Sitting of 15 January 2002

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

    Free Television Licences
    Mr. David Marshall: How many pensioners in Scotland receive the free television licences for people over 75 years of age. [25070]
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): More than 300,000 pensioners in Scotland benefit from free television licences, but this measure forms just part of our overall package of generous support for pensioners.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank the Minister for his reply, which shows just what an excellent and worthwhile measure that is. Will he convey to his ministerial colleagues the suggestion that the qualifying age should be reduced from 75 to 70? In view of the difficulties that many poor people and those on low incomes have in meeting the ever-increasing cost of the television licence fee, will he also convey to them that now is perhaps the time to consider alternative methods of funding the BBC?
    Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his initial helpful remarks. As far as funding the BBC is concerned, it has been looked at a number of times and this and previous Governments concluded that the licence fee is the best way to achieve that. On reducing the age of qualifying for free television licences, perhaps my hon. Friend and, indeed, I might have to declare an interest in that in the near future.
    As you know, Mr. Speaker, I used to be director of Age Concern Scotland, and we had a number of demands for the then Tory Government, none of which was accepted. This Government have implemented those demands one by one by one, including free television licences for the very elderly, who are less able to take advantage of other things, such as concessionary fares. That shows the generous way in which the Government have dealt with our old people.
    Annabelle Ewing: As we are discussing benefits that are available to pensioners in Scotland, are the Minister and his colleagues in the Scotland Office
    136
    disappointed that the dead hand of Westminster has put paid to free personal care for Scottish pensioners as originally envisaged, or are he and his—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should sit down. She is going way beyond the scope of the question, so the Minister should not respond.
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Can the Minister give an idea of the cost of reducing the age of those eligible for free television licences from 75 to 65?
    Mr. Foulkes: I cannot off the top of my head give an exact figure, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to. What I can tell him is that the cost would be very substantial and we would have to consider it in the light of all the other demands placed on the budget, especially as they relate to the elderly. I think that it was more important to introduce the £200 winter fuel allowance for every old person than it was to provide free television licences for them, which would be very expensive.

    Regulation
    Mr. Mark Prisk: How many new regulatory measures affecting Scottish business the Government have (a) introduced and (b) abolished since 1999. [25071]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I n introducing new regulations, the Government are very careful to take account of the needs of the business community.
    Mr. Prisk: I am grateful for that concise reply. Given that small businesses in Scotland spend more than 31 hours every month trying to comply with regulations, does the Secretary of State agree that those regulations represent a burden and put Scottish businesses at a competitive disadvantage? Does she also agree that the improving regulations in Scotland unit has failed in its particular task?
    Mrs. Liddell: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I know something about the small business community in Scotland, having previously run a small business, having been a sole trader and having set up other small businesses. I believe that the small business community in Scotland, like the overall business community in Scotland, is very grateful for the fact that since 1997 the Government have reduced corporation tax by nearly 25 per cent. In addition, we are committed to extending the 10p corporation tax rate, we are reducing and simplifying value added tax procedures and our capital gains tax regime is one of the simplest in the world and much more favourable than that in the United States. Indeed, in introducing what is in effect an MOT on regulation, which ensures that regulations are checked on a 10-yearly basis, the Scottish Executive are taking the sensible way forward, and it has been mirrored in the approbation that the small business community has shown towards such an approach.
    Mr. Bill Tynan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent Trades Union Congress

    137
    research on the burden of regulation on business? Does she agree that at 5p a week, the cost of maternity provision is certainly a price worth paying for women of child-bearing age? Does she also agree that issues such as fire prevention, which costs less than 1p a week, are very important? If our businesses honoured their responsibilities, we would not need such legislation.
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a good and important point. In reality, much regulation is aimed at ensuring that the good employers who implement good conditions of work for their employees are not undercut by unscrupulous cowboys. Indeed, I draw attention to the fact that the national minimum wage has transformed the lives of 135,000 Scots. The benefits of regulation far outweigh the costs. Notwithstanding that, the Government have been anxious to ensure, through the introduction of the Small Business Service, that the level of regulation is proportionate, so that small firms continue to grow and our economy becomes even more competitive.
    John Thurso: Is it not the case that much unnecessary regulation in Scotland comes from the Government's block on using derogations available under EU legislation? In that regard, will the Secretary of State seek to persuade the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to use the derogations available to alleviate the plight of small farmers and crofters who are drowning under a sea of paper?
    Mrs. Liddell: One of the Government's commitments is to be an active player in the European Union, but we also want to make sure that the systems under which we operate are proportionate and suited to the operation of our economy and our industries. I believe that we are doing that. In 1997, Britain was very much on the sidelines of Europe, and we have since become leaders in the EU. As a consequence, we are able to have a much greater impact on regulation to suit the economy not only of the urban but of the rural community.
    Mr. John McFall: May I caution the Secretary of State against the siren voices that call for complete absence of regulation? We are mindful of the financial scandals that are occurring—for example, those concerning Independent Insurance Co. Ltd. and Equitable Life, whose policyholders are writing to us. We need to exercise a light regulatory touch while fostering economic progress. Is not the big issue in Scotland's economy today the historically low growth of Scottish businesses? There is a need for the Government and local communities to ensure that those businesses are stimulated so that their growth equals the UK average and there are least 200,000 more people in employment.
    Mrs. Liddell: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Like most Members of the House, whenever Equitable Life is mentioned I have to declare an interest because, again like most Members, I have policies with that company. It is important that we create the proper climate for entrepreneurship so that new firms can be set up. Historically, Scotland has a problem with the formation of new firms, and the Government and the Scottish Executive are working together to address that. At the same time, there is a need for transparent and easily
    138
    understood regulation to ensure that the most vulnerable in our communities—in that group I include pensioners and those nearing retirement age—have the maximum protection available.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Will the Secretary of State come clean and admit to the House that Labour's extra burdens on business are destroying jobs? Is she aware that, in 2001, 20,842 jobs were lost in Scotland and that Britain as a whole fell from ninth to 19th in the world competitiveness league? How many more people have to lose their jobs before Labour realises that the business of government is not the government of business?
    Mrs. Liddell: Despite the fact that many members of the right hon. Gentleman's party lost their jobs in 1997—losses that were consolidated in 2001—I point out that Scotland has the highest levels of employment and the lowest levels of unemployment for more than a generation. Perhaps if he knew rather more about Scotland he would be able to understand that, and he would be prepared to join me in congratulating those businesses that have created jobs in Scotland and those people who have moved themselves from welfare into work, particularly the long-term unemployed, and he would be prepared to recognise the scale of the achievement in Scotland. There are more people in work now than there were when his Government left office in 1997.

    Friends of Scotland
    Mr. John Lyons: What plans she has for future activity as part of her Friends of Scotland initiative. [25072]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): At the end of this week I shall travel to Hong Kong and Guangzhou in China and to Malaysia on trade-related business, and I shall take the opportunity to launch the Friends of Scotland initiative there. Indeed, in all my international travels I shall make a point of raising the initiative, both with posts abroad and with the expatriate Scottish community.
    Mr. Lyons: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. It is important that we use her visit to make sure that millions of Scots all over the world know about Friends of Scotland and know that they can play a part in the initiative. To some extent, we are pushing an open door. People want to help and we need to use my right hon. Friend's visit to say to people, "If you want to come back to Scotland on holiday or on business, you will be made very welcome and you can play an important part in shaping Scotland's future."
    Mrs. Liddell: I thank my hon. Friend. I am looking forward to attending a Burns supper in Hong Kong next Tuesday night, and I shall certainly make a point of reiterating the fact that we always welcome expatriate Scots who return to Scotland. My hon. Friend made an important point. I am have been much taken with the response of the business community and people in diplomatic posts abroad and their enthusiasm for the Friends of Scotland initiative, which has been helped by

    139
    the ready response to it from the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the First Minister and the leaders of Scotland's business and commercial communities.
    We are pushing at an open door and it is incumbent on every Member of Parliament, regardless of which political party they support, to do what they can to encourage expatriate Scots and those who regard themselves as friends of Scotland to come back and visit Scotland and see the changes that have taken place, not least the establishment by the Labour Government of the Scottish Parliament, of which Robert Burns would have approved.
    John Barrett: Does the Secretary of State agree that some of the best friends of Scotland work in the film, television and music industries and that one of the best ways to help them in their work promoting Scotland throughout the world would be an early start to the construction of a central Scotland film studio?
    Mrs. Liddell: Matters such as the construction of a film studio are for the Scottish Executive to deal with, but I entirely support the hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of the creative industries, particularly film and television. We have only to consider the huge success of "Monarch of the Glen", which is now viewed by 50 million people, to see that it is a fantastic showcase for the highlands of Scotland. I was glad to be able to support that with a reception in Dover house just before Christmas. The advisory committee that I have formed to help me with the Friends of Scotland initiative includes Douglas Rae who, of course, is the producer of "Monarch of the Glen" and the upcoming new film "Charlotte Gray".
    Mr. Iain Luke: When my right hon. Friend makes her visit to east Asia, on which I warmly congratulate her, will she take the opportunity to reach out to the many thousands of Malaysian students who have studied in Scottish universities, many of whom have got degree certification at their universities through a joint partnership with the university of Abertay in Dundee? Will she use the connections that she will make with Malaysian business men who have graduated from Scottish universities to bolster Scottish commerce and trade in future?
    Mrs. Liddell: As the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), my Opposition shadow, well knows, Scottish universities have strong links, especially with Malaysia. She and I, as graduates of Strathclyde university, know about huge initiatives in Malaysia, particularly in business education. I know from the connections of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) with the university of Abertay that he is well aware of the huge opportunities available there.
    My officials have met, and are meeting, representatives of the Scottish universities so that we can join together to promote Scottish education internationally. In both China and Malaysia, I intend to meet representatives of the academic community so that we can showcase the best of Scottish education and the huge benefits that our economy derives from students from the far east coming to Scotland, particularly to get postgraduate degrees.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the Friends of Scotland initiative
    140
    and I look forward to the day when we have a dedicated Westminster Minister to promote friendship with Northern Ireland as well. When the Secretary of State is in the far east, I hope that she will be mindful of the near west and the strong Ulster Scots tradition in Northern Ireland. We are willing to be supportive and trust that she will develop further the existing links with Northern Ireland.
    Mrs. Liddell: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his supportive remarks. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is very much a friend of Northern Ireland and, indeed, a friend of Scotland. As the Prime Minister has recognised, in showcasing all the component parts of the United Kingdom we present an even more attractive picture of the UK, not just to tourists but to bring in inward investment. Our standing in the world is high at the moment; this is an ideal opportunity for us to cement warm feelings for all the component parts of the UK, wherever we work internationally.

    Barnett Formula
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When she last discussed the future of the Barnett formula with Treasury Ministers. [25073]
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with Treasury Ministers on a wide range of issues. I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House for the third time that there are no Government plans to review the Barnett formula.
    Mr. Winterton: I ask my supplementary question as a totally committed Conservative and Unionist Member of the House. Does the Minister accept that the Barnett formula was introduced some two decades ago as a temporary measure, and that it currently produces levels of public expenditure per capita in Scotland far greater than in many areas of England, where there are equal problems of poverty and deprivation? For that reason, does he not believe that the current situation is unfair? Although he speaks as a Scottish Minister, does he not believe that there should be a review and reform of the Barnett formula, despite his initial response to my question?
    Mr. Foulkes: I have never doubted the hon. Gentleman's Unionist credentials. One of the reasons why I enjoy Scottish questions is that I hear English Tories such as the hon. Gentleman say that the Barnett formula is far too generous to Scotland. I am fed up of hearing the other point of view—the moaning minnies, the whingers of the Scottish National party, saying that the formula is unfair to Scotland. The truth is that the Barnett formula is stable, flexible and fair. If the English Tories think that it is too generous and the SNP thinks that it is too mean, I think that it is just about right.
    Mr. David Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Barnett formula has brought tremendous benefits to Scotland? For example, in 1997 when the Government came to power,

    141
    the Scottish Office spent £15 billion. Today, the Scottish Executive spends almost £21 billion. Is not that the benefit of Scotland being within the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Foulkes: There speaks the real voice of Scotland. It is the success of the United Kingdom Government's economic strategy and our policies that enable the Scottish Executive to have the extra money to spend. An extra £3.4 billion of new money has been spent in Scotland over the period of the current spending review, plus an extra £200 million in last year's Budget, and, as if that were not enough, an extra £86 million in the pre-Budget review. I wish that some of those who try to pretend that they represent Scotland would understand, appreciate and acknowledge that.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: As health spending comes under the terms of the Barnett formula, can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether Scotland Ministers have had discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions or the Scottish Executive since 12 October last year on the subject of attendance allowance for the elderly receiving free personal care in Scotland, what advice they have given, and whether they would be prepared to publish the correspondence?
    Mr. Foulkes: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for asking me that question. I can therefore announce to the House that the Executive have announced today, after dialogue with the Department for Work and Pensions and other Whitehall Departments, that they will meet the full cost of delivering free personal care from within Executive resources.
    Mrs. Lait: I am delighted that the Scottish Executive have resolved the dilemma that they had with Whitehall, but that does not negate my question about the discussions that Scotland Office Ministers have had. For the sake of clarity, can the Minister tell us whether he or the Secretary of State backed the transfer of funds from Whitehall to Scotland or supported the Scottish Executive?
    Mr. Foulkes: I had a number of discussions with Malcolm Chisholm during the consideration by the care development review. I made the views of Whitehall extremely clear on every occasion.

