consultation with the industry, the scope of the aggregates levy was broadened to include uncrushed rock to prevent the possibility of tax avoidance and scope for inequitable tax treatment, as not all rock used as aggregate is crushed.

  Armourstone is an example of uncrushed rock that can be used as aggregate. It is used for its bulk space filling properties in applications where there are often recycled alternatives available.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost to the Treasury will be(a) at the outset of its introduction and (b) projected in the next three years of the introduction of a levy on aggregates from 1 April. [53718]

  Mr. Boateng
  The projected revenue form the introduction of the aggregates levy was published on 17 April in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2002.

  Underspending
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on underspending against departmental expenditure limits; and if he will make a statement. [53306]
  729W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The public spending system introduced in 1998 provides three-year budgets for departments and allows underspends in one year to be carried over to the following year. Budgets are linked to targets for results set out in Public Service Agreements. This encourages departments to plan their budgets over a longer timeframe and reduces the incentive to spend wastefully at the end of the year.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letters of(a) 20 March and (b) 18 March from the hon. Member of Walsall North, regarding constituents. [52974]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have done so.

  Inland Revenue (Electronic Submissions)
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how much(a) businesses and (b) the Inland Revenue will save as a result of introducing a requirement to submit information to the Inland Revenue electronically, as announced in his Budget statement. [52994]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Employers are expected to realise savings from the greater certainty and speed that electronic preparation and submission of returns provide. The extent of the savings will be determined during consultation with employers on the full Regulatory Impact Assessment to be prepared and published by the Inland Revenue.

  The Inland Revenue are expected to realise savings from the reduction in paper handling and correction of errors, both in local offices and at their National Insurance Contributions office. In his review of Payroll services, Patrick Carter estimated the potential savings to the Inland Revenue at £35 million a year, after a period of five years.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses(a) use and (b) have access to computer hardware that may be updated to allow businesses to submit end of year returns to the Inland Revenue electronically. [52993]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not hold information about how many businesses use or have access to computer hardware that may be updated to allow businesses to submit end of year returns to the Inland Revenue electronically. However, businesses do not need to own a computer to submit their PAYE end of year returns electronically. It is a key part of the strategy in Patrick Carter's report to encourage small employers to use the services of intermediaries if they find that more helpful than personally handling the completion and submission of their returns. Employers who wish to complete and submit their own returns can use PAYE online forms which are accessible from the Inland Revenue's website using any Internet connected computer, including those available in libraries and Internet cafes.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Inland Revenue internet service for administering PAYE was introduced; and how many employers have made use of the scheme since its introduction. [52995]
  730W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The internet service for PAYE was launched in April 2001. There are over 14,000 employers and agents registered to use the service. 2,700 employers used the service to submit their end of year return in 2001. The Inland Revenue also provides an EDI (electronic data interchange) service which employers can use to submit returns. EDI is currently used by 55 organisations, including payroll bureaux, who represent 5,536 employers who between them have over six million employees.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action will be taken against those small businesses who are unable to submit their end of year returns to the Inland Revenue by 2010. [52992]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Employers with fewer than 50 employees will be required to send their end of year returns electronically to the Inland Revenue by 2010. To support businesses in the switch to new technology, the Inland Revenue will be expanding the payroll support given by their business support teams and employers' helpline. Employers, who do not wish to handle electronic submission of returns themselves, may use an intermediary, such as a payroll bureau, to submit returns on their behalf.

  We intend that the emphasis will be very much on helping employers to comply with their obligations, but we envisage that the relevant legislation will include some sanctions for those who do not do so.

  Vaccines, Medicines and Medical Supplies
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which companies will be expected to receive tax relief on(a) research and development into vaccines and medicines for the prevention and treatment of malaria, TB and those strains of AIDS which predominantly affect people in developing countries and (b) responsible donations of medical supplies and equipment to support developing countries' own health strategies and the needs of their people. [53117]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Any company that meets the requirements of the legislation to be introduced in the current Finance Bill can benefit from the measures. Details of claims by individual taxpayers are confidential.

  Budget Projections
  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 reduction of the revenue from tobacco duties in 2002–03 compared with 2001–02. [52949]

  Mr. Boateng
  Forecasts of tobacco duty revenues are affected by a number of factors, including consumption trends, retail prices, brand popularity and demand elasticities.

  Hepatitis C
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have died from hepatitis C in each of the last 10 years. [53289]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  731W
  Letter from John Kidgell to Tim Loughton dated 30 April 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning numbers of deaths from hepatitis C in each of the last 10 years. (53289) I am replying in his absence.
  The table below gives the number of deaths with an underlying cause of hepatitis C from 1995 to 2000. Figures are only available from 1995 as the information needed to identify deaths from hepatitis C has only been held in a reliable, electronic form since that date.

  Number of deaths where the underlying cause of death1 was hepatitis C2, persons, England and Wales, calendar years 1995 to 20003

  Calendar year

  Number of deaths

  1995

  59

  1996

  60

  1997

  82

  1998

  92

  1999

  92

  2000

  125

  1 The underlying cause of death is the disease or condition that initiates the train of morbid events leading directly to death

  2 Selected using a combination of underlying cause codes 070.4–070.5 from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and the presence of text referring to hepatitis C on the death certificate.

  3 Data relate to deaths occurring per calendar year.

  These figures are likely to underestimate the true mortality related to hepatitis C for several reasons. Firstly, because the certifying doctor may not always know about the existence of a hepatitis C infection, contracted many years earlier, that had given rise to another fatal liver disease. Secondly, where several other factors (e.g. alcohol, other blood-borne viruses) contributed to fatal chronic liver disease, the certifying doctor may judge that one of the other factors is more important. And finally, because deaths with an underlying cause of primary liver cancer are not included here, even if certified as being the result of hepatitis C infection. This is because international coding rules in use at the time (ICD-9) do not accept cancers being due to infections, except in the case of HIV/AIDS.

  Individual Savings Accounts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost has been of tax relief on individual savings accounts. [26322]

  Ruth Kelly
  The estimated costs of tax relief on individual savings accounts for 1999–2000 is contained in table A3.1 of the 'Financial Statement and Budget Report 2001' and for 2000–01 and 2001–02 in table A.3.1 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2002.

  Income Inequality
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the scale of income inequality in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK. [52231]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Ian Davidson, dated 30 April 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on income inequality. (52231) I am replying in his absence.
  I would like to refer you to the analysis "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income 2000–01", published on the National Statistics (ONS) website at http://statistics.gov.uk/taxesbenefits. A
  732W
  paper copy can be obtained from the House of Commons library. This includes measures of income inequality for the United Kingdom as a whole based on the Family Expenditure Survey.
  Estimates of the level of income inequality in Scotland were calculated for the first time this year. They are included in an article entitled "Income Inequality in Scotland" in the publication "Scottish Economic Statistics 2002" published by the Scottish Executive. It can be obtained from the House of Commons library or the web link is http://www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/sec/ses-00m.asp. The analysis covers the period up to 1999–2000 and is based on the Family Resources Survey which has a larger sample size for Scotland than the Family Expenditure Survey but covers Great Britain rather than the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  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 (i) the reduction in vehicle excise duty for vans meeting the Euro-IV emissions standard from March 2003 and (ii) the freeze of other van VED rates, as announced in the Budget. [52410]

  Mr. Boateng
  The cost of the reduction in VED for vans meeting euro IV emissions standard from March 2003 is given in table A.1 (page 155) of the FSBR. The cost of the freeze for all vans first registered after 1 March 2001, which are recorded in the light goods vehicle class is negligible. For vans registered before 1 March 2001 specific data are not available.

  Excise Duty
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how many months excise duty collection was delayed as stated in paragraph C50 of the Financial Statement and Budget report 2002; what estimate he has made of the interest costs of the delay; and if he will make a statement. [53403]

  Mr. Boateng
  Collection of excise duty was not delayed but additional receipts associated with the forestalling of road fuel duties will now be received in april 2002 rather than March 2002. No estimate has been made of the interest cost of such a delay.

  Basic Skills
  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in testing how financial incentives can support employers and individuals in tackling poor basic skills and attainment to Level 2 qualifications. [53093]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As part of Skills for Life, our national strategy for improving adult literacy and numeracy skills, pathfinder areas were established in September 2001 to pilot a range of approaches including financial incentives for learners and fixed rate replacement costs for employers to release low skilled staff for training. In addition, the Employment Service, now Jobcentre Plus, has recently completed piloting alternative approaches to identify and meet the literacy, language and numeracy skills needs of jobseekers. These pilots included the use of financial incentives. Evaluations of all these approaches are currently underway.

  In addition to these pilots, Budget 2002 announced details of six new Employer Training Pilots which will test, among other things, how financial incentives can

  733W
  support employers and individuals to tackle the problem of poor basic skills and attainment of an initial level 2 qualification. It is intended that the pilots will become operational by September 2002. The pilots will provide information about how different measures might impact on UK skills, and will gather evidence, which will contribute to the Government's consideration of workforce development policy. Further details can be found in 'Developing Workforce Skills: Piloting a New Approach', which was published alongside the Budget and is available in the House Library.

  Beer Duties
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the total UK beer production will benefit from the 50 per cent. reduction in beer duties for small breweries. [52984]

  Mr. Boateng
  Approximately 400 brewers will benefit from the equivalent of 50 per cent. on the first 5,000 hectolitres they produce. The scheme will therefore apply to 90 per cent. of licensed brewers, responsible for around 2 per cent. of the beer produced in the UK last year.

  Sun Screen Products
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax was raised through VAT levied on sun screen products in the last year. [53013]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not available.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce VAT on sun creams that meet agreed standards. [53443]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have no plans to reduce the VAT on sun cream products.

  North Sea Tax
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government conducted an economic assessment of the impact of the 10 per cent. North Sea tax on(a) current and (b) future (i) employment and (ii) exploration related to North Sea activities prior to the measure being announced in the Budget. [53215]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government has been reviewing the North Sea taxation regime since 1998. The changes announced in the Budget were subject to detailed analysis to ensure that they delivered the Government's objectives of securing a fair share of North Sea revenues, encouraging long-term investment, and establishing a stable tax regime in the North Sea for the long term.

  Motor Vehicle Repairs
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much VAT was raised in each year since 1997 on body shop motor vehicle repairs. [53061]

  Mr. Boateng
  No such information is available.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason VAT is levied on independent motor accident repair businesses for the labour element of the service; and if he will make a statement. [53062]
  734W
  Mr. Boateng
  A fundamental principle of VAT is that businesses charge VAT when they supply goods and services in the UK. When a business makes a supply, VAT is due on the price it charges and that price takes account of its costs, including labour costs.

  Stability and Growth Pact
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the compatibility of the plans set out in Budget 2002 with the stability and growth pact. [53590]

  Ruth Kelly
  As set out in paragraph 2.65 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report, the Budget 2002 projections are consistent with the Government's prudent interpretation of the stability and growth pact which takes account of the economic cycle, sustainability and the important role of public investment (as specified in Article 104 of the EU treaty).

  Rating Appeals
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many appeals have been listed in respect of entries in the 2000 Rating List; how many of these appeals have been dealt with fully; and what the cost has been of considering these appeals. [53499]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As at 31 March 2002, the Valuation Office Agency had received 918,970 appeals against the 2000 Rating Lists. 323,609 of those appeals have been settled at a cost to the agency of approximately £90 million.

  Contaminated Land Tax Credit
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated value is of the contaminated land tax credit in 2002–03. [53408]

  Mr. Boateng
  The estimated cost in 2002–03 of tax relief for cleaning contaminated land is £85 million, as given in tables All and Al2 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report, March 2001.

  Research and Development
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the 50 per cent. tax credit on research and development into vaccines and medicines for the prevention of malaria, TB and some strains of AIDS in poorer countries will apply to(a) current and (b) future research and development; [53340]

  (2) when the tax credit on research and development into vaccines and medicines for the prevention treatment of malaria, TB and some strains of AIDS in poorer countries announced in the Budget will be implemented; [53341]

  (3) if his Department will outline new criteria to entitle companies to claim the research and development tax credit with vaccines and medicines for the prevention treatment of malaria, TB and some strains of AIDS in poorer countries announced in the Budget. [53342]

  Mr. Boateng
  Finance Bill 2002 will introduce a new tax credit to encourage research and development into vaccines and medicines for the prevention of TB, malaria and for the prevention of the onset or treatment of AIDS for those strains of HIV most commonly found
  735W
  in the developing world. (Research and development expenditure on vaccines for the prevention of HIV infection will also be eligible for this relief.) Companies will be entitled to deduct an additional 50 per cent. of qualifying current expenditure incurred on or after a date specified by an order to be made by the Treasury.

  Red Book
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the figures in Table 4.4 of the Budget Red Book include the effects of(a) housing benefit and (b) council tax benefit; and how many people would be in each marginal deduction rate if their benefits were included. [53529]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The effects of housing benefit and council tax benefit are included in Table 4.4 of the Budget 2002 report.

  Climate Change Levy
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the total cost to the Treasury will be(a) at the outset of its introduction and (b) projected in the next three years from the exemption from the Climate Change Levy of electricity from electricity from coal mine methane sold via licensed electricity suppliers; [53726]

  (2) what the total cost to the Treasury will be (a) at the outset of its introduction and (b) projected in the next three years from the exemption from the Climate Change Levy of electricity from combined heat and power plants sold via licensed electricity suppliers; [53727]

  (3) what the total cost to the Treasury will be (a) at the outset of its introduction and (b) projected in the next three years of the freeze in the rate of the Climate Change Levy announced in the Budget; whether this freeze is in real terms; and if he will make a statement. [53724]

  Mr. Boateng
  The costs of the freeze in rates of the Climate Change Levy, the exemption of electricity from combined heat and power plants, and the exemption of electricity from coal mine methane sold via licensed electricity suppliers are set out on pages 155 and 167 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report (FSBR) 2002.

  The freeze in rates is in nominal terms and therefore represents a real terms cut.

  New Deal
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many officials in his Department were working on the New Deal in(a) 1998 and (b) 2001. [53410]

  Ruth Kelly
  Several Treasury officials worked on the Government's new deal initiative alongside their other duties.

  As to the numbers of new deal staff employed by the Treasury, I refer the hon. Member to an earlier reply dated 25 March 2002, Official Report, columns 748–49W.

  Life Assurance Premium Relief
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the size is of the accounting adjustment 736W
  made in Table C 13 of the Financial Statement and Budget report 2002, for life assurance premium relief; and if he will make a statement. [53407]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The tax credits line in Table C13 includes £100 million in respect of life assurance premium relief for 2000–01 and slightly lower amounts in each succeeding year.

  Public Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the net public capital expenditure has been in(a) cash, (b) real and (c) GDP terms in each year since 1998–99; and what the latest estimate is for the 2001–02 out-turn. [53482]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The figures requested are given in the table.

  Public sector net investment

  Current prices (£ billion)

  2000–01 prices (£ billion)

  Percentage of GDP

  1998–99

  5.9

  6.1

  0.7

  1999–2000

  4.7

  4.8

  0.5

  2000–01

  5.7

  5.7

  0.6

  2001–021

  12.0

  11.7

  1.2

  1 Provisional

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Anti-Competitive Practices
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to introduce(a) direct and (b) rapid remedies for victims of anti-competitive practices; and if she will make a statement. [52229]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Improving the opportunities for victims of anti-competitive practices to gain redress is a key theme of the Enterprise Bill (introduced to the House of Commons on 26 March 2002).

  The Bill will enable those harmed by anti-competitive practices to follow a decision establishing a breach of competition law with a claim for damages before a specialist competition body—the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The tribunal offers the advantages of being a quicker and more streamlined route for consumers and businesses to obtain redress from companies that have broken the law. In addition, representative bodies will he able to bring claims for damages in front of the tribunal on behalf of groups of named consumers, thus helping consumers obtain redress where a large number of parties have each suffered a relatively small level of harm.

  The Government are also providing a faster and fairer route to an independent review of a decision under the Competition Act by allowing third parties to appeal direct to the Competition Appeal Tribunals instead of first having to ask the Director General or one of the sector regulators to withdraw or alter his decision.

  Coal Methane Electricity Generation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the extent of the scope for new jobs from electricity generation from coal methane. [52367]
  737W
  Mr. Wilson
  There are no Government estimates of the scope for jobs but the industry estimates that some 105 new permanent jobs will be created as a result of coal mine methane's exemption from the CCL as well as some 1,050 temporary jobs for the construction industry.

  Postal Services
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will provide a breakdown by constituency of the percentage of people who live within one mile of a post office branch. [53031]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: I am informed by Post Office Ltd. that the information is not available on a constituency basis. However, 94 per cent. of the UK population lives within one mile of a post office.

  Post Offices
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices closed in the last financial year ending 31 March, broken down by(a) whether rural and urban and (b) constituency. [53066]

  Mr. Alexander
  I am informed by Post Office Ltd. that figures for the quarter ending March 2002 are not yet available. However, for the nine months April to December 2001 closures totalled 208 comprising 167 rural and 41 urban offices.

  The information is not available on a constituency basis.

  Business Statistics
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) sole traders, (b) partnerships and (c)limited companies are registered in (i) Dumfries and Galloway, (ii) Scotland and (iii) the UK. [52902]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We do not maintain statistics for sole traders or partnerships.

  The details for (c) are as follows:

  (i) 1,114 companies as at 28 February 2002

  (ii) 88,809 companies as at 31 March 2002

  (iii) 1,658,215 companies as at 31 March 2002 in England, Wales and Scotland.

  Research Councils
  Mr. Mike Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the outcome of the Second Stage of the Quinquennial Review of the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils will be announced; and what were the main recommendations associated with the implementation of a strategic ownership model. [53818]

  Ms Hewitt
  My noble Friend the Minister for Science and Innovation has today announced the outcome of the Second Stage of the Quinquennial Review of the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC).

  The first stage of the review recommended that the second stage of the review should focus on the issues associated with the implementation of a strategic
  738W
  ownership model, to encourage collective ownership by the user research councils of CCLRC's large facilities, addressing in particular the implications for the status of CCLRC and its accountability to Ministers and Parliament.

  The second stage of the review has been led by the chief executive of the CCLRC, Professor John Wood and conducted under the guidance an external review board chaired by Sir Peter Williams, and the Office of Science and Technology. The review has been conducted in accordance with the latest Cabinet Office guidance and Cabinet Office and Treasury officials have had an opportunity to comment on the draft report and its recommendations.

  The principal recommendation is that for its core business the CCLRC should remain a non-departmental public body (NDPB) and a research council. In addition, CCLRC should be given a strategic role, as identified in stage one, to act as a national focus for large facilities for neutron scattering, synchrotron radiation and high power lasers on behalf of the research councils UK. Further, it should also co-ordinate the development for research councils UK of policies and strategies for the provision of access by UK scientists to leading edge large-scale facilities in these scientific areas, both nationally and internationally. The co-ordination and provision of strategic advice would be carried out separately from the day-to-day operation of CCLRC owned facilities.

  There should be a common scheme for access to the large facilities for researchers sponsored by all the research councils. For those proposals that successfully undergo competitive peer review, there will be a "free at the point of access" arrangement.

  CCLRC's funding arrangements should alter so that CCLRC receives direct funding from the Office of Science and Technology for providing, operating, maintaining, developing and upgrading its large facilities and their instrumentation. This would be on the basis that, a rolling medium term plan for the operational requirements of the large facilities be prepared by CCLRC and endorsed by research councils UK. This arrangement would ensure that the chief executive of CCLRC as accounting officer is clearly and visibly accountable for the value for money of all aspects of the delivery of science from these large facilities. In addition, there will be an external review of CCLRC's cost base and financial processes in advance of the changes to the funding arrangements.

  I warmly welcome these recommendations and offer my thanks to Professor Wood and the review board.

  Temporary Workers
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research she has conducted into the(a) social and (b) economic benefits of temporary work. [52301]

  Alan Johnson
  According to the Labour Force Survey, in Autumn 2001 28 per cent. of temporary employees do not want a permanent job and 39 per cent. chose temporary employment for other reasons. Therefore, for many individuals, temporary employment is a matter of positive choice that suits their current circumstances.
  739W
  The Labour Force Survey defines temporary employees as including individuals engaged on: employment business assignments, seasonal work, fixed term contracts, casual work and other non-permanent work.

  The Department's officials are preparing a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) which will look at the possible costs and benefits of the Directive to workers, agencies and user companies in the UK. The RIA will be placed in the Libraries of House in due course.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the timetable is for the introduction of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations. [52296]

  Alan Johnson
  I have no definite dates for the introduction of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations. However, following a short consultation exercise on certain aspects of these Regulations, we will lay the Regulations before Parliament. Subject to the approval of Parliament, the Regulations will take effect later in the year.

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research she has commissioned into pay differentials between temporary and permanent workers. [52305]

  Alan Johnson
  No research has been commissioned specifically to examine the pay differentials between temporary and permanent workers. However, a study has been commissioned to identify the extent to which employers treat part-time and fixed term contract staff differently from full-time workers doing a comparable job. This includes a question about the comparable rate of pay. The report is currently being prepared for publication.

  The study was carried out by BMRB International and is based on a sample survey of employers.

  Budget (Effects on Cheltenham)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what effect the budget of 17 April will have on business in Cheltenham. [52937]

  Alan Johnson
  I am pleased to support the Budget measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17 April. The Budget contained a variety of measures designed to help business become more competitive and productive. These included a freeze on road tax and fuel duty, abolition of stamp duty relief for business transactions in poor areas, an extra £30 million for small firms training needs, direct cash help to small firms filing tax returns online, a capital gains tax cut, small companies starting rate cut to zero and small companies tax cut by 1 p with immediate effect. More detail can be found on www.budget.treasury.gov.uk. Business Link Gloucestershire Ltd (tel 01452 509522) can also provide advice on the impact of the Budget on business activity.

  Equal Opportunities
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the complexities referred to in Towards Equality and Diversity are that require age discrimination legislation to be introduced on a longer timetable than equivalent legislation on sexual orientation, religion 740W
  or belief; what action will be taken before 2006 to tackle these complexities; and if she will make a statement. [53118]

  Alan Johnson
  Implementing the age strand of the Employment Framework Directive (2000–78) is a significant undertaking and we need to allow time to get it right. Unlike sexual orientation and religion, differences of treatment on the grounds of age are capable of objective justification under the Directive in certain circumstances. The Directive itself acknowledges that age is more complex than the other strands by allowing a longer time to implement—2006 instead of 2003.

  There are significant practical issues to be worked through in consultation with employers, particularly small businesses and others that may be affected. We want to ensure we implement age legislation sensibly.

  We have already undertaken widespread consultation to identify what age-related practices employers have and why they might need to retain them. Chapter 15 of the consultation document "Towards Equality and Diversity" identified and invited views on key age issues. These include arrangements for recruitment, selection and promotion, training, pay and non-pay benefits, redundancy and retirement.

  We want to prohibit unfair practice so as to remove the barriers which people of all ages can face in the workplace. We do not want to ban employment practices which can be clearly and objectively justified. We will need to consider each of these areas in detail, and will consult again later this year with a set of firm proposals.

  We made it clear in the consultation document that we needed to use the full timescale—to 2006—to prepare and introduce new legislation in age.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with whom she is consulting on the implementation of the European Community Employment and Race Directives; how the proposed draft regulations impact upon the policy responsibilities of Government Departments; and if she will make a statement. [53119]

  Alan Johnson
  The consultation document 'Towards Equality and Diversity' set out the government's proposals to implement the EC Employment and Race Directives. During the fifteen week consultation period, which closed at the end of March, more than 850 responses were received from a range of stakeholders including small businesses, large employers, the voluntary sector, unions, interest groups and individuals.

  We are currently considering the responses, working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions, Home Office, Cabinet Office and Department for Education and Skills and all interested Government Departments. The results of the consultation, and more detailed proposals, including draft legislation to outlaw discrimination at work, will be published in the autumn.

  Motor Accident Repairs
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the percentage of repairs to accident-damaged vehicles carried out by(a) insurance-owned companies and (b) independent body shops in the last 12 months. [52240]
  741W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government do not collect this information.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Government policy is on competition in the motor accident repair market; and if she will make a statement. [52241]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government want to see a competitive and efficient motor accident repair market. Responsibility for monitoring the market and investigating allegations of anti-competitive behaviour lies with the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Websites
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many visits there have been to the website www.ukonline.gov.uk in each month since it was launched. [51516]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK online website (www.ukonline.gov.uk) was launched in January 2001. The table shows the number of visits that the site has received for each month since its launch, with the latest full month of figures being for March 2002.

  Month and year

  Unique user sessions1

  Page impressions2

  Registered users

  January 2001

  —

  —

  5,588

  February 2001

  —

  991,071

  9,833

  March 2001

  —

  1,635,728

  14,125

  April 2001

  —

  1,743,973

  16,597

  May 2001

  —

  2,038,984

  19,602

  June 2001

  —

  3,043,119

  21,787

  July 2001

  —

  4,120,772

  24,034

  August 2001

  —

  4,806,766

  26,194

  September 2001

  —

  4,036,503

  29,718

  October 2001

  —

  2,995.678

  32,769

  November 2001

  322,721

  3,696,221

  37,063

  December 2001

  639,915

  4,789,029

  40,605

  January 2002

  632,450

  4,912,704

  43,010

  February 2002

  228,273

  2,318,572

  44,954

  March 2002

  418,114

  2,605,319

  48,933 (9.03)

  1 This represents individual visitors to the site, and is tracked from a users IP address. For example, this means that if four people visit the site this week, we record that as four unique users. If each of these users visit twice, we still only have four unique users in that week. The complementary measure is number of visits (or sessions).

  2 Page impressions are literally 'pages seen, or loaded onto the user's PC'. The home page is one page impressions, the news page is another etc.

  Digital Equipment
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many digital radios are owned by her Department for use in departmental buildings from which Ministers work; and what the(a) cost and (b) date of purchase of each radio was. [52849]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: This information is not held centrally by my Department and cannot be answered except at disproportionate cost.

DEFENCE

  ROROs
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what options were given to the bidders for the roll-on/roll-offs for the provision of crews; [50888]

  (2) what the preferred crewing option of AWSR Ltd. was when selected as the preferred bidder for the roll-on/roll-offs; [50889]

  (3) what arrangements will apply for the crewing by British seafarers of the roll-on/roll-offs. [50887]

  Dr. Moonie
  Bidders in the competition for a strategic sealift service were invited to tender on the basis of a crewing option that they considered would offer best value for money and to provide details that would facilitate an assessment of sponsored reserve crewing of all six ships. AWSR initially expected to be using sponsored reserve crews on the six ships when they were in Ministry of Defence use, with British officers and multinational crews when the ships were on commercial work. Negotiations with AWSR in 2001 were able to take account of the implications and benefits of the Government's "British Shipping Charting a New Course" which had been published the previous year. As a result, when working for MOD ships will be manned by British crews who will be eligible to be called out as sponsored reserves and, although not mandated by MOD, British crews will man the ships being used in commercial trade.

  Service Personnel (Transport)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what provision is made for the transportation of service men and women returning from overseas tours of duty, from their point of arrival in the UK to their home base; and if he will make a statement; [51724]

  (2) if he will make a statement on how the equipment and kit of personnel returning from overseas duty is transported from their point of arrival in the UK to their home base. [51725]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 22 April 2002]: I assume the hon. Member is referring to operational tours of duty and exercises, not administrative moves of personnel returning from longer term postings overseas.

  It is the Ministry of Defence's aim to ensure the efficient and safe redeployment of service personnel—and their equipment and kit—when returning from overseas tours to Britain, in accordance with UK Customs procedures and other relevant legislation. The infrastructure, facilities and resources at the point of arrival will play a major part in determining the dispersal plan, but in the majority of cases we provide coach transport which offers a secure, efficient and flexible means of moving formed bodies of service men and women and their equipment to their home base.

  SPEAR Weapon
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (I) what discussion has taken place with the US to ensure that the development of the SPEAR weapon for
  743W
  the US version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is compatible with the UK version; and if he will make a statement; [52263]

  (2) what assessment has been made of the compatibility of the SPEAR weapon with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter; and if he will make a statement. [52264]

  Dr. Moonie
  SPEAR (Selective Precision Effects At Range) is a term used to describe the capability to attack surface targets at intermediate range from legacy and planned UK strike aircraft. Studies into how best to meet this requirement are still on-going, and no decisions have yet been taken. The SPEAR capability could be provided by improvements to legacy or near-term weapons and/or by a new system or systems.

  Whatever capability solution is chosen would need to take into account the capabilities offered by the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), which as been selected as having the best potential to meet the UK's Future Joint Combat Aircraft requirement.

  Our participation in the JSF programme ensures our close involvement with regard to potential weapons systems for the aircraft.

  Continuous Attitude Survey
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the questions asked in the latest continuous attitude survey undertaken by the(a) Royal Navy, (b) Royal Air Force and (c) Army; how often the surveys have been compiled; to what use they are put; and if he will make a statement. [51810]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: The Army and the RAF latest continuous attitude surveys include over 200 questions each, while the Royal Navy survey has over a hundred. The questions are on a wide variety of subjects with the following broad categories: personal circumstances; quality of life; job satisfaction; career development; operational tours and postings; pay and allowances; accommodation: welfare; families; facilities; communication and equal opportunities. The questions are structured around the Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy; however, they are not fixed and are varied to determine attitudes to particular conditions of service.

  Each of the three services has conducted its own continuous attitude surveys of serving personnel since the 1980s. The Royal Navy conducts surveys three times per year, the Army twice yearly and the Royal Air Force conducts surveys quarterly.

  Each survey is designed to ascertain the attitude of personnel towards a range of service conditions and to gather intentions with regard to their remaining in the service. Senior staff and policy makers use the information gathered to identify which policies are seen to be working and inform subsequent policy development work. The three services also periodically survey spouses of serving personnel to gather evidence on the effects of service life on families.

  Missile Defence
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Government policy is on missile defence for the UK. [52477]
  744W
  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 29 April 2002,Official Report, columns 654–55, to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk).

  British Forces (Gibraltar)
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with(a) his Spanish counterpart and (b) Spanish officials regarding the sovereign future of the Headquarters British Forces Gibraltar under the Brussels Process; and if he will make a statement. [53135]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has not had any such discussions. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe told the House on 16 April 2002,Official Report, column 451, the United Kingdom will retain full control over the British military base in Gibraltar.

  Sea Harriers
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if HMG(a) has entered into and (b) intends to enter into talks with the Indian Government concerning the sale of Royal Navy Sea Harriers to that country. [51018]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) on 29 April 2002,Official Report, columns 528–29W.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost of the upgrade of the Sea Harrier fleet from FRS1 to FRS2 standard was. [53463]

  Mr. Ingram
  The total cost of upgrading the FRS1 Sea Harrier fleet of 33 aircraft to FRS2 standard, beginning in 1994, amounted to just under £466 million.

  Asylum Seekers (Cyprus)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many asylum seekers have entered the sovereign base areas in Cyprus in the last 12 months; how many remain; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on this issue. [52976]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: Five asylum seekers have entered the Sovereign Base Areas since 29 April 2001, one of whom remains there. The current total of refugees and asylum seekers in the Sovereign Base Areas numbers 95 individuals from a total of 165 who have arrived since October 1998. The Sovereign Base Areas Administration applies the principles of the refugee convention when dealing with asylum seekers and acts in close cooperation with the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus.

  Discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Cyprus regarding the long term future of the Sovereign Base Area's refugees and asylum seekers, and the arrangements for handling new arrivals, are continuing.

  Ministerial Visits
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times Ministers in his Department visited United States Government military bases and establishments on United Kingdom territory between
  745W
  1 January 1997 and 1 January 1999; which Ministers were involved; what the date of each visit was; and which United States military facility was visited. [53359]

  Dr. Moonie
  There were no visits made available to the United States Visiting Forces in the UK by Ministers from my Department between 1 May 1997 and 1 January 1999. However, a number of Ministers visited RAF Fairford during the Royal International Air Tattoo in 1997 and 1998.

  Naval Vessels
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to dispose of Type 23 frigates; and what discussions he has had with foreign Governments in respect of their future disposal. [52894]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: On current plans our Type 23 frigates will remain in service until around the middle of the next decade from which point they will be progressively withdrawn. No substantive or detailed discussions over Type 23 disposals have taken place with any potential foreign Government buyer.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to withdraw British forces from Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [52900]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: British military involvement in Kosovo will be decided in the light of the major review currently being undertaken by NATO of its operations in the Balkans. The review, entitled the Joint Operational Area Review, will be discussed by NATO Foreign Ministers in May 2002. We welcome the review and remain committed to maintaining a military contribution to NATO peacekeeping in the Balkans. The form that this contribution will take has yet to be decided.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the first Eurofighters will be delivered to the RAF; and when they will become operational. [52898]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: The Eurofighter delivery schedule is being reviewed by the four participating nations and the prime contractor EF GmbH. It would be wrong to speculate on the outcome of this review, but we do not expect to impinge on our plans to achieve full operational capability during the second half of the decade. The recent flights of Instrumented Production Airport were significant programme milestones.

  Army Manpower
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by when(a) 45 Cd. RM and (b) I R Anglian will be relieved or replaced. [53051]

  Mr. Hoon
  Although there is a planning assumption of three months, the deployment of 45 Commando Royal Marines will last as long as it takes to deal with the continuing threat. If it becomes necessary to replace the Royal Marines in-theatre, that decision will have to be taken according to the circumstances on the ground. The 746W
  1 Royal Anglian tour as part of the International Security Assistance Force began officially on 15 March 2002 and will probably last into June.

  Defence Medical Services
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) consultants, (b) specialist registrars and (c) vocationally trained general practitioners have (i) joined the Defence Medical Services, (ii) completed training in the DMS and (iii) left the DMS in each of the last 10 years, broken down by specialty. [R] [52989]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Airfields
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which UK RAF airfields will experience increased air traffic volumes as a result of the closure of West Freugh airfield. [52560]

  Dr. Moonie
  The RAF airfields nearest to the West Freugh range are RAF Valley, RAF Leeming and RAF Leuchars. There may be some small increase in the use of these airfields by aircraft operating in support of trials at the West Freugh range; the extent of any increase will depend upon a number of factors, including weather conditions, required range time and fuel requirements.

  Integrated Project Teams
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what review has been made of the National Audit Office report on its Department's integrated project teams; what time scale has been set for pursuing the recommendations; and if he will make a statement. [52265]

  Dr. Moonie
  All of the recommendations raised in NAO Report HC671 have been evaluated as part of a recent Stock-take Review of Smart Acquisition. They are being taken forward in the action plans that have been developed subsequently. The time scales for pursuing the individual recommendations vary, and will be kept under review.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Lakshmi Mittal
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) whether she was consulted before her Department approved the £45.7 million loan from the International Finance Corporation to Ispat Karmet; [43765]

  (2) whether she was consulted before officials from her Department approved the (a) £37.9 million loan to Ispat Karmet from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and (b) the £2.3 million World bank grant to Lakshmi Mittal from the World bank in May 2001; [43767]

  (3) whether officials from the Office of the Prime Minister were consulted before her Department approved (a) the £45.7 million loan from the International Finance Corporation, (b) the £37.9 million loan to Ispat Karmet

  747W
  from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and (c) the £2.3 million World bank grant to Lakshmi Mittal from the World bank in May 2001. [43766]

  Clare Short
  The decision to support the £45.7 million loan to Ispat Karmet from the International Finance Corporation in 1997; the £37.9 million loan to Ispat Karmet from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development; and the £2.3 million World bank equity and quasi-equity investment to Lakshmi Mittal from the World bank in May 2001 was taken solely by DFID departmental officials. As I have repeatedly made clear officials from my Department work to policies set out in our published strategies for the EBRD, World bank and other international development banks. These decisions were uncontroversial and therefore not referred to Ministers.

  HIV Treatment
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much, on average, full treatment for one HIV sufferer costs over the course of a year in the last five years. [37937]

  Clare Short
  There are currently 17 different separate licensed anti-retroviral (ARV) drugs which can be used in a variety of combinations. Moreover, different countries use different types of drugs and treatments to help treat people living with HIV/AIDS.

  The retail cost of all three classes of drugs in developed countries averages between $10,000 and $14,000 per year. Costa Rica has negotiated a price equivalent to $7,000 per patient per year for ARV. Nigeria has launched the largest ARV treatment programme in Africa, using a generic form of ARV at a cost of $350 per patient per year. In Brazil, where some ARV drugs are produced locally, triple combination therapy costs $1,460 per patient per year, whereas in Thailand the cost of triple combination therapy is over $4,100 per patient per year. In addition to drugs costs there are laboratory monitoring costs (estimated at around US$400 per annum in Uganda) and other associated service delivery costs.

  My Department is working with the international community to facilitate a framework for differential pricing, which would provide essential medicines to the developing world at substantially lower cost. However, the cost of ARV represents only part of the cost of treatment for people living with HIV. For example, an essential pre-requisite to any programme to increase access to medicines is widespread availability of voluntary counselling and testing. Adequate access to treatment for opportunistic infections such as tuberculosis, is also crucial. Furthermore, building capacity to use ARVs effectively cannot be achieved overnight, and will require substantial and sustained investment in health systems to reduce resistance to the drugs and to maximise the utility of the drugs in the short and long term.

  SIDEX
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what conditions to the loan to LNM/Ispat for the purchase of SIDEX were(a) sought and (b) obtained by the British representatives of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. [44576]
  748W
  Clare Short
  None. The EBRD negotiates appropriate financial and other conditions with individual clients. In accordance with its mandate, these typically include conditions designed to enhance both the transition and environmental impact of the project.

  Young People
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on what subjects and on which dates her Department has consulted organisations representing young people; and if she will list such organisations. [52498]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development formally consulted organisations representing young people specifically on the draft of its Institutional Strategy Paper on the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), which was published in 2000. The Department also included such organisations in its consultations on the Government's White Paper on "Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor" in 2000 and on nine Target Strategy Papers between 1999 and 2001. The Department has frequent informal contacts in the course of its business with a wide range of civil society organisations, in the UK and overseas, representing the interests of children. During 2001 and 2002 the Department has held a number of consultation meetings with civil society organisations representing young people to discuss the United Kingdom's position on the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Children, which will take place next month, and its draft outcomes document.

  Overseas Projects
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Primary Schools Education Management Development Project in Botswana. 149170]

  Clare Short
  DFID has contributed technical assistance worth £1.2 million to support the Government of Botswana in strengthening the management of primary education. DFID and the Botswana Government have reviewed progress regularly to ensure value for money. The last major review of the project was conducted in May 2001 and another is planned for later this year. The project has been effective in training school principals and school management teams, and we regard it as a successful collaboration between our two Governments.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Shapla: Nursing, Medical Education and Public/Private Partnership projects in Bangladesh. [49173]

  Clare Short
  These are three components of DFID's support to the Government of Bangladesh's health sector reforms. The contractors responsible for delivering the outputs of the components were jointly selected by DFID and Government of Bangladesh on the basis of technical competency and overall cost.