    Economic Trends
    Mr. Alex Salmond: When she last met the Chairman of Scottish Enterprise to discuss trends in the Scottish economy; and if she will make a statement. [25074]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I meet regularly with a wide range of bodies and people to discuss aspects of the Scottish economy, including Scottish Executive Ministers and senior officials from Scottish Enterprise. The fundamentals of the Scottish economy as part of the United Kingdom remain strong—high levels of employment, low levels of unemployment, strong public finances, low inflation and the lowest interest rates since the 1960s.
    Mr. Salmond: Is the Secretary of State aware that, since she told us last month that the Scottish economy
    142
    had been performing well, there have been further thousands of job losses in Scotland? We are only three months away from the imposition of the aggregates tax, which will take another £40 million out of the Scottish economy and increase the cost of every infrastructure project in every constituency and council area of Scotland. Now that the Northern Ireland Assembly has successfully negotiated with the Treasury exemption from certain aspects of the aggregates tax, will she open discussions with the Treasury, or will we have another swindle in which, as we have just heard, Whitehall Departments take more money out of the Scottish economy, with further thousands of job losses in Scotland?
    Mrs. Liddell: Not only is the hon. Gentleman content to whinge for Scotland, but he does not even care about its environment. The extent of his self-interest is dramatic. This is the man who was going to leave Parliament and decried us; he was going to go to the Scottish Parliament and then he was going to come back. At Christmas time he told us that the Scottish Parliament would soon be good enough to accept him back. There is no end to his self-interest—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State should tell us about her policies, not those of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).

  The Advocate-General was asked—
  ADVOCATE-GENERAL

    Sewel Motions
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: If she will make a statement on the operation of the Sewel motions procedure. [25039]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): The Sewel motions procedure, which is reflected in the memorandum of understanding between the Government and the devolved Administrations, states that this Parliament would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the agreement of the devolved legislature. The devolved Administration are responsible for seeking such agreement. Sewel motions are the method by which the Scottish Executive seek to obtain the agreement of the Scottish Parliament. They are a matter of practice, not law. A Sewel motion, whether it is approved or not, has no bearing on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, as set out in the Scotland Act 1998, or on the legislative competence of the UK Parliament.
    Mr. Carmichael: I thank the Advocate-General for that answer, but does she agree that the operation of Sewel motions presents a number of practical problems? It does not allow Members of this House to question the Ministers who have direct executive responsibility, because they are part of the Scottish Executive. Will she have discussions with the Leader of the House to ensure that, in future, when legislation that comes before this House as the result of a Sewel motion has been given its

    143
    Second Reading, it will be committed to a Special Standing Committee under Standing Order No. 91, which will allow evidence to be taken from Scottish Ministers?
    The Advocate-General: I regret to tell the hon. Gentleman that I see no reason whatever to enter into such discussions with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Of course, he is entitled to enter into such discussions if he wishes to do so.
    On procedure in the Scottish Parliament, it is entirely a matter for that Parliament to decide how to deal with the motions. As for procedure in this House, the UK Parliament always has competence to deal with these matters. Hon. Members are always entitled to raise any issues about which they want to speak that are within that competence.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Does the Advocate-General accept that the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which is currently travelling through the House, is a very good example of legislation that has been supported by the Scottish Executive and by the Government in this House and that it will bring enormous benefits to Scotland? Does she agree that, rather than trying to invent mechanisms to cause difficulties, the Liberals, whom I thought were our chums, would be much better advised to co-operate with us in processing the Bill as quickly as possible?
    The Advocate-General: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Scottish Parliament has co-operated on many occasions with the UK Government in order to bring forward legislation, probably more quickly than the Scottish Parliament alone might have done, bearing in mind its heavy legislative programme. The Proceeds of Crime Bill is a very good example of that. Therefore, my view is that the two Parliaments are working well together to help the citizens of Scotland to get the sort of legislative programme that they deserve.

    Human Rights (Devolution)
    Miss Anne McIntosh: When she last had discussions with the Scottish Executive on human rights cases involving devolution. [25040]
    The Advocate-General: My officials and I have discussions with the Scottish Executive when necessary about devolution issues that raise human rights points.
    Miss McIntosh: Following my supplementary question on the same point during Question Time last month, will the hon. and learned Lady confirm that she intervened in 20 cases? Rather than simply saying that she has saved money, will she explain, without false modesty, what added value she has brought to her position?
    The Advocate-General: I think it was 20 cases—I thought I had written to the hon. Lady about that. I shall give her the exact figure, which is in that region. I cannot go through the whole 20 cases now, but I intervene in cases for a range of reasons. For example, I might wish to bring to the court's attention the position of the law in England and Wales. In the misuse of drugs legislation, it was important to clarify the position and its effect in
    144
    England and Wales. The reasons therefore differ in the 20 cases. I am more than happy to hold informal discussions with the hon. Lady about them.

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

    Lay Magistracy
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: What plans he has to encourage more applications to join the lay magistracy; and if he will make a statement. [25043]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): The Lord Chancellor's local advisory committees tailor recruitment initiatives to local needs so that magistrates benches are representative of the community. In Norfolk, the advisory committee participated, for example, in a regional television broadcast and had interviews with magistrates published in the local press. Such activities led to an increase in the number of magistrates in Norfolk from 13 in 1997 to 30 in 2001.
    The Lord Chancellor has commissioned a national strategy for recruiting lay magistrates, which will be announced shortly.
    Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful for that reply, but the Government are not doing enough. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that a record number of lay magistrates resigned last year? Many of those in my constituency cited low morale and a sense of being undervalued by the Government. Is he also aware that 22 magistrates courts closed last year and that Fakenham court in west Norfolk is threatened with closure? That makes local justice more remote from local people, not least because the local press does not report cases in much detail. Why do not the Government do more for local justice?
    Mr. Wills: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer. I explained that the number of magistrates recruited in Norfolk increased from 13 in 1997 to 30 in 2001. That hardly squares with his allegations of a lack of interest or morale among those who wish to be magistrates. We take local justice seriously, but he knows that the closure of magistrates courts is a matter for magistrates courts committees.
    Mr. Peter Pike: My hon. Friend knows that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has, through the advisory committee for the appointment of magistrates in Lancashire, tried to achieve a better representation of people on the magistrates bench. Does he appreciate that employers make it increasingly difficult for working people to take time off to be a lay magistrate? Can we do more to ensure that employers recognise that we need ordinary working people to serve on the magistrates bench and that that is an important element of justice in this country?
    Mr. Wills: My hon. Friend is right. That is why the Department is supporting the Magistrates Association project, which tries to draw employers' attention to the

    145
    transferable skills that magistrates acquire through their work and training, apart from the civic appropriateness of people serving as magistrates.
    Simon Hughes: Does the Parliamentary Secretary accept that the number of magistrates will increase and people will be encouraged to join the magistracy by a confirmation that Government policy under the Auld proposals and the subsequent legislation supports an increase, not a reduction? Will he confirm that it is Government policy to increase the number of lay magistrates in England and Wales, not reduce them? Does he have figures to show the number of new appointments of people aged between 18 and 38, not between 38 and 58, since the Labour party came to office in 1997? Without significant new recruitment of younger people, we shall have an imbalanced bench, which is unrepresentative of the community with which it deals.
    Mr. Wills: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the need to ensure that magistrates benches are properly diverse and represent the communities that they serve, and that is clearly something that we strive to achieve. I do not have the figures for precisely those age breakdowns to hand, but I shall be happy to write to him with the details. He will be aware that we are still consulting on the proposals made by Lord Justice Auld, so I am not in a position to announce policy on the matter today, but I can assure him that the House will have plenty of opportunity at the appropriate time to debate our responses to Auld.

    Magistrates Courts (Fines Enforcement)
    Mr. Peter Luff: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the system for enforcement of payment of fines by magistrates courts; and if he will make a statement. [25044]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): Responsibility for warrant execution for non-payment of fines was transferred from the police to magistrates courts committees on 1 April 2001. The Lord Chancellor's Department conducted a review of the new enforcement regime and concluded that, although there is significant room for improvement, the foundation has now been laid for the more effective enforcement of fines in future.
    Mr. Luff: I am encouraged by that reply, as it suggests that the anecdotal evidence collected by me and other hon. Members that there is quite a serious problem with the enforcement of fines in magistrates courts is correct. Will the Minister do all in his power to make it easier for people to pay their fines—for example, whenever possible by retaining the facility to pay fines at the point of delivery, the magistrates court?
    Mr. Wills: Of course we acknowledge that the situation is not all that it should be and that is why we are taking a range of actions to ensure that performance is better in future. We have been encouraged by the performance so far, but it could be still better. Of course the Government believe that defendants should be given the opportunity to pay their fines promptly and conveniently. A range of methods is now available for paying fines—for example,
    146
    cash, cheque, credit and debit cards, bank giro, Transcash and Paypoint—so it is not absolutely necessary for there to be a cash office in every courthouse in the country. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware from his own experience that the closure of cash offices is a matter for individual magistrates courts committees.
    Mr. William Cash: Would the Minister be surprised if I pointed out to him that I am anything but encouraged by the way in which this system is operating? To give just one example, in London the latest figures show that the fines imposed in magistrates courts amount to £92 million but, astonishingly, the fines collected are no more than £41 million, which I think the Minister knew when he got up to speak. Does he also accept that the Lord Chancellor has effectively declined to provide additional resources to make up the difference—so much so that a number of judges have been writing to one another complaining bitterly on behalf of prosecutors, the police, the Prison Service, probation officers and others? Will the Minister do something about that?
    Mr. Wills: The answers to those questions are no, no and yes. No, I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman makes the point that he does. No, I do not accept that we have not made extra resources available. In 2001–02, £14 million has been allocated for the enforcement of fines and, as a result of the netting-off scheme, of which the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, magistrates courts committees will have nearly £10 million extra to spend on enforcement during the next two financial years. Finally, of course we will do all that we can to improve the record. It is not as good as it should be, and we are taking a wide range of actions to ensure that it gets better in future.

    Patient Advocacy and Community Legal Service (NHS)
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: If he will take steps to promote the establishment of a patient advocacy liaison service and community legal service information point in every NHS hospital. [25045]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): The Lord Chancellor's Department supports the development of community legal service information points in places that can be easily accessed by members of the public. This includes primary health care outlets such as general practitioners' surgeries and NHS hospitals, where we are considering ways in which links might be established with the new patient advocacy liaison service.
    Mr. Hopkins: My hon. Friend will know that, at my local hospital, the Luton and Dunstable, we have the first such facility in the eastern region, and that, so far, it has been a great success. It has been welcomed unanimously by staff and patients. I made inquiries today and found out that, in its first quarter of operations, patient complaints went down by 21 per cent. and, year on year in December, they were down by 59 per cent. Does my hon. Friend agree that that makes a powerful case for every hospital having such a facility?
    Ms Winterton: I am well aware of the project in my hon. Friend's constituency, and I also know that the

    147
    support that he has given to it personally has been extremely welcome. Luton and Dunstable hospital was the first hospital to be quality marked as a community legal service information point. We shall certainly consider whether the project could be an example of good practice that we could encourage other hospitals across England and Wales to follow.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Has the hon. Lady been in touch with the Department in Northern Ireland to make sure that such a system is working there? Is she aware that, at times, the patient advocacy liaison service apparently advocates more for hospitals than for patients?
    Ms Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the particular aspect for which I have responsibility is the community legal service, but I am sure that his comments will be noted by other Ministers. I can assure him that we are trying to ensure that there are community legal service information points in as many places as possible, including GP surgeries and NHS hospitals.