  They are subject to ongoing monitoring by our Bangladesh office and have, in addition been subject to two independent, external reviews in May 2000 and May 2001. The standard of work undertaken has been judged

  749W
  to be consistently high and DFID is satisfied that this support is achieving good value for money and is producing demonstrable results.

  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 Humanitarian Assistance Services Projects. [49182]

  Clare Short
  The Humanitarian Assistance Services contract was awarded under a process of international competitive bidding to the Crown Agents in 1999. The contract is currently in the process of being re-tendered.

  We are satisfied that the contract has provided a competitively priced service which has enabled DFID to respond to numerous crises around the globe, most recently in, for example, Afghanistan, Gujarat and Mozambique.

  During 1999–2000 the National Audit Office conducted a value for money audit of DFID's response to the Kosovo crisis, this included the role played by the Crown Agents under the Humanitarian Services Contract. The report acknowledged the leading role played by DFID during the crisis.

  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 Restructuring Forests of the former Homeland Administrations Project in the Republic of South Africa. [49191]

  Clare Short
  DFID is providing technical assistance worth £2.95 million to South Africa's Department of Water Affairs and Forestry to support its policy of restructuring the forests of the Former Homeland Administrations in the way that addresses social objectives. DFID and the South African Government have reviewed progress regularly to ensure value for money. The project was last formally reviewed in May 2001. This programme has made an important contribution to the effective management of these forests, which are very important to some of the poorest areas of South Africa.

  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 Family Protection Project Managers Project in Jordan. [49197]

  Clare Short
  Officials from my Department visited Jordan in February to monitor the Family Protection Project. Their report identified significant progress as having been made over the past year, and appropriate action has been agreed with the project managers for ensuring that this continues to be the case during the remainder of the project.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Social Marketing of Condoms Project in Mozambique. [49207]

  Clare Short
  The Mozambique Social Marketing Condoms Project is regularly monitored by the implementing partner, Population Services International in collaboration with the funding partners, DFID, The Netherlands and USAID. We believe that cost effectiveness is very important, and one of the key indicators monitored is the cost per condom sold. Higher 750W
  sales reduce the cost per condom, and although final cost figures for 2001 are not yet available, last year saw the highest sales since the project began. An evaluation of the project is planned for the third quarter of this year, when cost effectiveness and value for money will be among key issues examined.

  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 Guyana Land Administration Support Programme in Guyana. [49186]

  Clare Short
  My Department undertook a review of DFID support to the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission in November 2001. The project continues to meet its objectives cost effectively.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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 jobseeker's allowance or other benefits. [49608]

  Clare Short
  My Department is responsible for three non-departmental public bodies. None of them employ any support or other staff, and the question of using the new deal does not arise.

  Digital Equipment
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many digital radios are owned by her Department for use in departmental buildings from which Ministers work; and what the(a) cost and (b) date of purchase of each radio was. [52852]

  Clare Short
  DFID have no digital radios.

  Solar Panels
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what buildings owned by her Department in the United Kingdom have solar panels installed. [53489]

  Clare Short
  DFID have no solar panels installed on our buildings. Options for utilising renewable energy resources were studied in 2000–01. Solar panels were not appropriate or viable due to the configurations and locations of our two main UK offices. The studies showed that subject to planning permission, a wind turbine should be investigated for our East Kilbride office. This work, looking at location and wind regimes, is on-going.

  Belize
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 20 March 2002,Official Report, column 369W, regarding Belize, when in November 2001 officials from her Department held a meeting with Prime Minister Musa and Minister Fonseca; and where this meeting took place. [53413]
  751W
  Clare Short
  My officials met with Prime Minister Musa and Minister Fonseca on 20 November 2001 in Belmopan.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 20 March 2002,Official Report, column 369W, regarding Belize, when she took her decision not to grant debt relief under the Commonwealth Debt Initiative to Belize. [53411]

  Clare Short
  My decision not to grant debt relief under the Commonwealth Debt Initiative to Belize was taken in September 2001.

  Press Office
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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. [46814]

  Clare Short
  DFID's Information Department includes the Public Enquiry Point, Publications, Development Awareness and Knowledge Management as well as the press office. It would involve disproportionate cost to break down the press office element of the total expenditure.

  Engineering
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement regarding the projects within her Department that aim to strengthen professional engineering in developing countries, indicating which countries are involved. [49829]

  Clare Short
  The provision and maintenance of water, transport and energy infrastructure underpins much of what we do to eliminate poverty and encourage pro-poor economic growth. In all programmes we will try to include an element of strengthening and training into the institutions which provide the engineering services. Our Knowledge and Research programmes regularly look at projects which try to improve the technical standards and the quality of decision making for the engineering profession in developing countries.

  However more specifically the Strengthening Professional Engineering Associations Project (SPEAP) has been using the Institution of Civil Engineers to study the particular needs of the engineering profession in Bangladesh, India, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Tanzania, and Uganda.

  Infrastructure services consume a very large proportion of public funds in developing countries. The rationale for the project lies in the recognition that poor quality engineering often leads to the inefficient use of those funds and the rapid deterioration of facilities. Earthquake disasters result in loss of life which could be mostly avoided by implementation of simple engineering good practice. As we move away from donor supervised project level support towards budget and sectoral support the quality of local professional services becomes increasingly critical. A strengthened profession will help to maintain higher standards and improve decision making to the benefit of the whole community.
  752W
  The project will also address the impact of strengthened professional standards on professional integrity and corruption and look at the potential impact of the GATS 2000 decisions in respect of the worldwide trade in engineering services. If engineering qualification and standards are not raised to internationally accepted norms then the full benefits will not be realised.

  Throughout our work in engineering we are continuously emphasising the broader responsibilities of engineers towards the social and environmental issues associated with infrastructure developments.

  Afghanistan
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to provide aid to Afghanistan following the earthquake in that country on 25 March. [49270]

  Clare Short
  The earthquake which struck northern Afghanistan on 25 March is estimated to have killed around 800 people and left 20,000 families in need of food and shelter assistance.

  My Department deployed a team from its Kabul office to assess the situation and established a co-ordination centre in the affected area on behalf of OCHA.

  While most of the acute needs of the affected population have been met, the focus of the response is now shifting towards reconstruction. UN agencies have delivered relief items from existing stockpiles including tents, blankets, mattresses, plastic sheeting, clothing, shoes, kitchen sets, jerrycans, hygiene kits, and soap.

  Since September last year, DFID has provided £60 million in response to the Afghan crisis, through UN agencies, the Red Cross movement and non-governmental organisations.

  Annual Report
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when her Department's annual report is being published. [48873]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 24 April 2002,Official Report, column 316W.

  Debt Relief
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how the Government calculates the cut-off date for eligibility for debt relief; and what post cut-off date relief packages have been agreed. [53613]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  The United Kingdom grants 100 per cent. debt relief on all official debt currently owned by countries eligible for the enhanced heavily indebted poor countries' initiative once these countries have reached decision point. No distinction is made between pre and post cut off date debt as defined by the Paris Club of official creditors. The Government have pressed all creditors to follow this example.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Bushmeat
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to raise the subject of the trade in bushmeat at the Johannesburg World Summit. [48156]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government's work to tackle the trade in bushmeat is primarily channelled through the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). We have funded research to analyse knowledge on the bushmeat trade, highlight gaps in data and understanding, and recommend further action. The Government support a number of initiatives with links to bushmeat, such as the UK Bushmeat Working Group.

  Although the UK Government have not planned to raise the specific subject of trade in bushmeat at WSSD, this issue has links with the Johannesburg agenda. The Government's priorities for the summit include poverty eradication and sustainable livelihoods. Action in these areas will address the diverse underlying causes of bushmeat trade.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his estimate is of the cost in a full year of the Budget changes to employers' National Insurance contributions to(a) his Department, (b) agencies of his Department, (c) local government carrying out functions within the responsibility of his Department and (d) the Duchy of Lancaster. [51954]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) on 29 April 2002,Official Report, column 544W.

  Civil Service
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the salary costs have been to each Government Department of employing staff from employment agencies to undertake work as(a) administrative assistant or equivalent, (b) administrative officer or equivalent, (c) administrative executive officer, (d) higher executive officer and (e) senior executive officer located in (i) London and (ii) the south-east in each year since 1995. [52095]

  Mr. Leslie
  Details of salary costs incurred as a result of employing staff from employment agencies are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the starting salary is for a civil servant employed at each level for each Government Department. [52094]

  Mr. Leslie
  Responsibility for pay, outside the senior civil service, is delegated to Departments and agencies. Starting salaries are therefore a matter for the Department or agency concerned and will depend on the job to be done and the skills and experience of the individual.
  754W
  Information on civil service pay, broken down by salary and responsibility level, is published in the "Civil Service Statistics 2000" and is based on 1 April 2000 data. Copies of the publication can be found in the Library of the House.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if his Department is running a recruitment campaign to encourage graduates to join the civil service. [53261]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office is responsible for fast stream recruitment which is aimed at graduates who have the potential to reach the senior levels of the civil service. The current recruitment campaign includes elements aimed both specifically at the fast stream, and also at encouraging interest in civil service careers more generally, for example:Production and distribution of fast stream information packs to all university career services in the UK
  Attendance at career fairs, including diversity fairs, at universities around the country (programme to date has been placed in the Library)
  Advertising in The Guardian (Society and Rise sections)
  Advertisement in Disability Now
  Advertisement monthly in Ready Willing and Able (disability publication)
  An entry on the following internet sites:

  www.skills.org.uk

  www.gradunet.co.uk

  www.blackbritain.co.uk

  www.prospects.ac.uk

  Advertisement in Prospects Directory (annual, guide to employers)
  A programme of careers presentations in universities by current fast streamers
  Publicising and administering the summer development programme to select 60 ethnic minority undergraduates for a six to eight weeks development programme with the civil service
  Two publications, "Work Experience in the Civil Service" and "Sandwich Course Placements", lodged with university career services and available on the internet, promoting work experience in the civil service
  Work with the disability charity, Workable, to secure disabled undergraduates work experience in the civil service.

  We have a comprehensive recruitment website at www.civil-service.gov.uk and at www.faststream.gov.uk.

  In addition to the fast stream, the Cabinet Office itself opens up a proportion of its junior and middle management posts (for which graduates may be eligible to apply) to external recruitment and plans to continue to do so in the coming year.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 58W, regarding the cost of refurbishing ministerial private offices, what has been the total cost of the work associated with the relocation of buildings for operational purposes over the last four years. [50549]

  Mr. Leslie
  I assume the hon. Member refers to my answer of 28 February 2002,Official Report, column 1499W.

  As I stated with that answer, separately identifying work undertaken on Minister's private offices could be answered only at disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  Fireworks
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many firework-related injuries were treated in hospitals in the UK during the Christmas and new year period. [39894]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer my hon. Friend to the response I gave him on 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1067W.

  Clinicians
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has received from(a) the Royal College of Obstetricians and (b) the Royal College of Paediatricians on the annual numbers of patients per clinician which they consider to be necessary in order to ensure the safety and efficiency of treatment. [41406]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department has not received any advice from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists or the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health specifying the numbers of patients a clinician needs to see to ensure the safety and efficiency of treatment.

  Autism
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health with regard to the Brent Taylor report on MMR/autism,(a) what type of study was undertaken and for what purpose, (b) how many children were included in the study, (c) if the study was for case-series analysis method, (d) what its findings were on levels of autism and (e) if the raw data collected will be published. [43604]

  Yvette Cooper
  The third population study that has recently been reported by Taylor et al' involved a review of patients clinical notes linked to independent computerised vaccination records (record-linkage). The key objective of this research was to investigate whether there was any evidence of a 'new variant' form of autism caused or triggered by MMR and associated with bowel problems.

  This study examined approximately 500 children with childhood (278) or atypical (195) autism born between 1979 and 1998 in five health districts in north-east London. Of these children, 25 per cent. were reported to have regression and 17 per cent. to have had bowel problems. There was no significant difference in the rates of bowel problems or regression in those who had had MMR vaccine before onset of problems, after onset or who had never had the vaccine. In addition the proportion of autistic children with regression or bowel problems did not change significantly over the period from 1979–98, which included the introduction of MMR in 1988. This study found no evidence to support a 'new variant' form of autism, where MMR vaccination is associated with developmental regression and bowel problems.
  1 Taylor B.. Miller E., Lingam R., Andrews N., Simmons A., Stowe J. Measles, mumps and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study. BMJ 2002, 324;393–6.756W
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the number of cases of autism in East Surrey; and if he will make a statement. [53249]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: None. Local statutory authorities are responsible for ensuring that they have sufficient knowledge of local needs and priorities to inform the pattern of services in their area.

  Golden Jubilee
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what precautions(a) local hospitals and (b) emergency management services are planning to take in preparation for the crowds anticipated during the weekend of the Queen's Golden Jubilee; and if he will make a statement. [44596]

  Ms Blears
  Planning for big events, including the Queen's Golden Jubilee, is co-ordinated by the local police forces built upon tried and tested procedures. There are established major incident procedures and cross border support mechanisms. All hospitals and ambulance services have major incident plans.

  The main celebrations for the Queen's Golden Jubilee are being held in London. The Department of Culture, Media and Sport has an operational and safety planning group, which includes emergency services and health representatives, to oversee the safety and health aspects of the events in the Royal parks, the City of London and the processional route to St. Paul's Cathedral.

  The intention is to use systems that are tried and tested in London at events such as the Notting Hill Carnival and the VE Day Anniversary Celebrations. These systems are designed to treat as many casualties as possible at the event sites using first aid posts or advance treatment centres which will be staffed by doctors, nurses and first aiders. This will reduce vehicle movements around the events and reduce potential pressure on accident and emergency departments.

  Medical Training Costs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average gross cost was of training post age 18 for(a) general practitioners, (b) hospital doctors and (c) nurses. [44283]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave my hon. Friend, the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) on Tuesday 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 642W.

  Training costs for general practitioners are the same as those for doctors.

  Cancer Plan
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards establishing a lead clinician for cancer within each PCT as identified in the Cancer Plan. [45770]

  Yvette Cooper
  In 2001–02 the Department allocated £2 million in the first year of a three year programme. By March 2002, 323 primary care lead clinicians for cancer had been appointed. A full programme of support and
  757W
  development for all the primary care lead clinicians for cancer, is being funded and managed by Macmillan Cancer Relief.

  Nurses
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses working for the NHS are on work permits. [46182]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health national health service hospital and community health services non-medical workforce census for England showed that there were 330,353 qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff employed in the NHS at 30 September 2001.

  Information on the number of nurses working for the NHS on work permits is not collected centrally, but may be available from local NHS employers.

  East Lancashire

  Morecambe Bay

  North-west Lancashire

  South Lancashire

  Year/quarter

  (1)

  (2)

  (1)

  (2)

  (1)

  (2)

  (1)

  (2)

  2001–02

  3

  200

  27

  195

  30

  139

  0

  99

  0

  2

  166

  16

  162

  43

  178

  0

  89

  0

  1

  176

  11

  192

  34

  218

  1

  91

  0

  2000–01

  4

  145

  17

  310

  81

  264

  0

  129

  0

  3

  161

  10

  249

  29

  88

  1

  91

  1

  2

  126

  9

  142

  13

  72

  6

  91

  0

  1

  147

  13

  102

  12

  68

  10

  115

  1

  1999–2000

  4

  127

  7

  127

  35

  183

  12

  23

  0

  3

  123

  19

  50

  9

  250

  19

  13

  0

  2

  97

  14

  61

  8

  59

  0

  29

  0

  1

  90

  5

  71

  8

  91

  0

  37

  0

  1998–99

  4

  99

  8

  32

  2

  98

  0

  34

  5

  3

  122

  11

  32

  4

  117

  0

  19

  0

  2

  124

  13

  46

  10

  86

  9

  15

  0

  1

  111

  8

  44

  2

  79

  6

  31

  0

  1997–98

  4

  130

  15

  47

  2

  163

  0

  18

  0

  3

  99

  8

  28

  3

  120

  0

  25

  1

  2

  70

  3

  32

  3

  94

  0

  26

  1

  1

  52

  3

  28

  0

  101

  0

  20

  0

  Notes:

  1. Number of last cancellations for non-clinical reasons in the quarter

  2. Number of patients not admitted within one month of last minute cancellation.

  Source:

  Departmant of Health froms QMNG and QMPC

  Operation Cancellations (Lancashire)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations have been cancelled by the NHS in Lancashire within one month of the supposed date of the operation in each year since 1997. [48599]

  Jacqui Smith
  The available information is shown in the table.

  We recognise and fully understand the distress that cancellations can cause for patients and their families. This is reflected by the fact that from the end of this month, any patient who has their operation cancelled by the hospital on the day it is due to happen will be guaranteed treatment within 28 days, or else the hospital will have to fund their treatment at the time and place of their choice.

  The NHS is carrying out more operations than ever before—up by more than half a million between 1996–97 and 2000–01. But cancellations are a long term problem which can only be resolved through the investment and reform that is now taking place in the NHS.

  Medicines
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the public health consequences of reclassifying medicines from prescription-only to pharmacy sale; and where the liability for the use of these products will lie; [47847]

  (2) if he will make a statement on where the liability for the use of products newly reclassified from prescription-only to pharmacy sale will lie; [47875]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the risks to public health of changes to the availability of treatments by reclassifying medicines from prescription-only to pharmacy sales. [47876]

  Ms Blears
  The changes to the process by which the legal status of a medicine is changed (introduced on 1 April 2002), are designed to speed and streamline the procedures, halving the time taken to deliver a change from application to decision, while maintaining appropriate safeguards.

  The changes to the process do not impact on the liability for a product. Where the liability for the use of a product lies will vary according to the circumstances of each individual case but will be the same for products with an existing legal status as for those which have been newly reclassified.

  Patient safety remains paramount and any application to consider a change of legal status for a particular medicine will continue to require an applicant to demonstrate its safety in use, including without medical supervision, and that the patient information is suitable for the medicine to be made more widely available.

  Making more medicines more widely available when it is safe to do so is a key part of the national health service objective to empower patients. Many patients are expert on their own conditions and early access to treatments for known conditions can have a significant public health benefit where early intervention would not otherwise be possible.

  Overseas Treatment
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many British patients have been treated by the NHS in the EEA, broken down by country of origin. [47852]

  Mr. Hutton
  188 patients have been treated in other member states of the EEA since 18 January 2002 under the pilot scheme to send patients overseas for treatment. Of these 112 were treated in France and 76 in Germany.

  In addition, 340 applications for treatment within the EEA were approved under the E112 scheme between 1 January and 22 April 2002 (Great Britain figure, rounded to the nearest 10). The countries concerned were Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were waiting over six months on the in-patient waiting list in(a) each quarter since March 1997 and (b) each month since January 2001. [47855]
  760W
  Mr. Hutton
  The data requested are shown in the table. Table 1 provides quarterly statistics from March 1997 onwards and table 2 provides monthly statistics from January 2001 onwards.

  Table 1: Quarterly Statistics—Number of patients on the in-patient waiting list waiting over six months on the last day of the period: England (health authority based)

  Year

  Quarter

  six months +

  1996–97

  4

  290,000

  1997–98

  1

  318,000

  1997–98

  2

  338,000

  1997–98

  3

  368,000

  1997–98

  4

  382,000

  1998–99

  1

  382,000

  1998–99

  2

  348,000

  1998–99

  3

  316,000

  1998–99

  4

  280,000

  1999–2000

  1

  279,000

  1999–2000

  2

  281,000

  1999–2000

  3

  285,000

  1999–2000

  4

  268,000

  2000–01

  1

  273,000

  2000–01

  2

  275,000

  2000–01

  3

  267,000

  2000–01

  4

  246,000

  2001–02

  1

  267,000

  2001–02

  2

  277,000

  2001–02

  3

  259,000

  Source:

  DH QF01 return

  Table 2: Monthly statistics—Number of patients on the in-patient waiting list waiting over six months at the end of the period: England (health authority based)

  Month

  Year

  Six months +

  January

  2000–01

  266,000

  February

  2000–01

  255,000

  March

  2000–01

  246,000

  April

  2001–02

  259,000

  May

  2001–02

  271,000

  June

  2001–02

  267,000

  July

  2001–02

  268,000

  August

  2001–02

  274,000

  September

  2001–02

  277,000

  October

  2001–02

  262,000

  November

  2001–02

  247,000

  December

  2001–02

  259,000

  January

  2001–02

  260,000

  February

  2001–02

  246,000

  Source:

  DH monthly waiting list returns.

  Radiography Treatment
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting times were, broken down by regional health authority, for radiography treatment in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [47995]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Waiting times for radiotherapy treatments are not collected centrally. The NHS Cancer Plan set out maximum waiting time targets for first definitive cancer treatment which will come into effect over the next few years. Arrangements to monitor these targets are currently being put in place and will cover radiotherapy where this is the first treatment.
  761W
  From December 2001, there is a one month maximum wait from diagnosis to first treatment for breast cancer and a one month wait from urgent general practitioner referral to first treatment for children's, testicular and acute leukaemia. By 2005, there will be a maximum one month wait from diagnosis to first treatment for all cancers. Monitoring of these targets is being introduced and figures will be published as the targets apply.

  MMR Vaccination
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to release MMR vaccination rates by health authority for the final quarter of 2001. [47465]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination rates for the last quarter of 2001 were published in Communicable Disease Weekly of 28 March 2002. This is available on www.phls.co.uk/facts/VaccinationNaccIndex.htm. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for a medium secure unit for the Oxfordshire Mental Health Care NHS Trust by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49536]

  Ms Blears
  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 as follows:

  Net present costs of PSC v. PFI option

  Trust

  PFI (£000)

  Public (£000)

  Savings in net present value terms (£000)

  Difference (Percentage)

  Oxfordshire Mental Healthcare NHS Trust

  3,707

  3,777

  70

  2

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which Bills introduced by his Department in the last five years have contained sunset clauses; and what plans he has for the future use of such clauses. [49616]

  Mr. Hutton
  None of the Bills introduced by the Department in the last five years contained a sunset clause. The use of such provisions in future will be considered on a case-by-case basis as the circumstances require.

  Haemophilia
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whom his Department has consulted as part of its consideration of whether to make recombinant available to all people with haemophilia. [50850]
  762W
  Yvette Cooper
  The Department has had formal meetings with the United Kingdom Haemophilia Centre Doctor's Organisation (UKHCDO) and the Haemophilia Society and more informal discussions with other groups from the haemophilia community.

  The Government are considering extending the provision of recombinant clotting factors to all haemophilia patients in England. Recombinant clotting factors are provided in England for new haemophilia patients and children under 16 (from April 1998). The UKHCDO has advised that recombinant clotting factors are available to those who are eligible to receive them.

  Foetal Alcohol Syndrome
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the incidence of foetal alcohol syndrome in England and Wales. [51823]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has made no specific estimate of the prevalence of foetal alcohol syndrome in England and Wales, although the World Health Organisation estimates an incidence of between 0.33 and 9.7 per 1,000 live births in a range of countries. The risks of excessive drinking during pregnancy are well documented, and for this reason the Government recommend that women who are pregnant or who are trying to become pregnant do not drink more than one to two units of alcohol per week.

  In 2000–01, foetal alcohol syndrome was reported in 38 birth records on the Hospital Episode Statistics System (HES), representing 0.07 cases per 1,000 births.

  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government have a mechanism to record the incidence of Foetal Alcohol Syndrome. [51824]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not collect specific information about the incidence of foetal alcohol syndrome (FAS). Where FAS is recognised at the time of delivery, it may be recorded in the clinical details on the HES (Hospital Episodes Statistics) record. The number of cases is likely to be small: the World Health Organisation estimates an incidence of between 0.33 and 9.7 per 1000 live births in a range of countries.

  FAS will of course be recorded on an individual patient's medical records, to ensure that health and other professional staff are aware of the situation and can help the sufferer to access the support that they need.

  Birth Statistics
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government have a mechanism to monitor the number of babies born to mothers(a) with alcohol problems and (b) who abuse illegal drugs. [51826]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has no central mechanism to record the numbers of babies born to mothers who misuse alcohol or illegal drugs, although the numbers are likely to be small. Information from the infant feeding study 1995 indicated that only 1 per cent. of pregnant women drank more than 14 units of alcohol per week.
  763W
  Information about any problems with drug or alcohol misuse can be noted on a mother's medical records, and health professionals will encourage the mother to seek help to address their substance misuse problems both before and after the birth.

  Parliamentary Questions
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply to the question tabled on 6 March, ref 41373, by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. [51815]

  Jacqui Smith
  The question was replied to on 25 April 2002,Official Report, column 455W.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 756W, on parliamentary questions, how much the investigation cost; what the Civil Service grade was of the civil servant who headed the investigation; how many civil servants were involved in the investigation; whether external consultants were involved in the investigation; and how many civil servants from other Departments were seconded to the investigation. [53324]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: The investigation was carried out under the personal supervision of the Department's Director of Corporate Affairs and reported to the Permanent Secretary.

  It was headed by a Senior Civil Servant supported by two other civil servants from the Department of Health.

  No additional costs were incurred as these staff were temporarily redeployed on to these duties.

  No external consultants were involved or any civil servants from other departments.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to improve the answering of written parliamentary questions by his Department since 1 November 2001. [52271]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Milburn) gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on 25 March 2002, Official Report, columns 756–59W.

  Social Services SSA
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the process that was used to calculate the increase in social services SSA for(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [52277]

  Jacqui Smith
  The increase in social services standard spending assessment for 2000–01 and 2001–02 were arrived at as a result of the 1998 comprehensive spending review. That review looked at the pressures facing social services departments at that time and the level of spending that the Government could make available.

  Intermediate Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what systems of evaluation are in place to monitor the quality of provision of(a) pre-admission and (b) rehabilitation services of intermediate care. [52278]
  764W
  Jacqui Smith
  Arrangements for monitoring and evaluating local intermediate care services were set out in the Department of Health circular "Intermediate Care" (health service circular 2001:01: local authority circular (2001)/01), published on 19 January 2001. A copy is in the Library.

  Since the circular was published, research into intermediate care has been commissioned, and there is a growing body of evidence from local evaluations. The Commission for Health Improvement, Social Services Inspectorate, and the National Care Standards Commission (and their successor bodies, announced in "Delivering the NHS Plan") all have a role in evaluating the quality of intermediate care services in various settings. The Department collects data on rates of hospital admission, re-admission and delayed transfers of care, which help to measure the impact of intermediate care services.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much additional funding has been invested in intermediate care services since 28 March 2000. [52689]

  Jacqui Smith
  The NHS Plan announced extra investment of £900 million annually by 2003–04 for intermediate care and related services to promote independence. Of this, around £255 million was earmarked specifically for national health service investment in intermediate care. This is in addition to £150 million made available recurrently from 2000–01. Full details are in the intermediate care circular health service circular 2001–01:LAC (2001)1 published in January last year, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Additionally, a one-off allocation of £63 million was announced in August 2000 to help expand capacity for the 2000–01 winter. This included investment in intermediate and transitional care to tackle delayed discharges and initiatives for recruitment and retention of key staff.

  NHS Plan
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the(a) targets and (b) policies contained in the NHS Plan have been costed. [52276]

  Mr. Hutton
  The funding made available in spending review 2000 was sufficient to deliver the targets and policies up to and including the current financial year, and the funding recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be sufficient to deliver the policies and targets up to 2007–08.

  Health Care Provision (Cheltenham)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what effect the Budget of 17 April will have on the provision of health care in Cheltenham. [52939]

  Mr. Hutton
  As a result of the Budget, the national health service in England will receive an annual average real terms growth in resources of 7.4 per cent. for the five years from 2003–04 to 2007–08. Local allocations to primary care trusts will be announced later this year.

  Organ Donation
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are registered as organ donors. [52453]
  765W
  Jacqui Smith
  There are currently 9.166 million people registered on the NHS Organ Donor Register.

  Lung Cancer
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when a decision will be made on whether a pilot trial of spiral CT scanning as a screening test for lung cancer will be undertaken; [53533]

  (2) if he will make funding available for a pilot study of spiral CT scanning as a screening test for lung cancer. [53531]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Medical Research Council (MRC), which is funded through the Department of Trade and Industry, is currently considering a proposal for the pilot trial of lung cancer screening using spiral computed tomography. The MRC expects to make a decision on funding at the council meeting in July.

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the potential impact that a low maximum permitted level for nutrients in food supplements would have on(a) the viability of United Kingdom specialist food manufacturers and (b) consumer choice in the UK for food supplement products. [53431]

  Yvette Cooper
  Setting unnecessarily low maximum permitted levels for nutrients in food supplements is likely to have a detrimental impact on the viability of the United Kingdom's specialist food manufacturers and on UK consumer choice. Throughout negotiations the Food Standards Agency has insisted on sound scientific assessment of safety as the principal criterion for setting limits and will continue to do so.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the criteria for setting the upper safe level of intake of vitamins and minerals under review by the EU Scientific Committee for Foods. [53429]

  Yvette Cooper
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) that they would advise as suitable, criteria adopted by the expert group on vitamins and mineral (EVM), which is based on the risk analysis model developed by the food and agriculture organisation of the United Nations and the World Health Organisation. Details of this are set out in the expert group paper: "Risk Analysis in Food Safety: recent development and the respective roles of risk assessment, risk management and risk communication" (EVM/99/10/P), copies of which are available in the Library, and on the FSA's website: www.food.gov.uk. This process takes into account all relevant evidence including that from the peer reviewed human and animal studies.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure minimal cost and disruption to(a) consumers, (b) retailers and (c) manufacturers of food supplements resulting from the adoption of the European food supplements directive into UK law. [53433]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) argued strongly in negotiations for a safety-based approach to this directive (rather than the more restrictive approach favoured by some other member states) in order to minimise the impact on United Kingdom consumer choice and UK businesses. The FSA is now directing its 766W
  energies towards arguing the case for maximum levels of vitamins and minerals in supplements to be based on thorough scientific risk assessment and forging strong links between the European Union Scientific committee on food and an expert group that it has set up to advise on acceptable levels.

  The proposed directive will not immediately outlaw any products already on the UK market. Lists of permitted vitamin and mineral sources remain open pending a continuous programme of safety assessments. We intend, when implementing the directive, to take full advantage of the flexibility the UK has secured for member states to allow continued sale of products containing vitamin and mineral sources not yet on the permitted lists for up to seven years after the directive comes into force.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the timetable for the publication of the final versions of the forthcoming report from the Ad Hoc Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals; and how he plans to take the findings of that report into account when responding to the EU Scientific Committee for Foods' assessment of the Upper Safe Level (USL) of intake of all vitamins and minerals. [53428]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 626W.

  Consultation on the report is now expected to take place in August 2002. This is to allow extra time for the group to complete risk assessments on all of the vitamins and minerals covered by the review.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the potential impact that the preparation of dossiers for submission to the EC Scientific Committee for Foods for the inclusion of additional substances in the annexes to the food supplements directive will have on(a) the costs and (b) the viability of the relevant manufacturers and retailers. [53432]

  Yvette Cooper
  During negotiations on this directive the Food Standards Agency consulted widely on its possible impacts among United Kingdom interest groups. Initial estimates from industry suggest that the costs of preparing safety dossiers in support of ingredients not on the positive lists in the annexes to the directive lie between £80,000 and £250,000 per dossier.

  Any impact of the directive on the relevant manufacturers and retailers will depend upon future developments on the lists of permitted nutrients and maximum permitted levels in food supplements.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) discussions his Department has had with and (b) submissions his Department has made to the European Commission with regard to the implementation of the European food supplements directive, with particular reference to the upper safe level of intake of vitamins and minerals. [53430]

  Yvette Cooper
  Throughout negotiations on this directive the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has had intensive discussions with the European Commission to ensure that upper safe levels of intake of vitamins and minerals set are not unduly restrictive but are based on sound scientific assessment of safety.
  767W
  In order to continue this work, the FSA is now directing its energies towards forging strong links between the European Union scientific committee on food (which will advise the commission and member states on upper safe levels) and the United Kingdom's own expert group on vitamins and minerals.

  Ambulance Staff
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) of 27 February 2000,Official Report, column 1421W, on ambulance staff, if he will provide information on the same basis for (a) the Isle of Wight and (b) other integrated ambulance services. [43369]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: Information on levels of reported violent incidents against national health service staff is collected centrally at whole trust level but not by integrated services within a trust.

  Smallpox
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 687W, on smallpox, what recent representations he has received about smallpox vaccines. [43913]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]: The Department of Health has received representations from industry and from the BioIndustry Association. There has been consultation with industry about its capacity and ability to deliver smallpox vaccine supplies to meet the Government's requirements.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the amount of money spent privately in the last 12 months by patients on treatments which are being assessed by NICE. [50056]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: We have made no formal assessment.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 309W, on care homes, what information he collates on the length of time it takes for a care home to be built. [50078]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: No information on the length of time it takes to build a care home is collected centrally.

  Obesity
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information she has collated on the number of(a) adults and (b) children who are currently overweight or obese; and what percentage of each population that figure represents; [49310]

  (2) what recent estimates she has made as to the total cost (a) to the national health service and (b) to the economy of illness, inactivity and premature death associated with overweight and obesity; [49311]
  768W
  (3) if he will make a statement on his plans to combat obesity; [49312]

  (4) what were the main conclusions of his Department's recent response to the Ninth report of the Committee on Public Accounts on the subject of obesity; [49313]

  (5) what targets he intends to set for reductions in the levels of overweight and obesity; and what resources and strategies he will put in place to ensure that they are achieved. [49314]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: The Health Survey for England 2000 reported that 45 per cent. of men were overweight and 21 per cent. obese, and 34 per cent. of women were overweight and 21 per cent. obese.

  The Health Survey for England 1995–97 reported that 22 per cent. of six-year-olds and 31 per cent. of 15-year-olds are overweight. The prevalence of obesity ranges from 10 per cent. at age six years to 17 per cent. at age 15 years.

  The National Audit Office publication 'Tackling Obesity in England' reported that in 1998 30,000 deaths (of which 9,000 were before the age of 65 years) were attributable to obesity. There is an estimated direct cost to the national health service (NHS) of at least £0.5 billion a year, or about 1.5 per cent. of NHS expenditure. There is also an estimated direct cost of £2 billion a year to the wider economy.

  Obesity is a complex condition, but is largely preventable through addressing the risk factors of diet and physical inactivity. The Government are committed to tackling this rising trend in obesity and are taking positive steps to improve prevention, treatment and management of obesity through the NHS Plan, Cancer Plan and national service frameworks.

  We have put in place cross-Government work and local action is under way to promote physical activity and healthy eating and tackle overweight and obesity. Specifically, these include a national school fruit scheme, a wider five-a-day programme to increase access to and consumption of fruit and vegetables and work with industry to improve overall balance in diet, including salt, fat and diet. Among children, there has been significant investment in primary physical education (PE) and sports facilities, including £581 million from the new opportunities fund for a PE and sports programme.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has provided guidance on the anti-obesity drugs orlistat and sibutramine for the NHS. Treatment with these drugs will be supported by advice, support and counselling on diet, physical activity and behavioural strategies. NICE are also reviewing surgical interventions to treat morbid obesity, the findings of which are expected in summer 2002. Referral to NICE of further guidance topics remains under consideration.

  We welcomed the Public Accounts Committee report on 'Tackling Obesity in England', published in January 2002, the official response to which was published on 21 March 2002 and has been placed in the Library.

  No specific targets are set for reductions in the levels of overweight and obesity. However, the coronary heart disease national service framework sets standards and

  769W
  specific milestones for action on local programmes of effective policies on reducing overweight and obesity. Meeting these standards will contribute to achieving on of the four targets set in Our Healthier Nation, to reduce deaths from coronary heart disease by 40 per cent. in people in people under 75 by 2010.

  Inventures
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans Inventures has for the land it owns at Cold East hospital. [50798]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: Cold East hospital is in the ownership of the Secretary of State for Health. NHS Estates of which Inventures is a part act on behalf of Ministers to dispose of property which has been declared surplus to national health service requirements. NHS Estates are currently considering a number of options with the borough council for Cold East hospital.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures have been adopted to determine if land owned and occupied by(a) PCTs, (b) acute hospital trusts, (c) health authorities and (d) his Department should be transferred to Inventures. [50797]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: Under the current proposals there is no intention to transfer land owned and occupied by primary care trusts, acute hospital trusts, health authorities or the Department of Health to Inventures.

  Inventures (part of NHS Estates) sole task in this regard is to assist in the disposal of the surplus estate.

  Heart Valve Replacements
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his policy that heart valve replacements which have been manufactured in the United States of America may be used by the NHS before they have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the USA. [51428]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: Artificial heart valves manufactured in the USA (or elsewhere) may be used by the national health service if they bear the CE marking, which indicates that they comply with European "essential requirements" for safety, quality and performance. Valves which do not bear the CE marking can also be used (on a restricted basis) as part of controlled clinical trials. Approval by the US Food and Drugs Administration is not a prerequisite for the use of artificial heart valves by the NHS, regardless of their country of origin.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what tests his Department carried out on the St. Jude 'Regent' range of valves prior to their use by the NHS; and when the St. Jude 'Regent' range of valves were first used by the national health service. [51430]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: My Department did not carry out any tests on the St. Jude 'Regent' range of artificial heart valves prior to their use by the national health service, because the valves were affixed with the CE marking, indicating that they
  770W
  complied with European "essential requirements" for safety, quality and performance. The valves received CE marking on the basis of an assessment of technical information relating to their design and safety evaluation by a Notified Body (an independent third party assessment organisation). The St. Jude 'Regent' range of artificial heart valves was first available for general use by the NHS in 1999.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what tests his Department carried out on the St. Jude Silzone coated mitral valve prior to its use by the NHS; and when the St. Jude Silzone coated mitral valve was first used by the national health service. [51429]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: The Department did not carry out any tests on St. Jude Silzone coated mitral artificial heart valves prior to their use by the national health service, because the valves were affixed with the CE marking, indicating that they complied with European "essential requirements" for safety, quality and performance. St. Jude Silzone coated mitral artificial heart valves were first available for general use by the NHS in 1997.

  NHS Outcome Targets
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his outcome targets are for the NHS for(a) 2002–03, (b) 2003–04, (c) five years hence and (d) 10 years hence; and how they have changed as a result of his statement on 18 April. [51915]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]: The Department's Public Service Agreement (PSA) contains a number of headline targets, such as:
  Patients will receive treatment at a time that suits them in accordance with their clinical need: two thirds of all outpatient appointments and inpatient elective admissions will be pre-booked by 2003–04 on the way to 100 per cent. pre-booking by 2005.
  Guaranteed access to a primary care professional with 24 hours and to a primary care doctor within 48 hours by 2008.
  Reduce the maximum wait for an out-patient appointment to three months and the maximum wait for in-patient treatment to six months by the end of 2005.
  Reduce substantially the mortality rates from major killers by 2010: from heart disease by at least 40 per cent. in people under 75; from cancer by at least 20 per cent. in people under 75; and from suicide and undetermined injury by at least 20 per cent.