    Asylum Seekers (Appeals)
    Fiona Mactaggart: How many appeals against refusal of asylum have been lodged and are awaiting a hearing. [25046]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): Of the 32,874 cases received by the Immigration Appellate Authority between 1 April and 30 November 2001, 11,554 asylum cases were awaiting a first substantive hearing as at 30 November. The remaining 21,300 were either completed, under consideration or awaiting a further hearing at either adjudicator, application for leave to appeal or tribunal stage.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. We have had exchanges about delays in those appeals for some time and I know that she is putting a lot of effort into trying to improve the situation, but I am concerned about that group of appeals for which notification of the result comes from the Home Office, not her Department, following the changes to the regulations. What steps has she taken to ensure that the Home Office gives that notification swiftly to an appellant whose appeal has been refused? If it does not provide notification in a reasonable time, will she take action to ensure that appellants know the results of their appeals? We all know that the Home Office is not exactly a speedy animal when dealing with immigration and asylum matters.
    Ms Winterton: I understand my hon. Friend's point and I know that she takes a close interest in the issue. Perhaps it will help if I explain the process. The Home Office will sift appeal determinations to identify those suitable for delivery in person. Resources will initially be focused on delivering decisions in person to failed asylum seekers who are at risk of absconding and whom it is possible to remove. Increasing the number of decisions delivered personally and speedily will depend on evaluating the success of the new measures and the
    148
    gradual introduction of the new reporting centres, accommodation centres and removal centres. I hope that that reassures her.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Minister is aware that, following a day of pressure from Conservative Members yesterday, led by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary, the Home Secretary finally agreed late in the afternoon that special arrangements would be made for asylum claimants from Zimbabwe. They will not be returned, rightly in my view, but what will be the effect on her Department, now that the Home Secretary has wisely changed policy?
    Ms Winterton: Home Office policy has obviously—[HON. MEMBERS: "Changed."] The change that the Home Secretary announced is that removals to Zimbabwe are temporarily suspended until after the March elections. The Home Office will continue to monitor the situation with a view to making a reassessment after the elections. In terms of the effect on the asylum system, outstanding cases will be considered in the light of those new decisions.

    Sonia Deary
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: If he will make a statement on progress in the case of Sonia Deary. [25047]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): The question concerns the progress of a long-standing High Court claim by Sonia Deary for an increased share in the estate of her late husband. The resolution of this claim is dependent on her and her solicitor either agreeing a settlement with other family members or bringing the claim to trial. I understand that the legal proceedings have recently been revived and I would not wish to comment further on a pending case.
    Mr. Pickthall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her reply and for her energy in pursuing this case since she assumed her office. Does she agree that whoever is to blame for the delay—I noted carefully what she said on that score—it is unacceptable for any citizen to have to wait for more than 16 years for an estate to be settled? Does she agree that it is at least part of the functions of the Lord Chancellor's Department to seek to clarify, simplify and streamline the systems in such cases to avoid circumstances in which British citizens find themselves akin to characters in "Bleak House"?
    Ms Winterton: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's interest in the matter and I know that he has done everything that he can to assist his constituent. I am sure that he is also aware that this is an extremely complicated case. The intimate family and financial details of the estate should not be discussed in the House, but the role of the Official Solicitor and the matters that he has to deal with in such cases can be extremely complex. The time taken to resolve an estate might depend on many issues. For example, the deceased might have assumed several identities or outstanding business problems might need to

    149
    be resolved. In that situation, the Official Solicitor should of course act expeditiously, but we must recognise that the cases can be complicated.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS
  The President of the Council was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Oath of Allegiance
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What proposals he has to reform of the Oath of Allegiance for hon. Members taking their seats in the House. [25058]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The form of the Oath is prescribed by statute. The Government have no plans to amend it.
    Mr. Winterton: The Leader of the House will appreciate the reason for my question and, I am sure, my total commitment to this place. Does he believe that anyone who becomes a Member of Parliament should have a true allegiance to the country in whose Parliament he or she seeks to serve? Is not there a danger in what the Government have done recently that we will establish two classes of Member of Parliament, which is a dangerous precedent indeed?
    Mr. Cook: I fully recognise the commitment of the hon. Gentleman to this place and the service that he has given to it. I assure him that I fully endorse his view that people should not take their seat here unless they are committed to making a success not only of this place but of the nation that this place represents. That is why we have made no change that would enable any of the Sinn Fein Members—or anybody else who does not take the Oath or affirm—to take their seats, to take part in votes or to speak. On the issue of two classes of Member of Parliament, I take the view that what we did in December erodes the distinction between those who have not taken the Oath and those who have in relation to allowances and access to this place, but in no way does it erode the difference between those of us who take our seats and those who do not.

    Appointments Commission
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: If he will invite the House of Lords Appointments Commission to discuss with people's peers their experience of their membership of the Lords with a view to informing its future recommendations. [25059]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The first round of appointments made by the Appointments Commission included the chief executive of Centrepoint, the chief executive of Childline, and a trustee of Oxfam. The appointments also brought a welcome balance to the membership of the Lords. [Interruption.] I shall get to the question, if Members will be patient. Almost a third of the new members belong to ethnic communities and a similar proportion are women. They have brought their experience and authority to proceedings in the Lords on
    150
    immigration, child poverty, equal opportunity and public services. I cannot speak for the Appointments Commission but I am sure that both my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I would listen with respect if its members wished to comment on their experience.
    Mr. Prentice: if appointed peers are expected to make a contribution in the House of Lords, is the chair of the Appointments Commission setting a good example by having spoken twice in the two and a half years since he was ennobled in 1999?
    Mr. Cook: I do not think that it is any part of my remit or that of the Government to encourage even more people to speak in debates in the House of Lords.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: In addition to taking advice from the Appointments Commission and the people's peers, will the Leader of the House say what his proposals are for a further consultation period beyond the end of this month? He will be aware of the gathering consensus that the White Paper represents nobody except the Lord Chancellor, and that he is in a minority of one. What steps will the Leader of the House take to ensure that the House and the other place have a proper opportunity—without the Whips and on a free vote—to discuss the issues, and when does he expect us to be given that opportunity? Does he accept that there is one thing on which there is a unanimous view—that doing nothing is unacceptable?
    Mr. Cook: I wholly endorse the last sentence of the hon. Gentleman's question, and since it is the only part of his question that I can wholly endorse, I shall seize upon it. It is important that we continue the process of reform of the House of Lords to create a modern second Chamber. As I warned last week, we must not let divisions among those who want reform to prevent there from being any reform. We had a full opportunity for the House to express itself last week and, as someone who sat through the entire debate, I can say that the House expressed itself robustly. The views expressed last week are being reflected upon. The consultation process goes on until 31 January. It is perhaps premature now to announce any further consultation. It is important that we reflect on the views expressed in the House and in the country and, as I said last week, seek to find the centre of gravity that will enable reform to proceed with support.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: If only the Government had kept to the 1976 policy and abolished the House of Lords, they would not be suffering all this heartache at the present time. It is sad that nobody knows what the new proposal will be at the end, despite all the consultation that is taking place. In the knowledge that there are not enough Members like myself who want to abolish the House of Lords completely, irrespective of the percentage who are elected, my right hon. Friend must remember one thing—do not give it very much power.
    Mr. Cook: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that I am in no danger of forgetting that very important maxim. It is precisely because of that that I sought to warn the House last week of the danger of a wholly elected second Chamber. I find it hard to see how we could preserve the present supremacy of the House of Commons

    151
    and the present balance of power between us against a second Chamber that would claim an equally valid democratic mandate.
    With regard to my hon. Friend's first point, I do not wish to rehearse the debates of 1966.
    Mr. Skinner: 1976.
    Mr. Cook: 1976. I have enough difficulty rehearsing the debates of last week. However, it has been the case in the past, particularly in the 1966 Parliament, that what stopped reform was division among the reformers. We must not let that be the case now.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Before the Leader of the House has any discussions with the Appointments Commission, will he confirm that his own proposals for reform of the Lords, which were criticised in every quarter of this House last week, are in effect now a dead duck? Will he seek to use his influence with the Prime Minister—however great or small that might be—to ensure that the correct way forward is to propose a House of Lords where the majority of the membership is elected, not where the majority in the House are Tony's cronies?
    Mr. Cook: Without getting engaged in a discussion about the extent of my influence with the Prime Minister, I suspect that, such as it is, it would be sharply diminished if I announced to the House in advance what my advice would be.
    The right hon. Gentleman has to take on board the fact that Conservative Members must also face up to problems with their proposals, as some Labour Members have pointed out. The Conservative party has supported the hereditary principle for a century, so it is entirely welcome that it has finally recognised that that principle is indefensible, and has been so throughout the century that the Conservative party has defended it.
    I welcome the Conservative party's move towards democracy, but its proposals show that it believes that democracy means providing in the second Chamber the same representation for Surrey as for London. That shows that Conservatives have some way to go before they understand democracy as it is understood in Britain, and certainly as it is understood in London.

    Information Technology
    Mr. Michael Jack: If he will ask the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to consider in what further ways the use of Information Technology can assist the work of hon. Members. [25061]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): The memorandum from my right hon. Friend the President of the Council to the Modernisation Committee raised a number of ways in which information technology might be used to assist hon. Members, ranging from electronic voting in the Lobbies to ways of giving opportunities for communication between members of the public and Members of the House.
    152
    I believe that the Select Committee on Information may soon look at the issue of information technology in the House, and I very much hope that the Modernisation Committee will draw on its work.
    Mr. Jack: I thank the Minister for again giving an enthusiastic and encouraging reply. As part of his agenda of action, will he look at the possibility that Departments might send answers to parliamentary questions by e-mail? Will he also investigate the feasibility of a case-tracking system, so that hon. Members might know where letters go to when they disappear into the black hole that is a Department, and of supplying information electronically to hon. Members about what has happened to them? Finally, has any progress been made on the question of using laptop computers in Committees of the House?
    Mr. Twigg: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the persistence with which he has pursued that final point. I believe that the matter will be addressed by the Information Committee and the Chairmen's Panel. The right hon. Gentleman also raised some broader issues, some of which fall within the Modernisation Committee's remit, but others of which fall within the remit of the newly established Cabinet Committee on e-democracy. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will chair that Committee, which will have its first meeting next week. I shall ensure that the matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman are drawn to the Committee's attention.
    Mr. James Wray: When my hon. Friend the Minister looks at the rules governing the modernisation and constitution of the House of Commons, will he bear in mind that, as a member of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union, I find it very difficult to get oral questions accepted by the Table Office? The office will not allow my research assistant to hand in a question from me, so he has to run about to find a Member who is willing to hand in the question for him. Some Members are too busy and do not want to hand in a question.
    Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter, which clearly falls within the remit of the Modernisation Committee's discussions. We want to ensure greater flexibility, so that hon. Members from all parties can balance their commitments outside the House with their commitments here. I shall ensure that the point is considered in the Modernisation Committee's inquiry.
    The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire was asked—

    Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
    Peter Bottomley: To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, which recent letters to the Commission from the Commissioner for Standards have not been published to hon. Members. [25062]
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I understand that the letter of 28 November from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to Mr. Speaker was released to the media on