  Progress against PSA targets is recorded every year in the Department's annual report. The next departmental report will be published in spring 2002.

  A new PSA will be published at the end of the spending review process (summer 2002).

  Mental Health Care
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources are available for mental health in West Sussex; and what resources were available in each of the last five years. [53282]
  771W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: The amount spent on mental health services in West Sussex, in the last five years for which figures are available, is shown in the table.

  £000

  Percentage change

  2001–02

  62,523

  15.3

  2000–01

  54,219

  9.3

  1999–2000

  49,606

  7.4

  1998–99

  46,209

  -0.1

  1997–98

  46,248

  7.0

  1996–97

  43,237

  —

  Notes:

  1. Data taken from Q4 monitoring returns table H08, forecast outturn, except for 2001–02 using C3 return.

  2. The costs of general practitioners and prescribing are not analysed to condition related groups.

  Details of the location and types of mental health services across West Sussex are not held centrally.

  Residential/Nursing Home Beds
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the number of(a) residential home and (b) nursing home beds in England provided by (i) local authorities (ii) the private sector and (iii) the voluntary sector. [53271]
  772W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: Information on the number of places in residential and nursing care homes by accommodation type in England at 31 March 2001 is shown in the table.

  Residential and nursing care places in England, at 31 March 2001

  Local authority staffed homes

  Private homes

  Voluntary homes

  Residential care

  50,858

  222,970

  67,347

  Nursing care1

  2—

  171,430

  4,582

  1 Excludes registered beds in private hospitals and clinics

  2 Not applicable

  Source:

  Department of Health annual returns

  Social Services Inspection (Torbay)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of the inspection conducted in the Torbay Unitary Authority area into social services; how many officials were involved in undertaking the inspection; and what the cost was of producing a report after the inspection. [52485]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: The social services inspectorate conducted an inspection of children's service in Torbay in June 2001. This was the most recent inspection in social service and involved two inspectors. The total cost including publication of the inspection report was £18,000.

Preamble
The House met at ten of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

The Queen's Golden Jubilee: Address to Her Majesty
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now proceed to Westminster Hall for the purpose of presenting the humble Address which the House ordered yesterday to be presented to Her Majesty, and that thereafter the House do adjourn during pleasure and do meet again in this Chamber at half-past two o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House proceeded to Westminster Hall accordingly, for the purpose of presenting to Her Majesty an Address or congratulation in accordance with the Resolution of yesterday. The Commons also assembled in the Hall for a similar purpose.
The Address from the House of Lords, read by the Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg), was as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign,
"We gather here today in Westminster Hall to celebrate, and to give thanks for, 50 years of Your reign and 50 years of dedicated public service. This historic Hall itself symbolises the continuity of our system of Government. Many great State occasions have been held here and, most recently, in 2000 You honoured us with Your presence when You opened the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference.
"The Commonwealth is one of the greatest achievements of Your reign. In 1952, it consisted of only a handful of countries and You were Head of State of most. Now it comprises 54 independent countries which recognise You as Head of the Commonwealth. The countries of the Commonwealth represent more than a quarter of the world's population. The Commonwealth is extraordinarily diverse in language, colour and creed. Occasionally, as all families do, it experiences differences of opinion, but it is generally united by values, which you have done so much to promote. The presence today of so many High Commissioners marks the affection in which Your Majesty is held across the Commonwealth.
"The 50 years of Your Majesty's reign have been years of astounding change and progress.
"We recall, from the early years: the conquest of Everest; the first scheduled Jet flight of the Cornet; the breaking, by Roger Bannister, of the barrier of the four-minute mile; and, Your Majesty, Lester Piggott becoming, at 18, the youngest Derby winner.
562
"Nothing, however, prepared us for the extraordinary events to come—Sputniks orbiting the earth; Neil Armstrong landing on the moon; and Voyagers 1 and 2 reaching and photographing in amazing detail the outer planets.
"In medicine the curses of polio and diphtheria have been eliminated. The identification of the structure of DNA has unlocked the mysteries of the genetic code. Surgery now performs operations once thought impossible.
"In technology, who would have imagined the mobile phone, the compact disc, or the sophistication of computers and the Internet?
"Who would have predicted the sudden collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Empire, or that the Cold War would be replaced by the threat of international terrorism?
"At home, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all now have their own Parliament or Assemblies, giving stronger expression to the diversity of the United Kingdom.
"As our constitution has democratically evolved, so the Monarchy, under Your guidance, has adapted too. You have encouraged and rewarded the spirit of voluntary service and co-operation and You have set a powerful example by Your own selfless devotion to duty. You have hosted 88 State visits to this country and travelled abroad to make 75 State visits Yourself.
"In the face of change you have remained a constant in our affections. The Royal Family has been able to perform its myriad duties at home and abroad with much less formality than 25 years ago. The Royal Website, Royal.Gov.UK, is extremely popular. It is a far-sighted and effective link with the people. You have opened Buckingham Palace to visitors and, during this Jubilee year, You plan to visit more parts of the United Kingdom than ever before.
"Your Majesty, You know that I, unlike the President of Your Most Honourable Privy Council, am no horseman, and I can claim no expertise on matters equine, but Your love of horses and horse racing is well known to thousands of Your people who share this love. We wish Your Majesty every success on the turf in Your Jubilee year.
"We are particularly pleased that His Royal Highness, The Duke of Edinburgh, has accompanied Your Majesty today. All Your people know that, throughout Your reign, His Royal Highness has been Your 'strength and stay' and has contributed greatly in his own right to the achievements of Your 50 years on the Throne.
"And of course we must not forget that only two of Your predecessors since the fourteenth century, King George III and Queen Victoria, celebrated Golden Jubilees and, so, Your Majesty, You are a member of a very special group.

563
"We hope that the sadness of the early months of this year will begin to fade in the warmth of the affection of Your people, as Your Golden Jubilee Celebrations take Your Majesty to the four corners of the country.
"Your Majesty, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled, give thanks for this Golden Jubilee. We look forward to Your reign continuing for many years to come; and, as at Your Coronation, we pray that You and Your realms may 'continually enjoy peace, plenty and prosperity'".

Her Majesty's Reply
Her Majesty's gracious Speech in reply was as follows:
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons.
"You do Prince Philip and me a great honour in inviting us here today. I am most grateful to have this opportunity to reply to your Loyal Addresses and I thank you both, Lord Chancellor and Mr Speaker, for your generous words.
"It is right that the first major event to mark my Golden Jubilee this summer is here in the Palace of Westminster. I would like to pay tribute to the work you do in this, the Mother of Parliaments—where you, like so many famous predecessors before you, have assembled to confront the issues of the day, to challenge each other and address differences through debate and discussion, and to play your essential part in guiding this Kingdom through the changing times of the past 50 years.
"For if a Jubilee becomes a moment to define an age, then for me we must speak of change—its breadth and accelerating pace over these years. Since 1952 I have witnessed the transformation of the international landscape through which this country must chart its course, the emergence of the Commonwealth, the growth of the European Union, the end of the Cold War, and now the dark threat of international terrorism. This has been matched by no less rapid developments at home, in the devolved shape of our nation, in the structure of society, in technology and communications, in our work and in the way we live. Change has become a constant; managing it has become an expanding discipline. The way we embrace it defines our future.
"It seems to me that this country has advantages to exploit in this exciting challenge. We in these islands have the benefit of a long and proud history. This not only gives us a trusted framework of stability and continuity to ease the process of change, but it also tells us what is of lasting value. Only the passage of time can filter out the ephemeral from the enduring. And what endure are the characteristics that mark our identity as a nation and the timeless values that guide us. These values find expression in our national institutions—including the Monarchy and Parliament—
564
institutions which in turn must continue to evolve if they are to provide effective beacons of trust and unity to succeeding generations.
"I believe that many of the traditional values etched across our history equip us well for this age of change. We are a moderate, pragmatic people, more comfortable with practice than theory. With an offshore, seafaring tradition we are outward-looking and open-minded, well suited by temperament—and language—to our shrinking world. We are inventive and creative—think of the record of British inventions over the past 50 years or our present thriving arts scene. We also take pride in our tradition of fairness and tolerance—the consolidation of our richly multicultural and multifaith society, a major development since 1952, is being achieved remarkably peacefully and with much goodwill.
"But there is another tradition in this country which gives me confidence for the future. That is the tradition of service. The willingness to 'honour one another and seek the common good' transcends social change. Over these 50 years on visits up and down this country I have seen at first hand and met so many people who are dedicating themselves quietly and selflessly to the service of others.
"I would particularly pay tribute to the young men and women of our Armed Forces who give such professional service to this country often in most demanding and dangerous circumstances. They have my respect and admiration. I also wish to express my gratitude for the work of those in the public service more widely—here in Westminster or the corridors of Whitehall and town halls, as well as in our hospitals and schools, in the police and emergency services. But I would especially like to thank those very many people who give their time voluntarily to help others. I am pleased that the Jubilee is to be marked by the introduction of The Queen's Golden Jubilee Award, a new annual award for voluntary service by groups in the community. I hope this will give added recognition to those whose generosity of time and energy in the service of others is such a remarkable tradition in our society.
"These enduring British traditions and values—moderation, openness, tolerance, service—have stood the test of time, and I am convinced they will stand us in good stead in the future. I hope that the Golden Jubilee will be an opportunity to recognise these values and to celebrate all we have achieved as a nation since 1952. For my part, as I travel the length and breadth of these islands over these coming weeks, I would like to thank people everywhere for the loyalty, support, and inspiration you have given me over these 50 unforgettable years. I would like to express my pride in our past and my confidence in our future. I would like above all to declare my resolve to continue, with the support of my family, to serve the people of this great nation of ours to the best of my ability through the changing times ahead".
House adjourned to the Chamber of Parliament.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Parish Councils
Baroness Knight of Collingtreeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is their intention to eliminate parish councils in England and Wales.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, does the Minister think—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I am glad that the noble Baroness did not even think that it was worth waiting for the Answer that I was going to give!
The Government have no intention of abolishing parish councils in England and community councils in Wales. As the tier of authority closest to local people, we regard those councils as essential to the structure of local government. Our proposals for those councils are intended to enhance their role and better equip them to meet the needs of the communities they serve.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, does the Minister think that people will give their time as unpaid parish councillors when the Government's new rules force them to put on permanent public display for all to see every detail of their income, what shares they have, what property they own, who employs them, what union they belong to and full details of any gift over the value of £25 that they receive, even those from relatives? Is it right that in a free country they should be ordered to inform against their colleagues? Does he hope that with those fearsome rules in place, people will not volunteer to do that job and that parish councils will wither on the vine?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the account that the noble Baroness gave of the code of conduct on what is required to be registered bears no relation to what the regulations say. They require the parish councillor to register his job, who employs him and anyone who has made a contribution to his election expenses. If he has an interest in a corporate body in the parish, he has to give details about that; if he has a contract with the parish council, he has to give details about that; if he has land in the parish, he has to identify where it is; and he has to state whether he has any land on which he is a tenant or any premises for which he has a licence in the parish.
That is totally different from the situation to which the noble Baroness referred. We had a three-month consultation period on the draft code of conduct. The bodies representing parish councils—that is, the National Association of Local Councils and the Association of Larger Local Councils—were fully consulted and were supportive of the proposal. Some
566
parish councils have budgets of around £1 million. If there is, for example, a contract between the parish councillor and the parish, it is right that that should be disclosed. This is not the intrusive document that the noble Baroness suggested; it is a sensible document that is in line with other councils.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I rejoice in the noble and learned Lord's statement that the Government will leave parish councils in their present position, but will he bear in mind the fact that county councils often seem to be very remote to people living in parishes and that their planning decisions are often offensive? Will he therefore change the Government's mind about giving parish councils the opportunity, if there have been objectors, of a right of appeal?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord takes every opportunity to raise the prospect of a right of appeal in planning. As I have always said, if one gives third parties rights of appeal, one would create a system that would become lawyer and precedent driven. On the two previous occasions on which the noble Lord has raised this matter, I referred him to the experience in Queensland, Australia, where a third party right of appeal was introduced but it had to be abolished because local authorities did not have freedom in relation to making decisions about planning authorities. The right course is to ensure that parish councils and town councils are involved at the earliest possible stage in relation to planning applications because their voice is very important in that process.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, do the Government have any plans to change the way in which parish polls operate? Does the Minister agree that that is a 'very good way of involving the local community in the political process? If there are any changes, they should enhance that process, not make it more difficult for people to take part in local democracy.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not aware of any proposed changes in relation to parish polls. Engaging the parish in every democratic process is incredibly important.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I must declare an interest as the president of the Essex Association of Local Councils. What the Minister said sounds excellent but has he considered that the local farmer who owns land might also be chairman of the football club? Interests involving local farming and the football club would affect his attendance at a parish council meeting. What appears right from Whitehall does not appear right from a parish council.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, again, the other side is not waiting for the response.

567
The requirements of disclosure, which are set out in the code of conduct, require the parish councillor in effect to disclose only what his or her job is and what his or her interests in the parish are. That seems to be sensible. If the parish councillor has farmland in the area or owns the local football club, it is right that that should be disclosed.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, not wishing to take over the Minister's job just yet, I apologise for trying to intervene earlier.
Concerns have been expressed about parish councils and county councils—the intention is to remove their involvement in the planning process; that is partly what my noble friend Lord Renton said. In view of that and the recent instructions that were, I understand, given by the Prime Minister that regional government, if it comes about, must involve the reduction of one tier—either county or district—would the Minister say that the Government are truly in support of democratically elected local government?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we are truly in support of democratically elected local government.
I should correct the answer that I gave about polls. As part of our initiative resulting from the rural White Paper to strengthen local democracy at parish level, we will review the operation of parish polls, including the threshold of the number of voters required to request a poll in large parish and town councils. Any change to the current requirements would require primary legislation. My officials will shortly begin the preparation of a paper. We will consult interested parties on how the parish poll provisions should be reformed. On the one hand, that will provide certainty and prevent abuse and, on the other hand, it will allow local people to have a real say on local issues that really matter. I apologise for my earlier answer.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, while I agree that my noble friend slightly overstated some aspects—I should declare an interest as the chairman of a parish council—is the noble and learned Lord aware that he understated almost as much as my noble friend overstated some of the provisions of the document, which I have studied extremely carefully? In many respects, it is "OTT". It is not well drafted, it is intimidating and provocative and it is not going to encourage people to give basic service at the grassroots of democracy. Will he at least have another look at it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the summary that I gave came from paragraph 12 of the document. The noble Lord did not descend to any particular in which I had mis-stated what it said. I am therefore not able to deal with his question. All that I can do is to refer him to the representative bodies—namely, the National Association of Local Councils and the Association of Larger Local Councils—which were supportive of the proposal.

Consignia
2.39 p.m.
Lord Dearingasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in their reported talks with the Dutch group TPG their interest lay in the sale of all or part of their shareholding in Consignia or in a partnership between the two concerns.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, Consignia's discussions with TPG were about exploring whether a merger of its postal activities with the Dutch group would be commercially beneficial to the company. It was not however possible to reach common ground. If the merger had gone ahead, it was likely to have involved an exchange of the share capital in Consignia plc by Consignia Holdings plc for shares in the merged entity.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is it part of the Government's policy for Britain to emerge with a British-led major enterprise in the competitive postal market that is now emerging in Europe? Does he agree that a natural candidate from Britain for that position is the Post Office, alias Consignia?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clearly the Government would like to see Consignia become a major international player. Consignia already has, through acquisition, entered into several overseas markets. Obviously, the company is in difficulty at present and in March it announced the first phase of its renewal plan to turn the company around. Once the UK market is further liberalised—obviously, the timing of that is a matter for Postcomm—Consignia will need to become more efficient and give better customer service. That is, of course, an essential requirement if it is to become an international player.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, were he to confirm that he regards the Post Office as part of the essential fabric of our society—I say the "Post Office" deliberately and not "Consignia"—he would be speaking for all noble Lords and, indeed, for the country? Does he also agree that the precedent of the purchase by Enron of Wessex Water provided a sad example of the concerns that people would have were the Post Office to fall under the wrong control? If he agrees with that, will he also be prepared to agree that, whatever happens to the control of the Post Office and Consignia, the universal service obligation will be maintained?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clearly the Post Office is part of the essential infrastructure of the country. Ministers made it very clear to the Post Office that, were there to be a merger, it would have to be in the public interest both in terms of the workforce and

569
consumers. As the regulator, Postcomm has as its first obligation to maintain the universal service obligation, and that, of course, would remain in place.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, does the Minister recall that on 21st March my noble friend Lady Blatch and I asked him whether there had been any negotiations between Consignia and a foreign company? His reply on that occasion was that he did not know of any. However, can he now say for the record whether, had he known then what he knows now, his answer would have been simply "yes"?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that a number of questions were raised on that occasion, which remains vividly in my mind. I believe that the answer now is "Yes, there were merger discussions". However, as I explained then, I was not aware of those discussions at the time.
Earl Russell: My Lords, further to the Minister's answer to my noble friend Lord Razzall, can he say how far he believes that a serious competitive enterprise is compatible with the delivery of a universal service?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that they are compatible. If one looks across Europe, one can see examples of where that takes place. I see no reason why, in liberalising the market, it should not be possible to maintain a universal service obligation, as has happened in other countries.

Amateur Sports Clubs: Charitable Status
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Billinghamasked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking to ensure that community amateur sports clubs claim all the new benefits outlined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Financial Statement and Budget Report 2002.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, on 17th April the Minister for Sport wrote to 153 of sport's governing bodies, representing 90 sports, outlining the benefits of charitable status. The Government believe that those governing bodies should actively encourage their member clubs to apply to become registered charities. They will be contacting more than 100,000 local sports clubs to outline the possible benefits and to give details of a regional Sport England advice line that will shortly be established to assist clubs with the application process.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very clear and helpful Answer. Does he agree that small sports clubs, covering sports such as tennis, bowls and cricket, in our villages and towns are incredibly important to our communities and that this recognition is long overdue? When I heard the
570
Chancellor make that point, had I still been able to do so, I should have more than happily turned cartwheels round the room because this is such an important breakthrough. Will the Minister acknowledge the role played, first, by Sport England in making the case, secondly, that of the CCPR and the governing bodies, particularly today with Prince Philip at their helm, and, finally, that of all the Members of this House who have contributed so strongly to the debate over many, many years? There has been a real team effort and the victor has been sport.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am happy to join in the congratulations expressed to all those who have made this significant breakthrough in terms of support for sport. I believe we all recognise that the achievement of charitable status by community-based, amateur sports clubs will greatly help their often difficult finances. It will also help to nurture sport in the community—an objective which, I am sure, is shared by all Members of this House.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that all that glitters is not gold? Does he realise that becoming a charity costs the average amateur sports club between £3,000 and £5,000? Is he aware that the Scottish Charity Commissioners do not recognise the guidance given by the Charity Commission and that, as this is not a devolved matter, he should be able to answer for what happens in Scotland? Is he also aware that clubs would have to split profit-making activities, such as their bars and shops, away from the playing activities, but that that would be almost impossible for the average amateur sports club to do? Would it not be much easier to give a mandatory rate relief and call it a day?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the latter was an alternative strategy that was widely canvassed and it had some merit. However, I do not believe that one should underestimate the burden of administration and bureaucracy on clubs applying for that status because the offices of accountants, and so on, would he greatly needed.
Every attempt is being made to streamline the process and to make it far more sensitive to the needs of small organisations such as small sports clubs. Against that background, the advantage of the Charity Commission proposals is that, once the initial application—I recognise that it would involve a cost—had been received, the element of bureaucracy and additional costs would reduce over time. Therefore, there are advantages to sports clubs in those terms.
With regard to the Scottish dimension, we hope to see the same strategy being adopted in Scotland as in England and Wales. I do not believe that anyone would doubt that this is a signal step forward for sports clubs, and the Scots would do well to follow suit.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the Government for the financial support that was suggested following the Budget. However, can the Minister give an

571
undertaking that that financial support, which, effectively, involves giving money back to the sports clubs, will be in return for the work that they are already undertaking and will not be a pre-emption for saying that such clubs must take on more educational work in the future? If they must do so, will the Government agree that they will need to be given more support?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I believe that the applications of the sports clubs will be judged on their merits in terms of their community sports facilities. The educative role to which the noble Lord referred is a dimension of that. However, I believe we all recognise that this measure is meant to encourage the provision of sport in the community. It is meant to be a positive step, and the Charity Commission and all the sports bodies concerned with promoting the advance of sport in our society will take every step to facilitate this development. Therefore, I believe that I can give the noble Lord the assurance that he requires.

Employment Rights: Compromise Agreements
2.48 p.m.
Lord McCarthyasked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent conciliation officers of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service have facilitated the negotiation of compromise agreements as a result of which employees have agreed to waive their future employment rights against their employer in exchange for stated improvements in existing or offered contract terms.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, conciliation officers do not facilitate the negotiation of compromise agreements referred to in Section 203(2)(f) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. However, if we extend the noble Lord's use of the term "compromise agreement" to refer to any "general release" agreements, then conciliation officers do facilitate the negotiation of conciliated settlements of proceedings under Section 203(2)(e) of that Act.
But ACAS policy is not to facilitate settlements under which the employee would be waiving his future employment rights. We are not aware that any such conciliated settlement has ever been facilitated. Indeed, the Government's view is that such an agreement would not fall within Section 203(2)(e) and would therefore be void and unenforceable.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, it does not help in relation to the concerns about Clause 39. If it wanted, ACAS could make such agreements. It may be all right for ACAS to make them, but it will not be all right for employers and workers to make them on their own. The
572
Government said in Grand Committee that they do not want such a situation, so why not make it illegal on the face of the Bill?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I can perhaps bring my noble friend some good news. I know that he has some concerns about the scope of the compromise agreements and particularly about Clause 39 of the Employment Bill. In the debates in Grand Committee I promised to consider the points that were raised, as I have done. I can now announce that the Government have decided to bring forward an amendment at Report stage of the Bill to delete Clause 39 on compromise agreements.
Our reasons for doing so are twofold. First, although we continue to believe that any agreement that tends to compromise away an employee's future rights would not be a valid agreement, we recognise that there is some degree of uncertainty and recent case law has done nothing to remove that uncertainty.
Secondly, and more importantly, we recognise the risk that although such an agreement would, in our view, be invalid, an employer may none the less attempt to persuade his employee to sign such an agreement. If that happened the fact that its legal validity was highly questionable would not alter the fact that having signed the agreement, the employee may then be deterred from going to the tribunal in the future in the belief that he no longer had a right to do so.
That concern was raised in Grand Committee by my noble friends Lord Gladwin of Clee and Lord Davies of Coity. As I made clear during that debate, the Government are determined that no employee shall be deterred in that way. Therefore, we have concluded that we cannot risk Clause 39 of the Employment Bill being so misused and we shall delete it from the Bill.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in the White Paper, Fairness at Work, the Government said that individuals will continue to have the right, if they so wish, to make agreements with their employers. That right was enshrined in Section 17(4) of the Employment Relations Bill 1999, which was the result of an amendment that I moved and eventually it was accepted by the Government.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is no doubt that employees will continue to have the right to compromise agreements. This matter concerns whether the compromise agreement can be extended to cover other acts that have taken place previously.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I welcome the undertaking given by the Minister to withdraw Clause 39 from the Employment Bill at Report stage. For the benefit of those Members of your Lordships' House who did not have the pleasure of attending 10 days in Grand Committee on the Bill, as the Minister did, I ask whether he is now prepared to give any indication as to other representations that he has reconsidered? Perhaps I can add a cheeky supplement: is there any

573
particular reason why he does not give the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn, credit in relation to Clause 39?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am happy to say that the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy, raised the issue. While we do not agree with the particular legal interpretation that they put on the matter, they were the people who raised it. However, the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Gladwin of Clee and Lord Davies of Coity, was most important, because they drew attention to how the clause could be misused, even if it was not legally valid and that persuaded us. I shall not give any other points of information on the Bill.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I welcome the statement made by the Minister that Clause 39 is no longer to be contained within the Bill. That is a sensible approach, given that we have worked hard over a long number of years—going back to the times of the Truck Acts—in order to secure employment rights for people whether in relation to unfair dismissal, discrimination, unfair selection for redundancy, or unlawful deduction of wages, all of which could have gone because employees would not have been entitled to take those problems to an employment tribunal. Does my noble friend agree that, if the clause had remained in the Bill, compromise agreement would have been inappropriate and surrender agreement would have been more appropriate?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I should repeat that our legal interpretation is that even the recent case of BCCI v. Ali does not affect this essential point. While it was a COT3 agreement, it was also a common law claim. The Law Lords did not address this particular situation, which is the ability of a compromise agreement to compromise future claims arising from a breach after the signing of an agreement. That was not relevant and that is where the concern arises mostly. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord made clear in Grand Committee, it could be abused, which would be intolerable if people's future rights were in any way barred due to compromise agreements.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, can the Minister say why he considers that it is the business of the Government to prohibit a free, working man from selling an asset that he possesses to his employer for his own gain? Why is that the Government's business?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is absolutely fundamental, as these rights are in statute, that employees should not be subject to any kind of bullying or pressure from employers that would lead to compromise agreements which would mean that those rights were surrendered. They are rights that are conferred on individuals by Parliament and they should not be sold; nor should employees be brought under pressure in that way.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the length of time spent in
574
Committee on this Bill in your Lordships' House has been well worth while and that had my noble friends not drawn the Government's attention to Clause 39, problems could have arisen?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the time spent in Grand Committee has been well worth while. Whether 10 days was the right amount of time I would not like to hazard a guess.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, has it now become government policy to use Question Time in your Lordships' House to announce decisions about a particular Bill that is still in the course of discussion and consideration by this House? Is that not an abuse of Question Time?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as my noble friend had raised his Question, it was appropriate and in the interests of the House that I should say what the government action would be on Report. I was not in any way saying what this House would decide when it came to Report stage; merely that that was the Government's action. If I had concealed that fact when such a question was asked, I could have been attacked for not being frank with the House.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will this welcome concession include any further attempt to deter employers from persuading employees to waive their rights to statutory sick pay by threat of dismissal, thereby forcing them to come to work when unfit to do so, to the considerable and unnecessary cost of the National Health Service?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, my Answer was about Clause 39 and specifically about this particular kind of compromise agreement. It concerns a rather modest part of the Bill and it was right to take it out. I spoke solely about that.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I want to thank the Government for this—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, one can have credit or influence and if one has influence one does not need credit.

National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report. —(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

575
Clause 15 [Establishment of Patient's Forums]:
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 32:
Page 20, line 39, after "Forum" insert "represents the interests in the health service of patients and in particular"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 32 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 33 and 55.
The purpose of Amendment No. 32 is very simple; it is to ensure that patients forums are not limited in their functions and will be able to carry out activities currently carried out by community health councils, activities not otherwise provided for in the Bill. The examples I gave in Committee were running or engaging in local or national public campaigns—for example, a campaign to oppose the closure of a hospital—making donations to campaigns; calling for public consultations; inspecting premises other than those specifically provided for, even if they have the consent of the service provider; or taking legal proceedings to enforce their rights.
At the moment community health councils have an overarching remit to represent the interests of patients and the public in the health service. That has enabled them to adapt to changing circumstances such as the need to develop services for complainants. Without that overarching remit patients forums could be acting ultra vires if they engage in activities other than those prescribed.
The purpose of Amendment No. 55 is to give the responsibility for making representations about local concerns to patients forums. It should be the responsibility of patients forums to raise issues locally and not the job of the commission. Amendment No. 55 leaves the commission with a responsibility to make representations at a national level if necessary. For example, if an overview and scrutiny committee refuses to scrutinise an aspect of the local health service, the commission could then make representations at a national level. That would not detract from the capacity-building work and outreach to socially excluded groups that the commission will do at a local level.
The purpose of Amendment No. 33 is two-fold. First, it deletes subsection (e). That is necessary to ensure the independence of patients forums. As the subsection is worded, that independence would be compromised if forums were seen in any way to be performing the functions of trusts. I ask the Government to think again about that. The purpose of the new subsection is to allow patients forums to monitor the provision and the efficacy of independent advocacy services in their area. Those services could be provided by or arranged by the Secretary of State, the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health or, anticipating a later amendment, patients' councils.
The reason for Amendment No. 33 is simple. It is important that the independent complaints advocacy services are independently monitored. The performance of that function by patients forums would provide a useful tool for informing their other scrutiny functions. It is a fairly modest suggestion to
576
make. It is entirely in keeping with the functions of patients forums as currently envisaged and I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to it. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment No. 32 and to speak to Amendment No. 33 tabled in my name. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, indicated, it seems strange that the patients forums would be required in certain circumstances, if the Bill were unamended, to carry out the functions of PALS.
The Minister was not particularly clear in Committee on this matter. The amendment is designed to substitute oversight and provision of independent advocacy services via patients forums. But the specific purpose of Amendment No. 33 is designed to elicit from the Minister a clearer reply than he gave in Committee.
It seems strange for the patients forums to be carrying out the duties of PALS. It would blur the functions of the forums. The PALS are effectively part of the acute trusts and the patients forums have entirely different functions. Perhaps the Minister could elucidate that rather more clearly in his reply on this occasion.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the functions of patients forums are specific. It is explicit within those functions that forums put forward the views of patients, in particular those who use the services of the relevant trust.
While I understand what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is saying, to extend the remit of the forums to represent the interest of the public rather misses the point of our proposals. To say that we have a representative role on behalf of what would be a large section of the community being served by each patients forum, would be untenable and unlikely to be realised in effective action on behalf of those patients forums.
If we look at the performance of community health councils—we may talk about that in a few moments—we see there have been big problems where community health councils have sought to speak on behalf of the whole community. Community health councils do not have the legitimacy or the credibility to do so; nor could patients forums take on that wider public representational role.
The aim of patients forums is to enable patients' views to be put forward. It is recognised that patients' views on an issue may differ. If a patients forum is charged with representing those patients' interests, it implies that the forum will have to make a judgment as to what those interests are; that is, that the forum members know what is best for the entire body of patients served by the NHS trust with which the patients forum is associated.
Patients' views differ. It is the job of the forum to represent all those views to enable trusts and primary care trusts to take account of that range of views when making decisions. Our objective with this system is to increase opportunities for patients and the public to have a say, to have greater influence and to make real

577
changes, but also accepting that patients will often have a wide spectrum of views. On that basis I resist the wording of the noble Earl.
In looking at Amendment No. 33 we see that the effect is twofold. The first is to remove from the Bill Clause 15(2)(e), which is what would be used to give forums the power to be able to take over the operation of a patient advice and liaison service in prescribed circumstances. The second effect is to give forums the specific role of monitoring and reviewing independent advocacy services and to make reports and recommendations about them.
I do not accept, as the noble Earl suggested, that the clause as presently drafted impacts upon the independence of patients forums. Indeed, I argue entirely the opposite. The fact that it has that role is an expression both of the ability the patient forum will have at local level and its very independence. I accept that the circumstances in which that would occur—a PAL service being taken over by a patients forum—would be rare. It is an important service to patients and their families and it is surely only right and proper that in those rare cases where the forum feels that the trust is failing to provide an adequate service, the patients forum should be able to do something about it.
I am sorry that I disappointed the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in Committee on this matter. Perhaps I can try again to reassure him. How would the provision work if a patients forum was dissatisfied with the work of a PAL service in a trust for which it was responsible. We envisage a grievance type of process. If a forum is concerned about the quality of PALS, it would normally report that to the board of the trust or primary care trust. If there was no improvement, it would report again, copying its report to the strategic health authority. If again there was no improvement, the forum would report the matter to the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State would then need to make a decision about what action should be taken. He could choose to direct the trust to take action. He might also decide that the forum should take over responsibilities for the PALS service. If the latter were the case, the forum would make arrangements for the provision of the PALS, such as arranging for another trust's PALS to take over the service but with the forum retaining responsibility for it; or a voluntary sector organisation might take over the PALS but report to the forum.
I accept that the patients forums themselves would not physically provide the patient advocacy and liaison service, but they would be in the driving seat for ensuring that such a service is provided. When a trust is not doing the right thing in terms of running a proper PALS, surely it is a very important lever in the armoury of the patients forum that it is able to take such action.
In the second part of the amendment, the responsibility for commissioning the independent complaints and arbitration service is to be one of the key functions of the commission. It will commission such independent advocacy services only from providers that meet standards set by the commission.
578
I believe that that process will ensure that this service is available, that it meets a certain standard, that it provides an effective monitoring system and that it avoids unnecessary duplication. Given the likely range of the independent arbitration service—which is likely to go wider than an individual trust or primary care trust—in practical terms it is best commissioned by the commission at a national level. But of course, in so doing, it will be informed by the experience of patients forums, which can be fed into the commission so that it is well aware of any problems that might be arising.
Amendment No. 55 is consequent on Amendment No. 33. We believe that engagement with the wider public and representation of their views, particularly in relation to overview and scrutiny committees of local authorities, will be with the local commission. The commission will, in the course of its activities, develop a clear picture of the entirety of patient experiences across a whole area. The commission will support and facilitate forum activity, and in so doing will build up a wider view of the patient's journey. As with independent arbitration, the experiences of patients forums would be an important influence on the commission in being able to make those representations. But both in terms of the workload of local commissions and in enabling a commission to get a clearer perspective of a patient's pathway across organisational boundaries, I believe that that particular responsibility is best left with the commission.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, although I am disappointed by it. At present, community health councils have a legitimate role in representing the voice of patients and the public. In the strict sense they have a legitimate role in doing so because the law empowers them to engage in such activity.
The Minister is effectively saying that a patients forum should not be allowed to make representations at all. The forums are, as it were, to he silent witnesses—except, and very importantly, in the context of their ability to refer a matter to the local overview and scrutiny committee.
I believe that that is retrograde. The fact is that CHCs can, and do, speak up for patients—sometimes very vocally. I should have thought that it would he entirely healthy for a patients forum to have the ability to make representations in that sense.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. This is an important point. Will he accept, in reference to Clause 15(2), that the role of a patients forum in monitoring and reviewing the operation of services, obtaining the views of patients and their carers and reporting on those views to the trust is a powerful set of responsibilities on patients forums? It is better to have focused responsibilities such as those, rather than suggesting that a patients forum could represent the interest of all the people who were served by a particular trust.
3.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I agree that it is a powerful set of responsibilities, but the powers conferred on a patients forum are minimal. All the forums are allowed to do is to monitor and express their opinion to the trust. They cannot do anything further than that.
I agree that that is a job that needs to be done. I am glad that there will be an independent body within the trust to do that. However, the wings of patients forums will be clipped; they will not have the ability to fly outside a trust and tell the world what they have found and express their views more widely.
The issue of the independence of a patients forum is an important one. I feel that a patients forum should be independent from its own trust in the fullest sense. People value community health councils because they are independent of the operations of health trusts. The same independence should apply in the case of patients forums.
The explanation given by the Minister of how the process of patients forums taking over trust functions would work—a matter to which he referred in Committee (at col. 561 of the Official Report)—demonstrates that these ideas have not been fully thought through. The Minister referred only to PALS. But if the clause is meant to refer only to PALS, I do not understand why it is not specific.
There is a danger not only of patients forums being allocated inappropriate responsibilities which they may be ill equipped to deliver, but also of patients forums giving undue attention to monitoring PALS, because they have that power, at the expense of the trusts' main services to patients, which are the things that matter most.
I shall read the Minister's remarks carefully. I do not believe that he has given me much comfort, if any, but I shall reserve the possibility of bringing these matters back at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 34:
Page 21, line 17, at end insert "(including services provided by in an independent hospital, independent clinic, independent medical agency, or care home under arrangements made by the NHS Trust or Primary Care Trust or Care Trust for which a Patients Forum is established)"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group.
We move on to an issue that we did not debate in Committee but which is of considerable importance for NHS patients. I start with a statement of the obvious, which nevertheless needs to be made. Whether you are an NHS patient in an NHS hospital, whether you are an NHS patient in a private hospital, or whether you are an NHS patient recuperating in a care home, you are likely to be frail and vulnerable. The ability that you have in any of those settings to exercise your consumer rights is equally curtailed.
580
That is why effective patient and public involvement must be established on an equal footing in all three sectors.
The Government have committed themselves to breaking down two sets of barriers: those separating health and social care and those separating the NHS and the private and voluntary providers of acute care. I am in total agreement with those two aims and with the positive steps that the Government have taken to make both of them a reality.
The recent White Paper, Delivering the NHS Plan, speaks of having a plurality of providers. One of the main arguments for that is to present patients with a better deal and a better range of choices. Patients waiting for an operation have more of a Hobson's choice if they are told that they can wait for a year or else go sooner to somewhere that is unfamiliar, whether outside the NHS or further from home. They often have to take what is offered. Patient and public involvement has to keep in step with these changes; which means that the accountability to the patient should be no different whatever setting he is in.
At the moment, the NHS, private acute hospitals and care homes are required to have systems in place to seek the views of patients, carers and their representatives. Given that, there is no reason why those systems should not be integrated on a fair and consistent basis. My amendments allow the functions of a patients forum to be extended to every location of care and to the services proved within them. To perform those functions the patients forum needs to have equal monitoring rights and equal rights of access. Anything less will result in postcode patient representation.
The final piece of the jigsaw in this context is the need to ensure that the local overview and scrutiny committee is able to scrutinise services provided in all the three settings that I have mentioned. The OSC is where the real power lies in these new arrangements. Let us suppose that the local NHS is proposing to contract with a totally unsuitable private provider of, say, children's mental health services. The scrutiny committee would be able to question such an arrangement and look at the care provided, so long as it had a report in front of it from the patients forum, but the chief executive of the private provider could not be called upon to appear before the committee. If there is to be proper local accountability, I believe that all patients need to benefit from that in the fullest sense. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I support the noble Earl, Lord Howe. He has made a powerful case for this set of amendments, which extend the rights of patients forums to monitor and to access those services contracted out by the NHS to the independent sector. They also cover the extension of rights of overview and scrutiny in that respect.
It has taken some time for the Government to recognise the seamless nature of both health and social care. I well recall in the Health Bill 1999 the Government resisting the pressure from these Benches

581
and from the Official Opposition Benches to extend the powers of the Commission for Health Improvement to inspect independent healthcare, even when that had been contracted out by the NHS.
This year the Government have finally seen the light and are prepared to merge the Audit Commission, CHI and the acute hospital aspects of the national standards commission. Therefore, it is impossible to split the services provided and it is much better to see them in the round. The Government may be providing a separate inspectorate for social care. Nevertheless, their policies, in terms of putting into place care trusts and duties on local authorities for care beds in the community to prevent bed blocking, show that the integration of health and social care is very much on the agenda. It is a short step of logic to expect that patients forums should have the duties that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has outlined in these amendments. We strongly support them from these Benches.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, of all the amendments on the agenda this is the group that the Government should consider carefully. Patients who find themselves being treated by the NHS, private hospitals and care homes are very vulnerable. If we are going to have this somewhat fragmented system for representation of patients, the body looking after the patients in these hospitals and homes should be the patients forum. I hope that the Minister will express some sympathy for that. Otherwise, I do not think that we can feel that the Government are really thinking the matter through on behalf of patients.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly remind the noble Lord and your Lordships of some of the sloppy drafting which occurs so frequently in the Bill. I have long been a warm admirer of your Lordships' patience, but sometimes I think that it is overdone.
On page 21, line 22, in Clause 15, to which these amendments refer, there is reference to something called "section 31 arrangements". It may be that those familiar with the jargon will immediately have a good idea of what is meant by "section 31 arrangements". But if one were less well informed, less erudite or less sophisticated in one's approach to these matters one may be—as I am—a bit puzzled.
However, in order to get an explanation one must look further down the page. On line 42 these words occur:
"'section 31 arrangements' means arrangements under regulations under section 31 of the 1999 Act (arrangements between NHS bodies and local authorities.)".
That is by no means my favourite quotation from the Bill, but it will do me for the moment.
At an earlier stage I raised these matters with the Minister. He, as always, was courteous, intelligent and responsive. He extended some hope to me that he would come along with devices such as Keeling schedules and so on, and explain what the Government: were at. But of course he was not able to go nearly far enough to suit me. In the letter which he
582
kindly sent me some weeks ago—a copy of which I received yesterday—he indicated that the spirit was willing but the flesh was woefully weak.
I hope very much that the noble Lord will stand up and explain exactly what is meant by the term "section 31 arrangements" and why, if he understands it as clearly as I have no doubt he does, such a definition is not made absolutely clear on the face of the Bill. I really do protest.
The noble Lord, Lord Brightman, would explain far better than I can—if he were here—that this nuisance of legislation by reference has been going on in an increasing tide of nuisance for 150 years. So I agree that it would be unreasonable to expect the present Government in a few months to scrap it. But at least they should go a little beyond saying that they do not like it; they should occasionally lend conviction to their opinions by producing easily comprehensible Bills instead of ones which are loaded with what. I can only politely describe as somewhat slovenly garbage.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I shall make a rather less erudite point. I find myself in some difficulty in that, for the first time, I am speaking mildly against extended representation for patients. I have some concerns about what is called the continuum of care. Sooner or later, we must consider the difference between patients and people in care homes in which they will live out their life. The latter are not patients.
I was delighted that the Minister did not use the words "beds" and "bed-blocking" when talking about the continuum of care for elderly and frail people. Until we see that bed-blocking is not the only issue and that long-term care is—I suspect that I have spent more time in such establishments than most of your Lordships—we will not get the concept right as to the needs of different groups of people in different establishments.
I declare an interest as a member of the National Care Standards Commission, but, in doing so, I do not hold any particular view that the situation should remain as it is. As I said before, there is room for change and improvement. However, I hope that we will bear in mind the distinct needs of the different care groups and the different establishments in which people find themselves and tailor our inspections and concerns accordingly. I hope that the Minister 'will bear that in mind, as he takes us forward.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful, first of all, to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, for taking us back to the issue of the quality of the draftmanship of the Bills that come before the House. I must confess that he has a point. I shall not pretend that the drafting to which he referred is at all easy to understand. My guilt is increased by the fact that I had a hand in taking the Health Act 1999 through the House.