    153
    the evening of 4 December 2001. The Committee on Standards and Privileges requested on 9 January that the commissioner's letter of 14 December be published. The Commission will consider that request, and the commissioner's letter of 8 January, at its next meeting.
    Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to the Commission. It would be a happy thing if it agreed to publish the letters. Will the hon. Gentleman consider the report from the predecessor Commission that was published on 9 November 1998, and the words in the initial speeches in the debate of 17 November 1998? Tributes were paid to the then incoming Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I commend the words in that report that referred to her personal qualities, and the House will expect those sentiments to be reflected in the letters, when they are published.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Obviously, I cannot commit the Commission to anything, but I give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that the matter will be given serious consideration. Important issues of precedent are involved, and we must be jealous of them. The correspondence between the Commission and senior officers of the House is not something that should easily be made transparently public on every occasion. We must therefore be careful that we do not establish precedents that could be dangerous in the future. However, I give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that the matter that he raises, and the request from the Standards and Privileges Committee, will be given urgent consideration when the Commission meets early next week.
    David Winnick: On the subject of the correspondence, is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people in the House and certainly outside it consider that the way in which the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has been treated is very shabby given the view, which I share, that she has carried out her duties very conscientiously? This matter is unfortunate and brings into question the self-regulation that exists for Members of Parliament.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I hope that when the hon. Gentleman sees the provisions that are made after the open process
    154
    for the nomination and appointment of a successor to the current commissioner is completed, he will believe those fears to have been misplaced. An open competition is now in its final stages. The current commissioner has been invited to submit her name for the final interviews. If she does so, she will automatically go on the shortlist, and if she is found to be the best candidate, she will be nominated by the Commission to this House.
    The President of the Council was asked—

    Sitting Hours
    John Mann: What assessment he has made of the impact of his proposals for changes to the sitting hours of the House on hon. Members with school age children living outside the London area. [25063]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): The main purpose of the proposed changes in sitting hours is to increase the effectiveness of the House of Commons both in legislation and in scrutiny of the Executive. We anticipate that the changes to sitting hours proposed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will benefit all Members with children.
    John Mann: I t is most laudable that Members of the House who live in London—and indeed civil servants—and have expressed the view that they should be able to spend more time having breakfast with their children will be given the opportunity to do so. I hope that the Leader of the House will give equal consideration to all Members, regardless of where in the United Kingdom they live with their children, and that this does not apply just to those Members who happen to live with their children in London.
    Mr. Twigg: My hon. Friend raises an important issue which has been raised by Members on both sides of the House. A number of the other changes proposed by my right hon. Friend would benefit Members with families, such as making permanent the Thursday experiment on hours, having fewer sitting Fridays and having a more predictable annual pattern of sittings.

NHS Hospital Management
3.32 pm
Dr. Liam Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about his proposal to allow NHS managers to establish non-profit-making companies to manage hospitals, as outlined in today's edition of The Times.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The NHS plan that we published in July 2000 set out how power and resources would be devolved to front-line NHS services. It said:
"NHS organisations will be rewarded with greater autonomy and national recognition"
including
"greater freedom to decide the local organisation of services."
The proposals for foundation hospitals are rooted in the NHS plan. They come about as a consequence of discussions that we have had with the best performing NHS hospitals. Those hospitals are already beginning to get greater freedom and more resources. For hospitals which are not performing well—the poorest performers—we will consider franchising their management to bring in fresh blood.
The best performers, however, have now put to us proposals for a change in their structures, not to take them out of the national health service but to have greater freedom to improve care for NHS patients as part and parcel of a modern health service. These proposals clearly draw on precedents in other parts of the public sector such as schools or further education colleges and the growing interest that there has been in recent years in public interest companies and mutuals as an alternative to either purely state-run public or shareholder-led private structures.
Our three-star hospitals have now asked us to look at whether such models could be applicable to local health services to form foundation hospitals within the health service but run more independently than now. I think it right that we should examine the case that they have made.
We will consider the applicability of foundations not just to the best hospitals but to the best primary care trusts. Over the next few months we will be working with them to examine the legal, financial, governance and accountability issues.
While this will only ever be voluntary not mandatory for the health service's best performers, alongside new incentives, more devolution and greater patient choice it will help make for a different sort of NHS: where there is more diversity and less top-down control, with a framework of national standards in place and a means—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is getting very excited—it is easily done. With a framework of national standards in place and a means of independently inspecting them, there is now the opportunity to set free the best hospitals and the best primary care trusts to improve NHS care for NHS patients.
Patients will remain NHS patients, treated according to NHS principles, with care that is free and available according to need—not as some Members advocate,
156
according to their ability to pay. Those are the right values for the NHS. It is not NHS values that need to change, but NHS structures.
Dr. Fox: Only a few weeks ago we were told by the Prime Minister that we were at the end of the era of spin, but here we are for the second day in a row having to drag a Secretary of State to the House. In The Times this morning, the Secretary of State tells us that it was the most important speech in his time as Health Secretary. If that is true why was that speech not made to the House of Commons? If it is not true, it is indicative that the spin goes on.
Well, the right hon. Gentleman has the headlines and we rather like those headlines; or in new Labour speak we rather like the direction of the journey—it is in our direction of travel. There is more than a little suspicion that this is yet another example of the Secretary of State, when under pressure, adopting the "Blue Peter", 'Here's one I made earlier'" approach to policy, so let us see if we can get some details.
The Secretary of State wants to give management more freedom—but does he? Management would generally assume that four things were needed to give proper freedom: to be able to borrow from the markets; to set strategy; to set pay and conditions; and to contract for services independently. How many of those will be given in the foundation hospitals?
In his speech this morning the Secretary of State said, in reference to further education colleges, that buying and selling of assets is one of their freedoms. Will these foundation hospitals be able to buy and sell assets? How many of these hospitals does the Secretary of State intend to see by the time of the next general election? Will they still be subject to the star rating? What if they lose a star? Will they be brought back under central control? If so, how—and what legislation will be required? How much freedom will they have in determining pay and conditions?
The Secretary of State said in his speech that four functions will be left for the Department of Health: setting strategic direction; the integrity of the whole system through IT and staff training; developing the values of the NHS through education, training and policy development; and securing accountability for funding and performance, including reports to Parliament. There was nothing at all about pay and conditions as one of the functions for the NHS, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can enlighten us on that point.
What will any freedom on pay and conditions mean for the current negotiations under way with GPs and consultants over their contracts, or the 18-month negotiations with the nurses over their pay and career development? What does the Secretary of State mean when he says that we will have to find
"new ways of money flowing around the system to sharpen incentives to respond to patients"?
Is that money following the patient, or is that money following the patient? That is exactly what the Secretary of State set out to abolish.
When it comes to asking for meanings, what exactly did the Secretary of State mean when he said that we need:
"Customisation wherever it can be made but standardization where it is appropriate."

157
What on earth did he mean when he said that we need:
"Management through hierarchy alongside management through networks?"
We have not the faintest idea what any of that meant.
This response has not been thought out; it is a panic response by the Secretary of State to orders from No. 10 to try to regain the agenda on the public services. We have had the Health Bill. We have had the NHS plan. Today we have before us the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill and now we have the master plan. We are used to having votes of no confidence in Ministers but not usually by themselves in their own Bill on the same day that they are considering it.
This is not about the future of the NHS: it is new Labour, new year, new panic, new policy.
Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman made five substantive points. As for being dragged to the House, I understand that the House will have an opportunity this afternoon and this evening to discuss NHS reform in copious detail. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Tomorrow, on a Liberal-Democrat motion, hon Members will discuss health issues and, on Thursday in Government time, they will have the opportunity to discuss changes to structure and culture in the NHS, when we produce our response to the Kennedy report on the inquiry into events at the Bristol royal infirmary.
The hon. Gentleman says that he could not understand the speech that I made this morning. If he spent a little more time talking to NHS staff at home, rather than running down the NHS abroad, he might be able to keep up. As for the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, yes, we have set out today proposals for greater independence for the highest performing hospitals. He asks how many. I said in my statement and, indeed, in my speech that that would be a matter of voluntary discretion. It would depend on the number of hospitals or primary care trusts that wanted to move in that direction.
The hon. Gentleman always urges on me less day-to-day management, less interference and less centralisation, but he does not seem to like it when it happens. As for the sort of powers, resources and responsibilities that the foundation hospitals and others—the primary care trusts, too—will have, as I said in my statement, we will discuss those issues precisely with the primary care trusts and the hospitals. As for pay and conditions, I believe in a very simple principle: if NHS hospitals that have done really well and are performing the best in the NHS, providing high-quality care to NHS patients, want to give extra rewards and more pay to the staff—whether a porter or a cleaner, let alone a doctor or a nurse—whom they employ, they should be free to do so.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to allude to the internal market. I shall tell him the difference between these proposals and the internal market. The internal market involved using one club—competition—to try to lever up standards. It did not induce competition, and it certainly did not lever up standards. The difference is that we now have in place a clear framework of national standards, national service frameworks, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which evaluates new treatments and new drugs as they come on to the market and into the NHS, and an independent means of inspecting them.
158
We want to see high standards everywhere, but we also recognise that the NHS cannot be subject to day-to-day running from Whitehall, as it has been for 50 years; it has to have power, resources and responsibilities located in the hands of doctors, nurses, porters, cooks, cleaners and mangers—the people who actually deliver NHS care to NHS patients. The big divide in British politics is between those of us who say that NHS values should be maintained, but its structures changed and the Conservative party, which says that NHS values must be abandoned and that the people must pay for their treatment.
Mr. Frank Dobson: I am reluctant to say what I am about to say or to ask the questions that I am about to ask, but will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that the fact that some NHS hospitals are outstandingly successful demonstrates that NHS hospitals are capable of doing a first-rate job without their management being franchised to the private sector? Will he also bear in mind the fact that private sector health care managers are unlikely to have appropriate experience, as most private hospitals are small, low-tech and have few, if any, emergency admissions compared with a very large NHS teaching hospital, which probably has more emergency admissions, involving great complexity, than the private sector hospitals' total admissions, and perhaps 1,000 doctors on their staff? Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that absolutely none of those outside managers come from such private sector disasters as Railtrack, Equitable Life, Marconi, or the accountants, auditors or management consultants associated with those private sector disasters?
Finally, will my right hon. Friend at least give some thought to the fact that the public service ethic managed to maintain the national health service through all the Tory years of underinvestment and malignant policies? In those circumstances, would it not be right to give the public service ethic the opportunity to flourish with the extra resources that are now available?
Michael Fabricant: That was an endorsement, wasn't it?
Mr. Milburn: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is alive and awake for once. [Interruption.] God, Conservative Members are in a tetchy mood today—they really are. I understand why the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is tetchy; he has been brought back from his inter-railing holiday in Europe. He is bound to be a bit uncomfortable. However, I do not know about the rest of them.
As far as my right hon. Friend's points are concerned, yes, the NHS has very many outstanding managers. There is absolutely no doubt about that. He has some of them in his area; thankfully, I have some of them in my area, too. It is right that NHS managers should be given opportunities, particularly when they are running high performing NHS organisations that have a track record of success. However, if we have poorly performing NHS organisations, it seems to me highly appropriate that we use the expertise of such managers and garner that for the benefit of other NHS patients.
However, we must also look more broadly than that. What patients everywhere—and not just those in some places—deserve is the best quality management and the