583
Section 31 is rather long, and I am sure that noble Lords will not wish me to read it out. Essentially, it relates to the joint working of health and local authorities, particularly in social care but also in other areas. Section 31 enables that collaboration to be more effective. It also covers the pooling of budgets and other arrangements to allow that collaboration to take place. I accept the noble Lord's substantive point. I cannot put 150 years of poor draftsmanship right in a flash, but, although that answer will disappoint the noble Lord, he will know that we are engaged in seeing whether we can produce a consolidated measure for NHS legislation. It would be welcomed as warmly in the NHS as in your Lordships' House.
I was surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, should propose rights of inspection of private sector premises which, in any other legislation passing through the House, Opposition Members would have described as draconian powers. I accept the general principle that NHS patients, wherever they are treated, should be enabled to have facilities for raising issues of concern, but we must accept that the way in which that comes about will be different, depending on whether the organisation concerned is an NHS organisation or a private sector one. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, put her finger on some of the important relevant considerations.
Amendments Nos. 34 to 38 would add a reference to services provided in independent hospitals, clinics and medical agencies or care homes. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, Clause 15(2) covers all services arranged by the trust, whether in private clinics or NHS ones. Where the trust arranges for a patient to receive services from a private hospital or clinic, medical agency or care home, the patient is still an NHS patient and the services fall within the review remit of patients forums. In that sense, the amendments are rather superfluous.
The second half of the group of amendments relate to inspection rights of patients forums with regard to independent providers. I hope that I can assure the noble Earl that it is our intention that the arrangements for patients forums to carry out their functions where the NHS contracts with independent providers will be set out in the contract between the NHS and the provider, along with all other details of the contract. Contracts with the private sector are subject to strict rules and include monitoring mechanisms to ensure that patients receive the same quality and safety of care wherever they are treated. For example, the Commission for Health Improvement may carry out clinical governance reviews of services provided to NHS patients by the independent sector. Again, those arrangements will be set out in contracts.
The principles for inspection and rights of entry for NHS providers and private providers are identical. As I said, it is the legal basis that brings it about that is different. With NHS providers, it is in the terms of the
584
Bill; with independent providers, the arrangements will be required in the contracts. Technically, it is not necessary to list care trusts as a separate entity that must allow patients forums in, as suggested by Amendment No. 40A. The noble Earl will recall from the time when we discussed the Health and Social Care Act 2001 that care trusts are either NHS trusts or primary care trusts that have been designated as such under Section 45 of that Act, by virtue of their provision of certain functions on behalf of local authorities. As such, they are already provided for under the terms of Clause 16.
Amendments Nos. 40AA and 40CA concern the appropriateness of the general entry and inspection rights of forums. We want patients forums to have as much freedom as is reasonably possible for their members to inspect all premises used to provide services to NHS patients. That valuable function will help maintain the high standards of, for example, cleanliness in the health environment brought about by initiatives that we have already taken. However, we must accept that hospitals and surgeries can be busy and, at times, dangerous places. Common sense dictates that we simply cannot allow forums carte blanche to go about their business willy-nilly without some guidance.
We shall consult the key stakeholders on the regulations to ensure the correct balance between the freedom of the forums to inspect as and when they wish—I sympathise with the reasons for that—and respect for the legal framework in which it should be done. It is all about reasonableness. We expect to see protocols negotiated locally with trusts under which forum members can make unannounced visits but within agreed times and circumstances. That is a commonsense approach.
I understand that the overview and scrutiny committees can review and scrutinise matters relating to the health service in their area. I would certainly consider that that remit is wide enough to take in the scrutiny of commissioning contracts. However, it is the first time that we have discussed the issue, and I would like to take it away and perhaps provide a definitive answer at Third Reading. To the noble Earl, I say that it is one thing to say that overview and scrutiny committees can, as part of their remit, review the commissioning contracting arrangements made by NHS bodies within their local authority boundary; it is another to say that they should have the right to call private sector providers before them. The remit of the overview and scrutiny committees as regards contracts with the private sector ought to cover the NHS bodies that agree the contracts with the private sector, under the monitoring arrangements that the NHS organisations have put in place.
Overall, I agree that we want patients forums to be able to visit, in order to discharge their functions. It must be done sensibly, and regulations will allow for that. However, we must recognise that, legally speaking, circumstances are different for NHS organisations and private sector organisations.

585
Ultimately, we want NHS patients to be allowed to put forward their views and concerns, wherever they are treated.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he spare a moment to return to the subject of poor draftsmanship? Will he accept from me, as a former "confessor" to the parliamentary draftsmen, that the kind of draftsmanship about which my noble friend Lord Peyton rightly complains derives from two issues, each of which is the responsibility of successive governments? The first is that we must be concise and keep the number of clauses in a Bill down; the second is that we will not spend money on consolidation. Therefore, what the Minister said about consolidation a few moments ago is most welcome.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, let me make it clear that I did not seek to hide behind the alleged shoddy work of parliamentary draftsmen. It is for governments to try to ensure that legislation is as clear as possible and I hope that we in the Department of Health learn the lessons as we take legislation through Parliament. From the point of view of the department, the NHS and Members of your Lordships' House, a consolidated measure would be welcomed.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he tell the House what happens to the non-NHS patients, some of whom come from abroad and may need even more protection than those living in this country?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I suggest that that is a matter for the National Care Standards Commission. In due course, the responsibility will transfer to the new health inspectorate that we have proposed. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raises an important point but it is outside the remit of the Bill.
Earl Howe: My Lords, again, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and to the Minister. However, I was surprised when the Minister at the outset of his remarks said that I was proposing some grand set of draconian powers. I do not see the amendments in that light.
I have always been in favour of applying the quality agenda in its broadest sense across all care settings. Patient representation is an integral part of the quality agenda and I do not see it as draconian. It is entirely consistent with measures already in place, not least as regards the functions of the CHI in settings where NHS patients are being treated.
The Minister said that rights of access would be provided for in each individual contract. The trouble with that is that the inclusion of visiting rights in contracts with private providers of care is not new. Frankly, it has not worked. It was provided for in Department of Health guidance in 1990 and that guidance was widely ignored. Some CHCs had to resort to legal action to have clauses enforced by health
586
authorities, if they had been included in the contract, or to put pressure on health authorities to include such clauses in the first place.
I do not believe that the measure will work in the new world in which the monopoly status of the NHS is to be replaced with a plurality of providers with which the NHS will have varying bargaining powers. In any case, the patients forum will have no legal power to enforce such contracts because it will not be a party to them.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I was trying to make two points. First, I was remembering our debates on the Food Standards Agency and the concern of noble Lords opposite relating to the powers of the Meat Hygiene Service to enter private premises. I was drawing a comparison between the concerns about the rights of public officials to enter private premises and drawing a distinction between the comments made in this debate and comments made in the passage of other legislation.
As regards contracts, it seems to me that, given the plurality of provision which the noble Earl suggested, the NHS is in a much stronger position because it is becoming a much large purchaser of services within the private sector. Furthermore, since 1990 we have moved on in our thinking. The issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for instance, as regards complaints in the private hospital sector are apposite to that. The climate is much stronger for ensuring that there are contracts which allow for proper monitoring and involvement. I hope that they will enable patient forums to discharge an effective duty in relation to them.
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is all right if the provision is in the contract, but if for whatever reason it is not—and that is the purpose of the amendments—I do not see how patients forums will be able to discharge the duties under Clause 15(2)(a) and (b) to which the Minister referred earlier. Under that provision
"A Patients' Forum must monitor and review the operation of services … obtain the views of patients"
and so forth. I do not see how it will be able to discharge those duties because it will be able to monitor only remotely; it will not be able to access patients and their carers directly. However, I shall as always reflect on what the Minister said.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, for her remarks. I am sure she realises I hat the purpose of my introducing care homes into the debate was specifically to draw attention to intermediate care rather than long-term care. Clause 15(6)(c) of the Bill refers to Section 31 arrangements, but the problem is that the vast majority of social services are not provided under Section 31 arrangements. They are provided by local authorities on their own. In that context, I cannot help thinking that paragraph 86 of the Explanatory Notes is a little misleading when it talks about patients forums having monitoring rights

587
under Section 31 and quotes as an example social care services. The figures for Section 31 social services are small. Perhaps the Minister would confirm that.
The difficulty is that the duty of the patients forums to monitor and seek patients' views and its power to enter and inspect relate only to the functions of the trust. Therefore, for example, in a local authority care home for people with learning disabilities, the patients forum for a PCT could monitor only the GP and therapy services provided—nothing else. The mental health trust patients' forum could monitor only secondary care services provided there—nothing else. So what would a forum do if it discovered deficiencies in, say, daytime activities for residents? It would have no remit to do anything about it.
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will take away the ideas I put forward as regards the overview and scrutiny committees. There is another dimension to the amendments relating to scrutiny, which is that even if a patients forum were able legally to gain access to a private provider contracted to the health service, there would be no contract with that provider at the time when the local trust was contemplating such a contract. I do not know what role the Government see for the patients forums in assisting NHS trusts with the tendering process, or indeed whether there is a role for the overview and scrutiny committee at that stage, but it is a matter which needs thinking about.
Whether or not these amendments or others similar are written into the Bill, I believe that before long we shall see the best of the private acute sector signing up to arrangements of the kind I am advocating. I say that advisedly because I know of two private hospitals in London which are already exploring such ideas. They are doing so, no doubt, because they know it makes commercial sense for them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 35 to 38A not moved.]
Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 39:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause—
"PATIENTS' FORUM MEMBERS
(1) No member of a Patients' Forum may be appointed as a director of an NHS trust or a member of a Primary Care Trust to which the Patients' Forum relates unless that person has been recommended for appointment by the NHS Appointments Commission.
(2) Where a member of a Patients' Forum is also a director of an NHS trust or a member of a Primary Care Trust to which the Patients' Forum relates, his responsibilities as a director of the NHS trust or member of the Primary Care Trust shall be the same as those of any other director or member of such trust."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, for what I hope will be the last time, I return to the fray in trying to establish the parameters that will follow the election of a member of a patients forum as a non-executive director of an NHS trust, and that person's accountability and responsibilities to the trust. In doing so, I should say to the Minister that I am grateful to him for having met me on two occasions, the first
588
time before we debated the Bill in Committee; the second time last week to discuss the points over which I have been labouring during the progress of the Bill. To that end, I have already given the noble Lord a note of what I wish to say today in order to receive those final answers I seek and thus will not have to raise the matter again.
The patients forum will elect for each NHS trust one of their members as a non-executive director to that trust. The questions which now need to be answered are the following. Will the person then be subject to assessment by the NHS Appointments Commission procedure before they are entitled to take up the appointment as a director? If so, will the commission ensure that the criteria it adopts for all other non-executive directors are followed, including an interview panel which will include on it the chairman of the relevant trust? At this point I should, as usual, declare my interest as the chairman of an NHS trust.
In Committee, the Minister gave the criteria which would prohibit a member from being appointed as a director. Those seemed to be somewhat mechanistic and would have prevented someone from being accepted as a member of a patients forum. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that the criteria against which a patients forum director would be appointed would be the same as those for any other non-executive director? Can the Minister indicate whether it is expected that the patients forum will elect a trust appointee for a term of four years, or will there be annual elections—which I believe would probably be rather disruptive? Obviously it would be more effective if it were the former.
If there are no current non-executives on the board due for completion of eight years of service, will the Minister enable the patients forum director to be supernumerary until that situation arises? This would be only for the first person elected, as once such a retirement date is reached, then the patients forum non-executive would be subsumed into the regular board number of five, or six if it is a teaching authority. It would seem invidious that a competent serving member of the board, who justifiably could expect to serve for a second term of four years, were to be ejected to enable the patients forum director to have a place.
In Committee, the Minister confirmed that the patients forum director would hold corporate responsibility with other board members and would be accountable to the board. At what stage of their appointment will this be made clear by the NHS Appointments Commission? Will that be made part of its remit?
Finally, in the event of a conflict of interest for the patients forum director—for example, if the patients forum issues a critical assessment of its trust or any part of its services, either to the trust board or to the local authority overview and scrutiny committee—where would the patients forum director's accountability lie?
As I believe the Minister understands, I have no hostility to the concept of a director who brings to a trust board concerns about patients, although I am

589
bound to say that, in my experience, current members of a trust board believe that to be a major duty. However, I am anxious that there should be a recognised procedure which will ensure that they are accepted without rancour or suspicion by other board members. I hope that the Minister's response today will be able to satisfy not only myself, but also those other bodies which have the same concerns about this matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I rise to support Amendment No. 39 and to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Hanham for her tenacity in raising the issues posed by the appointment of patients forum members as representative members of PCTs and of NHS trusts.
There are two aspects to this matter. First, we seek to ensure that people appointed to PCTs and NHS trusts have the right competencies. There can be no place on these bodies for mere representatives. The people appointed to such boards must meet certain quality thresholds and there should be no question of devising special categories for members from patients forums or, indeed, from anywhere else. To do otherwise would be to jeopardise the integrity of those boards.
Secondly, the patients forum representative must be for corporate members of the PCT or the NHS trust. They cannot serve on the boards and say that they are in place solely, or even mainly, to represent the concerns of the patients forum. Their responsibilities go far wider than that.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give the assurances asked for by my noble friend. If no clear answers can be given, then the only way forward would be to place the issues beyond doubt by way of this amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for her interest in this matter. Of course she speaks with a great deal of authority as the chair of a large NHS trust in London. As the noble Baroness mentioned in her remarks, I have been pleased to meet her on a couple of occasions to try to go through some of the detail of how this will work in practice.
I wish first to make it clear that the NHS Appointments Commission will appoint all non-executives to trusts and it will appoint the patients forum non-executives. Those non-executives will be appointed subject to exactly the same checks and balances. The way that it is to work in practice has been agreed with the commission. One of the members of a forum will then be interviewed by a panel which will include the chair of the trust. If the candidate fits the criteria set by the Secretary of State, the panel will recommend to the commission that the candidate should be appointed.
I have listed the specific criteria under which a person might not be appointed. The noble Baroness thought that that was somewhat mechanical. However, she was right to draw attention to the more
590
general qualities that are required for all non-executives. Some of those essential requirements are that they need to live in the area served by the trust; they must have a strong personal commitment to the NHS; they should be able to demonstrate a commitment to the needs of the local community; they must be good communicators with plenty of common sense; they must be committed to the public service values of accountability, probity, openness and equality of opportunity; they must be able to demonstrate an ability to contribute to the work of the board; they must be available for up to five days per month; and they must be able to demonstrate an interest in healthcare issues. Those criteria are regarded as essential.
We then move on to the desirable criteria. They should have experience as a carer or a user of the N HS; they should have experience of serving in the voluntary sector, in particular within an organisation working with health issues; they should have already served the local community in local government or in some other capacity; they should have an understanding of or experience in management either in the public, private or voluntary sectors; and they should be able to offer specialist skills or knowledge in the work of the trust. Those are exactly the kind of qualities on which a judgment will be reached about any non-executive.
It is also worth making the point that the members of patients forums will have to go through an appointment process. I should have thought that many of the qualities required for membership to an NHS trust would apply equally to membership of a patients forum. I also believe that the role of the chair of the trust in the appointment process will be very important indeed. They will be able to give their assessment of whether the candidate would work well with the rest of the board. They would also be able to tell whether the candidate has the required skills for that particular trust and they would be able to make clear to the candidate the kinds of duties and responsibilities that the candidate would be called upon to contribute to the work of the board.
I turn now to the issue of corporate responsibility. It goes without saying that the patients forum non-executive will have exactly the same corporate responsibilities as a member of the board. I do not run away from the fact that sometimes it will be difficult for the patients forum non-executive to balance those corporate responsibilities against the spread of views that may be expressed by the patients forum. However, as I have often pointed out in this debate, the health service is well used to appointing people to serve on boards who have to strike a balance between different responsibilities. I can cite my own experience in the 1970s when I was appointed by Oxford City Council as a member of the Oxfordshire Health Authority. I remember clearly that it was a challenge to balance those responsibilities. However, it is our experience that most people are able to face up to that challenge. Ultimately, it is far better to have people inside the board rather than on the outside.

591
When a patients forum non-executive ceases to be a member of the forum, he or she will have to step down from the trust board. The forum would then elect another candidate to be considered by the appointments commission.
The noble Baroness raised the important issue of whether the non-executive from the patients forum will be appointed in addition to the existing non-executives or in the fullness of time replace a non-executive who has come to the end of his or her term in office. There is a degree of flexibility. NHS trusts are enabled to request an increase in the number of non-executives. Apart from trusts providing high security psychiatric services, which have seven non-executives, most trusts have five non-executives. Those trusts can move up from five to seven subject to their requesting the agreement of the Secretary of State, that agreement being given and the necessary regulation being laid. So within the current system there is scope for increasing the number of non-executives.
I hope that the noble Baroness feels that I have answered most of her points. We have benefited from her input. As we move to developing regulations to give effect to this policy, we would be pleased if she were able to give us the benefit of further advice during that stage.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I have a feeling that I should quit while I am winning. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his reply to what has become a detailed questionnaire. He has now resolved all the points. If he is offering me a chance to help with the regulations, I shall be absolutely delighted to do so. I am grateful to the Minister. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 40:
Before Clause 16, insert the following new clause—
"ESTABLISHMENT OF PATIENTS' COUNCILS
(1) The Secretary of State shall, subject to subsection (2), establish a body to be known as a Patients' Council ("Council") in England in each area for which an overview and scrutiny committee has been established under section 7 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c. 15) (functions of overview and scrutiny committees).
(2) Each Council shall comprise from among members of the relevant Primary Care Trust Patients' Forums and NHS trust Patients' Forums operating in that area and representatives from the relevant community interest groups.
(3) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that there is a need to establish a Council for an area other than that represented by a local authority with overview and scrutiny functions, he shall, after local consultation, establish a Council for such other area as appears to him will meet the needs of the local community.
(4) The functions of a Council are to represent the interests in the health service of the public in its district and in particular to—

(a)facilitate the co-ordination of the activities of member Patients' Forums including by the provision of staff and services to Patients' Forums,

592

(b)provide or make arrangements for the provision of services under section 19A of the National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49) (independent advocacy services) at the direction of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health,

(c) represent to persons and bodies which exercise functions in its area (including in particular the overview and scrutiny committees and the joint overview and scrutiny committees referred to in sections 7 (functions of overview and scrutiny committees), 8 (joint overview and scrutiny committees etc) and 10 (application to the City of London) of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c. 15)) the views of members of the public in its area about matters affecting their health, and

(d) advise the bodies mentioned in subsection (5) on involvement of the public in its area in consultations or processes leading (or potentially leading) to decisions by those bodies or the formulation of policies by them, which would or might affect (whether directly or not) the health of those members of the public, monitor the effectiveness of this involvement and co-operate with the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health in carrying out this function.

(5) The decisions in question at subsection (4)(d) are those made by—

(a) health service bodies,

(b) other public bodies, and

(c) others providing services to the public or a section of the public.

(6) The Secretary of State shall, following consultation with the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, Community Health Councils, patients' and carers' organisations and the wider community, by regulation make provision in relation to Councils and in particular provide as to—

(a) the Patients' Forums and other community interest groups from which members of the Council are to be appointed,

(b) any qualification or disqualification from membership,

(c) terms of appointment,

(d) the proceedings of a Council,

(e) the discharge of any functions of a Council by a committee of the Council or by a joint committee appointed with another Council,

(f) the circumstances in which Councils will co-operate with each other in the exercise of their functions and exercise functions jointly with one or more other Councils,

(g) funding of Councils and the provision of staff, premises and other facilities,

(h) the preparation and publication by a Council of annual accounts,

(i) the provision of information (including descriptions of information which are or are not to be provided) to a Council by an NHS trust, a Primary Care Trust, a Strategic Health Authority, the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, the relevant local authorities or a person providing independent advocacy services (within the meaning given by section 19A of the National Health Service Act 1977),

(j) the provision of information by a Council to another person,

(k) the preparation and publication of reports by Councils,

(l) the furnishing and publication by NHS trusts, Primary Care Trusts, Strategic Health Authorities and overview and scrutiny committees of comments on reports or recommendations of Councils, and

(m) the referral of matters of a prescribed description to any overview and scrutiny committee, the relevant Strategic Health Authority, the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health or the Secretary of State for Health.

593
(7) The regulations shall include provision applying or corresponding to any provision of Part 5A of the Local Government Act 1970 (c. 70) (access to meetings and documents).
(8) In section 21(10) of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (overview and scrutiny committees) after "members of the authority" there shall be inserted "and shall include a person appointed by the relevant Patients' Council".
(9) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 to the National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49), as amended by the Health Authorities Act 1995 (c. 17) after sub-paragraph (c) there is inserted—
"(d) persons appointed by the relevant Patients' Councils."."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 40, I shall speak also to the consequential amendments in this group.
These amendments seek to establish patients' councils to integrate the work of the patients forums operating in their area. As I explained in Committee, Amendment No. 40 is similar to the one put forward by David Hinchliffe, MP, the chairman of the Select Committee on Health, during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill before the last general election, which enjoyed cross-party support in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
The amendment provides for the creation of patients' councils as a statutory means of integrating the work of patients forums in a local area. This local area would in general be co-terminus with local authority overview and scrutiny committees and provide support to their scrutiny function. Regulations would provide for membership from relevant forums and other community groups.
As membership bodies, patients' councils would be accountable to patients forums. With lay membership and statutory duties, they would also be more accountable to local patients and communities than the Government's proposed local networks of the commission, which are set out in response to the listening exercise. As independent statutory bodies, they would help to reinforce the independence of patients forums at local level.
Patients' councils would operate as the local base for staff provided by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. They would also be able to provide or commission advocacy for people wishing to make a complaint about the NHS in line with provisions for the independent complaints advocacy service now contained in the Health and Social Care Act 2001. As well as providing an identifiable point where the public can raise concerns about the local health service, patients' councils could also act as one-stop shops where members of the public could get independent information and advice.
Under the amendment, the role of representing local concerns about matters affecting health will be carried out by patients' councils rather than by the commission. Patients' councils would share with the commission the task of ensuring that consultations are carried out by health service bodies and assist where this is appropriate. The national commission will be included in the list of bodies to whom patients' councils should send their reports.
594
Patients' councils will appoint members to sit on overview and scrutiny committees and strategic health authorities. This will ensure a coherent representation of patients forums members' interest at a strategic level.
Overall, there is an extremely strong case for a local, lay-led organisation which would pull together all the various fragmented functions of the system; provide and arrange complaints support; represent the local community; and be a visible, accessible and approachable point of contact for the local community.
In contrast, the Government's model, relying on a national commission, is built from the top down. In the Government's model there is no in-built reason why the national commission or its local manifestations should take any notice at all of the views of the local community on any issue. Community health councils currently provide easily accessible one-stop shops. In contrast, the Government's scheme involves a confusing array of fragmented bodies from which to seek help.
It seems extraordinary, after all this debate, that the Government are not accepting what seems to most of us to be sound common sense. In Committee, the Minister offered three main reasons for the Government's reluctance to accept patients' councils—that is, the possible usurping of patients forums' role as the main source of influence within the system; the perception that introducing patients' councils would add an additional tier of bureaucracy; and, finally, the need for flexibility to work across administrative boundaries.
This misrepresents what is proposed for patients' councils in the amendment. For example, patients' councils would not affect in any way the role of individual patients forums as the key bodies working with and within NHS trusts, monitoring services and bringing about change. Local patients forums would simply come together to form patients' councils. This would allow their respective expertise to be shared to provide a joined-up view of a local health economy, the patient journey experience across different trusts, and wider health and health inequality issues. They would provide a focal point for local communities and have powers to take up issues of concern with oversight and scrutiny committees and others. These roles are otherwise lacking in the Government's proposals.
Introducing patients' councils would significantly reduce bureaucracy and simplify the system. Patients' councils would take away the need for several strands of bureaucracy contained in the Government's proposals—for example, local networks of the Commission for Patient and Public involvement in Health; lay reference panels or other artificial means of forcing the different patients forums to work together and the commission to take account of them through as yet unspecified regulations; and the bureaucratic

595
exercise of the commission's staff tendering, contracting, monitoring and evaluating independent complaints advocacy services from a variety of separate organisations. Staff based with patients' councils could provide this service more efficiently and consistently from an identifiable one-stop shop.
Under the Government's proposals, individual patients forums would need to compete for staff support from an entirely separate, staff only, local network of the commission. This would be unwieldy and bureaucratic. Patients' councils would combine the local staff of the commission with lay members drawn from patients forums and the wider community to work as a tight, efficient team.
It has also been implied that the local authorities' overview and scrutiny role in some way negates the need for patients' councils. However, many local authorities have expressed enthusiasm for the concept of patients' councils because they provide a natural link with the patient and public involvement system and would make it easier for them to engage with patients and the community on health issues. For instance, the Democratic Health Network, part of the Local Government Information Unit, supports patients' councils in these words:
"The Democratic Health Network very much welcomes the idea of Patients' Councils to bring together the work of Patients' Forums. One of our main concerns has been the lack of a voice for patients that goes across the whole care pathway, from social services to tertiary care, because the transition from one level of care to another has often been problematic for service users and patients and is where 'seamless' care can often break down".
The Government know that the amendment has enormous support right across the voluntary sector; it has support from local government and it has wide support within this House and in the other place. They should listen to that overwhelming body of opinion on this matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I have spent a large part of my life campaigning for a stronger voice for patients and the public in public services. If I felt that patients' councils would help that along, I would support the amendment. However, I do not feel that it would give patients greater recognition or power. It would introduce a new bureaucratic structure with no guarantee of greater patient power.
The Government's commitment to increasing patient and public involvement in the health service, which I believe is at the heart of the NHS reforms, has not received sufficient recognition or praise. The new system, with the patient advocacy and liaison services, the patients forums and the local and national elements of the commission, is the biggest boost ever given to patients in the history of the NHS. We should rejoice in that. It is not about organisations representing patients or speaking on their behalf; it is about bringing patients into the system and enabling them to help with planning according to community needs, to make decisions and to control resources.
596
That is a huge cultural change in the NHS and many people will resist it. It will take time and it will take even more commitment. That is why we need the many different strands of enabling patient power to develop.
However, I am in sympathy with the idea of enabling patients forums to share their experience and learn from good practice. I do not feel that patients' councils are the way to help that along. The one-stop shop is always a seductive idea. We hear about it in many contexts—one-stop shops for carers, one-stop shops for the lottery and so on. The idea of the high street presence is very attractive and seductive, but it is hard for it to give real access to patients. We need a single point of access, but that can be done by telephone or, increasingly, by the Internet. Patients need as many points of entry as possible in order that their voice can be as strong as we can make it.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I regret that I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. One of the differences between this House and the other place is that in my former incarnation as Speaker I had to listen to endless speeches over and over again, whereas here I am able to say that the points that I wanted to make have been rather better made by the noble Lord. Lord Clement-Jones.
I strongly support the amendment for all the reasons that I gave in Committee on 11th April at cols. 581 and 582. In contrast to what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said about the previous amendment—which was very difficult to understand and had all the impact associated with the old Army phrase, "If you can't tell 'em, confuse 'em"—this one is clearly set out in ways that we can all understand. I hope that it will commend itself to your Lordships. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has said, it has wide support in the other place and I trust that the Government will accept it.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, understands the Bill very well. She has explained that patients' interests will be dealt with in a new way within the system. As somebody who has not worked in the National Health Service, I can understand the thinking behind that. The trouble is that the means allowed for patients' representation are locked into the system. We have heard from my noble friend Lady Hanham the problems presented by the chairman of a patients forum being on the board of the trust. I understand why that provision has been included, but it is bound to alter the way in which the forum can operate. That is clear from the structures. Anyone who has been involved in administrative systems can see that it gives a particular characteristic to the patients forum.
The most important aspect of Amendment No. 40 comes in subsection (4), which says:
"The functions of a Council are to represent the interests in the health service of the public in its district".

597
Every member of the public is potentially a patient. At any given moment many members of the public have relatives or friends who are patients. The public, not just patients, have a continuing interest in the health service. The public must surely be able to feed their thoughts into the system from outside, not from within the system.
My general worry about the Bill is that there is too much of the big tent about it. It embraces everybody who is concerned as if they were all members of the health service, whereas the public are not members of the health service; they are the customers. The amendment identifies the public as the customers and would enable them to get at the health service from outside. That is its main advantage. The community health councils did that and the proposed patients' councils would do the same. It is an important addition to the system that would not conflict with the rest of the Bill. We should accept it.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend has just said. The Government have set up an elaborate new organisation that is quite powerful. There is a real danger that people on the ground —or on the operating tables and in the wards—will tend to be forgotten and reduced to statistics for waiting lists and the rest of it.
I fear that the Government are attempting to defend their new organisation against the possible irritations caused by complaints from patients' councils. That could well happen. I remain extremely doubtful about the remoteness of strategic health authorities. I also have grave doubts—I am afraid that I was not able to stay yesterday—about the organisation known as the Commission for Health Improvement. As I have said before, I always suspected that health improvement was the task of the department, but now we have a special commission for it. Unlike the department, which occupies modest offices, the commission occupies some very smart premises in Finsbury. Despite what it says, it leaves in its wake a trail of people who have been vexed and irritated by yet one more inquiry.
The more organisations there are that are capable of subjecting everybody to inquiries, the more we need some defence with the eloquence that a patients' council could generate. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I repeat the quotation that I gave at an earlier stage of the Bill from the chairman of a large hospital group, who told me clearly, "We are suffering from death by a thousand visits". I fear that these thousands of visits by invigilators, inquisitors, monitors and the rest are becoming a real pest. I am left with the hope that patients' councils—which the Minister seems to think will be a source of discomfort—may prove to be what is wanted, as at least one line of defence against the inquisition of potential tyrants.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the previous amendments have illustrated the complexity and confusion surrounding the Bill's proposals on the new bodies to represent patients. The Government are
598
setting up an independent audit committee to ensure that the new money coming into the National Health Service is spent correctly, and that seems wise They have made it clear that there is a need for independence. Why are they so adamant that patients should not have an independent body representing them? I cannot understand that, especially as the Minister understands the National Health Service so well. If patients' councils are set up, it will be vital that they are both independent and are seen to be independent. Unless patients or their representatives have an independent body to go to for help and advice, they will feel gagged and vulnerable when using the service.
One sometimes wonders whether the National Health Service is run for the patients or the staff who work within it. For years, there has been a health centre in North Yorkshire where the staff car park was smoothly tarmacked while the patients' car park was full of potholes and rough stones. It is important that one has as good facilities as possible for patients. If patients do not have an independent body with a wide variety of people representing them who have the interests of the National Health Service at heart, it will seem that the Government are not allowing freedom of speech and freedom to try to strive for good, acceptable standards for all who work and use the National Health Service.
Staff have their unions and professional bodies. Patients also need an independent voice, not a fragmented muddle. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I do not think that I would have entered this debate—this is my first say on the Bill—unless I had had an unfortunate experience with the Department of Health. That experience concerns mixed-sex wards, a matter which I have been pursuing for the past eight years and has not yet been revolved. As it is quite clear that mixed-sex wards are still with us, in December, I wrote a letter to the Department of Health. Although I waited for three months, I received no reply. Indeed, I would not have had a reply by now if I had not tabled a question for Written Answer asking for one. If that is the way in which I am treated as a Member of your Lordships' House, what chance is there for the ordinary patient? He has no chance at all.
The fact, unfortunately, is that the patient is not treated as a customer or as a patient to be respected. All too often, he is treated as a supplicant. We must understand that patients are not supplicants. Currently, on average, each family in this country' pays between £2,000 and £2,500 annually for the health service. So he is not a supplicant, he is a paying customer. He deserves to be treated in that manner. In normal circumstances, one would expect that a business with captive, paying customers would treat those customers very well indeed. At the moment—make no mistake about it, I am a supporter of the National Health Service—they are not being treated in

599
that way. Patients therefore need a voice, and a strong one. What is proposed in the Bill is not a strong voice but a diffuse voice.
I shall support the amendment because it will give focus to that voice. I hope that it will give power to patients. I hope that, if this amendment is sustained and the Government accept it, patients' councils will believe in themselves and in those whom they represent and not cosy up to the National Health Service or the entrenched bureaucracy, but work on behalf of patients and not be afraid to voice their own and patients' concerns about the organisation of the National Health Service, which needs a very great shake-up indeed.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am very pleased to support these amendments to which I have added my name. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and other noble Lords have made a succinct and admirable case for patients' councils. There is very little I can add beyond perhaps underlining one or two key points.
If we believe in a patient-centred health service, then logically we must also believe in the voice of the patient being heard. I am terribly sorry that the Government have seen fit to abandon the concept of the community health council rather than build on it, because community health councils really do provide a means by which the voice of the patient can be heard at the highest level. They also provide a means whereby lay people in an area can reach an informed view on service delivery across a wider canvas than simply this or that acute trust or this particular PCT.
What we have in the Government's proposals is a means whereby lay people will be able to consider the patient's experience, albeit—as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, indicated—only in slices, not as a totality. That is not much good to our old friend Mrs Archibald, who is waiting a long time for her operation. The patients forum for Mrs Archibald's primary care trust may well lay the blame on the hospital. The patients forum for the hospital may in good conscience lay the blame on the primary care trust. What use is that to Mrs Archibald? What she needs is one place where all her problems are considered in the round and from where pressure is brought to bear on the system failures that are causing these problems. That place is a patients' council.
In the Government's model, there is absolutely no lay representation for patients above the level of a patients forum. In pointing that out, I am not playing down the significance of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health; I am sure that the commission is a positive idea and it will have a useful role. However, the commission will not have lay people in it; it will be staffed by paid officials. It is in essence, and I think will be perceived as being, a creature of government.
The commission's job will be to support patients forums, but that is a long way from saying that the commission has to take action when a patients forum brings a particular matter to its notice. It does not have
600
to do anything. A patients forum can bring the same matter to the notice of an overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority. However, there is no legal duty for the overview and scrutiny committee to do anything either. I find it very difficult to see this reformulation of patient and public involvement as anything other than a way of weakening the patient's voice rather than assisting it.
The fact is that the overview of health services in an area will be led by staff who are employed by a national organisation which the Department of Health can control. Is that really what we want? The Government are effectively saying that lay involvement is all very well provided it can be muzzled and that lay people are fine as regards monitoring what goes on in an acute hospital, but that is all they can do—monitor. They will have no real power to do anything about whatever may emerge from their monitoring. We need patients' councils to sustain the voice of patients.
The Minister said in Committee that he did not want another statutory tier of patient involvement that usurped the primacy of patients forums. In answer to that I underline the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I do not see patients' councils as adding another tier of bureaucracy. I do not see them as altering the key position of patients forums working with and inside NHS trusts. Indeed, I see them as supporting patients forums, not the other way round. The people who serve on patients' councils would be the same people as serve on patients forums.
At the moment the Government propose an array of bureaucratic structures and tasks in a given locality. There would be local networks of the commission and so-called lay reference panels of different patients forums. It would be the job of the staff of the commission to tender, to contract for and to evaluate the independent complaints advocacy services. Why not bring all of those activities and structures together in a patients' council where, using local staff of the commission, they could all be provided much more efficiently? Advocacy would be provided from within patients' councils. Lay reference panels would not be needed at all.
The Government have indicated that they are willing to place a duty on the face of the Bill for patients forums to work together. I have to say that I do not think that that is adequate. Working together is not the same thing as having a lay led organisation that will pull all the threads together from trusts and PCTs and speak up for patients in a particular geographical area, perhaps working across administrative boundaries. That in simple terms is the watchdog function. It is a function we shall lose if the Government have their way.
Finally, as regards visibility, local networks of the commission will be neither visible nor recognisable to the general public. Nor will they be accountable to them. If we look at things that way, I do not think that we can avoid the conclusion that patients' councils are the only sensible solution to the very significant deficiencies inherent in the new arrangements.
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I express my warm support for the amendment and my strong agreement with what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has just said. I ought to declare an indirect interest in that my wife served as a chairman of one community health council and vice-chairman of another and has for some years been a non-executive director of an acute trust. Therefore, she has seen the situation from both sides. I believe that the real point of the patients' council—this has been said already but I want to underline it yet again—is that it is a body which has a broad enough view to co-ordinate and to have a coherent overview of the relationship between the various bodies delivering healthcare. We must think in particular of the primary care trusts and the acute trusts. The shift of responsibility has changed in that relationship. It is one where we must have a body which can relate to both over a much wider area than that of an individual organisation.
I believe that the patients forum, which may be necessary, desirable, effective and good within its narrow limits, has too narrow limits. It will have much too narrow a remit. It will not be able to take an overview and relate its own concerns to those of patients who are being treated by another institution or agency. I believe that patients' councils would have a much greater degree of independence and would be more likely to achieve effective and desirable change. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment. I hope that it will win widespread support from all sides of the House.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I strongly support the amendments. I speak as a healthcare professional. I believe that the voice of the patient must have parity with that of' the management at all levels. Patients' councils are important in order to establish a route whereby the collective intelligence can be gathered on information that may be supplied through the layers of a patients forum. Patients forums are inexorably linked to trusts and there is always the danger that the patient who is vulnerable cannot really express all his or her concerns. There is also a danger that small trends in one area which may constitute large national trends would be lost if there was not a collective intelligence.
There have been examples of collective intelligence professionally. I refer to the confidential inquiry into maternal deaths and the confidential inquiry into perioperative deaths. Now within trusts there is sentinel event reporting or near miss reporting. It is that collection of many small bits of information coordinated and brought together that supplies crucial information as regards a trend. The amendments appear to enable patients to themselves have a collective intelligence to inform their reporting.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I was moved by the energetic statements of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, with regard to the importance of not cosying up to the NHS or the Department of Health. As director of the Association of Community
602
Health Councils for a number of years, that was certainly a precept that I sought to follow. Indeed, I have at home a series of copies of denunciations of me by successive Secretaries of State, the most vitriolic of which came from my right honourable friend Frank Dobson during his period as Secretary of State for Health.
However, I am confused by the different points that have been made in the past half hour or so in support of the amendment. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned a diffuse void. I am not sure whether you can have a diffuse void or whether they are necessarily different. However, I am concerned about the extent to which what is proposed here will make the arrangements more rather than less diffuse.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I did not say diffuse void; I said a diffuse voice.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, it is possible that I wrote down "voice" but I cannot read it. That explains the situation. In fact, that makes my point all the more telling. If the noble Lord is concerned about a diffuse voice, the danger is that the amendment which he supports creates yet another voice and further diffuses it.
Much has been said in this short debate about giving power to patients. On the various occasions I have contributed to that discussion over the past few months I made the point that the original proposals which emerged from the Government were extremely weak and flawed. What has emerged subsequently is substantially better, but there are still one or two gaps. One of the gaps concerns the need for there to be some system of co-ordination between the different patients forums and the different issues that may arise. The other concerns the need for there to be a focus at area level which is population based as opposed to institution based. My other anxieties concern staffing arrangements. A number of noble Lords alluded to the issue of whether staff of the patients forums will be accountable to the patients forums or to the new Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. There are also concerns with regard to the extent to which the new patient structure will address issues of public health.
In Committee I tabled two amendments which I thought might address those points. I have not tabled them subsequently having listened carefully to my noble friend's assurances. I had hoped that we would have before us today a draft of the regulations 'which would have enabled us to see exactly how he proposes to meet some of the points that I put forward. Unfortunately, the regulations are not before us. I am conscious that there is an impressive array of support being displayed for the amendment from around your Lordships' House. My limited experience suggests that if noble Lords from both opposition Front Benches and a former distinguished Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers put their name to an amendment, the chances are that it will be accepted. However, that raises some concern about what will be on the face of the Bill.