159
best quality services. I simply do not believe that good quality managers begin and end at the public sector's door. We should consider using high-quality management wherever it exists to improve care for NHS patients.
On my right hon. Friend's point about Railtrack, he is right. What the Conservatives did when they sold off the rail network was catastrophic. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend asked about Railtrack. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. There was a request to hear the Secretary of State and we must give him a hearing. [Interruption.] Let me decide whether he is in order.
Mr. Milburn: I know that Conservative Members do not want to hear about Railtrack.
Mr. Speaker: I do not want to hear about Railtrack, either. [Laughter.]
Mr. Milburn: In relation to my right hon. Friend's question, the fundamental difference between what the Conservatives did with the railway network and what we are proposing is that they sold off lock, stock and barrel public sector assets and sold them to the highest private sector bidder. There is no question whatsoever, under any of these proposals, of selling off NHS assets. What we are doing is franchising the management of NHS organisations that are not performing as well as they should.
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend when he says that the public service ethos should be maintained at all costs. I think that the best way of strengthening the public service ethos is to get the investment in, but to make some fundamental reforms too.
Dr. Evan Harris: Is not the Secretary of State creating a two-tier system of hospitals? The first is for those hospitals that he judges to be performing well and to which this most centralising of Government claim to be giving independence. The Commission for Health Improvement is being charged with inspecting these hospitals based on performance criteria laid down by him—political hoops that hospitals will be asked to jump through. The commission will have to examine how well they are doing not whether it is worth their time doing that. In providing freedom to pay more to staff in better-off hospitals that are doing well, is not the danger that they will simply recruit staff at the expense of the poorer hospitals that have been even more under-resourced by the Government?
On the so-called failing hospitals, does the Secretary of State recognise that, by his criteria, hospitals could be judged as failing because they put patients and clinical priority before politics and political targets? They will be judged to be failing if they suffer from the Government-induced crisis of bed blocking due to underfunding of social care and the crisis in the care sector.
The Secretary of State used a comparison with schools. Does he not recognise that naming and shaming to shift the blame from him creates a crisis in confidence that will worsen staff retention in the health service? If it comes to bad managers being removed, he need look no further than himself as the worst manager of a centralising Government who try to micromanage the whole health service.
Mr. Milburn: Thanks for the glowing endorsement. The hon. Gentleman raised, I think, only one substantive
160
issue—who would determine the ratings of individual hospitals. He could have mentioned primary care trusts, too. That will be a matter not for Ministers, but for the independent Commission for Health Improvement. No doubt he will have an opportunity to raise those issues this afternoon, either on Report or Third Reading of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill.
On paying staff the same, I do not know about the hon. Gentleman, but I spend part of my week in the north-east of England and more than half of it in the south-east, and I have noticed a big difference between the two. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has also noticed it, but house prices are different, the labour market is different and, by and large, there is full employment down here. To argue that somehow or other we should simply pay everyone the same regardless of the labour market conditions is absurd.
The hon. Gentleman knows that trusts in his area are rightly paying staff more in order to recruit doctors, nurses and other staff. He seems to be arguing for a uniformity that we have not seen for many years in the national health service, but all that would do is plunge NHS trusts in many parts of the country into growing, not diminishing, problems of recruiting and retaining staff.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: May I give a broad welcome to the Secretary of State's comments? May I also congratulate him on finally understanding that if we are to have a health service fit for the 21st century, the old Stalinist structures have to be dismantled?
We can understand why the right hon. Gentleman did not want to come to the House today, given the grim faces of Labour Back Benchers. Will he spread a little more happiness by telling us whether, in the negotiations that he intends to have with health service managers and workers and the private sector, he will also consult the health service trade unions on his proposals to end national pay bargaining?
Mr. Milburn: I do not think that the hon. Lady is up to date. We have been negotiating with trade unions, as the hon. Member for Woodspring said, for the past two years on a new national framework for pay and conditions in the NHS which would also allow for local flexibility. The hon. Lady called the NHS "Stalinist"—
Mr. Simon Burns: No, she did not.
Mr. Milburn: She did; Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen were not listening to their Back-Bench colleague. That is precisely what the hon. Lady said. It seems to me that the Conservative party is becoming more like a modern-day Trotskyist sect. Condemning everything it does not like, including the NHS, is Stalinist.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: As a moderniser, I welcome the idea of devolving decision making nearer to the patient. My concern with the Secretary of State's proposals relates to the clear parallels that can be drawn with what the Conservative Government announced in the early 1980s in terms of the introduction of the internal market and the consequences of that, and the introduction of private sector management. Some of us suffered from private sector managers in our localities. Bearing in mind the concordat that establishes the relationship with the

161
private sector and what the Secretary of State proposes for management, can he tell those of us who have anxieties about the direction that the Government are taking whether any limits will be placed on the involvement of the private sector in the NHS under the Government?
Mr. Milburn: I know that my hon. Friend has a well-deserved reputation as a Labour moderniser on such matters. I agree that devolved decision making is the way forward. The right combination of national standards needs to be in place. However, we have to accept that none of us as Ministers delivers one iota of care. The care is delivered outside Parliament by doctors, nurses, therapists, cleaners, cooks, porters, managers and other staff. We surely need resources and power to be located in their hands rather than ours.
There is a fundamental difference between the situation that my hon. Friend describes in the early 1990s and now. It is worth remembering how far we have come in just four years. When we got into office there were no national standards, no means of inspecting standards, no means of levering in good practice to replace bad and no means of evaluating new drugs and treatments when they came on to the market. For the first time, we have national standards and independent inspection, and it is right and proper that within that framework the NHS should improve services for patients.
The crucial limit to private sector involvement is the fact that, as I said in my opening statement, I profoundly believe, as I know my hon. Friend does, in an NHS that provides care according to the right principles, the right values and the right ethos. I believe that care should be available according to the scale of people's needs, not the size of their wallets. That is the position on the Labour Benches; I am not sure that the same is true on the Opposition Benches.
Glenda Jackson: As another moderniser, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that delivering high-quality services to patients is, in the main, dependent on a well skilled and highly trained work force? If managers are brought in from the private sector, how will he guarantee that they do not replicate the activities of their colleagues in the wider world who have, in the main, turned their backs on in-house training and simply meet their staffing needs by poaching from others?
Mr. Milburn: I do not think that we should try to kid ourselves. In the public sector there are good managers and, sadly, some pretty poor ones, just as there are good and bad managers in the private sector. The best managers, whether they are in the public or the private sector, recognise that if they are to provide improved services to customers or, in this case, to patients, they must invest in their staff and make sure that there are more staff and that they are skilled. That is what I expect to see in all parts of the public services, and it is certainly what we need in the NHS.
Mr. Julian Brazier: In between all the new plans, initiatives and restructuring, can the Secretary of State find the time to visit the Kent and Canterbury
162
hospital? I understand that last Friday, just before my arrival at the accident and emergency unit, the hospital had squirrelled away most of the people waiting on beds in corridors. Eighteen remained, some of whom had very serious conditions and some of whom had been there for over 24 hours. That is totally unsuitable care. Ten consultants appeared, at a few hours' notice, to say that the crisis in capacity cannot go on. When will the Secretary of State take action on the crisis in acute health care in east Kent?
Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman talks about a crisis in capacity, but he really must have a word with his Front-Bench colleagues because the way to solve the crisis in capacity is to invest. That is what we are committed to doing, and it is a shame that the Opposition are not.
Lynne Jones: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the NHS is too big to be managed from Whitehall and that it should have access to the best expertise. What concerns me is accountability. There are two ways of getting accountability. The first is through competition, but genuine competition requires a surplus of provision, so that patients can choose who provides their service. Even if that were possible in the NHS, surely it is not desirable purely because of considerations of efficiency and expense. The second way to get accountability is through elected representatives, but sadly it seems that that is not an option, as is demonstrated by the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, which we will be considering later today. What will my right hon. Friend do about the accountability deficit in the NHS?
Mr. Milburn: On the first point, my hon. Friend is right to say that the only way to expand informed choices for patients is to increase capacity in the NHS. As she is aware, from July this year we will be able, for the first time, to give direct choice to NHS patients. Those who have been waiting six months for heart surgery will be offered the choice of continuing to wait, probably longer, for treatment at their local hospital or, provided that it is clinically appropriate, travelling further to get treatment elsewhere. That will not only increase public confidence in the NHS but drive change and provide incentives for hospitals to treat more patients to higher standards. As for issues of governance, my hon. Friend is right that NHS trusts have quite wide-ranging powers of autonomy, but they are constrained by the current governance structures. Effectively, we appoint five non-executive directors and blithely assume that that is representative of the community's interests. Like my hon. Friend, I believe that that is not necessarily so. We shall want to discuss with the best performing hospitals and primary care trusts whether we can change the accountability structures for the best performers to strengthen the relationship between local health services and the local communities that they serve.
Mr. John Redwood: Will the Secretary of State confirm that under his interesting scheme some NHS hospital trusts will be able to buy and sell assets on their own account without seeking Government

163
permission and will be able to borrow money against those assets without needing Government guarantees or permission? Is that the position?
Mr. Milburn: As for buying and selling assets, NHS trusts can currently do so. However, under the current regime, which, I recall, was initiated under the right hon. Gentleman's Government and which we have continued, an NHS trust that sells assets of spare land, for example, is not allowed to keep the proceeds for itself. We should consider a different regime for the best performing hospitals; if those that have spare capacity, land and assets want to sell them, they should get the proceeds.
Ms Julia Drown: Can the Secretary of State assure the House that discussion of organisation and reorganisation in that fashion will not divert attention from the key task of delivering the NHS plan? To that end, can he assure the House that he will debate those issues with the NHS modernisation board and patient groups which, I understand, have not discussed or floated them to date?
Will my right hon. Friend also explain to the House the difference between franchising management and dealing properly with NHS management? There are procedures to deal with managers who do not perform; I hope that the House agrees that that minority should be properly dealt with and disciplined if necessary. How does my right hon. Friend envisage managing trusts in which, say, 80 per cent. of the managers are good but 20 per cent. are bad? At what point should the whole lot be franchised out, thereby losing some very good NHS managers along the way?
Mr. Milburn: As I have said, I agree with my hon. Friends that the NHS has some very good managers; I know that it is unfashionable to say so, but that is what I believe. We have some outstanding managers who do a difficult job in extremely difficult circumstances; they manage large, complex organisations and, as we can see from some of the best performing hospitals and primary care trusts, they do so admirably. However, I am afraid that, as in any public service, there are always some that are good, some that are indifferent and sadly, some that are just not up to scratch; I do not think that we should hesitate to say so.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) will know from her own constituency, it is all too often the case that the poorest services end up being in the poorest communities. We should not sanction that situation; we should have the courage of our conviction and say that where management is not up to scratch, we are prepared to change it. The management, in this case, is the leadership of the organisation; we have chief executives and directors of finance to provide leadership in those organisations. If it is not being provided and services are poor, there have usually been persistent problems with organisation, culture, attitude and so on over a period of many years. We should say that that is not good enough and that we are prepared to change it.
Mr. Peter Luff: On the earlier subject of Trotskyism, may I politely remind the Secretary of State that he is the real Trotskyist because he is keeping the national health service in a state of permanent
164
revolution? However, if the Government abolished grant-maintained schools, why are they introducing grant-maintained hospitals?
Mr. Milburn: Just as a small historical correction, if my memory serves me right, permanent revolution was more a feature of Maoism than Trotskyism. I am willing to admit that I could be wrong; the hon. Gentleman may be much more of an expert than I am, or was, on that sort of issue. If he cares to look at public services, whether in FE colleges, schools or whatever, he will see that we have a national framework of standards and diversity of provision. That is delivering the goods in improved standards in education, better outcomes for children and so on. We need to apply precisely the same disciplines to the national health service. We have a clear framework of national standards, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was partially responsible for putting in place. We have independent inspection. We have the right ethos, the right values and the right principles. In order to deliver improved services for patients, we must empower the NHS front-line.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: What are the special qualities that the private sector seems to have, as opposed to those who have dedicated 50 years to the national health service as a public service?
Mr. Milburn: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon a moment ago, we have some outstanding people working in the NHS as managers, and some outstanding hospitals and primary care trusts. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will know from his constituency experience, as I know from mine, that sadly, in local government services and sometimes in the health service, the fact that service providers are located within the public sector does not necessarily mean that they deliver the best of services. I am interested in what the patient gets. NHS patients should get high-quality care. What we should expect to see in all our constituencies in all parts of Britain is the highest quality of care for patients, regardless where the care is provided.
Hywel Williams: What are the implications, if any, of the Secretary of State's proposals for the NHS in Wales and Scotland? In a written question on 26 June, I asked the right hon. Gentleman
"what discussions he has had with the National Assembly concerning the use of private management in the health service in Wales."—[Official Report, 26 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 76W.]
His answer was one word: "None."
Mr. Milburn: That remains the position.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals to give greater freedom and power to succeeding managers, but like my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), I am concerned that those ought to be balanced by proposals to make it easier to remove failing managers in the NHS.
Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right. In these debates there is always a danger that we assume that every hospital will become a foundation hospital, or that every

165
slightly under-performing NHS trust will lose its top management. That is not the case. We have other means to improve performance in the NHS, such as incentives or an NHS modernisation agency to lever up standards and to spread good practice. We have a wholesale set of reforms coming in, but sure, in the exceptional cases where there is a problem with poorly performing NHS organisations, we should not hesitate to change the management team.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: What is the real reason for the Secretary of State not making a statement to the House about a policy initiative that is clearly very significant? Could it be that he realised that there would be considerable support from the Opposition and no ringing endorsement from Labour Members, who look extremely upset?
Mr. Milburn: Anyone doing my job is grateful for ringing endorsements from any quarter.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: As someone who represents one of Labour's new heartland seats, may I encourage my right hon. Friend to come again and visit Northwick Park hospital, where I could introduce him again to first-class management? Those managers are keen to persuade him of the case for more investment in maternity services to revolutionise the quality of care currently available at Northwick Park's maternity unit. I encourage my right hon. Friend to take no lectures from the Opposition, who axed two thirds of the accident and emergency provision available to my constituents, and whose proposals for new charges for access to GPs seem to strike at the heart of the NHS principles.
Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right. This morning I listened with interest to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), refusing to rule out charges to visit the GP's surgery. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Woodspring ought to keep an eye on his colleague because that hon. Gentleman was touring the studios—it was on BBC News 24, I think, or it may have been Sky News—and repeating the interview. There is a fundamental difference between the Opposition and the Government. They want to charge; we say that services should be provided free. My hon. Friend is right—the Labour party is building up the national health service, whereas the Conservatives would run it down.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am intrigued by what the Secretary of State said about the undesirability of micromanaging the health service from Whitehall, given that it was only last month that he pre-empted negotiations between BUPA and the Surrey and Sussex Healthcare trust about the provision of elective surgery at the East Surrey hospital site, which will now be undertaken by BUPA in the old Redwood hospital. Can I now hold on to the hope that, as those elective operations will now be administered and managed by BUPA, there is a possibility that the whole East Surrey hospital could be managed by BUPA, which is a not-for-profit organisation?
Mr. Milburn: I would not have thought that that would be the case, but I can say that the negotiations between the health service and BUPA are going very well.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: It is not true that my right hon. Friend is a Trotskyist, although he is perhaps a Leninist in terms of policy being decided by the few and not the many. My specific question is this: who decides which assets will be sold? For NHS trusts located in the south-east, where property and land values are very high, there is an invitation to asset-strip.
Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is completely wrong. If he bothers to look at the star ratings that we produced late last year—I urge him to do so—he will see that there is a clear balance between the north and south in terms of NHS trusts with a three-star rating. We must get away from the idea that, because a trust serves a poor area, it is rather like a school serving a poor area and it can be assumed that it must inevitably have poor standards or organisation. That is simply not the case. It is an important incentive to improve performance for people running the services, whether they are in the north or south or in an NHS trust or primary care trust, that, if they want to make changes to local health services that are to the benefit of NHS patients—we must remember that they will continue to be inspected and annually assessed on their performance—they have the freedom to do so.
Mr. David Tredinnick: The right hon. Gentleman said that he would like more diversity in the national health service. Is that comment linked to the briefing that he gave to journalists before Christmas, which suggested that Ministers were calling for herbal cures on the national health service? The story was published in three or four national newspapers. Does it represent a change of policy at the Department? Is the Department now looking for an integrated health care service and is this development a part of that strategy to roll out more availability of different treatments through a new-style national health service with more diversity and more power given to managers?
Mr. Milburn: As I have told the hon. Gentleman on very, very, very many occasions, both in Health questions and other health debates—[Interruption.] I have read the headlines, honestly. I say to the hon. Gentleman that he will have a much happier life if he does not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. I try not to believe everything that appears in the newspapers, because it would drive me completely crazy. On the particular issue that he raised, he knows the position: it is a matter of local discretion in deciding the services that are provided to NHS patients.
Derek Twigg: My right hon. Friend will know about the difficulties that we have recently faced in Merseyside in relation to poor management practices, although he will also know that there is lots of good management practice as well. On that basis, I welcome the move to ensure that we have more devolved powers and that decisions can be taken locally. While massive investment is taking place in the health service, the public expect massive change in the management efficiency. That is why I welcome the proposal to give management power and discretion to local hospitals. On accountability,

167
the PCTs will have the bulk of NHS money to spend in the not-too-distant future. How can he ensure accountability to the PCTs, making sure that those hospitals deliver efficient and good services in the locality?
Mr. Milburn: I agree with my hon. Friend. The simple answer is that primary care trusts will hold the budgets, and they will make the decisions, especially when they receive more and more of the NHS budget. By 2004, they will have three quarters of the total budget, and they will determine which services to commission from which provider. I should be surprised if every primary care trust, aided and abetted if possible by the Department, the Modernisation Agency and the Commission for Health Improvement, did not have a clear eye not only on the quality of services but on value for money, including, as my hon. Friend rightly said, the organisation and management of every hospital. Primary care trusts must do that when discharging their functions on the accountability of public money.
My hon. Friend knows that we publish reference costs every year. They spell out the difference in the cost of treatment between NHS hospitals. I should be surprised if primary care trusts did not increasingly use the reference costs manual as a bit of a Bible for commissioning services. It clearly spells out the differences in efficiency between hospitals. That is at least partly due to differences in efficiency in the management of hospitals.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State will know that there are differences between not only areas but management styles. Does he agree that the larger hospitals have an advantage? Time and again, they have gathered more money from the health service but not always performed at the level that they should. That is to the detriment of other hospitals. Has he studied the results of the change of management strategy over the years? We have changed names and paid managers more money, but they have not undertaken the required management. We brought in outside managers, and they did not last the pace. Does he believe that a change of management will transform the health service? He speaks about not-for-profit trusts, but will large trusts continue to exist, eat up the money and rob other parts of the health service of the necessary cash to maintain the required standards?
Mr. Milburn: Like the hon. Gentleman, I believe that we all want high-quality management and services in every part of the United Kingdom. There is no doubt that we need to foster a new generation of NHS managers. It is inevitable that there has been a fixation today on poor NHS management, but we should bear it in mind that we have some fine NHS managers. I can give testimony to that. When we provided the star ratings last year and considered the different performance of NHS hospitals, there were three times as many three-star NHS trusts performing at the highest levels as no-star hospitals. Of course, that is fundamentally due to doctors, nurses and other staff, but it is also due to the managerial leadership in those three-star trusts. We should not be frightened of saying that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need better management in all parts of the NHS, and
168
more management when appropriate. Management and leadership hold the key to many of the changes that we need to unlock in local health services.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I thank the Secretary of State for his interesting statement. It has not escaped Conservative Members' attention that his best proposals were lifted from the last Conservative manifesto. Imitation is a form of flattery, but I want to ask a specific question about our local hospital. If it opts out and imposes better pay and conditions for its staff, but is subsequently taken back into mainstream NHS management, what will happen to the pay and conditions? Will they be reversed? Will the pay be docked?
Mr. Milburn: I notice that the hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party speak the language of opt-out, while we speak that of one NHS, one set of values, principles and standards, and one inspection. [Interruption.] Since the hon. Gentleman is so keen on private sector organisations, he would do well to examine successful examples. He will find that they are held together by a common ethos, but that they give local autonomy to local services when there is an interface between the service and the local consumer. That happens in the best private sector organisations, and must also happen in the NHS.
I read the Conservative party manifesto for the last general election; it was devoid of content.
David Taylor: It will be no surprise to the Secretary of State that his announcement will stick in the throats of many Labour Members like an unchewed pretzel. Will he reassure Labour Back Benchers that he is not performing a soft shoe shuffle through the private operation of public assets to their eventual private ownership? Will he reflect on the experience of our antipodean cousins? Private management of public hospitals in Australia has been shown to be fraught with problems and difficulties and has led a Committee of the Australian Parliament to recommend:
"No further privatisation of public hospitals should occur until a thorough national investigation is conducted and some advantage for patients can be demonstrated for this mode of delivery of services."
No such advantage has been demonstrated in practice or in the Secretary of State's statement.
Mr. Milburn: Nobody is advocating the privatisation of NHS services. I am not; the Government are not; nobody is. Indeed, it is quite the reverse. We want patients everywhere, not just in some places, to get high-quality NHS care according to the right NHS principles: care that is provided free according to need, not to the ability to pay. That is the right set of values. However, I simply do not believe that we can continue with the age-old structures, and assume that a national health service of 1.2 million people treating 20 million patients a year can somehow be run from a single office in Whitehall. That simply will not deliver the goods for patients.
Dr. Richard Taylor: I know that the Secretary of State is aware of a recent vote of no confidence in their managers, both at trust and health

169
authority level, by a vast majority of consultants across the whole of Worcestershire. What does he propose to do about that?
Mr. Milburn: In keeping with the spirit of devolution, that is a matter for the management in Worcestershire. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about that issue, he should raise it locally rather than with me.
Mr. John Baron: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what criteria will be used to ascertain which hospitals are deemed to be failing, and which will become more autonomous? Will that depend on the star rating system? If so, as hospitals move up and down that rating system, will that signify a change of control?
Mr. Milburn: Yes, that will depend on the star ratings. Last year—the first year that we used the star ratings—we used certain criteria. I said at the time that the star ratings were far from perfect and that they needed to be improved—and indeed they do. This year, when we do the star ratings, with the involvement of the Commission for Health Improvement—and in future years with growing CHI involvement—the hon. Gentleman will see that the star ratings give a much more rounded assessment of performance, not only in primary care trusts but in NHS trusts too.

Point of Order
4.22 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You know, and we know, that you have recently deprecated the practice of Ministers making important statements outside the House, and then not even volunteering to make them here but having to be dragged here by a private notice question. You reminded us of that very recently. We have now had a blatant example of a senior Minister casually disregarding what you have said from the Chair. Is it now time for you to consider what further action you must take, and whether you might invite Ministers for private meetings—probably without coffee—to discuss this with you? Might you also consider whatever further sanctions may be available to you within the constraints of our Standing Orders and of Erskine May? The House will not put up with this any longer. You have given guidance, and correctly said what must happen, yet here we have another example of arrogant Ministers ignoring the House until they are dragged here.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Minister was dragged here. [Interruption.] Order. No, he was not. A private notice question was submitted, and one of the reasons why I agreed to it was that a statement was made outside the House. So far as Ministers coming to see me is concerned, Ministers and shadow Ministers are more than welcome to come and see me—as, indeed, is any hon. Member—and they will always be able to get a coffee.