603
The amendment is slightly strange. A number of noble Lords have expressed concern about the danger of diffuse arrangements. The first paragraph of the amendment states that the Secretary of State shall establish a body in each area covered by an overview and scrutiny committee. The third paragraph proposes that in addition the Secretary of State may create other patients' councils in other areas. That is not instead of the patients' councils for each overview and scrutiny committee but as well as, thereby making the provision even more diffuse. There may be a misprint in the second paragraph which is incoherent. It states:
"Each Council shall comprise from among members".
I assume that that is just a mistake.
The first paragraph establishes a body known as a patients' council in each area for which an overview and scrutiny committee has been established. Some noble Lords suggest that it will be close to the public. I do not understand how it can be closer to the public than areas represented by a patients forum representing a PCT area which is likely to be much closer to the public. Others have talked about an overarching view. In some areas the area covered by an overview and scrutiny committee will be a long way from the public. It will probably relate to a county council area which covers perhaps 2 million people and is remote from local communities, issues and concerns.
In London it is the converse. There will be a patients forum for each PCT, covering the area of a London borough. If the amendment were passed, there would also be a patients' council for the same geographical area. That seems a recipe for enormous confusion for the public. I suspect that it is a flaw in the drafting and that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, did not intend that.
The proposals produce a bureaucratic response to the problems identified. I have suggested that the local area covered by a PCT and the patients forum established for that area should have the co-ordinating function. It should bring together the various areas within it. I have yet to hear arguments which satisfy me that that is not the best way to address the issue.
I am amazed at subsection (4)(d) of the amendment. It proposes that one of the tasks of the new patients' councils will be to advise a series of bodies about anything,
"which would or might affect (whether directly or not) the health of those members of the public"
in respect of those services. The provision does not relate only to health service bodies. It is clearly intended to address the question of public health. But it provides for,
"other public bodies, and … others providing services to the public or a section of the public".
Presumably it will be the duty of the patients' councils to advise transport undertakings on the safety of the railway system because that may potentially affect the health of people who may or may not use it. The patients' councils will be required to give advice to the supermarket chains about the quality of the food that
604
they provide because that may affect the health of people, and to small shopkeepers, and so on. The provision is extraordinarily widely drafted. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will no doubt suggest that it can be tidied up. But there has to be clarity about what we seek to achieve.
Noble Lords have suggested conflicting aims. Some say that because the patients forums will be close to specific trusts they cannot be the champions of the patients. Yet others say that the strength of the patients' councils is that they will be drawn from the patients forums. The same people will be sitting on the patients forums as are on the patients' councils. That does not make sense. One cannot have it both ways. Like, I am sure, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I have sought assurances from the Minister on the independence of the patients forums. If the patients forums are genuinely independent, there can be no problem about creating a patients' council. If one is not satisfied that they are independent, the patients' council is not the solution because the patients' councils are drawn from the patients forums.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, expressed concern about the death by a thousand visits. The proposals create yet another statutory body with, presumably, powers to visit, to have reports, and to require responses involving extra rounds of visits. I do not believe that the amendment meets the purposes that noble Lords seek to achieve. Simpler and less bureaucratic solutions could create a focus on a specific locality and population and address questions of public health without the all-embracing, blunderbuss approach to every conceivable issue which may arise. With appropriate guarantees from Ministers, bodies could be independent of the NHS and adequately serviced by the arrangements for the new national commission.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I have added my name to those putting forward the amendment in order to demonstrate to my noble friend the breadth of support the provision has not only from the Opposition Benches in this House but also from among the large segment of government supporters, particularly in another place. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, the amendment is identical to that moved by David Hinchliffe, the chair of the Select Committee in another place. It also has wide support among the health profession.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, I shall not argue again the case for patients' councils which many noble Lords have argued eloquently. However, unless my noble friend puts forward a proposal which goes a long way towards embodying the principles outlined in the amendment, he is likely to provoke a Division which he is likely to lose. I await with some anxiety the noble Lord's suggestions. Perhaps some of the suggestions just put forward by my noble friend may act as a basis for them. However, the proposals will

605
have to be quite radical for me to support the Government and oppose the amendment in the Lobbies.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it has been a wide-ranging debate which has taken us back to some of the substantive discussions on Second Reading in terms of the future of patient and public involvement in the National Health Service. Like my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, I have had a long-standing interest and experience in patient and public involvement. I have always made it clear to your Lordships that the tests of the Government's proposals are whether at the end of the day they will be more effective in improving patient and public involvement and NHS sensitivity to the needs of patients than the current arrangements. I have no doubt that the arrangements we set before noble Lords will lead to a more effective engagement with the public than we have at present.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said that the problem with our proposals was that they took a "big tent" approach. I disagree. The problem with community health councils is that they were a big tent approach. Within CHCs they were meant to encompass a range of functions. Often they did so inadequately. They were patchy in what they achieved. At the end of the day, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Twenty-seven years after the establishment of CHCs, can we say hand on heart that we believe that their impact has been to turn the NHS into a patient and public orientated service? The answer is, no: that has not happened. That is why we think it better to separate the functions that CHCs have traditionally been given and ensure that they are organised in a much more professional and effective way—hence the establishment of PALs (patient advocacy and liaison services) within NHS trusts to deal with problems as they arise; in other words, to nip them in the bud. We also have the establishment of patients forums, independent advocacy services, as well as the overview and scrutiny committees of local government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked for independence. That is what these arrangements are about. For example, patients forums are independent. Indeed, by its very name, independent advocacy is independent. Overview and scrutiny committees and the committees of local authorities are independent of the NHS.
Going beyond the range of measures that we now propose, we come to the issue of the co-ordination of the work of patients forums. I accept that patients' councils are one way by which one could co-ordinate the work of forums, but, in my view, they are not the best answer. Patients' councils risk undermining the key plank of our proposals; namely, the establishment of patients forums. There is a very real risk in this respect. Unlike community health councils, patients forums will be operative in those areas where patients are actually being treated within NHS trusts. That is the point where patients need help and support. It is
606
there that the wide spectrum of patients' views needs to be brought to bear on clinicians, and on those who take a leadership role.
If our patient/public involvement initiatives are to make a real difference, it will be in the improved quality of every-day patient experience. That is why patients forums, based within each NHS trust, are the essential foundations of our proposals. Patient journeys cross organisational boundaries; indeed, they have always done so, and they always will. Patients forums will need to work together. That is why we propose that the national commission will provide the support to give the necessary flexibility at the local level. We do need a flexible approach. It is because different patient journeys cross different organisational boundaries that the required flexible approach is embraced within our proposals.
The risk with the proposed patients' council is that its function would go much wider than merely facilitating co-ordination. It would be a statutory body—another tier. The risk is that it would take to itself a role of speaking on behalf' of patients forums and of supplanting their primacy. As my noble friend Lord Harris pointed out, under the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, my strategic health authority covering Birmingham and the Black Country would have but one patient council for a huge population area. How can that possibly be concerned with getting closer to the views of patients?
I argue for subsidiarity as opposed to a centralist approach, which I believe would be almost inevitable if formal statutory patients' councils were established. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that there was no risk in that respect. However, he then recited a whole list of responsibilities for patients' councils. It is clear that they would become the primary patients' organisation within the proposed new structure. The last thing we should want is to have such councils tying up resources and people, acting in an inappropriate representational role, and taking the main focus of attention away from the direct patient experience at the NHS trust level.
However, that does not mean to say that cooperation between patients forums is unimportant. The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health has already been given the function of providing assistance to patients forums, as well as facilitating the co-ordination of their activities. But I am not unsympathetic to the points raised about trying to flesh out further details about how that coordination may work. Having listened to the debate in Committee, and having had useful discussions with several noble Lords, the Government have decided to go further on the basis that the patients' councils option is not pursued.
We would plan to make explicit on the face of the Bill a requirement on patients forums to come together on a regular basis in a structured format, along the lines of standing conferences. That mechanism would mean that all the forums within an area would bring their views, findings, themes and trends into one place where consideration could be given to sharing views

607
and co-ordinating the work of different forums. That process would ensure a mechanism that was inclusive and one that would be open to all forum members. It would not be a matter of giving an extra status to any forum, or any forum member. Similarly, it would not involve an extra statutory bureaucratic tier.
At the same time, we are prepared to place a requirement on the commission—again, on the face of the Bill—to take account of the views of patients forums in deciding its work plan. In that way, we can be sure that the commission and its work are being explicitly influenced by local patients forums, which, in itself, would encourage the working together of those forums. The commission will already have a very clear and comprehensive view of patients' experiences across an area, but the requirement for forums to come together, and the fact that the commission will take this into account, will ensure that important degree of accountability—but without shackling its work unnecessarily.
I turn to the issue of a one-stop shop. Wherever local people may be, I agree that it will be important for them to have a single access point into the patient/ public involvement system. Clearly, it will be possible to access this through PALS, through independent complaints and advocacy services, through patients forums, through the overview and scrutiny committees of local government, and through the staff of the local commission; and, indeed, through many other sources of information, not least in the NHS. However, in response to some of the points raised, we shall ensure that the commission provides a central access point through its network at the local level. Again, we shall make it an explicit function of the commission to provide information and guidance to local people wanting to complain, to have their say, or to know what is happening locally on matters that affect their health.
We have in mind a single point of contact, as suggested by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, by telephone, by electronic media, so that it will be possible through one contact not only to access all the local mechanisms for patient involvement and information but also to provide information about key developments in the local health service. We would plan to bring forward the necessary amendments on Third Reading.
I have no doubt about the sincerity of all noble Lords who have spoken on these matters. I believe that we all want better public and patient engagement within the NHS. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart: we do not want the patient to be a "supplicant" at the table of the NHS. We want the NHS to serve patients in the most effective and sensitive way possible. We have not done this well in the past; indeed, we must do better. If we do not better serve the public, they will walk away from the NHS. It is as simple as that. I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that it is in the interest of the Government, as much as anyone else, to have powerful patient engagement.
608
All that we have said about the NHS, and all the plans that we have made, are predicated on a more responsive National Health Service. We will not have a responsive NHS unless we have strong patient involvement.
My view of the amendments starts and finishes with an analysis of which approach is more likely to lead to strong patient involvement. Which approach is more likely to secure the responsive NHS that all noble Lords want? I am convinced that the patients forums route is right. The impact on each trust of having within its midst wholly independent patients forums will be enormous. Please do not inhibit and undermine those forums by placing on top of them remote patients' councils, which will at best detract from the primacy of patients forums and at worst become a bureaucratic and unnecessary encumbrance that is remote from the day-to-day experience of patients.
Patients forums must work together; that is not in doubt. That is why we have listened carefully to the arguments and are prepared to table amendments at Third Reading to reinforce that co-operation if the patients' councils amendments are not pressed.
We will of course be determined to ensure that the model that we finally reach will be the best model for co-operation. It will operate on the basis of equal partnership in relation to patients forums and it will be grounded in the day-to-day experience of NHS patients. I do not believe that patients' councils would add to that one iota. The risk is that they would considerably detract from those arrangements.
5 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and the Minister in particular for his powerful speech.
It is clear that the overwhelming opinion of the House is in favour of patients' councils. I was interested that several times in his reply, the Minister used the word "risk". He said that the approach risks undermining the world of patients and public involvement, as designed by the Government. The irony is that the Government accepted amendments involving patients' councils in a Bill before the previous general election, and they did so gladly. They did so by way of a compromise with one of their own Back-Benchers—the chairman of the Select Committee on Health. What has changed in nine months? Very little.
The Minister and his ministerial colleagues have had some time—probably one year—to consider the matter. I am afraid that although his reply was well considered, he and his colleagues have come up with roughly four or five additional sticking plasters for what was already a very complicated solution. The Government have added to the Bill a duty to oblige patients' forums to work together. Very useful. A standing conference has been suggested and a telephone line. Well, that is a very useful contribution! Most noble Lords who listened to the Minister's speech will mull over whether all of those rather minor additions to the Bill could be fulfilled through patients' councils.

609
I was interested to hear the robust contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Harris—it is always good to hear him in full flow. The answer to his suggestion is that, in essence, patients' councils are a bottom-up solution to patient and public involvement. The networks of the national commission, which are a Government creation—they are effectively the creature of the Secretary of State—are a top-down solution. That is the key difference between patients' councils and the Government's proposals.
Many noble Lords would like to return to the status quo in relation to community health councils. I do not believe that the Government have properly taken into account the fact that this proposal is a compromise that was put forward by many voluntary organisations and by the CHCs themselves through their national organisation. We advance it in a genuinely constructive way—in the belief that it is the best way forward, rather than an attempt to fight past battles. I do not believe that the Government are giving as much credit as they should to supporters of patients' councils.
Why go for a solution of sticking plasters and string when we could have a solution that is a powerful and well-constructed way forward? There is a considerable philosophical difference between the Government and those on these Benches, the Opposition Benches, many on the Cross Benches and, indeed, many on the Government's Benches. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
5.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 40) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 227; Not-Contents. 136.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ackner, L.

Carr of Hadley,L.

Addington, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Chadlington, L.

Ampthill, L.

Chilver, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Chorley, L.

Arran, E.

Clement-Jones, L. [Teller]

Astor of Hever, L.

Cockfield,L.

Attlee,E.

Coe,L.

Avebury, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Colwyn, L.

Belstead,L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Blaker,L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Blatch,B.

Crathorne, L.

Boardman, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Bowness, L.

Cuckney, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Deedes, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Denham, L.

Burnham, L.

Dholakia, L.

Buscombe, B.

Dixon, L.

Byford, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Caithness, E.

Dundee, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

610

Elles,B.

Monson, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Montrose, D.

Elton, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Erroll, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ezra, L.

Moynihan, L.

Falkland, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fearn, L.

Naseby, L.

Ferrers, E.

Neill of Bladen, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Newby, L.

Flather, B.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Fookes, B.

Noakes, B.

Fowler, L.

Northbrook, L.

Freeman, L.

Northesk, E

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Northover, B.

Geddes, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Geraint, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Goodhart, L.

Onslow, E.

Greenway, L.

Oxburgh, L.

Hamwee, B.

Palmer, L.

Hanham, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Haslam, L.

Peel, E.

Henley, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Hereford, Bp.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Higgins, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Plumb, L.

Hogg, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Holderness, L.

Prior, L.

Home, E.

Pym, L.

Hooper, B.

Quinton, L.

Howe, E. [Teller]

Rawlings, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Razzall, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Reay, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hylton, L.

Rees, L.

Jacobs, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Rennard, L

Jellicoe, E.

Renton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Jopling, L.

Rogan, L.

Kimball, L.

Roper, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Kingsland, L.

Russell, E.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Laird, L.

Saatchi, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Chandover, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Listowel, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Liverpool, E.

Sandberg, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Sandwich, E

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Lucas, L.

Seccombe, B.

Luke, L.

Selborne, E.

Lyell, L.

Selsdon,L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Sharman, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B

Sharples, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

McNally, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Maddock, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Marlesford, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Masham of IIton, B.

Stern, B.

May of Oxford, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Stewartby, L.

Methuen, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Strange, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Taverne, L.

611

Tebbit, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Tenby, V.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Thatcher, B.

Walmsley, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Walpole, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Weatherill, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Wigoder, L,

Wilberforce, L.

Tope, L.

Wilcox, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Vivian, L.

Windlesham, L.

Waddington, L.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hayman, B.

Ahmed, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Alli, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Amos, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Andrews, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bach, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Barnett, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. {Lord Chancellor)

Berkeley, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bhatia, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Blackstone, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Borrie, L.

Jones, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Judd, L.

Brett, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brookman, L.

Layard, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Burlison, L.

Levy, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lipsey, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Chandos, V.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Clinton-Davis, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Crawley, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

David, B.

Marsh, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Desai, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Donoughue, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dubs, L.

Morgan, L.

Elder, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Nicol, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Orme, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Parekh, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Paul, L.

Filkin, L.

Pendry, L.

Gale, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gilbert, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Puttnam, L.

Golding, B.

Quirk, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Radice, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Goudie, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Greengross, B.

Roll of Ipsden,L.

Gregson, L.

Rooker, L.

Grocott, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Sawyer, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Harrison, L.

Sheldon, L.

Haskel, L.

Simon, V.

Haskins, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

612

Stallard, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Whitaker, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Whitty, L.

Thornton, B.

Wilkins, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Turnberg, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Turner of Camden, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.17 p.m.
Clause 16 [Entry and inspection of premises]:
[Amendments Nos. 40A to 40E not moved.]
Clause 17 [Annual reports]:
Baroness Finlay of Llandaffmoved Amendment No. 41:
Page 22, line 32, at end insert—
"( ) both Houses of Parliament,.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 41, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 42 standing in my name. Amendment No. 41 recognises the importance of patients forums as established in the Bill. In their document, Delivering the NHS Plan, the Government propose to ensure explicit patient choice: the choice of where and when patients receive treatment. That will be monitored through the patients forums or the patients councils, as we heard in debate on the previous amendment. If patients do not have a choice where it is appropriate, then the report will show that.
We heard from the Minister in his address to this House on 18th April 2002 that the,
"investment in the NHS must be accompanied by changes in the way the NHS works".
He also stated, rightly, that:
"Where more resources are going in, people have the right to know what they are getting out".—[Official Report, 18/4/02; col. 1081.]
Just as the new commission for healthcare audit and inspection is to be the judge of service change, so the British people are to be the jury.
For true openness and debate, the reports from the patients groups must be presented to both Houses of Parliament along with reports from the new commissions for healthcare audit and inspection and for social care inspection. It is only by presenting the perspective of the external audit of the service and the experience of the users that a true 360 degree appraisal of the service will have occurred. Through that process, Parliament, on behalf of the people of the country, will be fully informed.
In speaking to Amendment No. 42, I do not wish to delay today's business by going over old ground. Yesterday the Minister stressed the importance of distinguishing 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 commissions.

613
Parliament is made up of the Members of both Houses. Those Members should be able to question directly aspects of the service appraisal to which the various reports will contribute; they should be able to debate the advantages and disadvantages of different service configurations.; and, importantly, they should be able to confer with others over questions pertinent to the reported findings of the commission and the patients groups.
As a collective experience in Parliament develops, so will the checks and balances exerted by Parliament be increasingly rigorous and informed. Of course, the Bill cannot establish a Select Committee. That is to be done through the usual channels. But in the event of a committee of both Houses being established, the reports would be scrutinised there—hence, the persistent proposal. However, I fully understand that the Minister may not wish to reiterate his previous points. I beg to move.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I believe that it is important that annual reports are submitted and that there is accountability. But is it realistic for reports from all the forums—they could number a few hundred—to be submitted to Members of both Houses? Would the Members of both Houses want to receive reports from 200 forums and would they have the opportunity and the time to read through all those reports? I question the necessity for and practicality of the forums to report to both Houses. It may be more advantageous to have an overview of the forums' work and there may be a more appropriate way of reporting on the work of the forums to Parliament.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the issue of annual reports. Subsection (2)(n) of Clause 18 provides the Secretary of State with a power to make regulations about the preparation and publication of patients' forums' reports, including their annual reports.
Consideration will be given as to whom forums should submit their annual reports, in addition to the bodies, including the Secretary of State, listed in Clause 17. We shall have to consider whether they should be submitted to the Houses of Parliament and whether they should be viewed more widely than that.
At this stage all I shall say is that I wonder whether the submission of what would be over 600 forums' reports every year to each MP would necessarily be a practical way of dealing with the matter. Surely, it would be better for forums to send their reports to MPs in their areas. Those are matters that we shall consider when we develop the regulations.
On Amendment No. 42, the noble Baroness knows my response. It is a matter for Parliament to decide how it will deal with the issues. It is not for us to write into the Bill the way in which Select Committees should conduct their business. I am confident that the current Select Committee system is well able to take care of scrutiny of the role of forums and the national commission. Of course, if in the future it were decided that a committee of your Lordships, of those in another place, or a joint Select Committee should be
614
established specifically to deal with the work of patient and public involvement, we would ensure that all NHS bodies co-operated with such a committee.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. When I drafted these amendments I was not able to predict that he might make an offer of a standing committee of patients forums in his response to the previous amendment. nor was I able to predict that that amendment would be carried and that patients' councils would be incorporated into the Bill. However, that answers the question about the large number of reports. Within either of those frameworks there would be only one report. I accept the assurances from the Minister that annual reports would certainly be looked at and my understanding is that there would be a need for such consolidated reports to come to Parliament. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 42 to 42B not moved.]
Clause 18 [Supplementary]:
Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendments Nos. 43 to 45:
Page 23, line 16, after "premises," insert "and"
Page 23, line 17, leave out "and staff"
Page 23, line 26, after "by" insert "a Patients' Council,"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 46:
Page 23, line 27, after "Authority," insert "an overview and scrutiny committee or joint committee within the meaning of sections 7 (functions of overview and scrutiny committees), 8 (joint overview and scrutiny committees etc) and 10 (application to the City of London) of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c. 15),"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 46 picks up a critical issue debated in Committee. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 47, 49 and 60. In Committee I pointed out that under the Bill as currently worded, overview and scrutiny committees of local authorities, to whom patients forums will refer matters of concern, have no specific duty to consider or to act upon such referrals. In my opinion, that is an important gap. I want to remind the House of some of the reasons for my concern.
Paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 to the National Health Service Act 1977 says that community health councils are under a duty,

"(a) to represent the interests in the health service of the public in its district; and

(b) to perform such other functions as may be conferred on it".

615
The CHC regulations expand on that duty. At Regulation 17 a duty is placed on each CHC,
"to keep under review the operation of the health service in its district, to make recommendations for the improvement of that service and to advise any health authority upon such matters relating to the health service within its district as the CHC thinks fit".
My key concern in bringing those words to your Lordships' attention is to ensure that once CHCs have been abolished and the new arrangements are in place, those new arrangements should be no less effective and no less robust than those they have superseded. Under the Health and Social Care Act, overview and scrutiny committees inherit from CHCs the power to scrutinise, but that is a power and not a duty. Some local authorities could, therefore, choose not to exercise that power, leaving the local community, after CHCs have gone, with no one at all scrutinising the NHS.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said that it was "almost inconceivable" that local authorities would not exercise their powers to scrutinise. Later he said,
"it is most unlikely that they will not see them as important functions".—[Official Report, 11/4/02; col. 615.]
Yes, perhaps that is so, but there is no certainty about it. Many local authorities are concerned that no new money has been allocated to them to develop and to run their overview and scrutiny of health. In those circumstances it is not only conceivable but very likely that some local authorities will decline to use their power to scrutinise, or they will simply pay lip service to it. As I said in Committee, there are also concerns that party political interests may determine how, if at all, the scrutiny function is applied.
I am advised that in a recent case in Camden, the council scrutiny committee's concerns about a proposed NHS LIFT scheme were over-ruled by the council's executive following an intervention by the Secretary of State. In the light of that, perhaps the Minister can give some assurance that guidance will be issued recommending the non-use of the whip system in overview and scrutiny committees.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give a more encouraging reply than he did in Committee. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to the amendments, which we on these Benches strongly support. Of course, the best councils will do all that we want in acting on referrals and themselves referring, in the exercise of their overview and scrutiny role. I suspect that the example given by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, came from the edition of the Camden New Journal that I have read. It provides a salutary lesson that we cannot expect such overview and scrutiny inevitably to operate in the right way. That may have severe effects on local health services.
The amendments would tighten up the position and many councils would support them. Of course, there is always the argument that resource must follow for
616
duties to be properly carried out, but that is an argument to be had when the duties are made mandatory, as the amendments provide.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, if social services perform scrutiny, who will carry it out—members or officers? Will they have the interest and experience to consider poor equipment or dirty hospitals, say? It is important that those doing the job have an interest in it. If they are tied to social services, will they have an interest in the health service?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I find the amendments difficult to understand in the context of the debate about measures for patient and public involvement. Noble Lords on both sides of the Chamber have mentioned the essential importance of independence in the system. We absolutely agree. That is why we have sought to make each element as independent as it needs to be for its specific functions. But the amendments would lay down direction on local authorities as to how they should fulfil their scrutiny function.
We do not think it appropriate to compel local government in the context of health scrutiny. We fundamentally believe that local people should be able to rely on their democratically elected representatives to make decisions that are in the best interests of local people.
Local authorities have recently been given a new clear and powerful role to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area. That puts beyond doubt that that is the central function for local, democratically elected bodies as the only possible voice for their communities. That is why they will have a powerful role in overview and scrutiny committees—to oversee many aspects of the improvement of the health of their communities. That is an important and powerful part of the Bill. To turn round and seek in some way to tell them how to do that is a contradiction of principle. They should and must make their own decisions about what is most important to local people to be scrutinized—given that choices must always be made about what is scrutinised first, given limited time.
We have therefore placed duties in the right places to ensure that scrutiny powers are appropriate. We have placed clear and strong duties on the NHS to provide information and to consult OSCs. PCTs and others must provide information to an overview and scrutiny committee. NHS staff must, if required, give evidence to an overview and scrutiny committee. The Secretary of State must consider representations made by overview and scrutiny committees in the light of any comments that they wish to make on major decisions affecting the shape or form of health matters in their area.
Those amount to a substantial raft of powers for overview and scrutiny committees—which is absolutely right, as I am sure that noble Lords in all parts of the House recognize—to affirm the primacy of the local, democratically elected body in fulfilling those functions.

617
Amendment No. 46 would give patients forums power to require information from local authority overview and scrutiny committees. We expect, hope and will certainly promote the idea that patients forums and overview and scrutiny committees work jointly and in harmony. In many cases, they will have a common interest, so we expect that patients forums would request views from overview and scrutiny committees. We certainly want to encourage good communication links between forums and overview and scrutiny committees, but to require them to do so in the draconian manner of the amendment is going too far.
We have already amended the Bill to give forums the power of referral to overview and scrutiny committees. That amendment was developed following extremely helpful discussions between the department and stakeholders, including the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales and patients forums. That amendment demonstrates that we recognise the need for overview and scrutiny committees to have robust information about patient experience available on which to base their decisions about what to scrutinise and when. Moreover, if they wish, they can second members of all patients forums onto overview and scrutiny committees.
To address the good question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, the overview and scrutiny committee will be a committee of councilors—elected members—serviced by officers. Those officers may include some from the social services department, but they will certainly not dominate, as the committees' remit, terms of reference and overview need to be substantially wider than considering the interconnection between social services functions and the NHS, important though that is.
Similarly, Amendment No. 47 is out of kilter with giving power to scrutinise the NHS to an independent body. We have said that local government must take a view on what action to take in respect of its responsibilities for the well-being of its community. If an overview and scrutiny committee believes a response or action to be appropriate, it is free to act or respond. Compelling an independent body from the centre is not appropriate. I must give the same response to Amendment No. 49. Should overview and scrutiny committees want to respond to patients forums they must be free to do so. We cannot justify contravening the principle of independent action.
I turn to Amendment No. 60. In the course of our discussion, I made it abundantly clear that we think compelling local authority overview and scrutiny committees through a statutory duty to scrutinise health services is not right. Noble Lords have recognised the need for independence.
In conclusion, and slightly more positively, I turn to what I think that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is understandably seeking to ensure that we achieve.. He said that overview and scrutiny committees should be no less effective than CHCs. I entirely agree—in fact, we hope that they will be substantially more effective than CHCs. While recognising the good work that has
618
been done by many CHCs, none of us think that they have the power, status or influence to shift or shape health policy as powerfully as will a well-organised overview and scrutiny committee that gets hold of issues and stays with them year after year.
So the issue is not about writing a duty into the Bill. We can do that until the cows come home; I fear that it does not always mean that the world shifts its behaviour. What would it mean in practice if committees had to act on referrals? They would have to put it on a committee agenda, give some time to it and decide either to act or to take no action. We could not do much about that. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that that would be hopeless.
We want to ensure that local government—or at least the 150 local authorities with the prime role for overview and scrutiny committees—takes its responsibility seriously. That will depend on how we promote and support the implementation of the committees, rather than whether we change one word for another in the Bill.
The noble Lord referred to money. As I said, the department has put in a bid for further resources in the comprehensive spending review. But if a local authority uses money as an argument, it will do so whatever money is provided.
I agree with the noble Lord about party political differences. It would be extremely regrettable if local government sought to behave in a highly partisan fashion about local health issues. We certainly do not want that. If I recollect correctly, the guidance given by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on overview and scrutiny committees says that generally they should not be whipped. They should consider matters on a cross-party basis—or, better still, a non-party basis—rather than settle them on a party whip.
The other issue, I suggest, is implementation. Therefore, it is extremely important that the department, the LGA and the NHS Confederation work effectively together at preparing local authorities for the expansion of a duty that some have already embraced in the past.
The consultation between the bodies—MIS, LGA and NHS Confederation—on the implementation guidance ended today. It will lead to important regulations which will be in draft and extensively consulted on. We shall not get this issue right instantly. It will also require a good deal of learning from good practice between the NHS and local government and across local government. Universities—and others—will be tracking the experience of overview and scrutiny committees and seeing where they are or are not working and considering how to make them better. The issue should be strongly promoted and distributed throughout local government. I am sure that the Government will want to play their modest part in that process.
I suggest that such implementation will not happen in six months, it will take no doubt several years of persistent work. The Government are committed to trying to make sure that it happens. We are heartened

619
that the LGA and the NHS Confederation want to work with us. We pay credit to the community health councils which—despite recognising that the world is changing—are being supportive of this process of training and development in preparation for these new responsibilities. For those reasons, I suggest that the amendments are not necessary and can be better dealt with through other means.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Minister is always very reasonable in his replies to me. I am grateful for the trouble that he has taken to respond to my points. He said essentially that a citizen should be able to rely on his local authority and allow the local authority the freedom to make its own decisions. I agree that in an ideal world that would be the preferred way forward.
However, I cannot help returning to the fact that overview and scrutiny committees are the keystone of the entire architecture of patient and public involvement. It is where the power lies. If they fail for any reason the edifice crumbles. The amendments that I have tabled do not really tell overview and scrutiny committees how to do their job but that that they must do it.
I return to the question that I asked in Committee. If for the past 20 years or so it has been appropriate to give local communities a guarantee that their health services will be scrutinised, why all of a sudden is it not appropriate? I do not think that I have had an answer to that.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, in the Local Government Act 2000 the Government have already placed that responsibility on local authorities. They said that the local authorities had the central constitutional leadership role to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas. It could not be clearer that they are responsible for promoting the health and well-being of their communities. From recollection, if the noble Lord went back to our debates, I am certain that he would find that we referred to that at the time. The promotion of the health and well-being of their areas was central to the local government argument. That is why we do not think that the amendment is necessary.
The second reason is that these are democratically elected bodies. We still have some separation of constitutional roles between central and local government. Noble Lords frequently criticise this side of the Chamber for putting too many duties on local government. In that respect we believe that these bodies have a clear role and power, which we have affirmed in the strongest possible way by saying that NHS staff have to give evidence to them. They will have access to people and to papers to fulfil their duties. One could hardly affirm the importance of their role more strongly.
I agree with the noble Earl that this will not happen immediately. People will not suddenly be perfect at this. But I do not think that changing a duty to a power will make the slightest bit of difference. The issue is the
620
vigour with which we all promote the good practice which will be gained by experience over the coming years.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. My understanding of what he said is that there is in effect already a duty in the Local Government Act which obliges local authorities to perform those activities and functions which are conducive to the well-being of the local population. I hope that the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, as I realise that I am paraphrasing him.
If that is so, I take the point seriously because it is a new one to me. I must reflect on it. I think that there is a risk as regards resources. Knowing my own local authority and the financial constraints it is under, it is entirely possible that it will be faced with the unenviable task of focusing its resources on those activities that fall into the "must do" category and abandoning—or at least severely curtailing—those activities that are not mandatory. As I understood the Bill before the noble Lord made the helpful comments that he has just made, there would be nothing illegal in its abandoning the overview and scrutiny of health services. I think that the noble Lord has introduced an extremely important ingredient into the discussion. I was minded to press the amendment, but in the light of what he has said I shall not do so. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 48:
Page 23, line 38, after "by" insert "Patients' Councils,"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 50:
Page 23, line 41, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"(3) Regulations shall provide for the membership of a Patients' Forum, which shall comprise—

(a) as to at least a quarter of its membership, members or representatives of voluntary organisations whose purpose, or one of whose purposes, is to represent the interests of—

(i) persons for whom services are being provided under the 1977 Act or in pursuance of arrangements under section 31 of the Health Act 1999 (c. 8) (arrangements between NHS bodies and local authorities) in relation to the exercise of health related functions of a local authority, or

(ii) persons who provide care for such person, but who are not employed to do so by any body in the exercise of its functions under any enactment;

(b) as to at least a quarter of its membership, persons for whom services are being provided under the 1977 Act or in pursuance of arrangements under section 31 of the Health Act 1999 in relation to the exercise of health related functions of a local authority;

621

(c) as to at least a quarter of membership, persons who provide care for such persons, but who are not employed to do so by any body in the exercise of its functions under any enactment; and

(d) such other persons as may be prescribed."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 50 seeks to probe the Government on their plans for the composition of patients forums. The key requirement for patients forums is that they should effectively represent the needs of the community that they are appointed to serve. To do that they must have credibility. That means that the public must have confidence in the members.
One feature of the Government's proposals that troubles me not a little is the selection process for who is to serve on patients forums. It has the look of a centrally directed fix. As I understand it, the Government's idea is that the selection should be entirely handled by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health with guidance from the NHS Appointments Commission.
The guidance from the NHS Appointments Commission, providing that it is simply guidance, is fair enough. But the procedure as a whole is neither clear nor transparent. It has all the makings of a system under which forum members can be parachuted in out of nowhere without anyone locally knowing who they are and what they stand for. That would not be good news.
There have also been suggestions that the commission may give preferential treatment to serving CHC members and officers. I am all in favour of retaining the services of those individuals whose experience and competence are of proven worth. However, it does not seem to me that CHC members, as such, should be guaranteed a fast-track route to membership of patients forums. We all acknowledge that while some CHCs have been extremely effective, others have been less so, which in the end must be a reflection on the calibre of their membership. If the public really is to have confidence that patients forums will provide something that is a cut above CHCs then the last thing that we should be doing, surely, is to encourage the perception that the appointments to patients forums are not being conducted fairly; that is to say, on the basis of a level playing field.
The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, like it or not, will be seen as a creature of the Secretary of State. Patients forums, like it or not, will be at risk of being seen—in one sense or another—as inside the NHS system because of their inevitable trust-based perspective. Patients forums must look independent and impartial. That means that the appointments procedure itself must look and be independent and impartial. The way they are going, the Government will not achieve that.
The proposals that we have debated for patients councils would address the concern in part, but we must be a bit more specific about the actual membership of patients forums. For example, no current employee of the trust or any other NHS organisation should be eligible for membership. No serving local or national politician should be eligible.
622
There should be no overt political bias, a point that was made in the Bristol report, which said that all regulatory systems,
"must be at one remove from party political debate. They must be seen to have a life and status of their own, free from changes in political fashion".
The people who should be eligible for membership are those who, from the receiving end, have a stake in the success of the trust—in other words, those who have used its services or have had direct experience of it. That includes carers or close relatives of the service users and representatives of local voluntary organisations that act in the interests of patients and carers. Provided that they are fairly appointed—on merit—those people will command the confidence of everybody in the locality. My amendment suggests that there should be a split of membership categories that is prescriptive, but not a strait-jacket. It would, therefore, allow for flexibility.
In your Lordships' House, we are always wary of shopping lists. If my proposal is a shopping list, it is such only in a loose sense. I tabled the amendment in the hope that the Minister would reassure the House about some of the concerns that I voiced and explain in more detail what the ,Government had in mind as regards the appointments process for patients forums and the kind of people who would be eligible to serve on them. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. For patients forums to be properly effective and truly representative, they must include members from a wide variety of backgrounds.
In the past five years, we have debated many health Bills that specify proportions for the membership of many organisations, such as primary care groups and primary care trusts. In that respect, it is a modest amendment and will make sure that we get the balance right. It is extraordinary that a patients forum might have only one patient member.
These are modest and important proposals and could well be accepted by the Government. In general, it would be useful to hear from the Minister how he envisages that the patients forums will be made up.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I hope that I can reassure the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about this matter. They are right to suggest that Clause 18(3) provides the minimum requirements. The detail is for regulations, and we wanted to retain flexibility in relation to membership and the ability to respond to changing circumstances. That is why we have not gone for the list system, as the noble Earl implied.
We will publish regulations, and our intention is that half the membership will be drawn from local patient carer groups and local voluntary organisations. The other half will be made up of a representative selection of patients who use or have used the services of the trust involved. To ensure independence, which is important, appointments will be made by the Commission for Patient and Public