Members of Parliament (Employment Disqualification)
4.24 pm
Peter Bradley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the remunerated employment a Member of Parliament may undertake.
In last week's debate on Lords reform, there was broad political consensus across the Chamber on the need to modernise and extend our democracy, not just in the Lords, but in the Commons, to improve Parliament's scrutiny of the Government and to rebuild public confidence in politicians. If we meant what we said last Thursday, I hope for similar agreement from both sides of the House that this Bill would make a modest but important contribution to the reform of Parliament and the rehabilitation of its Members.
There has also been much debate recently about the way in which we do our business here. Why does the House of Commons not sit routinely in the mornings? Simply because in Parliament's so-called golden age running the country and holding the Executive to account were not allowed to interfere with Members' principal interests—making money in the City and the law courts. Why do we have such long summer recesses? So that landowning Members of Parliament could go back to their estates to get the harvest in. In short, for many, the House of Commons has traditionally been a hobby, an inheritance, an exercise of power without much troublesome responsibility.
Times have changed and demands on MPs' time have grown exponentially. In the 1950s, Members of Parliament routinely received 15 to 20 letters a week. That figure is now closer to 300 to 500. Constituents' expectations are justifiably higher. Being an MP is a full-time job—a 24-hour a day job, if we let it be so—but we do not have to be here. We are here by choice. Unlike most people, we do a job that we have chosen to do. We are, or we ought to be, full-time professionals. We are certainly paid as such. Indeed, we are well paid for the job that we do. We earn three to four times the average income of our constituents.
My analysis of the Register of Members' Interests shows, however, that no less than 24 per cent. of our colleagues are not satisfied with the job that they are doing.
Mr. Martin Salter: Name them.
Peter Bradley: I am sorry, but it would be difficult to name 155 Members who think that they can do this job and, in many cases, several others besides. The House of Commons has become the epicentre of the black economy. No self-respecting employer in our constituencies would tolerate the moonlighting in which many Members of the House are engaged. It would not be tolerated in our constituencies; it should not be allowed here. However, a quarter of MPs are evidently too greedy, too bored or too arrogant to devote the time and energy to the job that their constituents pay them to do.
Those Members have not fallen on such hard times that they are taking in laundry. They are in the City boardrooms and the Inns of Court, earning a small fortune. I am not suggesting that MPs should be required

171
to clock on or that the Bill would stop them sending their apologies to Select Committees from the grouse moors—I had that experience as a member of the Public Administration Committee—but we can stop Members moonlighting. That is what the Bill would do. It is not about setting limits on MPs' incomes.
If hon. Members receive dividends or inheritances, good luck to them, but the Bill would ensure that Members are not paid to be somewhere else when they should be doing the job of MP. It is not unduly prescriptive either. It would allow such occupations—journalism, lecturing, public policy development—that are broadly compatible with the role of MP. It simply is not acceptable for MPs to pursue parallel careers as company directors, Queen's counsel or consultants. The Bill would outlaw those activities for MPs and in so doing help to improve the overall performance of Parliament and its scrutiny role in particular.
My review of the register has revealed that 8 per cent. of Labour MPs would fall foul of the Bill—that is 8 per cent. too many in my view—and that 28 per cent. of Liberal Democrat Members are moonlighting. It is hardly surprising, but the Conservatives carry off the prize and, indeed, the cheques. In recent years, the Conservative party's persistent theme has been that the House of Commons is supine, Parliament is in decline and the Government go unchecked. Why, then, do Conservative Members have the lowest voting records and the lowest attendance records at Select Committees, Bill Committees and statutory instruments Committees? Where are they?
According to my analysis, 66 per cent. of Conservative Members—more than 100—are out there in the marketplace when they should be putting their money where their mouth is and holding the Executive to account. When 57 per cent. of Tory Front Benchers and 48 per cent.—almost half—of the Shadow Cabinet are out there, too, it is little wonder that the Opposition are so roundly dismissed and despised by the public. How can a Tory Front Bencher be doing his job when he has 16 directorships to nurture? How can a Tory Select Committee Chairman find time for that important job when he is the director of eight companies, a partner in another, an adviser to two more and a practising barrister to boot?
The Bill would offer those Members and, indeed, right hon. and hon. Members from all parties a choice—be a member of the board or be a Member of Parliament, but not both. Most Members of Parliament are here because they believe in public service. We need to show our constituents that that is our top priority, first and last. If we cannot commit ourselves to our constituents and keep the faith with them, how can we expect them to place their confidence with us? Reform starts here, and it starts with us.
4.31 pm
Michael Fabricant: I oppose the Bill. At the outset, I should make it clear that I have nothing to declare, in the sense that I would not fall within the ambit of the Bill because I do not have the sort of outside interest that the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) has described. Incidentally, I hope that the hon. Gentleman contacted the Chairman of the Select Committee to whom he referred to say that he would be impugning his integrity.
172
I listened to the hon. Gentleman with growing incredulity. He mentioned hon. Members flirting with the boardrooms and the courtrooms. I remind him that many Labour Members who are involved with the boardroom and the courtroom are the most active in cross-examining the Government. No consideration is given in the Bill to the type of work or the amount of time it takes up. It is a catch-all Bill that has nothing to do with the workings of the House, but everything to do with old-fashioned class warfare. Even now, hon. Members are frightened to raise issues of which they have intimate knowledge because current rules say that if Members have an interest, they cannot say anything—even if they know that legislation, for example, is wrong—because it is against the Standing Orders of the House. That is wrong.
The electorate would be wholly disadvantaged by the Bill. The only winners would be Whitehall or Downing street, because it would result in an emasculated Parliament. I note that the hon. Member for The Wrekin has listed some of the activities that would be exempt under the Bill. I have checked the Register of Members' Interests and that list appears to coincide almost precisely with his own declaration of activities.
I was also curious to find out why the hon. Gentleman wished to promote this Bill, so I researched his background. He did a BA in American studies at Sussex university. That is not bad, because I did a masters degree at Sussex university. The hon. Gentleman went on to become a public affairs consultant, a research director for the Centre for Contemporary Studies, a director of Good Relations and managing director of Millbank Consultants. So he has never done a proper job.
I decided to analyse the questions asked of the Prime Minister by those hon. Members who have time to spend—the sort of Member that the hon. Gentleman would like to see in the House. For example, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) asked:
"It was great to see my right hon. Friend in Afghanistan earlier this week … encouraging our brave troops".—[Official Report, 9 January 2002; Vol. 377, c. 543.]
That was a question, apparently.
Just before Christmas, an hon. Lady asked this:
"My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will know that the Reading urban area has received an excellent local transport settlement of nearly £7 million and that it has also received £38 million for improvements to junction 11 on the M4. Does he agree—"
we have a question at least—
1"that this is a wonderful Christmas present for the people of Reading".
That is an example of incisive questioning. What was the Prime Minister's answer to this difficult question?
"I agree—I think it is a wonderful Christmas present".
On the same day, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) asked a penetrating question, bearing in mind that thousands of people had been made redundant in the aircraft industry. Nevertheless, he said:
"I congratulate the Prime Minister on the Government's effective response to the difficulties in the aerospace industry after the events of 11 September."—[Official Report, 19 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 280-87].

173
On 21 November, the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) asked this:
"After his no doubt healthy breakfast, did the Prime Minister have a chance to read the leader in The Guardian? Does he agree that affordable designer casualwear should be available in supermarkets throughout the country?"—[Official Report, 21 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 312]
My final quote comes from the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams); I will not be too rude about her because she lives in the same block of flats as me and we often walk home together. On 14 November, she said:
"Now that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues are sorting out Railtrack—"—[Official Report, 14 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 858.]
Need I go on any further, Madam Deputy Speaker?
The Bill is a load of self-indulgent, unreconstructed, ill-thought-out tosh. It would weaken Parliament, not strengthen it. It may not be consigned to the dustbin today, but I have no doubt that the Labour Government will consign it to the dustbin and dump it tomorrow.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Bradley, Ms Karen Buck, Mr. Iain Coleman, John Cryer, Mr. David Drew, Ms Julia Drown, Clive Efford, Helen Jackson, Martin Linton, Mr. Martin Salter, Mr. Jonathan Shaw and David Wright.

Members of Parliament (Employment Disqualification)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (EMPLOYMENT DISQUALIFICATION)
  Mr. Peter Bradley accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the remunerated employment a Member of Parliament may undertake: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 April, and to be printed [Bill 81].
Orders of the Day
  National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
    New Clause 1

      READINESS OF PRIMARY CARE GROUPS AND TRUSTS
      '(1) The Health Service Commissioners shall investigate the preparedness—

      (a) of Primary Care Groups to become Primary Care Trusts; and

      (b) of Primary Care Trusts to receive functions in accordance with this Act.

      (2) If after conducting an investigation it appears to a Commissioner that—

      (a) a Primary Care Group is not ready to become a Primary Care Trust; or

      (b) a Primary Care Trust is not ready to receive functions in accordance with this Act

      he shall lay before each House of Parliament a special report.
      (3) If a special report is laid in accordance with subsection (2)(a) above, no action shall be taken by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 16A(1) or (1 A) of the 1977 Act for the period of one year from the date of laying of the report.
      (4) If a special report is laid in accordance with subsection (2)(b) above, no functions shall be transferred or distributed to the Primary Care Trust referred to in the report for a period of one year from the date of laying of the report.'.—[Mr. Burns.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.38 pm
      Mr. Simon Burns: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, at end insert—
      '(c) a Strategic Health Authority shall only be established under paragraph (a) above provided that there has been consultation with health professionals, local authorities and the general public in that area.'.
      No. 7, line 11, at end insert—
      '(d) Health Authority shall only be established under paragraph (b) above provided that there has been consultation with health professionals, local authorities and the general public in that area'.
      Government amendments Nos. 23 and amendment (a) thereto, 24 to 26, 74, 27 and 28.
      No. 8, in clause 8, page 9, line 21, at end insert—
      '(2A) In determining the amount to be allotted to a Primary Care Trust, the Secretary of State shall have regard to any liabilities which have been conferred upon it'.
      No. 9, line 21, at end insert—
      '(2B) In determining the amount to be allotted to a Primary Care Trust, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the health needs of the population served by that Trust.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 35, 36, 54, 55 and 61.
      Mr. Burns: We tabled new clause 1 because, as we said on Second Reading and in Committee, we believe that there has been an inordinate rush to establish strategic health authorities and primary care trusts. It would be a

      175
      grave mistake, and the height of folly, to rush through reforms in such as way as to leave them half cocked and half baked, so that the Bill does not achieve the Government's aims.
      The changes proposed in clauses 1 and 2 are extremely far reaching. Clause 1 proposes to abolish health authorities in England, of which there are approximately 95, and to replace them with strategic health authorities. There will be far fewer strategic health authorities than there are health authorities, and they will perform the key performance management role across the national health service in England. They will be responsible also for providing a lead in the strategic development of services, and for ensuring that all parts of the NHS work together effectively.
      The new primary care trusts will have the critical responsibility of providing and funding health care. About 75 per cent. of NHS funding will be handed to the PCTs to provide health care for our constituents around the country. The concern is that there has been far too much of a rush over starting up a new system that is very complex and wide ranging.
      I cannot understand why the Government are in such a rush to engineer the reforms. I question whether the structures to be put in place are ready to work without the whole edifice collapsing in confusion and disaster. The Government's rush to implement the changes reminds me of the adage, "Reform in haste, repent at leisure." The British Medical Association has warned that PCTs, where they exist, are relatively new organisations and that, as a result, the demands placed on them may be beyond their capabilities.
      The BMA has highlighted the fact that existing PCTs already experience difficulties in recruiting clinical staff, and warns that those problems will be exacerbated. It is also concerned that the timetable within which PCTs are intended to be and up and running is far too ambitions.
      As we heard on Second Reading and again in Committee, the Standing Committee considering the Health Bill in 1999—which became the Act that made possible the establishment of PCTs—was told by the former Minister of State at the Department of Health, who is now Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), that it was important to emphasise that the Government did not
      "intend a headlong rush to be made into PCTs".
      He added that it was
      "not part of the Government's agenda to impose PCTs on the national health service."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 April 1999; c. 252-53.]
      In another place, the former Health Minister Baroness Hayman made exactly the same point and gave the same assurances that there would be no rush to create PCTs, but the Government have performed a complete U-turn and are now doing precisely what they said they would not do when the 1999 Act went through this House a mere two and a half years ago.
      Not only Conservative Members are worried. Severe concerns have been expressed by members of the health professions that the proposals are being rushed through. A recent survey in the Health Service Journal showed that 46 per cent. of chief executives in NHS organisations believed that PCTs would be unable to cope with enlarged responsibilities, and that 33 per cent. of them thought that
      176
      the time scale and scale of the changes were unrealistic and dangerous. One chief executive has called the reforms a recipe for disaster, and another has described them as the most ill conceived and poorly thought out set of changes in decades.
      The King's Fund, in collaboration with the National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, has carried out a tracking survey on primary care groups and trusts. It suggests that there are many doubts about the ability of PCTs to absorb the pace of reform. Professor David Wilkin, the project director, said that the pace of change was being dictated by Government timetables rather than by a process of learning and of building on experience. He also pointed out:
      "It is not merely a question of resources to sort out this issue … What is needed are managers with the right skills and experience coming through the system. Managers from trusts and health authorities can be taken on, but we are dealing with primary care and they don't necessarily have the skills needed".
      The survey pointed out that the average number of managerial, financial and administrative staff employed by primary care groups was 6.8, compared with an average number for primary care trusts of 15.8—a serious discrepancy.
      Equally worrying is the fact that one in seven PCGs or PCTs still has—or had at the end of last year—no financial director.
      The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's measured flow, but he is aware, because he raised the same point in Committee, that primary care groups are sub-committees of health authorities and are under no obligation to employ their own finance director. They use the finance directors employed by health authorities, which is a perfectly sensible arrangement.
      Mr. Burns: I appreciate what the Minister says, but PCTs will have to employ finance directors when health authorities are scrapped. It is by no means certain that the finance director of a health authority will become the finance director of a PCT. [Interruption.] The Minister says "obviously". I accept his observation, but I argue that it adds to the force of my case. I suspect that many PCTs around the country will have finance directors without direct experience of working in the health service, with all the nuances and differences that those responsibilities cover.
      4.45 pm
      According to the report, the situation with regard to information management and technology was perhaps of more concern. It states:
      "Information to support core functions of PCG/Ts is inadequate and shows little sign of improving. PCG/Ts have made some progress in formulating development plans".
      It goes on to say:
      "Increasing shortages of skilled staff and resources make it doubtful whether they will achieve key national targets."
      Of greater worry to the authors of the report, to the BMA and to many others is whether the changes in the Bill will divert activity and resources from front-line patient care. Three quarters of chief executives questioned believed that the reorganisation would delay delivery of the national plan, and a quarter thought that the delay