623
Involvement in Health, working with the NHS Appointments Commission. Thus, we will strike a balance between the voluntary sector, patients and carers and incorporate experience of the various strands of a patient journey.
I do not accept the specific point made by the noble Earl. The problem with CHCs has not been the calibre of member; in the main, their membership has been highly committed. The problem has been caused by what CHCs have been asked to do. That is why we have sought to split up some of those functions and put them into more focused organisations. I can assure the noble Earl that CHC members will have no prior claim as such in the appointment process, although their background of involvement in patient affairs will, no doubt, ensure that they will be duly considered.
Appointments will be through open competition. We expect advertisements to be placed in the local press, and the commission will be charged with ensuring that as many people as possible are aware that they are encouraged to put their names forward.
The noble Earl spoke about employees of the trust and politicians. I assume that he meant local councillors and Members of Parliament. I do not know whether he meant to go wider than that. I understand why he mentioned that matter, and we will address such issues in regulations. I hope that we do not reach a position in which the fact of being a politician would disqualify someone from membership of any body at all. We must get the balance right; the fact that people have put their name forward for political office is a mark of their public service. I would be wary of extending the principle. We could find that the declaration of any political affiliation whatsoever could somehow disqualify someone from public service.
Ultimately, however much we politicians may disagree on the Floor of the House, we must agree that involvement in politics is an essential part of public service that we should encourage. We will, of course, take account of the points raised by the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, when we consider the regulations.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply, but I must respond to his final point about political affiliation. Certainly, I agree that political affiliation of any kind should not bar anyone from voluntary service in whatever form. However, we must be careful about serving politicians or local councillors who have the ability to create an overt political bias in an organisation. Patients forums should not be politicised in that way. That is the point that I was making.
The Government would do well to consider how to involve not just the patients of a particular trust but hard-to-reach groups that may not be registered with a GP. Such people have a legitimate interest in the local community and in the way in which local NHS facilities operate. We must not focus too much on the
624
patient category. I agree that patients are an important component of the patients forums, but they should not be the only component.
The Minister's reply was helpful, and I shall read what he said carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 51:
Page 24, line 11, after "Forum" insert ", a Patients' Council"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 52:
Page 24, line 15, after "15" insert "and a Patients' Council established under section (Establishment of Patients' Councils)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 52A not moved.]
6 p.m.
Clause 19 [The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health]:
Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 53:
Page 24, line 21, after "Commission" insert "shall represent the interests in the health service of patients and the wider community and"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 53 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 85 to 90 in the group. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the new national commission is not limited in its functions and to enhance the independence of the commission.
Statutory bodies are only able to carry out activities and functions which are conferred on them by statute. They are powerless to extend their own remit. Any act they perform which is outside the limits placed on them in legislation will be ultra vires.
At present, community health councils and the Association of Community Health Councils are able to carry out a wide variety of activities because the enabling statute provides that each CHC is,
"to represent the interests in the health service of the public in its district; and … to perform such other functions as may be conferred on it by virtue of paragraph 2 below".
That provision is contained in Schedule 7 to the 1977 Act. By the same token, statute also provides that ACHCEW, the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, will,
"advise Councils [CHCs] with respect to the performance of their functions; and … to assist councils in the performance of their functions and to perform such other functions as may be prescribed".
That is also contained in Schedule 7 to the 1977 Act.
Through being charged with advising and assisting CHCs, ACHCEW is thus able to benefit from the wide remit afforded to CHCs. If the clause remains unamended, the commission, for example, would be unable to carry out many of ACHCEW's current functions. Those include research and policy work, conducting casualty-type exercises; running or engaging in national campaigns or making donations to those campaigns; campaigning about national

625
policy changes affecting the health service; commenting on guidance issued by bodies such as the GMC beyond those concerns which may fall within the remit of Clause 19(6); and taking legal proceedings. We on these Benches understand that such activities would be ultra vires.
If the Government are genuine in their desire to empower patients and the public, they will expand on the commission's remit. Although pressed several times in Committee, the Minister did not say whether the commission would be able to represent the interests of patients and the public in an independent way, as CHCs and ACHCEW do.
I am afraid that in Committee we pressed on a raw nerve of the Minister's by referring to the example of South Birmingham. A recent report by University College London, PFI vs Democracy—the case of Birmingham's hospitals, describes how the Department of Health tried to silence the South Birmingham CHC and suggests the independent challenging role as a possible reason for the decision to abolish CHCs. It is clear that without the amendment the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement could effectively be fettered. The essence of the amendment is to convert the commission to a powerful voice for patients, which also provides quality assurance for the patient and public involvement structures at local level.
The Government's intentions for the commission were revealed in response to the Bristol inquiry. They described its objectives only as to set standards and provide training and guidance and build capacity within local communities for greater community involvement—in other words, no patient voice role. The purpose of the amendment is to make explicit and put to the forefront the commission's function in a role of representing the interests of patients and the wider community.
Amendment No. 85 is designed to allow the commission to carry out its functions without interference from the Secretary of State; without directions being given by him. The purpose of Amendment No. 89 is to ensure that the Secretary of State will make payments to the commission and that those are adequate to allow the commission to carry out its many functions. The purpose of Amendment No. 88 is to allow the commission to appoint its first chief executive rather than the appointment being made by the Secretary of State for Health. Finally, the purpose of Amendment No. 90 is to prevent the Secretary of State for Health from being in a position to dictate to the commission how it may spend money given to it by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I give my emphatic support to the amendments, which again expose serious weaknesses in the powers of the commission. The empowerment of patients and the public—by which I mean genuine empowerment—entails making the national body as independent as possible of government and as free as possible to act in ways that will benefit those whom it is established to serve.
626
In Committee, the Minister said that he did not think it was appropriate for the commission to be given the wider power of representing the interests of patients and the public; that is to say, speaking up for them. He felt that that was more properly the job of Parliament. I find that a thin argument. Indeed, it is not a real argument at all. Parliament can indeed speak up for people but from where is it supposed to obtain its information? Surely, it must be from organisations which can speak out without fear or favour. Those organisations need the power to obtain the information and disseminate it appropriately and freely. I suggest that that is not usurping Parliament; it is supporting it.
I recall a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in Committee that if the Government are not prepared to see the commission engaging in public debate, all we shall have is a "tame poodle". It will be a creature of the Government in all meaningful senses.
I turn briefly to Amendments Nos. 85 to 90, which are grouped with Amendment No. 53. We move to an equally important set of issues. The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement is supposed to be an independent body operating at arm's length from the Department of Health with the explicit job of assisting patients and others in a locality in having a say in decisions. That is how the Minister described it in Committee, but looking at Schedule 6 I cannot help observing that if the commission is at arm's length from anyone it is surely the patient and not the Department of Health.
The Secretary of State is being given direction-making powers. Why? He surely has enough powers over the commission when he is funding it and approving the business plan. For what purpose are directions needed? There is no equivalent power over the council for the regulation of healthcare professionals? Why does the Secretary of State have to be involved in the appointments process? Why have an independent appointments commission if the Secretary of State is going to make them?
In Committee, the Minister stressed the importance of preserving proper accountability to Parliament and cited that as a reason for the Secretary of State's powers of appointment to the commission and his powers to ensure that funds are applied for proper purposes. That is something of a smoke-screen. The Secretary of State has given himself more power over appointing the supposed national patient representative organisation than he has over the NHS itself. Why? Who is the commission supposed to be serving? Is it the patients or the Government? Why not give patients a sense of ownership of the body by allowing patients forums to nominate those who serve on them?
The claws of the Secretary of State have been sunk deep into the commission. It is a creature of government and will be perceived as such. Everything

627
in Schedule 6 speaks of command and control and even at this late stage I hope that the Government will feel able to think again.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am sorry that noble Lords believe that the commission will be a poodle and a creature of the Government. That is certainly not the intention of the Government. We see it as having a vitally important role in enabling people in the community generally to have a say and a view about matters that affect their health and to ensure that their views are taken into account when decisions are made that affect their health.
My noble friend Lord Harris is not in his place at present, but I recall that when we debated these issues during the passage of the previous Bill we discussed the need for there to be a national body which could help improve the quality of patient involvement at local level. I believe that the commission has a vital role to play in that as well as ensuring that the Secretary of State receives advice, as is indicated in Clause 19, on these important issues.
However, to state, as Amendment No. 53 does, that the commission has a much broader representative role is a great step away from what we want to see happen. I do not believe that the commission can be put in place to represent the interests of the entire community of this country on health issues. That is why I made the point in Committee that that is the role of Parliament. If noble Lords are saying that the commission should take on the huge role of representing the whole public interest in healthcare, then we would be giving it a task which it would be ill fitted to perform.
We want to see a commission that will actively seek out the varying views of people with an interest in health—I take the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in the last group of amendments—in particular from those people in marginalised groups. We want it to take on a very important role in helping to train and support people to become involved so that they can take part in all the activities that will flow from the enactment of the Bill. Furthermore, we want it to have a major role in ensuring that patients forums themselves are effective. Clause 19(2)(f), which sets out the commission's role in setting quality standards in relation to patients forums and patient advocacy services, will be one of the most important of its functions.
Comments have been made that the commission is not sufficiently independent. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred in particular to the level of accountability and control held by the Secretary of State with regard to appointments to the commission. In Committee in the other place we went some way towards reinforcing the independence of the commission. The requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to give his consent to the appointment of the chief executive of the commission was removed, as was the ability of the Secretary of
628
State to make directions about the appointment, terms and conditions of employment of the employees to the body.
Schedule 6 is based on standard guidance from the Cabinet Office and the Commissioner for Public Appointments on the setting up of executive non-departmental public bodies. Since the functions of the commission will be set out in statute, the Secretary of State has a responsibility to Parliament and, indeed, to the public to ensure that the commission is able to carry out those functions through its key appointments. The chair will need to account for the commission's actions to the Secretary of State, who in turn is accountable to Parliament for those actions. That provides Parliament with the tool for holding Ministers to account over the performance of non-departmental public bodies.
Amendment No. 86 would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to appoint the chair of the commission. I agree that it is important to ensure that the independence of the commission, as an independent body charged with ensuring the effective operation of public/patient involvement in health matters, is not only upheld but is seen to be upheld.
We have said already that the commission board members will be appointed by the NHS Appointments Commission. We have now reflected on the question of the appointment of the chair of the commission. I can tell noble Lords that the Government have decided that the chair, too, will now be appointed by the NHS Appointments Commission. That will go a long way towards meeting the issue of independence, while satisfying the Secretary of State that the probity and quality of the individual who takes the position as chair will be assured.
I turn now to the issue addressed in Amendment No. 88. The amendment would remove the power of the Secretary of State to determine the terms and conditions of the appointment of the first chief executive. The reason why the Bill has been drafted in this way is to enable the commission to get itself up and running as quickly as possible. We have followed the same principles in other new NHS non-departmental public bodies which have been established. After the first appointment, the responsibility for further appointments will become the responsibility of the commission. Indeed, we anticipate that, should the initial recruitment exercise for the chair be successful, then the chair designate would serve on the interview panels for the position of the first chief executive.
I urge noble Lords to consider the following. If the commission is to be successful and if we want it to be up and running in order to be able to carry out its functions, then the early appointment of a chief executive would be extremely helpful. That is the only reason why the provision here has been so drafted.
The amendment also suggests that appointments to the board should be elected and nominated by patients forums. Indeed, the effect of Amendment No. 87 would be to turn the commission into a patients forum representative body and limit competition to candidates known to patients forums. I should like to

629
re-emphasise the point I made in Committee: the commission is not a representative organisation for patients forums. It goes much wider than that and it has much wider duties. It is for that reason that we need to be able to draw from a far wider pool of people in order to make the appointments.
Amendments Nos. 85, 89 and 90 concern the Secretary of State's direction-making powers over the commission. I understand why noble Lords may believe that a direction-making power might diminish the independence of the commission, but in a sense we must return to our debates yesterday. It is not envisaged that this direction-making power will be one that will come into play on a frequent basis. It is there as a backstop power, one which will enable the Secretary of State to ensure that the commission does not overstep its power to do things ancillary to its main functions.
As I have already pointed out in relation to the other measures concerning patient and public involvement that we are seeking to establish, it is in no one's interest for such organisations to—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. He has just mentioned a "backstop power". That is one of those phrases which always leaves behind frayed nerve endings. Obviously ht is very difficult for the occupants of the Government Front Bench to envisage the possibility of someone other than themselves—someone not as wise, not as patient, not as perceptive, not as sensitive—doing rough and stupid things. That is what worries noble Lords on this side of the House.
However. I have to tell the Minister that my confidence in him is far greater than any confidence I may have in his Secretary of State.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall pass on that.
A backstop power is surely the evidence of public accountability. If we were to take the arguments raised by noble Lords in relation to a number of national bodies—non—departmental public bodies-where they seek simply to make them independent, beyond parliamentary scrutiny and without any proper accountability to the Secretary of State, then I do not believe that we would be serving the interests of the nation. 1t is not right simply to park such bodies offshore and let them get on with it. There needs to be in place a proper framework of accountability and one needs to have some reserve powers.
However, of course these are reserve powers and it is our intention to ensure that the commission, alongside the other national bodies we have discussed, is very well able to discharge its responsibilities in an independent way. But we also need to have in place the proper forms of parliamentary accountability. I think that we have the balance right.
630
I hope that my announcement today that the appointment of the chair of the commission will not be made by the Secretary of State but by the NHS Appointments Commission will go a long way towards allaying the concerns that have been expressed.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which fell into two parts. He gave an extremely unconvincing response to Amendment No. 53; and evoked growing interest in his response to the other amendments. Certainly the Minister's undertaking in regard to Amendment No. 86—that the chair will be appointed by the NHS appointments commission—is very helpful, as also is his clarification in regard to Amendment No. 85. Pending further clarification, we shall not press Amendments Nos. 85 to 90 as the Minister has gone some way towards satisfying those of us who do not wish to see the commission as a tame poodle.
I should say to the noble Earl that my speeches in Committee are far better than they are on Report; they contain more colourful phrases. His "command and control" phrase was far superior to mine.
The Minister has gone some way but he continues to wriggle about the powers of the national commission. We do not wish to throw away the benefits that we have had from the ability of the Association of Community Health Councils to campaign on matters affecting patients. I read out a short list of matters on which ACHCEW currently is able to work—research and policy; conducting casualty watch type exercises; running or engaging in national campaigns or making donations to them; campaigning about national changes of policy affecting the health service; and commenting on guidance issued by bodies such as the GMC beyond those concerns. The Minister did not give me an ounce of satisfaction in that regard.
Many of us fear that the circumscribed role of the commission is entirely designed to ensure that ACHCEW is not reborn in another form. As we value its work, we believe that would be a retrograde step—hence the reason for wishing to insert these powers for the new commission in the Bill. I therefore wish not to withdraw the amendment but to test the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 53.
6.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 53) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 119; Not-Contents, 122.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Buscombe, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Butterworth, L.

Attlee, E.

Byford, B.

Avebury, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Bowness, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Clement-Jones, L. [Teller]

Burnham, L.

Colwyn, L.

631

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Montrose, D.

Cox, B.

Moynihan, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Naseby, L.

Craigavon, V.

Newby, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Noakes, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Northbrook, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Northesk, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northover, B.

Denham, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Elles, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Elton, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Falkland, V.

Onslow, E.

Fearn, L.

Palmer, L.

Ferrers, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Patten, L.

Flather, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Geraint, L.

Peel, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Goodhart, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Goschen, V.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Greenway, L.

Razzall, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Rees, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rennard, L.

Henley, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hogg, B.

Roper, L.

Holderness, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Howe, E.

Sandberg, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hylton, L.

Selsdon, L.

Jacobs, L.

Sharman, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Sharp of Guildford,B.

Sharples, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Jopling, L.

Kimball, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Laird, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lucas, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Tebbit, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

McNally, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Maddock, B.

Waddington, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Methuen, L.

Walmsley, B.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Walpole, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Wilcox, B.

Monson, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ahmed, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Alli, L.

Crawley, B.

Andrews, B.

David, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Bach, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Barnett, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Desai, L.

Berkeley, L.

Dixon, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Donoughue, L.

Bhatia, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dubs, L.

Blease, L.

Elder, L.

Brennan, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Brookman, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Burlison, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Chandos, V.

Filkin, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Gale, B.

632

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Gilbert, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Golding, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Mitchell, L.

Goudie, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Parekh, L.

Greengross, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Grocott, L.

Pendry, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Harrison, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Haskel, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Haskins, L.

Puttnam, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Radice, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Richard, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rooker, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Sheldon, L.

Simon, V.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jones, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Judd, L.

Thornton, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Turnberg, L.

Layard, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Levy, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Lipsey, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Whitaker, B.

Whitty, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Wilkins, B.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Marsh, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 54:
Page 24, line 34, after "Forums" insert "and Patients' Councils"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendments Nos. 56 to 58:
Page 24, line 43, leave out paragraph (g) and insert—
"( ) co-ordinating and supporting the activities of Patients' Councils in respect of their activities as provided for in section (Establishment of Patients' Councils),"
Page 25, line 6, at end insert "and to co-ordinate and support the activities of Patients' Councils in respect of the activities provided for in subsection (4)(d) of section (Establishment of Patients' Councils)"
Page 25, line 27, at end insert—
"( ) The Commission will provide to Patients' Councils services, including staff and other facilities, to support those bodies in the exercise of their functions."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 58A not moved.]
Clause 20 [Abolition of Community Health Councils in England]:
[Amendment No. 58B not moved.]
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 59:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
"REFERRAL OF CONSULTATION ARRANGEMENTS AND DISPUTED DECISIONS
(1) In section 11(2) of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c. 15) (public involvement and consultation) for paragraph (a) there is substituted—
"(a) The Secretary of State, (aa) Care Trusts,".
(2) Before an establishment order for a Strategic Health Authority, an NHS trust, a Primary Care Trust or a Care Trust is made, varied or revoked, the Secretary of State shall consult those bodies in subsection (5) whose districts are wholly or partly within the area of operation of the relevant authority or trust.
(3) Any Strategic Health Authority considering whether to exercise its powers under section 17A of the 1977 Act shall first consult the bodies provided for in subsection (5) whose districts are wholly or partly within the area of operation of the relevant Primary Care Trust.
(4) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision—

(a) concerning the application of section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 such that if in the view of any of the bodies in subsection (5) consultation arrangements are inadequate, the body in question shall refer the matter t) him;

(b) for the referral to Strategic Health Authorities of disputed decisions concerning the operation or planning of health services by bodies detailed in subsection (5);

(c) for circumstances in which bodies detailed in subsection

(5) shall refer decisions concerning the planning or operation of the health service to him including the circumstances in which referrals shall be made directly to him by Patients' Forums and Patients' Councils on the failure of overview and scrutiny committees to respond to a referral made to them under section 18(2)(m) of this Act;

(d) placing a duty on the Secretary of State and those bodies receiving referrals to respond to them within a specified time limit and giving reasons for any decision taken in relation to the subject matter of the referral.

(5) Those bodies referred to in subsections (2) to (4) are—

(a) overview and scrutiny committees or joint overview and scrutiny committees provided for in sections 7 (functions of overview and scrutiny committees), 8 (joint overview and scrutiny committees etc) and 10 (application to the City of London) of the Health and Social Care Act 2001,

(b) Patients' Councils,

(c) Patients' Forums."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment brings us back to an important set of issues debated in Committee about replicating the rights currently enjoyed by CHCs to be consulted on any proposals that would lead to a major change in the provision of healthcare in an area. The amendment also covers the separate but associated issue of replicating the right of a CHC to notify a matter to the Secretary of State when it feels that a consultation has been inadequate.
As the Bill is drafted, major or controversial changes to service provision, which up to now would have necessitated an automatic consultation with a CHC, need not trigger a similar consultation with the
634
successor bodies. That is a major gap that needs to be Filled. In Committee it was suggested that existing and planned provisions to require consultation negated the need for the amendment. However, as I understand the position, the existing provisions relate to the requirement to consult CHCs about substantial changes and the power of CHCs to refer matters to the Secretary of State. With the abolition of CHCs, those safeguards will disappear.
The amendment addresses a number of distinct issues that are not currently provided for in existing legislation or in the Bill. They include gaps in the duty to consult on reorganisations of health bodies, the limited extent of duties to consult under Section II of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 and failing in the power or duty to refer. At present, CHCs have the right to be consulted before the establishment of most health service bodies, including health authorities, NHS trusts and primary care trusts, and before changes are made to the way in which some of those bodies operate. Most of those consultation rights are to be found in a wide raft of complex and at times confusing secondary legislation. The same rights are not conferred in relation to changes to all health service bodies. For example, CHCs have the right to be consulted before the establishment, dissolution or change of functions of art NHS trust or primary care trust, but when it comes to health authorities, CHCs will be consulted only on boundary changes, not on changes in their functions. Because of the obscurity of the provisions concerning consultation on primary care and pharmaceutical services, many health authorities have not consulted CHCs on proposed changes.
The existing provisions governing consultation over the establishment of care trusts are inadequate. Patient representatives do not have a right to he consulted. The partners seeking care trust status will carry out the consultation with bodies or persons that they choose to consult. There will be a strong temptation not to consult those who may oppose the application. The body that makes the decision on care trust designation will not necessarily have access to the results of that consultation. The regulations do not make provision for consultation over subsequent changes to the functions or boundaries of the care trust.
Where CHCs have a right to be consulted, it is important that that right is replicated to ensure that successor bodies are consulted. The right to he consulted will not automatically be transferred to another body, as I read it; it has to be done through legislative provision. Where there is at present no right to be consulted over establishment or changes in function, that right needs to be created.
Similarly, the duty to consult detailed in Section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 does not go .far enough and contains a number of important gaps. Care trusts are omitted from the list of bodies required to consult. The extent and nature of the duty to consult in Section 11 is vague. Health bodies may seek to fulfil that duty by setting up a focus group and consulting only that group. For that reason, it is important that the bodies that should be consulted are detailed.

635
Although the Government have said that they are reluctant to prescribe who should be consulted, if the legislation does not do so, all consulting organisations could find themselves challenged by a range of bodies that consider that they had a legitimate expectation of being consulted.
The Government have already conceded that further legislation is required to provide overview and scrutiny committees with a power to refer inadequate consultations and disputed decisions. No proposals have been produced on how or when that is to be achieved. The amendment would remedy that gap in the allocation of responsibility to overview and scrutiny committees to make referrals.
At present there is no legislative mechanism for the referral under Section 11 of consultation exercises that are inadequate or are not conducted at all. That is a major omission, as CHCs are currently under a duty to report inadequate consultations to the Secretary of State. I believe we need to replicate the requirement that inadequate consultations be reported to and investigated by a body or person with the power to order the body in question to consult properly.
Parliament is being asked to accept the abolition of CHCs, and the safeguards that go with them, without any clarity over exactly how the new provisions would work. That, in my submission, is not acceptable. The amendment rectifies that. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I hope to demonstrate that effective arrangements are already in place for the type of consultations described by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and that the proposed new clause would, therefore, over-complicate the process.
Subsection (1) of the new clause seeks to include the Secretary of State and care trusts in the list of bodies that should involve and consult the public and their representatives. First, as we have discussed in previous stages, it is not necessary to include care trusts since PCTs and NHS trusts are already listed, and care trusts will only be either PCTs or NHS trusts and are therefore already included. Care trusts will already be covered by the references to PCTs and to NHS trusts.
Secondly, with regard to the Secretary of State, a consequence of shifting the balance of power to the front-line is that responsibility for the planning, development and delivery of services is now with the front-line. We believe that it would be rather inconsistent to place a duty on the Secretary of State when that duty already exists for the local bodies who will be making those decisions and are responsible for the services. Indeed, the local bodies' relationship with local people should enable them to carry out the involvement and consultation activity. Section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 already places a duty on NHS bodies, including strategic health authorities, to consult on services for which they are responsible. Including the Secretary of State under this duty makes only a cosmetic difference, not a real one.
Subsection (2) of the new clause deals with the Secretary of State consulting bodies representing local patients on the establishment orders of NHS bodies.
636
As noble Lords will know, we have already amended the Bill to cover the consultation of relevant bodies on the establishment orders of strategic health authorities. Subsection (3), which places a duty on strategic health authorities to consult before directing PCTs to undertake their statutory duties, surely gives rise to consultation overload. We therefore believe that that provision is unnecessary.
Subsection (4) relates to the issues of referral to the Secretary of State in the context of consultation with overview and scrutiny committees and the health services. My ministerial colleagues have made it clear that we wish to have an effective and comprehensive framework for referral by overview and scrutiny committees to the Secretary of State on matters of concern which are being consulted upon and on the nature of the consultation itself. This framework is important for ensuring that those democratically elected representatives of local communities can, if they so wish, represent the views of their local communities to the national level. We are considering how best to provide for this within the framework of Section 7 of the Health and Social Care Act.
Subsection (4) is helpful in enabling us to think through what is actually required to ensure that the referral arrangements for overview and scrutiny committees are effective. We are confident that we shall be able to guarantee that a secure referral mechanism exists within our provisions. We are very sympathetic to the need to carry out proper and effective consultation and to ensure that disputed decisions are properly dealt with by democratically elected representatives of local people. However, this new clause seems to us to overcomplicate the Bill with unnecessary detail which is provided for elsewhere. We have made the necessary provisions in this Bill and in the Health and Social Care Act—for example, in Section 11—to ensure that the views, concerns and interests of patients and the public at large are fed into local decisions about the planning and development of the NHS.
We recognise that this new clause attempts to clarify and rationalise the consultation arrangements. However, we do not think that it is necessary, and it goes into too much detail and muddles up Sections 7 and 11 of the Health and Social Care Act. Sections 7 and 11 provide for rigorous and comprehensive consultation activity, and, under the regulations for Section 7, will set out the specific detail in respect of consultation of overview and scrutiny committees. For those reasons, we think the amendment should be resisted.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed reply, and particularly for providing more detail than he was able to give in Committee. There was much in the reply and I shall need to read it. On first hearing, however, it was very helpful. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 61:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
"LOW VISION COMMITTEE
(1) It is the duty of—

(a) each local authority in England and Wales; and

(b) each Primary Care Trust in England and local health board in Wales,

jointly to establish and support a Low Vision Committee for the area for which the Primary Care Trust or local health board is established for the purposes of co-ordinating multi-disciplinary low vision services for persons with low vision.
(2) Every Low Vision Committee shall—

(a) identify and log local providers of low vision services and gaps in local provision;

(b) determine ways in which services can be developed to meet local needs;

(c) advise commissioning authorities on priorities and the budgetary implications involved;

(d) develop a user-involvement strategy;

(e) ensure that in hospital eye departments an individual is identified as a point of contact for people who are diagnosed as having a visual impairment;

(f) establish mechanisms for inter-agency referral and information exchange between different service providers to ensure a seamless service;

(g) ensure that services are audited appropriately;

(h) ensure that information about the services is promoted to the community; and

(i) consider provision of low vision services for children, older people, people with learning difficulties, people from ethnic groups and people with multiple impairments such as deafblindness.

(3) The appropriate authority may by regulations make further provision in relation to Low Vision Committees.
(4) The regulations may in particular make provision as to—

(a) the composition of a Low Vision Committee and how members are to be appointed;

(b) the funding of Low Vision Committees;

(c) the payment of travelling and other allowances to members of a Low Vision Committee; and

(d) other functions of Low Vision Committees.

(5) In this section—
"low vision services" relate to rehabilitative or habilitative processes which provide a range of services for persons with low vision to enable them to make use of their eyesight to achieve maximum potential and include assessing the person's visual function and providing aids and training, addressing psychological and emotional needs:, and facilitating modification to the home, school and work environments,
"persons with low vision" and "persons with a visual impairment" mean those persons who have an impairment of visual function for whom full remediation is not possible by conventional spectacles, contact lenses or medical intervention and which causes restriction in those persons' everyday life.
"deafblindness" and "dual sensory impairment" mean a combined sight and hearing impairment which causes difficulties with communication, access to information and mobility,
638
"the appropriate authority" means—

(a) the Secretary of State in relation to England, and

(b) The National Assembly for Wales in relation to Wales."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is very similar to the one on low vision committees that I moved in Committee. I have moved the provision again in an attempt to see whether the Minister might reconsider some of the matters he described in Committee. In Committee, the Minister said:
"My view is that it would be inappropriate now to impose a requirement for primary care trusts and local authorities effectively to establish statutory low vision services committees. I think that it would make sense to allow the project to continue and for an evaluation of the committees' impact on service provision to be carried out by the implemental ion group at the end of that 18-month period ... I assure noble Lords that the department will continue to take a close interest in the progress of the implementation project. I take the view that legislation is not the appropriate route down which we should go, but I hope I have reassured noble Lords that we take a keen interest. I accept that having made progress in the past two or three years, more progress needs to be made".—[Official Report, 21/03/02; col. 1521.]
Those were very welcome words. However, having considered the Minister's words, we on these Benches contend that it does not make sense for the Department of Health to sit back and watt for 18 months. The department needs to take action now. The need is urgent as statutory authorities in many parts of the country are failing people with sight problems, resulting, for example, in 200 accidents in the home every week caused by sight problems which people are not being properly supported in managing. Moreover, many of the low vision services committees need stronger support from statutory authorities now so that they can successfully negotiate the changes in commissioning entailed by the restructuring of health services that we have been debating in relation to this Bill.
Other spheres have seen major injections of public investment, sometimes as part of a national service framework, but low vision has apparently been deemed a low priority and left to the voluntary sector to sort out. Visually impaired people are dismayed at how little support they feel the Government are giving in tackling the lottery in specialist health and social care services.
We suggest that the Department of Health should issue positive guidance now to social services and PCTs in England—to give active support and encouragement to the establishment of local low vision committees; to consult them where appropriate; and to take their recommendations into account in planning, deciding priorities and budgeting. Such guidance could also reaffirm the importance of the national low vision framework and the standards and processes set out in it for meeting existing statutory responsibilities for clinical and rehabilitation services in a cost-effective manner. It could also highlight how local authorities and PCTs can collaborate across boundaries to address unmet needs.
The key message is that now is precisely the time for the Government to give such a steer, while there is a funded implementation officer to support authorities in this regard. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I rise very briefly to support Amendment No. 61. My understanding is that there are currently only 24 low vision committees, many of which have been established since the implementation group was formed, and many of which are or have been supported by the low vision services implementation officer. Whether they flourish depends on the commitment of local players, especially the statutory commissioning authorities. Whether they become a feature of every local community is effectively being left to chance. Without statutory provision or guidance for low vision committees, services risk remaining extremely patchy and uncoordinated. I for one am very worried about that.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to the importance of having good eye care services and of doing all that is reasonably practicable to remedy deficiencies. The Government strongly agree with those comments and support them. The Government's action in restoring the free NHS eye test for all those aged 60 and over at a cost of £50 million a year shows the priority that we attach to the eye care of older people. That group is most vulnerable to eye disease and stands to benefit most from regular eye examinations. In 1999–2000 there were more than 2 million extra NHS sight tests following the extension of eligibility for free tests.
We are also taking steps to improve cataract services and have allocated an extra £20 million over two years to fund the capital costs of 60 schemes to improve treatment facilities and reduce waiting times. We believe that this investment will considerably improve the standard of eye care and greatly improve the quality of lives, particularly of older people.
However, there are many people, particularly older people with visual impairment, whose conditions are not treatable. Those patients are deserving of support, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, indicated. We all recognise the work that voluntary organisations such as the RNIB, Guide Dogs and The Partially Sighted Society do to improve our understanding of the needs of people with visual handicaps.
Amendment No. 61 would require each PCT in England or local health board in Wales and each local authority in both countries jointly to establish a low vision committee for the area for which that PCT or local health board was established.
A report in 1999 by a consensus group of organisations on the future of low vision services recommended the establishment of local vision committees for the purpose of ensuring that services in the UK are provided in accordance with the report's recommendations.
640
The Secretary of State for Health commended the report to the NHS and social services, which is what I believe the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, wished to hear. I am also pleased that the department is contributing a grant of £120,000 over three years to provide an implementation officer from the voluntary sector to help in setting up local committees. I understand that good progress is being made and that, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, 24 committees had been set up by the start of this year and a number of others are under consideration.
The implementation project is set to run for another 18 months. As we indicated previously, the Government think that it would be inappropriate now to impose a requirement for PCTs and local authorities to establish jointly low vision service committees. Those committees are intended as a means of bringing about more effective collaboration between agencies and so improve low vision services. I believe that it will make sense to allow the project to continue and for an evaluation of the committees' impact on service provision to be carried out by the implementation group.
It may be possible to have a good multidisciplinary low vision service without a formal committee. In some areas the PCT may not always cover the area that is sensible in terms of linking and providing low vision services and other models may emerge. Also, under the present arrangements, the committee is not in the ownership of one body and that emphasises joint working which may be important for the successful functioning of the committee.
The department will continue to monitor the progress of the implementation project through participation in the implementation group and the six monthly reports it receives. However, we take the view that it would be inadvisable to legislate for a system which has not yet been evaluated. Indeed, as noble Lords recognise, low vision committees have already been established without the need for legislation. Therefore, in that sense, it is superfluous. Also, for the present there would seem to be considerable advantage in retaining flexibility around the organisation of the committees rather than defining it in the way proposed.
In Wales it is believed that the issues the proposers seek to address are being met informally through the Wales eye care initiative, part of which is the Wales low vision aids scheme. Therefore, we believe that there is no need to impose a statutory requirement to establish low vision committees.
To conclude, if one sees it in the round, PCTs will clearly have the responsibility to improve health outcomes in their areas of which those who are suffering from low vision will form an important part. Low vision committees are one way—they may be a good way—of doing that, but they are not necessarily the only way and they are not necessarily a universal way. The Government believe that they should

641
promote and support PCTs to address low vision rather than specifying the particular mechanism advanced through this amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I well understand the Minister's argument about the need for flexibility. That is desirable. The purpose of the amendment was to tease out from the Minister whether it might be possible for guidance to be given in the period of 18 months before the funding is no longer available for the implementation officer.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, clearly, when sufficient time has been allowed to make a sober and sound assessment of the effectiveness of low vision committees, the Government will be in a position to act in that way if they feel it appropriate. However, I do not think that we are in that position at this time which is why we believe that the useful experiment should continue and be properly evaluated.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I believe that there is a germ of satisfaction in there in so far as the Minister seemed to say that, without commitment, the resource could be made available at the end of the implementation period.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I do not recollect mentioning resources.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I do not think that the Minister could have said that at the end of the 18 months period there would be an ability to issue guidance or to recommend a way forward unless there were the resources to back that. It would be rather negative to issue guidance without the resources to support it. Perhaps I am reading too much into the Minister's words. Perhaps it is perfectly usual for departments to issue guidance without any resources to support it.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am afraid that that has often been known to happen on the part of governments of all parties.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am afraid that the Minister issues me with even more of a dud cheque than I thought he had in the first place. I shall take what satisfaction I can from what he had to say. It is a little unfortunate that, despite the arguments about flexibility, we are in a sense in a phase where certain approaches are being explored. Low vision committees are being set up and evaluated. However, the statutory authorities are not in every case being as "come hit her" or as pro-active as they might be. That is the key concern of those in the voluntary sector who support the amendment. Even if the Minister cannot be more positive at this stage, perhaps he will take away the proposition that some guidance or some further encouragement to the statutory sector might be appropriate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
642
Clause 23 [The Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals]:
Baroness Northovermoved Amendment No. 62:
Page 29, line 17, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
"(1) The bodies referred to in subsection (3) shall in each year submit a report to any joint select committee appointed by the House of Commons and House of Lords to perform the functions prescribed in this Part ("health joint select committee" )."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 62, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 63 to 65 and 67 to 72. We are now moving on to consideration of the regulation of the medical professions. This is a major area in the Bill. It is here that we have the proposal of a lay dominated overarching committee with in effect control over the health professions. That is a change which should be made after full consideration of what we are doing, why and whether that is the best way to proceed.
When we considered this matter in Committee, we started at 10.45 p.m. on Thursday 11th April and we concluded our session at 12 minutes past midnight on Friday 12th April. That is not a recipe for careful and considered appraisal of what is a major change in the accountability and arrangements which have been in place for the health professions in some cases for well over a century and a half. I hope that we shall be better placed today to do this subject justice. We are again at the tail end of the Bill as before, but the hour is not quite so late.
The medical profession was the first to professionalise, with others following later. Self-regulation has always been part of that. There are pros and cons to that and I have no problem whatever with the notion that at the beginning of the 21st century we should reappraise that. Professor Kennedy's report on Bristol and his proposals for linking the professions have acted as a catalyst for that and must be seriously addressed. I welcome the fact that the various professions have played a full part in such discussions. Co-ordinating standards, spreading good practice and monitoring performance, as suggested by him, are all worthwhile objectives. It is clearly also vital that the various health professions should be more accountable and more transparent as well as better co-ordinated.
The Kennedy report proposed that an overarching council should report directly both to the Department of Health and to Parliament and should have a broadly-based membership, including representatives of the health professions of the NHS and the general public. It is now up to us to assess whether, with this blueprint, the Government have now come forward with a sensible proposal.
As I mentioned previously, there is a danger that the Government are proposing a quango to second-guess what the regulatory bodies are doing without the depth of knowledge and experience that they have. We are in serious danger of bogging down this council in looking at endless complaints against the profession by jaundiced patients even if the council then rules the complaints not worthy of further consideration.

643
However, we agree that in addition to co-ordination and a spread of good practice the time has come for greater accountability of the professions to the public and for there to be greater transparency. In that respect we agree with the Government although, conspicuously, the Minister trod very gently around the subject in Committee.
It is not enough for the Minister to argue, as he did in Committee, that Select Committees can call the various regulators before them. We need a more systematic way of ensuring accountability on a regular basis and not simply when things go wrong. We retain serious doubts about making the health profession accountable to yet another quango. The Government's proposal does not make each of the professions answerable to Parliament. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, all is done at one remove via the council. Such accountability should surely be by the shortest route and enable each regulatory body to be cross-examined.
Therefore, we propose that those bodies which regulate the health professions should be accountable directly to Parliament. We propose that the health bodies should report each year to a Joint Select Committee appointed by the House of Commons and House of Lords. They should report in public and that is where they should answer and be scrutinised.
The Minister said that the Government have no power to request the establishment of such a committee. I thank him for the letter he sent me on the matter which unfortunately arrived after the deadline for amendments. However, he had made clear his views in Committee. I submitted the amendments, therefore, in the knowledge of where he stood. The Minister said that he can have no view on the idea of a Select Committee as he cannot dictate what Parliament does or does not do. That is true enough. But, as he knows, that is not the whole story. After all, the Government could bring forward such a proposal to be debated in both Houses which could decide to set up such a Joint Select Committee. Select Committees are set up through the usual channels. We all know what the usual channels are and they do not exist in isolation from the political parties or government. A "usual channel" is sitting on the Front Bench. I served on a Select Committee on stem cell research.
Lord Carter: My Lords, by definition the usual channels are not defined.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I shall now not see the noble Lord sitting there!
The proposal that the Select Committee on stem cell research should be established was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and agreed by this House—no doubt not by any "usual channels". The Select Committee was set up. There are ways of doing things. In many ways, what I am laying down is the principle of the kind of arrangement that we should like to see: an arrangement which allows for the direct
644
accountability of the regulatory bodies to Parliament for their open scrutiny. That is the principle; and that is why we continue to argue the case for it.
We have in the new document, Delivering the NHS Plan, which the Minister must heartily wish had been issued after rather than before the debates on the Bill—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I must respond to that. I am delighted that the plan was issued. I believe that it has informed our debates. As we have seen with the decision about the appointment of a chair to the national patient and public involvement commission, we have been able to move the agenda on in the light of that reform.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the Minister. It has informed our debates. It has been most encouraging to see all the skittles falling as we come to Report stage. I am pleased to see that annual reports to Parliament from bodies are mentioned in the new document. It also refers to high national standards and clear accountability, so perhaps we are moving in the same direction.
In Committee, the Minister said that a balance must always be held between professional self regulation, parliamentary accountability and the public interest. I agree. However, I argue that we achieve that more effectively through our proposals than through the proposed council. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the amendments turn on the accountability to Parliament of professional regulatory bodies. In so doing, they would do away with our proposed new council for the regulation of healthcare professionals and propose that many of the functions that we intended for the council should be given to a health Joint Select Committee if Parliament should decide to establish such a committee.
Following the interesting comments of the noble Baroness, perhaps I may take this opportunity to spell out how the accountability regulations would work under the Bill. The council will be accountable to Parliament. Schedule 7 to the Bill obliges it to lay a report before Parliament each year. It is explicitly stated within that schedule that it must also provide Parliament with a special report on any matter which Parliament asks it to. It must also lay its accounts before Parliament.
The noble Baroness raised the issue of direct accountability of individual regulatory bodies. Those bodies themselves have long been accountable to Parliament in the sense that Parliament can ask them to provide evidence, for example, to departmental Select Committees. It has done so on a number of occasions in the past few years. The Bill changes none of that. Regulatory bodies will, I am sure, in their individual capacity, continue to be called before Select Committees and the Government very much welcome that.

645
The Bill provides Parliament with some assistance in the work of the new council. Reports from the council will allow Parliament to see more readily how the world of regulation is developing, what is going well and, if necessary, what is going less well and requires closer scrutiny.
The amendments are somewhat unusual. Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 seem to turn the tables. In effect, as drafted the amendments provide that the Secretary of State could ask Parliament for advice and Parliament would be obliged to comply, which is an unusual turn of events. Of course, we want proper account ability to Parliament. There is no question but that the new body will have the responsibility of reporting. Parliament must then decide how it will wish to call in such a body. We already have Select Committees. If Parliament decided to create new Select Committees the commission could be called in to give evidence. However, as I have said on a number of occasions, it is not for the Government in the form of a Bill to dictate to Parliament how it should discharge its responsibilities.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It is clear that debate on the issue is now well and truly opened. Matters are already moving along. I am encouraged by what the Minister has said and implied although I shall study the precise details. In some ways, it is nice to be moving unusual amendments among the 72 other amendments. However, I beg leave to withdraw my unusual amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Clause 24 [Powers and duties of the Council: general]:
[Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 not moved.]
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 66:
Page 30, line 27, at end insert—
"( ) No recommendation made under subsection (2)(c) may include a recommendation to amend an ethical code of practice that has been formally approved by a regulatory body."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee we debated extensively the functions and the role of the proposed new council for the regulation of health care professionals. In those debates I made clear my support for the concept of such a body, but I also outlined my concerns, which are shared by senior members of the profession, that the way in which the council sets about its business will be critical if the integrity and the ethos of each profession is to be maintained.
"Integrity" and "ethos" are difficult concepts to pin down. However, we can speak of them meaningfully. I believe that the essence of a profession is that it is a body of men and women who determine what constitute proper standards of practice, training and ethical behaviour. That is not to say that there is no other group of people who have a legitimate interest in such decision making. On the contrary, the GMC recognises the value of informed lay opinion, as evidenced by its decision to increase the percentage of
646
lay members on its governing council. But, as the Minister recognises, there is a sensitivity in these matters.
When we look at the role of the new council, I do not believe that there is any disagreement or difficulty about what I understand to be its principal remit: it is there to make the professional regulators better at what they do. As the Minister put it previously, it is there to provide the "energy for improvement". One example given by the Minister was that we should imagine that the regulators were invited to pool their experience on using the findings of overseas regulatory bodies, so that those bodies with the best systems could spread best practice among the rest. The Minister also spoke of the council as encouraging the regulatory bodies to conform with the principles of good professional self-regulation.
None of the latter presents me with any difficulty, but there is a line beyond which it would be mistaken and wrong for the council to tread. If there is one element of a profession that is fundamental to it, it is surely its ethical code of practice, in medicine, the document Good Medical Practice is now some six years old; well established in the United Kingdom, and internationally acclaimed. In a real sense, its precepts define the way in which the profession sees itself. I would be very concerned if the council were to take it upon itself to make a recommendation to a regulatory body that proposed a change to its ethical standards of practice. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that a lay-dominated council would have no standing on issues of that nature. I should be most grateful if the Minister could enlighten us on the issue, and provide some reassurance. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. In Committee, I said that the concept of this council alarmed me. I am not as sanguine on this matter as my noble friend, but I believe that the professions are somewhat naïve in assuming that the council does not have seeds within it that could endanger our democracy. I believe that free professions regulating themselves are basic to a democracy.
My noble friend has found a way to improve the Government's proposals I am sure he is right to say that the ethical standards of a profession and the way that it sees itself are basic to what makes a profession. I should be happy if the Government were to accept this amendment. Indeed, I suspect that a number of people who are not necessarily in the profession but who think about what makes a democracy safe would also be happy. Perhaps the Government will consider accepting my noble friend's proposal.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Earl raised a very interesting question in Committee. I have studied carefully the codes of ethical practices. I trust that I can reassure him on the matter. I must draw a distinction between the power of the council to make recommendations to the regulatory bodies and the

647
power of council to issue directions subject to the parliamentary processes that we agreed, and amended, in Committee.
I must make it absolutely clear that the council does not have the power to compel a regulatory body to accept any changes that it recommends. The council can make directions only in relation to rules that require Privy Council approval. I can assure the House that that does not include professional standards and ethics. Primary legislation does not provide for regulatory bodies to set ethical standards by rules subject to Privy Council approval. However, there may be circumstances where it is appropriate for the council to make recommendations to the different regulatory bodies. That would occur mainly in an effort to encourage greater consistency across the professions, and would go with the grain of the work already taking place within a number of the regulatory bodies.
I am aware that the regulatory bodies have been working together on a statement of common principles for healthcare professionals. The council could, for example, encourage the regulatory bodies to implement that work where it believed that a cross-professional approach would be beneficial. I looked through the code of ethical practice for doctors and found many instances therein that I am sure could apply to the other professions.
I hope that I can reassure the noble Earl that there is a valuable role for the council to play in recommending to regulatory bodies a cross-professional approach to codes of ethics. However, the council could not issue a power of direction to the regulatory bodies.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Minister has given a most helpful reply. I thank the noble Lord for writing to me about the powers of direction, and also for confirming the contents of his letter. I understand the position; indeed, that is a very important statement and one that will reassure many people. I take on board what the Minister said about the power to recommend a change in the standards of practice of a regulatory body so as to encourage greater consistency across the professions as a whole. I do not believe that to be a controversial suggestion in itself; it implies that the profession would still have the ability to examine such a proposal on its merits. However, my worries would increase if the council took it upon itself to go into greater detail, or to go rather further in that respect and be more specific about a change to a particular code of practice. Nevertheless, we have had a useful debate. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 67 to 72 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Regulatory bodies and the Council]:
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 73:
Page 32, line I, leave out subsections (2) to (15).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I raised concerns in Committee over the powers of direction being conferred on the council for the regulation of
648
healthcare professions. Government amendments to the Bill have created some welcome safeguards as regards the use of those powers. The affirmative resolution procedure in Parliament will ensure that any direction from the council will receive close scrutiny and debate in both Houses; in other words, proper parliamentary accountability.
Like my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, I have deep reservations about granting any powers of direction to a lay-dominated organisation. I believe that that would fundamentally undermine the concept of professional self-regulation. The council will be controlled by political appointees and unelected lay people, who may have no experience of the health professions or of their conduct committees. That is an inherently unsettling prospect. However, I must acknowledge that the regulatory bodies have declared themselves satisfied with the safeguards, so I do not propose to take issue with them.
I would, however, like to raise some concerns relating to the scope of the powers. When one reads the Bill, it is very hard, prior to the establishment of the council, to forecast when and in what circumstances the power of direction will be exercised. I say again, as I said in Committee, that there are no real limits laid down in relation to the sorts of issues on which the powers can be deployed, or how often that can be done, other than the qualifications that are set out in subsection (2). It would not be a healthy state of affairs if directions were issued on a frequent basis. In fact, I hope that it will never be necessary for the council to assert its will against the wishes of a regulator, because that would mean that normal constructive dialogue had reached an impasse.
The sort of situation that I worry about is where there has been, let us say, a story in the newspapers—or perhaps a succession of different stories—involving doctors who have in some way or other acted controversially. One thinks of the Bristol Royal Infirmary or even Dr Shipman, but some other situation could be involved. A head of steam would build up in such cases in the tabloid press. The GMC, let us imagine, invokes its disciplinary procedures and reaches a conclusion with which the press does not agree. The press would whip up criticism of the GMC. The council for the regulation of healthcare professionals would try unsuccessfully to persuade the GMC to revise some aspect of its procedures. It would end up issuing a direction. The direction would go to Parliament. We might say that the verdict of Parliament should be taken as final. If the orders are approved, there should in theory be no more argument. Except that even Parliament is capable of jumping the wrong way in the face of media pressure. One thinks of several pieces of primary legislation that were passed on the back of some temporary frenzy and which, with hindsight, were not wise. One can only hope that the professional regulators will never be put in the position of having to comply with directions that are essentially populist and ill-informed.
The Minister was kind enough to write to me, as I mentioned earlier, with answers to some of the questions that I raised in Committee. One of the points

649
that I raised was about the words, "must comply", which appear in Clause 25(11). I asked whether they should stay in the Bill. It seems to me that once a resolution has been passed by both Houses of Parliament there is an automatic duty to comply with it because it is the law of the land. I should be grateful if the Minister would set out the reasons for the position that he has taken in this regard—I confess to not fully understanding it. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendment and Amendment No. 74, which is grouped with it.
The Minister's response to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in relation to Amendment No. 66 in some ways allayed some of my concerns, but not fully. I shall not reiterate the arguments that have already been advanced by the noble Earl.
Subsections (11) and (12) caused me concern. They appear to be counter to the spirit of collaboration and co-operation that was so starkly called for in Professor Kennedy's report. No one should forget that it was a doctor who, against great pressure to the contrary, blew the whistle and exposed the children's cardiac surgery services in Bristol.
A health professions regulator would be ill-advised to ignore willy-nilly a direction coming from the council and would face stringent sanctions for so doing. However, there may be a situation, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, outlined, in which a single regulator feels morally and ethically bound to refuse to toe the line. It is the ability of a professional body to speak out that safeguards patient autonomy. I shall explain and expand on that a little.
Some clinical decisions are extremely complex—so complex that they are ill understood by people outside the specialty and that specific clinical situation. They demand an in-depth understanding of the subject and may, in the interests of a patient or a group of patients, be counter to the vested professional interests of other healthcare professionals. The council is being established o try to avoid clashes of interest, to build teams and to foster collaboration. However, at the end of the day, any one profession must be able to stand up to the considered, competent opinion of its constituent members.
It is, as has been outlined, the regulatory bodies that make the rules and regulations about professional standards and ethics that enable an individual to be registered for that profession. It is the regulatory bodies that can suspend or strike off a professional from the body's register, ending the person's work in an instant.
If the professions are not respected and not trusted to consider and act responsibly, the council seems to be able, at the end of the day, to subsume the very nature of a professional approach on behalf of patients. Make no mistake, my Lords—I am not arguing for entrenched conservatism and vested interests; quite the opposite. The lone voice of one profession may be the best safeguard for the vulnerable patient, who may be weakened by disease and effectively disenfranchised
650
by debility or infirmity. If the provisions remain in the Bill, how will a regulatory body respond to a direction that it feels is unethical or jeopardises patients?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I say at once that I agree with the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that this is a very sensitive issue and that we need to get the balance right between the integrity of the individual regulatory bodies, the professions and the wider public interest. Kennedy was absolutely clear that the council should have powers to ensure that it is able to carry out its functions effectively. He said:
"We believe that the council should have statutory powers to require the various bodies to act in the interests of patients and conform to the principles of good regulation".
That is the foundation on which we bring this part of the Bill before your Lordships' House.
I very much agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in hoping that the direction never has to be used. We all hope that the new arrangements will operate on the basis of sensible discussion and agreement. I am sure that in most cases it will do so. However, we believe—this is based on the original analysis of Kennedy—that the council has to have the ability to issue a direction only in those cases in which the Privy Council is involved in the rule-making. The amendments to which we agreed in Committee were extremely significant in ensuring that such a direction could be issued only through an affirmative vote in both Houses.
As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, generously acknowledged, we had intense discussions with the regulatory bodies over several months. They clearly stated that they are satisfied that we have now got the balance right.
I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked a rhetorical question about a disagreement between the regulatory body and the council. The strict interpretation of the position is that if a regulatory body refused to comply with a direction, which would have been endorsed by Parliament, it would be open to the council to seek, by way of judicial review, an appropriate declaration or order from the courts. That is what would happen in the event of such a disagreement.
On the question of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I have inquired into the reason why the wording needs to be as it is. That goes back to the fact that the direction would be issued not by a Minister but by the council. An affirmative order, having progressed through both Houses of Parliament. would do no more than to set the date for the coming into force of the direction. Clearly, the direction's wording would be available to both Houses and would be the subject of debate. However, the resolution would relate to the date of coming into force of the direction. There would be nothing in the order that would require the directions to be complied with. That is why we need in the Bill a positive obligation on regulatory bodies to comply.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. He has just made a very nice legal point and, of course, I suppose that what he says is strictly correct. However, I should have thought that for Parliament to set the date on which directions come into force would be nothing more nor less than Parliament giving those directions legal force from that date. But clearly that is not so.
Nevertheless, I do not propose to argue from a basis of ignorance what is clearly a nice legal point. The Minister does not speak from a basis of ignorance. He has been very helpful generally on this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Complaints about regulatory bodies]:
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 75:
Page 33, line 9, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 75, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 76 to 82, which stand in my name in this group.
These amendments concern Clause 26, which allows the Secretary of State to make regulations in respect of the council for the regulation of healthcare professionals, setting up a complaints scheme in relation to the regulatory bodies. The regulation-making power in Clause 26(1) is wide, and subsection (2) sets out a number of areas which regulations under these powers could cover.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will speak in a moment to her Amendment No. 83, which seeks to leave out Clause 26. These powers are very extensive and there are legitimate questions about whether the council should be involved in complaints at all. Amendments Nos. 75 to 82, however, take the basic scheme as read but probe the particular nature of the regulation-making powers.
Amendment No. 75 seeks to take out paragraph (a), which allows the Secretary of State to prescribe who is entitled to complain. I find that extraordinary. The implication is that certain persons or types of person will not be allowed to complain. I struggle to think of any complaints scheme that rules out certain complaints because of their source.
Paragraph (b) allows the Secretary of State to say that certain types of complaint must be ignored. Under paragraph (c) he can say what is excluded from investigation. Under paragraph (d) he can set out requirements that complainants must follow. Under paragraph (e) he can tell the council what procedure it should follow in investigating complaints. Under paragraph (i) he can even decide about making payments for investigations.
Perhaps of most significance in Clause 26(2) is paragraph (g), which gives the Secretary of State power to decide about the confidentiality of information acquired during an investigation. That could clash with the ethical guidance from one of the regulatory bodies.
652
Amendments Nos. 75 to 81 are probing amendments, either deleting or amending the paragraphs to which I have referred. Why does the Secretary of State need to take these powers? Why cannot the matters be left to the council? The Government are setting up the council for the regulation of healthcare professionals with carefully constructed membership. So why do the Government need to micro-manage the complaints procedure by specifying in the finest detail the "who", "what" and "how" of complaints investigation? That is why Amendment No. 82 seeks to introduce a new subsection in Clause 26 stating that the council should adopt such procedures as it thinks fit. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 83, which goes slightly further than the amendments to which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has already spoken.
Clause 26 examines complaints about regulatory bodies. Currently each regulatory body has a complaints procedure and receives complaints not only about the decisions that it makes but also about the way that it makes those decisions. For example, in the year 2000, the GMC received 4,470 complaints against doctors on its register. An additional 125 complaints were re-opened from the preceding years. Explicit standards are set for the timing of the screening and investigation of proceedings in relation to the handling of complaints. The figures relating to physiotherapists are very different but provide a useful contrast. In the same year, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy received 37 complaints.
The problem for aggrieved relatives and patients is that they may feel very angry and seek revenge or redress. Certainly, for those who are bereaved that is very understandable. Sadly, errors of judgment occur and will continue to occur whenever the assessment of risk, however well thought through, balances the probabilities for and against a management strategy and gets it wrong in clinical care. Hindsight is a marvellous tool: if only we had such a perfect ability to predict what will happen.
Those who feel angry and bitter will often feel deeply unhappy if the professional has not been struck off, however inappropriate that might be. They will complain against the relevant body. Their letter may outline perceived irregularities in the process, although their complaint really concerns the outcome of the process. Looking back at the complaints which were brought forward in the year 2000, one could estimate that in approximately 10 per cent of cases dissatisfaction would be expressed about the process by those who brought the complaints. However, that is almost always resolved when the procedure is clarified.
If such complaints went to a body other than the regulator, such as the council, their investigation would become very time-consuming and burdensome and certainly extremely expensive. The process would need to be adequately resourced and would require trained staff. When one considers the figures in relation to the GMC and the physiotherapists, one is

653
possibly talking about almost 500 complaints in one year. The process will certainly require extensive investigation.
An alternative to this clause would be to extend the Health Service Commissioner's role to include the health regulators. The current remit of the commissioner covers NHS providers. However, the skills and procedures have been established and the remit could possibly be widened. It would have the advantage for the person bringing the complaint of being an external, completely neutral process, far removed from any regulators. It would avoid any potential conflict of interest for the council in relation to its role in co-ordinating the different regulators, and it would ensure consistency in standards.
It would also ensure that the complainants were able to go to a completely independent body, and it would avoid the perception of professions sticking together or closing ranks—an allegation which at present is often brought against professions by those who complain. It is in that spirit that my amendment proposes that the clause should be deleted and the whole complaints procedure re-thought.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am glad to respond to a number of points that have been raised in relation to this group of amendments. I make it clear that Clause 26 is modelled on the powers which the ombudsmen have today. The regulatory bodies are not subject to any of the ombudsmen and, as they are not government bodies, it would not be right for that to be the case. But we look to regulators, as they reform themselves, to create effective ways of handling complaints. These provisions ensure that, only if it were necessary, the new council would be able to underpin that by taking its own action.
I was interested to hear the statistics that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, quoted concerning the number of complaints being heard by the GMC. There is no doubt that there has been a problem with a backlog of those complaints. We also have experience of complainants being left with very little idea of what is going on. While some delays have been unavoidable, they have often continued unexplained.
Therefore, a complaints system of the kind envisaged by the Bill would give members of the public an opportunity to press for an explanation in such situations. We envisage that it would cover such problems as advice which is misleading or inadequate, the refusal to answer reasonable questions, and avoidable delays. This is an area where the regulatory bodies, not just in health but also in other areas, have not always come up to scratch in creating a credible complaints system in which the public believe.
Amendment No. 83 would render such a complaints system toothless, but if we were to accept Amendments Nos. 75 to 81, in effect we would be saying that in relation to some areas of substantial importance the council should decide, rather than leaving such matters to regulations that Parliament can scrutinise. It is worth making the point that as part of the delicate balance, under this clause
654
regulations would be brought to Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure. Ironically, the amendment, in seeking to take away some of the headings in the clause, would provide for less effective parliamentary scrutiny. I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from, but the affirmative resolution procedure is part of the balance we are trying to achieve between the individual regulatory bodies and the council itself.
The noble Baroness asks me why we would want to specify in regulations who is entitled to complain and with what kind of complaints the council should deal. It is important not to open the gates to complaints by every person whose complaint against a practitioner is rejected by a regulator. I remember my noble friend Lord Turnberg warning against a system that simply provides an opportunity for every complaint, where the complainant is dissatisfied, automatically to come to the council.
We do not want to leave the council unable to filter the complaints it receives. However, we may want to be able to require the council to consider certain types of complaints. Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 deal with the procedures to be followed by those making a complaint and by the council in its investigation. It is proper to make regulations for those points. Parliament should have an opportunity to decide what aspects of procedure should be for the council and what should be for the regulations.
Amendment No. 80 seeks to exclude the Secretary of State from making regulations about confidentiality or disclosure of any information supplied to the council or acquired by it in connection with an investigation. Amendment No. 81 seeks to exclude the Secretary of State from making regulations about payments in relation to investigations.
We believe that it is more appropriate to have regulations that Parliament can scrutinise under the affirmative resolution procedure. The point that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made about sensitive issues around confidentiality and ensuring value for money from payments suggests to me that they are better scrutinised by Parliament.
Overall, I recognise the points raised by both noble Baronesses and I recognise that there is a considerable amount of detail in Clause 26. At the end of the day, it leads to a proper balance between the individual role of regulated bodies, the role of the council and the role of Parliament in scrutinising this part of the Bill. Any complaints system that is appropriate, proportionate and sensible will be enhanced by greater parliamentary scrutiny.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. He has portrayed a balance being struck between the council and Parliament. While there is the affirmative procedure, the Secretary of State in the first instance will decide what is to be done, after which Parliament will have a say. I am not entirely convinced that that is the right approach to this difficult and

655
sensitive issue, particularly in relation to confidentiality. I shall reflect further on what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 76 to 83 not moved.]
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaffmoved Amendment No. 84:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause—
"SUMMARY OF THE EFFECTS OF THIS ACT IN RELATION TO WALES
The effects of this Act in relation to Wales are set out in Schedule 7A."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 84 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 93. This Bill covers England and Wales and many of the clauses concerning Wales are enabling clauses for the National Assembly for Wales. It is difficult to disaggregate the English and Welsh components in the Bill and even the contents page at the front of the Bill is not very helpful. My amendments do nothing at all to alter the law itself; they simply make the interpretation of the paperwork easier.
If we are to have openness in the legislative processes and procedures it is important that any student of law, healthcare, healthcare management or an interested member of the public can track the changes as they go from Parliament through to the National Assembly for Wales. In the future students of law may be pleased to have a table that allows them simply to track various parts of the Bill and match them up to legislation that passes through the National Assembly for Wales.
In Schedule 9 there is a table relating to legislation amended by this Bill and the table that I have proposed in Amendment No. 93 mirrors that in layout. I hope it will be equally helpful. It seeks to clarify for Wales what is pertinent to Wales. I hope that these amendments will allow for the documentation of the history of healthcare services as they evolve in Wales under the direction of the National Assembly for Wales. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for raising this important issue. I can happily give her my assurance that a summary of the effects of the Act in relation to Wales will be included within the accompanying Explanatory Notes. Since 2000 the Government have produced Explanatory Notes to accompany new Acts.
The laudable aim of Amendments Nos. 84 and 93 is to provide a clear indication of those sections of the Act that will have effect in Wales but, as the noble Baroness recognised, they have no legislative effect. Therefore, under normal parliamentary practice it would be inappropriate to include them on the face of the Bill. The schedule is informative of new law made
656
or existing law changed by the Bill. Therefore, it is more appropriate for inclusion in the Explanatory Notes.
We accept the reasoning behind the amendment but believe that the insertion of such a new clause and schedule is not the most appropriate way to meet the wishes that lie behind these two amendments. Of course, we shall provide information within the Explanatory Notes.
For the record—this is an example of why it is less appropriate to include such a provision on the face of the Bill—the reference to Section 8 is incorrect and the amendment made by Clause 2 of the Bill to Section 16A of the 1977 Act unfortunately has the effect of repealing the PCT legislation in Wales. It is quite difficult to achieve what the noble Baroness seeks on the face of the legislation. However, we fully accept the points that lie behind her amendments and I am hopeful that she will recognise that we have met her concerns in full.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I am extremely grateful and absolutely delighted to have that reassurance from the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. I fully understand why the table that I have outlined will be more helpful in the Explanatory Notes. I am delighted and I thank the Ministers for having considered and for having incorporated the spirit of my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 85 to 90 not moved.]
Baroness Northovermoved Amendment No. 91:
Page 88, line 34, leave out "regulatory body" and insert "of the regulatory bodies referred to in section 23(3)(a) to (h)(i), and three members appointed by the regulatory body referred to in section 23(h)(ii) or the successor regulatory body (within the meaning of Schedule 3 to the Health Act 1999 (c. 8)) to the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine (the Health Professions Council) established by order in Council under section 60 of that Act"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I moved a similar amendment in Committee, arguing that historical accident had dictated to the balance of numbers representing the different professions on the council. The Minister in effect acknowledged that that was the case and agreed that it was a minefield. I fully accept the difficulty, but I point out that not all the regulatory bodies are happy with the resolution, which may well lead to problems down the track.
My solution is to expand a part of the council, but I fully recognise the difficulties that the Minister faces. I simply seek a reassurance that the matter will be kept under review. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 92, which addresses the sensitive issue of the majority of votes on the council. Two groups of people will serve on the council: one will be appointees of the regulatory bodies; the other will be lay individuals appointed by Ministers or one of the regional

657
assemblies. The Bill provides that the latter group should have an automatic, in-built majority. I wonder about that.
Under my amendment, neither of the two groups would be able to form a majority. The key to the smooth working and effectiveness of the council will be consensus. All members of the council will need to work together and do their best to speak with one voice. If neither group had more members than the other, that would be conducive to giving all members of the council an added impetus to reach unanimity. I confess that I do not understand why there needs to be an a priori provision in the Bill for the balance of votes.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, I said that representation on the council was a minefield. Having been involved in discussion with many of the regulatory bodies not only over this matter but over the Section 60 orders that we debated—we shall have several more to debate during the next few months—I know that these are delicate issues. Although I accept that some professional bodies will not be satisfied with the proposed position, in the main most of them accept the need for a bit of give and take. We all accept that there are some historical accidents and anomalies between the sizes of different professions and their number of seats. I readily acknowledge that. But in the interests of getting progress, movement and co-ordination, most regulatory bodies accept that there will be discrepancies in the membership of each council.
While I am happy to say that we will keep the matter under review, I must caution against re-opening the issue We could upset many apple carts. Generally, the regulatory bodies accept that what we propose is the appropriate way to proceed.
On the issue of the balance of the council raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, we probably have it right. The council's function is to promote the interests of patients and other members of the public. In that light, it is appropriate for there to be a slight majority of lay people on the council—balanced, of course, by the professional majority on the regulatory bodies, which is the essence of professional self-regulation. We have reached the ideal balance, as it were, by giving representatives of the public a slight majority on the council balanced by the professional majority on each of the individual regulatory bodies.
On appointees, we have moved on considerably since our earlier debates. The independent NHS Appointments Commission has shown itself to be robustly independent in the year or so that it has been in existence. There is no doubt that the kind of person that we want to serve on the body, who can speak up for the public, will be robust. I am sure that the council will be an extremely interesting one on which to serve and that we shall not have a shortage of good calibre people putting their names forward. At the end of the day, my case rests on the balance between the regulatory hoard on the one hand and the council on the other. That is why I resist the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I fully understand the problem of drawing up numbers for particular councils. I am reassured by what he said about keeping the matter under review. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 not moved.]

Rural Policy
7.56 p.m.
Lord Pattenrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their definition of "rural" when used in respect of public policy.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to ask the Question, which needs urgent answering. I am especially glad that it will be answered by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who is always so straightforward and obliging. As someone who used to have to deal with Clause 4 and now has to deal with the countryside, cruel and unnatural punishments seem to have dogged him.
By their own admission, the Government do not know what they mean when they use the term "rural"—unless the Minister can suddenly tell us tonight for the first time. That is no unfair pre-local council election political assertion. As recently as 18th January, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, told me in a Written Answer that:
"The Government have no single definition of a rural area"'.—[Official Report, 18/1/02; col. WA 184.]
I questioned him further and he was good enough to tell me in a further Answer on 5th February that not only do the Government have no agreed definition of what they mean by rural, they have no target date by which to achieve such a definition.
So it is clear that the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister, who was once so publicly concerned about rural matters, now needs to bang together the heads of the relevant Secretaries of State so that they—and, more importantly, we—know what they mean when they announce a so-called new rural policy. Otherwise, country people—and urban people who cherish the countryside, of whom there are far more—will become even more confused and alienated than they are at present.
That failure to define "rural" allows what I think of as stealth announcements. For example, it may be claimed that extra help is being given to the constituency of Hereford—apparently a rural place—when all the money may in fact go to the City of Hereford rather than the surrounding countryside. It may not be spent in the rural hinterland, where the few people around do not seem to carry the weight of urban people. Because, by their own admission, the Government do not know what they are talking about, statistics can be produced and manipulated at will.

659
The Office for National Statistics should show a lead. I choose my words carefully, but it should be ashamed of itself for not having produced a definition—or, indeed, a set of complementary definitions, if they think that is needed—that the Government must observe. With respect, I may also say that the rural advocate, Mr Ewen Cameron, has been a little muted on the matter so far. In government, national and local, there is definitional chaos. Local government, DEFRA and the DTLR all have different definitions of "rural". Effectively, that means a dial-a-definition situation, in which people can produce figures for what is rural at will. Considering the whole range of definitions used in local and national government, I am told that figures for those allegedly living in rural areas may vary from 4 million to 14 million—a difference of 10 million people.
But surely, some of your Lordships might argue, has all this not been sorted out? Was there not a rural White Paper? Yes, there was. But White Papers are not worth the glossy paper they are printed on without subsequent action. The Government have asked their own countryside quango, the Countryside Agency, to monitor progress directly from the White Paper and to check on what is known as the "rural proofing of policy making". That is defined as the,
"process by which the potential impact of policy and decision making in rural areas is evaluated".
The chairman of the Countryside Agency, that same rural advocate Mr Cameron, says in his excellent foreword to his first report, published this month, which has received little attention so far—I hope that it will get the attention it deserves—that:
"I have seen little sign of a fundamental shift in departmental policies. Some important parts of Government, like those dealing with social exclusion, largely overlook rural needs".
That is wrong.
In putting this kind of failure right, surely, some of your Lordships might think, there must be some leadership. We should look automatically to the department that is specifically for rural affairs in the shape of the Department for Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to show other Whitehall departments how to "rural proof' their policies so that the minority living in the countryside are taken into account.
Hard though it is to believe, DEFRA fails on both fronts. First of all, it seems to have no clear, universal definition of rural to inform and underpin the "rural affairs" part of its title. Another glossy document, entitled Working for the Essentials of Life, recently published by DEFRA, has landed on my desk. There is a foreword by the Secretary of State and a vision statement. Beware of Secretaries of State having visions. I think that that is always a golden rule. That document nowhere defines what is "rural", until one reaches page 21 where there is the enlightening assertion that,
"rural England is a place where people live".
Well, my Lords, now we know.
660
The fair-minded might say, "Don't be fussy about definitions. Let's get on with the job. Let them get on with the job of 'rural proofing'. Don't muck about with statistics. You know that 'rural proofing' is the answer". This is a phrase which is never far from the lips of people in the four ale bar or on the Archers. I must tell the House that of the 11 departments monitored by the Countryside Agency as to their progress on rural proofing on six clearly-defined criteria—I am not making this up; one could not make it up—the worst performer is, yes, noble Lords have guessed it, DEFRA. It fails in four out of the six criteria. The table on pages 26 and 27 in the Countryside Agency report published in April, this month, spell it out:
"(Q) rural proofing embedded in policymaking? (A) No.
(Q) proofing checklist provided? (A) No.
(Q) rural targets and monitoring established? (A) No.
(Q) rural awareness enhanced through staff training? (A) No."
This amazing litany of failure—and it is exactly that—is brought into sharp focus when we read that the Lord Chancellor's Department does 50 per cent better than DEFRA, having fulfilled four out of the six criteria already.
I ask the Minister this question. Is it now the Labour Government's assessment that rural people no longer actually matter now that there has been some peace and quiet in the countryside, particularly as it appears to be quiescent? On the first point, one has only to look at an article in the excellent coverage provided by the Financial Times in the run up to the Budget entitled, "Rural Needs Fall Far Down Urban Pecking Order". It asserted:
"Experts agreed that the countryside was not the Government's priority. Keeping the rural vote did not really matter to its electoral fortunes, said Bob Worcester. Chairman of MORI, the polling organisation".
Just so—the rural vote does not matter to the Government's political fortunes at all. I think that the countryside is increasingly once again being viewed as an unimportant and sidelined part of the other nation.
The only thing that is likely to make the Government change their views and listen to the countryside is a consistent demonstration that the countryside insists on being listened to, as once it did with the countryside march of some years back. That had an effect. It led to immediate panic in No. 10. Rural summits without number were called. Then we had a rural White Paper. But as countryside protests seemed to subside, so government interest in rural matters seemed to subside, with the Prime Minister allowing his lead department to ignore his own White Paper's conclusions, as we have just seen. If I was in another place and not in your Lordships' demure Chamber I would be suggesting that the Secretary of State should be considering her position. But I would not dream of doing that in your Lordships' House.
I believe that there is also a feeling in government circles that because the Countryside Alliance has become quiet and that it is over a barrel over the "Middle Way", it can safely be ignored. I hope that this is not the case, and that the Countryside Alliance is not sleeping but just resting.

661
In conclusion, we all heard last week how the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—who I knew for so many years in another place and greatly respect his work here—was at the tail end of a deplorable leak. He had advice from his civil servants not to mention certain things in the Police Reform Bill. I regret to have to inform the House that I have not had any leak of the briefing provided for the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, so I can only speculate. I can speculate that in that briefing there are a number of similar passages. For example, "The Minister may care to avoid giving the impression that Lord Birt is doing any blue skies thinking on how to define rural". That may be a bit of a fantasy on my behalf. Much more likely is a briefing note that says, "At all costs, the Minister may wish to avoid giving any definition of rural or any pledge as to when one might be forthcoming". I hope that in what the Minister has to say I shall be proved wrong.
8.6 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, how we live our lives is shaped by where we live our lives. But wherever that may be, people want the same basic things—jobs, homes, good public services, a safe and attractive environment and a society offering opportunity for all. North or south, rural or urban, all parts of our country, though different, affect and are affected by each other. That was the opening sentiment of the Government's rural White Paper. It was published at the same time as the urban White Paper. That was not an accident.
The Government have recognised since they were first elected that both the rural and the urban in our country need to thrive. In many ways that explains why someone who is essentially an urban creature feels that we should have a voice in this debate.
It is a fascinating question that the noble Lord, Lord Patten has posed. He might have said "God made the country and man made the town", to which I would respond by saying that both need to prosper, the sublime and the prosaic. On the other hand, he might have said, as Oscar Wilde did,
"Anybody can be good in the country".
I do not agree. The noise and fury with which the voice of the countryside has made itself heard in recent years makes me realise that the harmonious and peaceful idyll is as much a caricature of the countryside as portraying London's streets as deadly, dangerous and full of sin. I think that I would rather take my chances in deepest Tufnell Park than with the local hunt.
I have often heard Members on the other side of the House accusing the Government of lacking sympathy and commitment to the countryside. I refute that contention. I believe that the Government's record speaks of care, thought and commitment and that DEFRA Ministers bring that to bear on rural matters.
Although the definition of rural may be hotly disputed there can be no doubt about the acute challenges that face these communities today. I believe that the focus should be on action rather than semantics. The creation of DEFRA, with an explicit mission to mainstream rural affairs in policy making, and the appointment of my honourable friend Alun
662
Michael as Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs were important signals that the Government recognised some of the specific challenges. They are determined to look at the future of our rural economies beyond the narrow consideration of farming.
It was a bold move by the Government in the rural White Paper to commit themselves to "rural proofing" in policy-making. In that report, rural proofing is described as,
"the systematic assessment of the rural dimension of all government policies as they are developed and implemented—nationally, regionally and locally".
The fact that the Government invited the Countryside Agency to monitor progress showed that they wanted an independent assessment. The rural-proofing report, to which the noble Lord referred, gives that detailed breakdown. It is a mixed report. There has been some useful progress, but there is still a long way to go. There have been some victories, such as the spread of Sure Start to rural communities, but the report pointed to the need to speed up rural proofing and put a stronger focus on outcomes.
This first year has been dominated by the need to deal with the impact of foot and mouth disease. I hope that we can look forward to greater and faster progress in the next report. I shall take the opportunity to urge the Minister to ensure that there are clear rules, targets and priorities in the spending review, with encouragement for the rural proofing of policies across government.
The Rural Affairs Forum is an important mechanism for getting messages about the countryside into the heart of government. It implements the Government's commitment in the rural White Paper to establish a national sounding-board, so that Ministers can have regular and direct contact with the main rural groups, through which they will know what is going on and what people in the countryside think. I examined the membership of the forum and found that it included many organisations, including the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Country Land and Business Association, the British Horse Society, the National Farmers Union, the Co-operative Union, Action with Communities in Rural England, Churches Together in England, the Women's Institute, the National Youth Agency and eight regional rural affairs forums. It is a mechanism for taking rural issues to the heart of government.
It is important to recognise that the future of our rural areas does not lie only in the hands of the Government. I shall declare an interest, arising from my long association with the co-operative movement. I am aware of its enduring commitment to the economic well-being of Britain's rural communities. In the past 100 years, Co-op Farmcare has evolved into the UK's largest commercial farmer, managing over 85,000 acres of farmland in England and Scotland. Following the Curry report, the Cooperative Group has committed itself to promoting solutions based on co-operation and self-help. It has appointed people dedicated to strengthening farmers" cooperatives in Cumbria and is committed to supporting the proposal to create an English collaborative board. That is an example to everyone who wants to solve the problems facing the countryside.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to participate in the debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for initiating it. It is an important issue. What is the Government's definition of "rural" in respect of public policy?
I declare an interest as a trustee of the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales, having spent almost all of my career in agriculture. I shall not concentrate so much on farming, but in Wales, agriculture—livestock farming, in particular—is pulled three ways . There is the common agricultural policy of the European Union, the operation of DEFRA and the agriculture functions of the Welsh Assembly. There is also the impact of Objective 1, 2 and 3 funding in the EU's plans to develop rural areas.
In the past five years, there has been a 40 per cent drop in the price of primary farm products. That is almost entirely due to exchange rate inequality and the exploitation of monopolies by the supermarkets. I am sure that, had we joined the euro, much of that price inequality could have been solved rapidly. In the case of the supermarkets, it is essential that we legislate to make it illegal to buy farm produce at less than the cost of production. It is illegal in the United States, and it should be illegal here. The Government should go ahead and claim all the available agrimoney; it would be worth £51 million to the dairy industry alone.
I shall discuss the key factors of rurality, and I shall try out some definitions on the Minister. I also want to be objective and suggest some measures. It is easy to play politics with the subject, but I want to get to the nub of it. There are formulae for calculating rurality. That is certainly the case in Germany and Australia, to give but two examples. How do we get adequate resources for rural areas? They are frequently underresourced. Needs-based efforts are not really in gear. The present formula is inadequate—especially in its reflection of population sparseness—for government policy-making in health, education, transport and housing.
There is a significant difference between rurality in England and the extreme examples of rurality to be found in Scotland and Wales. The Barnett formula assists with but does not adequately cover the genuine needs of our rural communities. Noble Lords may think that parts of England are rural—Herefordshire,which borders on where I live, was mentioned—but they bear no comparison with central Wales or the Scottish Highlands. Perhaps, with devolution in place, I should not talk about this, but noble Lords will know that Wales depends on a Welsh block grant that is calculated on a needs-based formula. If the needs are more generously funded, the Welsh block grant is greater, and we benefit. That assessment is often made throughout England, as well as in Scotland and Wales.
I shall use the area that I come from as a case study in rurality. Powys is vast and runs from the English border to Cardigan Bay and from the edge of Snowdonia to the valleys of South Wales. It is longer than the distance from London to Bristol; it is the equivalent of the distance from Hammersmith flyover
664
to the Severn Bridge. It is 132 miles long, but it has only 125,000 people in it. My former constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire alone is 87 miles by 45 miles and has 54,000 people in it. There are only 23 people per square kilometre. That is one measure of rurality that we ought to consider. Where we have a sparse population, we have a problem. Some 96 per cent of the land is in less favoured areas. In 1995, the gross domestic product was only 76 per cent of the European Union average; it is now less than that.
Areas of extreme rurality in the north west of England, in Northumberland—which I know well from working there—the south west of England, Scotland and Wales are mountainous, on the periphery of population centres, are sparsely populated and have practically no public transport. It often takes five hours or so to get from London, even to the area where I live. Such areas are heavily dependent on agriculture. For example, in Powys, 14 per cent of people gain their living directly from agriculture, and, in all, 20 per cent are dependent on it. That is more like Ireland than parts of England. The land is poor, and economic activity and output are low. A high proportion of the population—30 per cent—is self-employed. Wage levels are low, and the low level of household income is demonstrated by the low gross domestic product. There is rural poverty and isolation. There is an exodus of young people and a preponderance—up to 25 per cent of the population—of old people in the community. The demands on services are enormous.
How do the Government take account of all that in, for example, providing funding for local authorities? How much weight do they give to each factor I have mentioned compared with urban areas? Is the formula that is sometimes used in compensating rural authorities fair? In my experience, I think not.
There is social exclusion in many rural area of Great Britain. For example, in the county of Powys, where I live, there is no Marks & Spencer, no British Home Stores, no Dixon's, no Sainsbury's, no Tesco and no district general hospital. Between 1945 to 1990 in my previous constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire alone, 25 primary schools and three coal mines were closed. We have lost 60 per cent of our rail system; we have lost control of our ambulance and police services; we have lost four hospitals; we have lost control of our fire service; and our health authority has been abolished. Indeed, we have lost our probation service; we have lost our county courts; and we have recently lost another six magistrates' courts.
What measures are the Government applying in such situations? We have seen a severe weakness and I am trying to be objective in the debate. The decisions to make cuts and to reorganise are made far away from the people who are affected by them. Bureaucrats—I do not entirely blame politicians—in particular in high-rise offices are frequently ignorant of the impact of their decisions. They look at the map and cross out the only centres of economic activity in rural areas with the stroke of a pen.

665
In my time we have had to create our own upside. We have saved all our community hospitals but we have had to face battles royal to do so. We have saved many village schools. We have gone on protest marches to county council headquarters far away. We have saved the branches of many of the big four banks by going in busloads to the directors and haranguing them in their offices in the urban areas. We have saved manufacturing factories and lost some too. Through pure local effort, we have created in my constituency Brecon Jazz Festival which is attended every year by 50,000 people. Hay literary festival was created by local effort and we have launched three other festivals, too.
We have had to do that almost entirely alone. Rural areas need help. How will the Government positively help areas such as ours? Presently the average farmer earns £4,000 per annum, a sum less than the national minimum wage. Surely that quantifies rurality in an acute way What will the Minister do to provide a winning formula to overcome such deprivation?
In the early part of the new Labour Administration, we heard much about joined-up government. But, surely, all of those factors need to be joined together and integrated to produce a rurality factor which should be applied to ensure that the rural areas get fair play.
Finally, can the Minister explain the index of multiple deprivation in the rural context and where it applies" With the help of Oxford University, we have conducted some research in our area to bring together all the factors I have mentioned. When can a more level playing field be created and attained in rural areas—for example, by joining the euro, the single most important issue—to provide a fair price for farm produce and a real formula which compensates the rural areas in their hour of need? At present the youngsters are leaving in busloads.
8.24 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for having raised this interesting Question. I suspect that he has posed more questions than he has supplied answers and we shall look forward with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has to say.
I must start by declaring an interest as the owner of land in the North of England. In times past, the divisions between urban and rural were more clearly defined. Since the Industrial Revolution there has arisen a great blur between the two, although large areas of the country are clearly rural and it is to be hoped that they will always remain so.
One of the major changes which I suspect accounts for many of the conflicts and misunderstandings that arise between town and country is that here, unlike in France and many other European countries, many urban dwellers no longer live in the country and have ties there. Our food comes off the supermarket shelves and I fear that shoppers have little concept of how it is produced.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will have endless statistics to determine the word "rural" and that they will revolve around housing densities,
666
population numbers and so forth. But I have given a degree of thought to my noble friend's Question and I suspect that one of the simplest and, in England at any rate, one of the most accurate definitions of "rural" is land over which hunting takes place.I recommend that definition to the Minister. The definition would seem to fit tidily into government policy because if their objective is to remove any distinction between the rural and urban—to many of us living in the countryside that appears to be the Government's only clear policy on these matters—the abolition of hunting would be the simplest way of achieving that.
Without wanting to take a cynical view and without wanting to pre-empt the outcome of Mr Alun Michael's consultation process over the future of hunting, one possible outcome could be that all low-ground hunts—in other words, those invollving horses—could be outlawed, thus allowing the hill packs of England and Wales to continue under what I suspect would be some very spurious distinction.
However, on the face of it and under my definition, that would leave the hills remaining rural and the Government with a problem. The Government have pre-empted that and ensured that the final vestige of rural is removed by introducing the right to roam. On that point—and it is a serious point—it is already becoming clear from the consultation on the regulations of the CROW Bill how difficult it will be for the access authorities to make the Bill work effectively. I hope that the Minister makes note of what I am saying because many organisations which are having to deal with his officials on this matter and the Countryside Agency are finding it extremely difficult to make any sense of it at all.
There is a serious side to all this and those of us who live and work in the countryside see the Government's primary intention as being to turn rural areas into the playground of urban Britain. I fully acknowledge that those who are privileged to own land and to live in the country have many responsibilities. I include myself in that category. I believe it is incumbent on landowners and farmers to look after the land and the environment and to accommodate those who want to enjoy what the countryside has to offer. However, many are on the verge of collapse—sadly, many have already collapsed and with them have been lost many countryside skills. The combination of additional pressures and lack of income opportunities will be fatal for the countryside.What is needed is a strategy—a strategy for the future of rural Britain—and to date that has not been forthcoming.
I also acknowledge that the support which farmers receive through the CAP and through grants must be justified. The Minister knows my views on that and I believe that we should be considering fundamental rethinking of the way in which such subsidies and grants are applied.
In my view, however, what the Government certainly fail to understand is that if the countryside is expected to provide opportunities for others to enjoy it, then the views, the aspirations and, indeed, the traditions of those who live and invest there must be

667
respected, even if they are alien to some. Mere concern is not enough. The missing ingredient is understanding.
It is no good producing endless glossy consultations and reports from the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, and others, in particular when so few of those recommendations are actually implemented. What about the report from Sir Don Curry; there is some good stuff in there? So far we have heard nothing from the Government as regards whether they are going to implement a small part of it, a large part or the whole of the report. There was nothing in the Budget for rural Britain and, as my noble friend Lord Patten has already pointed out, the Countryside Agency, through Ewen Cameron—I believe that he calls himself the "countryside czar"—has been highly critical of the Government through the rural proofing objective or yardstick.
Everyone knows that rural communities receive less from government spending compared with metropolitan areas. Indeed, the latter receive an average of something like 20 per cent more under the standard spending assessment per capita than do the former. Council taxes are higher in rural areas, but those areas often receive poorer services. Rural housing, transport, education, police and health have all been short-changed. Without a proper infrastructure, investments and jobs will not reach their full potential. I do not say that the Government have done nothing. I acknowledge what has been done, but there is so much more to do. As I have already said, above all, we want to see a strategy.
The consequences of the foot and mouth outbreak have demonstrated only too well the unsustainability of the British countryside and the balance between its economy, its community and the environment. These fundamental issues need to be addressed. My noble friend has posed an interesting Question. The answer is not clear cut, but what I can say with certainty is that feelings are running high in rural Britain.
I shall finish with one little story, a true account which simply revolves around a conversation I had not so long ago with an elderly and very well respected Dales farmer. I asked him, "What do you think has been the greatest change that has occurred in your part of rural England over the past five or six years?". He thought about it for a moment, then he turned to me and said, "In the old days, Ministers and civil servants were batting for the farmers and for the rural communities. Now they appear to be against us".
8.33 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to participate in a debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Patten. I was intrigued to hear how he would address this issue and to find out exactly what way concerning him. I shall start by declaring my interest as a board member of the Countryside Alliance. I can assure my noble friend and the House that the Countryside Alliance is not sleeping or resting; it is working very hard indeed. The officials in DEFRA
668
would have noticed that last Friday when one or two of us arrived in person to deliver our letters in response to Mr Alun Michael—or should I say, one or two thousand of us came along. I suspect that we shall be coming along again and again and again.
In doing my homework for this evening, I turned to one of the many publications put out by the Minister's department to search for guidance. The new department includes "Rural Affairs" in its title, which I think must be a first. Among the noble Lord's departmental colleagues, it is the unfortunate Mr Alun Michael who has to shoulder the burden that makes up the role of Minister for Rural Affairs. He really does pick them, doesn't he? From Leader of the Welsh Assembly to Minister for hunting. I suppose that could be seen as leaping out of the frying pan and into the fire. I suspect that Mr Michael will go hill walking in Afghanistan in the Summer Recess for a little R&R.
It is obvious, therefore, that the Government attach some importance to the concept of rural Britain, but I have to say that it is not clear exactly what. I have never been a great fan of government publications. No doubt they have a role, but surely it is only to demonstrate that the department in question does in fact exist. Beyond that, they do not appear to serve much practical purpose. My noble friend Lord Patten mentioned the wonderful document entitled "Working for the Essentials of Life". Chapter 2 is entitled:
"Food and Farming: a sustainable future".
Facing that title page is a large photograph by which it states:
"Helping farmers to meet the needs of consumers".
In that short sentence may lie the nub of tonight's Question. Do the Government see their role as that of producing a countryside that suits the Government and the urban electorate, or is that role one of enabling those who live and work in the countryside, and who are largely responsible for how it has developed up until now, to continue to manage and develop it in the way they think best, in the way that their instincts lead them? Indeed, are those two very different positions mutually exclusive or can they be developed side by side?
There is virtually nothing in this bland document with which anyone could disagree. That is not a criticism; all corporate publications are bland. At the same time, however, it gives little clue as to the Government's political philosophy about the countryside. Although this is not strictly relevant to tonight's debate, it might help if some of the photographs in the document were captioned. The one at the bottom of page 18, which I would ask noble Lords to look at, is either a picture of some of those repulsive maggots that coarse anglers use as bait or it is a delicious mushroom risotto. I am not sure exactly what it is, but I do think that it is quite important to make such details clear. We would not want anyone to make a mistake.
Chapter 3 concerns rural communities and carries the motto, "Improving rural areas for everyone". Again, the central issue surfaces. Is it possible to

669
improve, develop or manage the countryside for the benefit of everyone, or must some interests be compromised for the benefit of others?
Perhaps I may give your Lordships a simple example: the right to roam. It is a marvellous thing to have opened up so much previously unvisited countryside for people to explore and enjoy. I think that it is a wonderful idea. However, I am clear that the right to roam is going to make life a great deal more difficult for many farmers and land managers. I am equally clear that it is going to be an absolute disaster for ground nesting birds in some places. I therefore conclude that in this case, rural policy has meant a policy that the Government have imposed on the countryside because, for unrelated reasons which may or may not be bad, it suited the Government rather than a policy that was designed for the benefit of the countryside or was requested by those who make up the rural population.
The new Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs arose from the ashes of the old Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, following the debacle of foot and mouth disease. I do not want to go over the foot and mouth outbreak again tonight, but I use the word "débâcle" because the manner in which MAFF was perceived to have handled that crisis was a major contributory factor in the demise of that department and the subsequent birth of DEFRA. Trust in MAFF collapsed as far as the fanning community was concerned.
It is important to understand the dynamics of the situation. Farming is at the heart of the rural community because farming is at the heart of the countryside. That is not to minimise the significance of other business activities taking place in the countryside, such as tourism and other new businesses that sit well within the countryside and may do so considerably more in the future. Rather it is to state again that, regardless of anything else, it is farming and farmers that have shaped our countryside, that have conserved our wildlife and have nurtured biodiversity.
At this point I wish to point out one exception. I am sorry to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is no longer in her place. As a Master of Hounds some 15 years ago, next door to my kennels was a very large estate owned by the Co-operative Society, of which the noble Baroness spoke so fondly. I know that she is closely involved with the society. Needless to say, the hounds were not welcome on that estate. However, the hounds did not want to go there. Every hedge had been ripped out, the covers were unmanaged and there were no foxes to be found. In fact, there were no animals on the entire estate. From that point of view, I believe that the Co-op should be absolutely ashamed of the way it manages its land.
Despite the Co-op, and because of farming's central role in the rural community, rural policy, whatever else it does, must first and foremost be designed for the needs of farming and farmers above all else—and I am not a farmer. Every other concern and pressure must come second. I do not say that farming itself should not occasionally make compromises and sacrifices to
670
accommodate the needs of others—of course it must—but second to farming should be the needs of others within the rural community. Then and only then should policies seek to address the needs of those many people and groups of people who have an interest in the countryside but are not of the countryside.
The more one thinks about it the more the logic of this approach becomes clear. The very reason that so many individuals and groups have an interest in and put pressure on the countryside is because of the way it is and the way it has become. It is therefore essential and must be the priority to maintain and develop that asset in a way that maintains that interest and pressure that are measures of the countryside's success. As soon as policy is focused on artificially creating those circumstances that exist naturally now, most of which have been created by the evolution of fanning practices, the whole edifice will come tumbling down and the countryside as we know it will increasingly be put at risk.
The single biggest threat at present is confidence. Foot and mouth disease resulted in the rural community suffering an enormous loss of faith in government. It does not matter whose fault it is, what matters is that that loss of trust is still there. DEFRA desperately needs to restore that faith and to earn once again the trust of the whole rural community, which has at its heart the farming community. Looking through the glossy publication I referred to, I can see that there is a huge amount of work planned and that the department has set itself some very demanding goals. I wish the department and its Ministers well in reaching those goals. I suspect most of your Lordships do also.
As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has said more than once in the House, hunting is by no means the most important issue on the agenda. I am sure the whole House would agree with that. It would therefore seem to be a strange way of going about restoring trust and building a strong relationship between this new department and the farming community to waste quite so much time on an issue that, although of obsessive interest to Members of another place, is not even on the agenda of country people but could well prevent the department from fulfilling any of the serious tasks it has set itself.
This is because the rural community believes that the consultation process announced by Mr Michael in another place and by the Minister in this House is a sham and that the outcome has already been decided. Unless Ministers can find some way of giving assurances that this is not the case—and the best assurance would obviously be to ensure that that process and its conclusion is open and transparent—that mistrust will simply grow. The Government have already commissioned an inquiry into hunting and that inquiry found that there was no case for a ban. If the Government now, after some secret and silent consultation, come up with a new reason for a ban, they will simply not be believed because that is not believable: it is not credible.

671
The problem of trust is not academic and it is important. If the rural community does not trust the new Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the work of that department will prove absolutely impossible to achieve. No amount of glossy brochures will save it and the department will have failed before it has even started. For DEFRA it is as serious as that. It is a rather round about way of saying that rural policy must be centred on farming, which is itself at the centre of the countryside, not policy designed by central government as a consequence of outside pressures and then imposed on an unwilling rural community, which will become increasingly angry and will not accept it.
8.44 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches feel that the debate is very timely and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, has introduced it today. It would be in DEFRA's own interests to define "rural" for three reasons. First, on all sides of the House and in all sections of the country people have agreed that CAP reform is urgent and needed, and the Government have stated that they support it strongly. CAP reform would see money moving from commodity support into rural development. I hope that, over time, a large chunk of money will begin to move as modulation takes effect, but if we do not know exactly what "rural" means it is very hard to see how rural development can take place in the way needed.
Under the Rural Development Commission some years ago there were rural development areas, which were a fairly blunt instrument for dispensing needed money. They succeeded somewhat given the fact that they had to cover broad geographical areas and do their best within them. The rural development areas became rural priority areas, which are still a blunt instrument for deciding where rural development is needed.
Let me give your Lordships an example of the kind of measurement that has been used over the years in these areas which may make it clear why it is very blunt. To measure pockets of poverty, one of the questions that is asked is: does every household have a car? In rural areas, nearly every household does have a car—I see the Minister raising his eyebrows—but it may be a very old, dilapidated car which is expensive to maintain on the road. So asking whether or not every household has a car is almost irrelevant as a measure of poverty. Much work needs to be done to make the information more sophisticated. I know that measurements have come down to ward level, but even that is not sophisticated enough because there can be quite wealthy wards with difficult pockets of poverty within them.
The second reason why DEFRA needs to address the rural question, referred to today and on several previous occasions in your Lordships' House, is rural proofing. This is failing. Ewen Cameron, who has been mentioned several times today as the countryside advocate, has commented that it is not succeeding.
672
He commented particularly on the magistrates' courts closures—I declare an interest as a Somerset county councilor—proposed in Minehead, Wells and Frome. My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury has mentioned court closures in other contexts in your Lordships' House. Losing those three courts in a county the size of Somerset will mean people having to travel an awfully long way to court. Frankly, I do not believe that if rural proofing was really taking place we would be seeing those closures.
The third reason was touched on eloquently by my noble friend Lord Livsey of Talgarth—that is, the fair public funding of services. There is grave concern about the lack of progress by the DTLR in constructing a new formula for allocating grants to local authorities. A new system will have to be constructed, tested and consulted on over the summer. That is a very tight timetable. Unless DEFRA takes a hand and encourages the DTLR to get on with it, the needs of rural England will be glossed over yet again.
The Government have failed to evaluate the extra costs of providing services in rural areas within England. But exercises have been undertaken to adapt the formula with respect to the sparsity factor in Scotland and Wales. Could not a similar assessment take place in England?
Noble Lords have referred to different ways of defining "rural". It goes without saying that in this country we accept that "rural" usually goes with "countryside". Noble Lords have interchanged the two words frequently today. But "countryside" is perhaps more evocative of landscape. We have a number of specific classifications—national parks, AONBs, ESAs and SSSIs. These are easy to spot rural areas where the environment and biodiversity are a key factor. In fact, they are often the only place where some species can live. Perhaps that makes them easier to define.
Rural areas could be defined by economy. It is particularly notable that in rural areas 90 per cent of small firms have 10 employees or fewer. Indeed, 99 per cent of firms in rural areas have fewer than 50 employees. That makes a clearly defined interest group. The Government have failed to take the issue of broadband access for those small firms seriously enough or soon enough. If they did so, it would help.
Rural areas show another big inequality in social terms. Housing stock by tenure is 13 per cent social housing in rural areas and 23 per cent in urban areas. At a time when demographic change is having a great impact on rural areas, that is the most urgent of the issues that the Government have failed to address. In many villages in southern England there is no affordable housing for any first-time buyer.
My final example is the lack of higher education establishments. A rural area might be defined as an area that has no such establishments. In the South West, that includes Somerset and Cornwall. The Joseph Rowntree study, Pathways to Social Inclusion and Exclusion, which deals with rural Scotland, highlights the fact that, as young people have no such institution in their area to go to, they move away and then find it extremely difficult to move back.

673
DEFR A may have struggled with a definition and therefore has not brought one before us, or perhaps it has made no attempt to define rural areas any further than it has done in its documents so far. It is essential that the department comes up with a definition, or at least consults on one so that we can have some input. In Working for the Essentials oflife, Secretary of State Margaret Beckett refers to,
"flourishing rural economies and communities, where everyone has fair access to services and the opportunity to contribule fully to national life".
I do not believe that that is helpful. It generalises and glosses over. We need clear definitions. For sound financial and social reasons, we need them now.
8.53 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, no less a paper than the Guardian last year published a market survey. It found that the richest areas and occupations other than agriculture and manufacturing have gained financially under new Labour. It noted that household income in Surrey was 88 per cent higher than in Cornwall and 80 per cent above the figure in Tyne and Wear. Deloitte & Touche published an analysis showing that the income for a typical 500-acre family-run farm fell from £80,000 to £2,500 in the five years to October 2001.
There have been debates, Statements, Oral Questions and Written Questions galore in this House about the rural scene, and particularly about farming, as the Minister knows only too well. There can be no doubt that rural affairs are—or should be—an important part of the Government's agenda. They have held the reins of power for almost exactly five years. When they took over, farm incomes were a reasonable reward for long hours, outdoors, in all weathers, using high-cost equipment. When they took over, tourism was healthy, vibrant and expanding. Traditional businesses were busy and in many areas new industries were setting up offices, often in converted farm buildings. A great proportion—I think that the figure is about one-third—of small businesses are now based in rural areas.
However, farm incomes now for all but the few moguls and the small number of specialist producers are derisory. The tourism industry is still reeling from the effects of the delayed reaction to the discovery of foot and mouth. A consortium of small businesses is set to challenge the Government in the courts to recover —7 billion.
The Government have responded in typical new Labour style. The Haskins report was produced, was acclaimed and was never heard of again. The Curry report has been published against a very tight deadline, has been Welcomed—rapturously by the Secretary of State and fulsomely by the Prime Minister—and has been moved from the front burner to the back burner to, I think, the warming plate.
We have had all these reports, all this talk and all these fine words about the importance of rural affairs, including the production of the rural White Paper, yet in five years of rural decline, the Government have not attempted a working definition of "rural" to be used by all departments and agencies.
674
I am willing to start the ball rolling. I suggest that the definition must be measurable, must be usable in targets, in statistics and in the courts, must include sparsity and should be relatively easily understood. It should be refined by the sorts of minds that have proved themselves capable of taking information and working practices from one area of human endeavour and applying it successfully to another. I have in mind an organisation such as the Silsoe Research Institute.
A working definition of "rural" may well be found in a conjunction of densities of population, of housing and of A roads, trunk routes and motorways—or, as others have said, where hunting takes place. Currently, the Government take as their baseline a population under 10,000. I believe that that figure is too high. Perhaps the Minister will clarify it for us and say whether the Government will define "very rural".
I have already touched on some aspects of the rural decline. Any definition must be clearly relevant to a way of life that the Government say that they value, but which they seem bent on destroying by negative action or by direct inaction. Negative action comprises the sort of bureaucratic diktats guaranteed to discourage what they purport to support. For instance, we debated the new code of conduct for local councils during Questions this afternoon. The limit at which hospitality and gifts have to be reported has been set at £25, compared with £1,000 in this House. The declaration of interests covers every member of the family, even unto the third generation, as well as the in-laws and partners. That is ridiculous.
Negative action is exemplified by behaviour such as accepting responsibility for stewardship schemes, extolling their value and relevance and then keeping them so short of funds that more applicants are rejected than are accepted. Negative action is to be found in the decision to "save" £300 million to £400 million per annum by taking away from sub-post offices the processing of benefit books and the use of Giro cheques. That saving alone is equivalent to the cost of running another place for at least 18 months.
Who loses out the most? The proposal will cost the poor dearly. With nothing to offer the banks—they will have to shell out £180 million for getting involved—the poor will be wide open to bank charges, credit manipulation and, if the Tax Credits Bill is not amended, the loss of benefit should they happen to lose their bank account.
Finally, negative action is the gracious permission (granted to the organisers of agricultural shows just starting and of events) to include livestock, followed by the laying down of rules that render such activities nearly impossible, while at the same time allowing open access to the countryside, where walkers can walk over farmland and have direct contact with livestock. That is nonsense.
Direct inaction is where the Government have one of their consultations, followed by a paper, followed by a Bill which results in an Act that ignores a central issue. I instance here the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2001 and its lack of provision for farmers and land managers to charge for the provision of some

675
services that are essential to the maintenance of areas open to access—I refer to litter collection, loos, stiles and signposts, to name but a few—and the Government's refusal to allow parish councils to set up parking areas and charge for their use. Those of us who live in the country and come to the town to visit know very well that we pay parking fees when we come. Why on earth is it different for rural areas? My noble friend Lord Mancroft also specifically dealt with the threat to our wildlife and our ground-nesting birds.
When I think of direct inaction, I think of magistrates' courts, which have already been referred to by my two colleagues on the Liberal Benches. The answer to a Written Question to the Minister which I tabled on 16th April listed 94 magistrates' courts closures in the past five years. Of those, 44 were at least 10 miles from the nearest alternative court. Should the Government demand increased efficiency from their servants and then acquiesce as they comply at the expense of some of the least advantaged of our society? Poor people have to spend a proportionately greater part of their income to attend a more distant court.
Direct inaction dictates that the Government ignore the problems of affordable housing in their planning reviews. In areas where brownfield or in-fill land is scarce, could they not decree that some small plots—under 2.5 acres, for example—be used solely for affordable starter and retirement homes? Unless and until the Government take this sort of action, young people will continue to move to the towns. It is possible to work in town and live in a village, but if neither job nor home is available, the countryside must be abandoned. The whole awful downward spiral will continue, and no longer will young families be part of our rural villages.
Finally, and worst of all, the combination of negative action and direct inaction leads to hidden poverty. Many view villages as wealthy, and indeed some of them are. Wealthy incomers buy up country properties, renovate them and move in. However, they continue to work in the city, shop in the city, socialise with their friends in the city and educate their children in the city. Back "home", however, the shop closes, the pub becomes a mere dwelling and the bus timetable is cut.
I doubt that the Government truly understand what makes rural life tick. I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Patten for highlighting the need for a proper definition of the word "rural" and for drawing attention to the needs of those living in rural Britain. Rural Britain continues to wait—not for more consultation, but for action. Action would help to restore confidence. Our countryside needs action, and it needs it now.
9.3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, in the tradition of the House, I shall thank the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for initiating this debate. Like other noble Lords, he has
676
anticipated that he will not receive a straight answer to his question, as the issue is somewhat more complicated than many noble Lords have suggested. Indeed, there has been a slight contradiction between those who have demanded a single and clear definition of what is rural and what is not, and those who have said that the problems of rural areas are many and varied and we have to tackle them in different ways.
There is a huge difference between different areas that are manifestly rural. Although I hesitate to stray into Wales—as the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, indicated, it is somewhat beyond my competence and, to some extent, that of the House—I shall do so. Rural Powys, as described by the noble Lord, is dramatically different from a village in Berkshire. Nevertheless, both are unmistakably rural. Although both have problems of social exclusion, they are very different sorts of problems. One set of problems is the result of huge pressure on services and the over-heating caused by supplying a workforce to London, Reading and Oxford, whereas the other is due effectively to depopulation, as the noble Lord described. However, they are both rural. So we need some distinctiveness in how we describe different rural areas. I shall return to that subject in a moment.
As always when the House discusses rural matters, a large number of other issues have been raised. I shall address some of them, but not others. First, however, I should like to say—once and for all, although I somehow doubt it—that the canard about the Government not caring about the countryside and those who live in it, which has been repeated again today, is completely wrong. We recognise that much more needs to be done; that some of the changes in the past 20-odd years, let alone the past five, have been detrimental to some rural areas; and that we therefore need a fresh start in rural policy, which was signalled in the rural White Paper and given—I was going to say "concrete"—effect by the creation of DEFRA and the responsibilities across the rural agenda for which my ministry now has responsibility.
Lord Patten: My Lords, in asserting that the Government do care, would the Minister like to say why—as Mr Ewen Cameron, the rural advocate or countryside czar, has pointed out—the Government's own Social Exclusion Unit has no action programme of any substance in relation to the countryside and rural areas? Is that the mark of a government who care?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is not a question of the Social Exclusion Unit not having a policy for social exclusion in rural areas—it does have such a policy—but of whether its overall policy has been effectively rural proofed in the terms described when we established the rural proofing process in the rural affairs White Paper. We have given the Countryside Agency a clear responsibility to engage in an independent view.
Mr Cameron is doing his job, which we appointed him to do less than two years ago, which entails examining every aspect of government policy to

677
determine whether it is sufficiently rural proofed. Surely, in 18 months., he will find many spheres in which that is not sufficiently the case. Rural proofing, however, is a process that is now embedded in that monitoring process. It needs to be increasingly embedded within mainstream policy right across all departments including—I regret to say—aspects of my own. We are therefore working hard to deliver what is required for proper rural proofing. It is right that the countryside advocate should point out where there are deficiencies. I hope that he continues to do that. But I also hope and believe that those areas of deficiency will diminish.
There are areas I shall not comment on. I shall not be provoked into discussing hunting tonight. We may have the odd opportunity to discuss that in the future. I shall not be dragged too far by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, into discussing the Welsh constitutional settlement or Welsh local government reorganisation. Nor shall I discuss the role of the Countryside Alliance, as I was tempted to do by the noble Lords, Lord Patten and Lord Mancroft. As we shall no doubt have to return to it, I shall not discuss the assessment of the effectiveness of the control of foot and mouth. There will be many occasions on which we shall return to that despite the blocking of the Animal Health Bill. I record once again that I regret that and that we may live to regret it.
I shall not discuss in any detail the economics of farming. We again shall have other possibilities to discuss that more generally. It is an important part of the whole of the rural area but the Government's commitment to the broad strategy outlined in the Curry commission's report is well known. We are pursuing that and we have already announced a large number of initiatives in that respect. As regards its spending dimension, however, we have always made clear that that will become clear after the spending review is completed this summer.
I make one other comment in relation to farming in response to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. He says that the future of the countryside depends on our putting farming first, the rest of the rural economy second and the rest of the population third. However, that is the wrong way round. If farming and the countryside as a whole do not produce the food and the products which the rest of the population wish to buy and eat, and if it does not open its doors to tourists and others who come to do business and spend money in the countryside, we shall indeed experience an economic collapse in part of our countryside. The idea that the countryside and the town should be separate in their decisions and should not relate to each other has perhaps aggravated some of the problems within the countryside today. That is exactly what the Curry commission is addressing—the need for there to be a total approach to the food chain, for farmers to be closer to consumers and for consumers to understand better and get closer to primary producers and growers. It is exactly that integrated approach which is needed and not a separation of what goes on in the countryside from that which goes on elsewhere.
678
A number of noble Lords made good points. My noble friend Lady Thornton was right to underline not only the importance of rural proofing but also the establishment of the rural forum by my right honourable friend Alun Michael, who is bringing together a significant number of rural and countryside interests to inform the overall approach of departments to policy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, rightly made the point that often there are pockets of difficulty and deprivation within rural areas which need to be addressed. Other noble Lords made important points in relation to deprivation, isolation and the lack of services within rural areas. All of those points are addressed in a strategy arising from the rural White Paper which we shall follow through.
However, the Question relates to definition. Definition is always difficult. A single definition is particularly difficult. The primary definition at the moment, which was originally drawn up by the former Rural Development Commission and is now adopted by the Countryside Agency, takes local government structures as the basic structures. That is partly because many services and the allocation of resources have to be carried out through local government. Its current form identifies 145 rural, local and unitary authorities as rural. One would think that that is straightforward but it excludes a number of areas.
There are problems of substantial significance at the edges of that definition. It excludes obviously the main conurbations but also towns at the centre of rural areas such as Cambridge or Exeter. The question of exactly where the delineation runs is important. For example, Carlisle district is not rural under the definition, despite containing a significant rural hinterland, as the bulk of the population is found in an urban area and the bulk of the district is urban. However, the population density of the district as a whole., at 99 persons per square kilometre, is almost exactly the same as Mid-Suffolk. In Mid-Suffolk, however, the largest urban area, Stowmarket, has only 13,000 people. Nevertheless, on a density basis, the two would be treated the same. On an urban/rural definition, they fall either side of the divide.
In north Somerset, the unitary authority is classified by the Countryside Agency as urban. The population is 499 persons per square kilometre. That compares with Arun in Sussex which is 50 per cent bigger in density but is classified as rural. There are these difficulties. The difficulty also prevails when one moves down to use a single definition for differentiating between wards on the Countryside Agency approach.
There is also the question of the use of the definition. For different services and policies, different definitions are appropriate. For various transport reasons, we use distance and isolation. However, most transport routes go from a town into the country or between towns. Therefore, one would involve quite large towns in the definition of a rural bus or rail route. Therefore for different policies, different criteria are probably necessary.

679
However, we recognise what underlies the question: that we need a more co-ordinated and consistent approach to the categorisation. That is why DEFRA, DTLR, the Countryside Agency and the Office for National Statistics are now working together for a better set of definitions of "urban" and "rural" areas. In the short term, we are using the widely available definition developed by the Countryside Agency to which I have referred. That will be amended somewhat by a classification which is about to be recommended by a study which was commissioned by the DTLR. In its present draft it is almost 40 pages long. It will alter slightly the definition used by the Countryside Agency.
We need a more fundamental change of approach. An interdepartmental group of officials—DEFRA, DTLR, ONS, and so on—is working together to develop a new classification over the next 18 months. The aim is to develop a simple classification which is based more on land use, settlement pattern and the economic activity of very small areas; it would be significantly below ward level. The mechanism would be developed to build these up into a classification for larger areas. We would then have the basis for producing rural statistics by identification of these smaller areas, or aggregation of those smaller areas, which could be used for policy for local government, Whitehall and the devolved administrations.
If we are to address the real needs of the rural areas, we do not need a simplistic single definition. We need an approach to rural areas such as we are now developing so that we can identify problems of deprivation, isolation and lack of particular services at very low levels of disaggregation. We shall then have not simply one definition of "rural"—we may still have an overarching local authority definition—but a suite of definitions upon which we can draw as appropriate but as understood for various different purposes.
680
I realise that that is not a sufficient and complete reply to the noble Lord, Lord Patten. However, it is an indication of the way in which we need to move for policy purposes.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify one point. Two noble Lords mentioned courthouses and post offices. Is the Minister's department taking a lead in bringing this profile to the attention of other departments? At present, those bodies are getting lost.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the issue of courthouses and access to justice generally is the subject of intense discussions between my department and the Lord Chancellor's Department.
On the decisions of Consignia, that is somewhat at arm's length from government. Nevertheless, an overall rural policy issue is involved with the continued closure of a number of rural and urban post offices. Together with the DTLR and DTI, we are engaged with the Post Office in looking at that process. As with other areas of the provision of services and the economic effects of broader policies on the countryside, my department is responsible for hassling other departments and agencies, ensuring that they take the rural dimension very seriously indeed, and in particular the social implications in rural areas for some of those changes.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee without amendment and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past nine o'clock.

  UK Population and Parliamentary Electors
  UK Population and Parliamentary Electors
  Labour Voters
  Labour Voters
  Paddington Tube Station: 18 April Closure
  Paddington Tube Station: 18 April Closure
  Galileo
  Galileo
  Postal Votes
  Postal Votes
  Speed Cameras
  Speed Cameras
  Airline Passengers
  Airline Passengers
  Freedom of Information Act 2000: Section 75
  Freedom of Information Act 2000: Section 75
  Death Penalty
  Death Penalty
  Northern Ireland: Victim Support
  Northern Ireland: Victim Support
  Omagh Bomb Victims
  Omagh Bomb Victims
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland: Proposed Criminal Justice Inspectorate
  Northern Ireland: Proposed Criminal Justice Inspectorate
  China: Family Planning Abuse Allegations
  China: Family Planning Abuse Allegations
  Cross-Channel Illegal Migration: Anglo-French Co-operation
  Cross-Channel Illegal Migration: Anglo-French Co-operation
  Sex Discrimination Act 1975
  Sex Discrimination Act 1975
  Late Payments Legislation
  Late Payments Legislation
  Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils
  Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils
  Education Bill
  Education Bill
  Secondary Schools: Performance Tables
  Secondary Schools: Performance Tables
  Rural Areas: 14–19 Strategy
  Rural Areas: 14–19 Strategy
  National Trust: Lottery Funding
  National Trust: Lottery Funding
  Cultural Property
  Cultural Property
  Hunting, Angling and Shooting
  Hunting, Angling and Shooting
  Illegal Meat Imports
  Illegal Meat Imports