      177
      would be severe. That would obviously have a critical impact on the delivery of patient care and the ability to provide the seamless flow of patient care when the changeover occurs.
      Our new clause seeks to save the Government from themselves by laying down procedures to ensure that changes to the delivery of health care under clause, 1 and especially clause 2, are introduced smoothly, successfully and without undue haste. We propose that the health service commissioners should investigate the preparedness of PCGs to become PCTs and the preparedness of existing PCTs to fulfil the functions that the Bill places on them.
      Under our new clause, where it is found that a PCG is not ready to become a PCT or—possibly more important because of the unseemly rush of PCGs to become PCTs—t is found that a primary care trust is not ready to carry out its functions, a special report would be laid before both Houses of Parliament. There would then be a period of 12 months when no action was taken, so as to establish a breathing space to allow PCGs and PCTs to prepare themselves adequately to perform their duties and functions. I hope that the House agrees that our suggestion is eminently sensible and that it will avoid the confusion and chaos that will result from fragile new bodies carrying out immense new duties with too little or no experience.
      If our Committee debates are anything to go by, Ministers will respond in an ostrich-like way. They will refuse to remove their heads from the sand and will try to reassure us that everything is proceeding satisfactorily, that there is nothing to worry about and that there are no problems. I am sure that they will trot out the same statistics as we heard in Committee at the back end of last year.
      Ministers will tell us that by October 2002 PCT coverage in England will be 100 per cent. I was interested to note, when I re-read the Minister's comments, that during the early sittings of the Committee he told us that there would be 100 per cent. coverage by April 2002. During a few sittings of the Committee, that date seemed to slip back to October 2002.
      Today, the Minister may be able to update us on the statistics that he gave us in Committee on the current progress of PCGs and PCTs. I suspect that, given the relatively short period that has elapsed since the end of the Committee proceedings, the figures will differ little from those that he gave us on 27 November last year.
      The Minister seems rather cheerful, as though there had been a dramatic change in the statistics. I shall read the statistics that he gave us last November, and no doubt he will be able to update us during the debate. While he is doing so he may prove one of the points that I am making about the moral pressure that is being put on PCGs to seek PCT status. They feel under pressure to achieve that status as quickly as possible so as not to miss out, or to cause problems, before October of this year.
      Unless the Minister has startling new figures, however, I suspect that we shall hear that 164 PCTs were established by April 2001; that a further 23 were—at the end of last November—likely to be approved shortly; that 23 of the remaining PCGs were approved for establishment from April 2002; and that 20 had been approved but had not yet received their notification of
      178
      approval. I suspect that notwithstanding the Christmas post they will almost certainly have received that notification by now.
      The Minister will tell us that 98 PCGs have submitted proposals for approval and were likely to be approved during December 2001 and January 2002. Of course, it is highly unlikely, given the Government's policy, that a PCG will not receive approval for trust status. He will tell us that a mere 11 PCGs are still consulting.
      In the not too distant future the Minister will, no doubt, update the figures. From the look on his face, he may even be able to tell us that he anticipates 100 per cent. approval by April 2002. That remains to be seen. However, behind all those statistics and behind whatever new statistics the Minister may shortly give us, a simple fact remains: there has been undue haste because the Government have changed their policy on PCTs. In effect, they have moved from a policy that was wholly voluntary.
      The Minister will say that there is currently no legal power to make any group become a PCT. That is true, but the pressure on PCGs to fall in line with the Government's policy and become PCTs is overwhelming, because they know that once the Bill is on the statute book the voluntary nature of becoming a PCT will be removed. We questioned the Minister on several occasions in Committee. He replied that he would ensure 100 per cent. coverage of PCTs in England by October 2002—if necessary, by using the legislation.
      PCGs are now becoming PCTs voluntarily, but that masks the pressure they have been under—that of knowing what the future holds for them. Like all hon. Members in the Chamber, they have seen the Bill and know the Government's intentions. As a result of that pressure, many PCGs that were not in the first wave rushed into securing trust status, which they otherwise probably would not have sought within such a relatively short time scale. A great deal of pressure has been put on PCGs to achieve PCT status, and many of them might not be properly prepared to handle their new, highly complex and difficult responsibilities. For those reasons, tremendous problems could arise in the health care provided to our constituents.
      My message to the Government is simple, and it is intended to be helpful: they are under no pressure—or only that caused by their own enthusiasm to put their Bill on the statute book to ensure that their proposals are up and running as soon as possible—and they should hold back for a short period. I suggest not that the proposals on trust status should be kicked into the long grass for a decade and a day never to happen, but that the Government should allow a little more time for the experience and expertise to be built up to ensure that, from day one, PCTs operate in a seamless and workable way and that our constituents encounter no hiatus, no teething problems and no other problem with their health care.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said in Committee, we do not disapprove of the PCT concept, but we want the Government to ensure that PCTs work properly and that they seamlessly fulfil their functions as soon as possible. If something is rushed, there can be no guarantee that that will be the end result. I warn Ministers now that if the transition is not seamless and it is bungled by the rush, terrible problems will arise. People's health will be

      179
      directly affected by any hiatus in the supply of care. Ministers do not want that to happen, which is why I cannot fully understand why they seem to be reluctant to take well-meaning advice simply to delay things a little to give the system time.
      Lynne Jones: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the rush to create PCTs. I attended a meeting of the PCG in my area last summer and can confirm that pressure has been put on those organisations. Indeed, a PCT has been created in my area despite the fact that the majority of GPs voted against it. However, I am not so sure about the new clause. There should be a delay but, when the health authorities are abolished, who will carry out the responsibilities currently delegated to PCTs?
      5 pm
      Mr. Burns: The hon. Lady, who represents a Birmingham constituency, alludes to a considerable problem with primary care trust status in her area. There was a great deal of opposition to the proposal. As she knows, there could be serious problems if—God forbid it does not happen—there were to be a hiatus as a result of the change. As she rightly said, the health authorities that handle the funding for the provision of services will be abolished and replaced by smaller strategic health authorities that have a completely different function and role.
      Most of the functions that health authorities perform will be transferred to primary care trusts. If they are in turmoil as a result of their lack of experience of running the new system, they will face a serious problem and there will be no way out of it. That is why I am desperately trying to impress on the Minister how sensible it would be to provide a little more time. We should not push the policy into the long grass never to be seen again; we should provide more time to allow expertise to be built up.
      Mr. Mark Francois: I want to support my hon. Friend's argument with a practical example from my constituency. Rochford primary care group, which includes several GP practices from Castle Point, considered whether to apply for PCT status but declined to do so in the first instance for a number of reasons. It had general concerns about the Government's proposals, faced some organisational issues and also faced problems with timing. Some of the GPs who were consulted thought that they were being rushed into the change.
      My hon. Friend's point is a real one, as evidenced by experience in my constituency. Leaving aside GPs' anxieties about the overall desirability of the proposals, many are anxious about the pace at which the change is being attempted.
      Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and next-door neighbour for a powerful point that backs up the examples that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and I have been given from around the country.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) is absolutely right. He has first-hand experience in his constituency of a problem that is not unique to his area. I am glad that the Minister is here to listen to the very problems that my hon. Friend highlighted.
      180
      Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 would also affect PCTs, as strategic health authorities in England and health authorities in Wales would be created only once there had been proper consultations
      "with health professionals, local authorities and the general public"
      in the relevant areas in which the authorities are to be established.
      I hope that Ministers in a Government who pay lip service to openness will find the amendments appealing. Before establishing a body that is responsible for strategic planning, it would be sensible that those who have to help to implement decisions and those who will be affected by those decisions should be consulted about the setting up of the authorities and about the crucial strategic role that they will play.
      I am heartened and pleased that we tabled such timely amendments. I received on my desk at lunchtime the Secretary of State's speech to the New Health Network, which he gave this morning. I am not sure when you entered the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it was interesting to see the Secretary of State for Health dragged here at half-past 3 to respond to a private notice question from my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). The right hon. Gentleman's interesting and important speech raised a number of issues on which we, through the good offices of Mr. Speaker, had the opportunity to question him, instead of leaving it to journalists.
      It was fascinating to see the right hon. Gentleman's reaction. The Benches were much fuller, and we had to look far and wide to find a Labour Back Bencher who was prepared to offer a crumb of support for the contents of his speech. It struck me that if the speech sets out his new philosophy and ethos—the word that he now uses—perhaps his Minister of State will be more amenable to accepting amendments Nos. 6 and 7, which encourage openness and consultation.
      In the speech to the New Health Network, the Secretary of State said:
      "All of these reforms"
      although relevant to the health service more generally, they tie in with the amendments—
      "involve government acting on behalf of patients in order to influence how the NHS relates to patients",
      as, indeed, the strategic health authorities should relate to patients. He went on:
      "They are all about getting the NHS to put the needs of its patients first. But a service designed around the needs of patients has to hand over more power directly to them. So there are reforms to give patients a greater role and a stronger say in the NHS—patients forums in every trust"—
      we will get on to those later because my hon. Friends and one or two Labour Members are not fooled by that
      "patients electing patients onto trust boards, the results of patient surveys helping to determine the ratings and the resources that trusts receive. And there are reforms too to introduce new procedures for informed consent because while patients have a responsibility to keep healthy, treat professionals respectfully and use services wisely, they have a right to be involved in decisions about their own care."
      I welcome the Secretary of State's philosophy on that, but what gives patients a greater opportunity to be involved in decisions about their care than consulting them, with health professionals and local authorities, as part of the local community, before the important strategic

      181
      health authorities are set up? I should have thought that he would be delighted that I am embracing that aspect of his philosophy.
      Although the Secretary of State had to concentrate on surviving the questions put by Labour Members this afternoon and possibly has to brace himself for the publicity that he will receive from the national press tomorrow morning and on the airwaves tonight, I hope that he will find a little time to win back some of his lost ground by contacting his Minister of State, whose presence in the Chamber means that he is isolated from him, to explain that the amendments provide a way to involve patients in the process and enable us to do something constructive, which I have been outlining in a high-falutin' way in my important contribution.
      Dr. Andrew Murrison: I wonder whether my hon. Friend shares my mystification about where in the Bill there is any reference to the plan that the Secretary of State outlined only a short while ago.
      Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend raises a rather confusing point. No doubt he was present for the private notice question, so he distinctly heard the Secretary of State say that he had not been dragged to the House today and that we would have the opportunity, during this evening's debate, to discuss the proposals outlined in his remarks. I am not convinced that the Secretary of State is as well acquainted as you are, Madam Deputy Speaker, with the procedures of the House.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: The Secretary of State has not read the Bill.
      Mr. Burns: Certainly not. That is left to the Minister of State.
      You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will tell me, rightly, that I cannot discuss the matters on which the Secretary of State was being questioned because they are not in the Bill, but my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) is right to be mystified. The only part of the Secretary of State's remarks today that is relevant and, more importantly, in order—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that he should be addressing his remarks to new clause 1.
      Mr. Burns: I am extremely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, because before you correctly reminded me of that, I was about to say that the only remarks by the Secretary of State that are relevant to the Bill relate to the narrow amendments, Nos. 6 and 7, on the need to consult before setting up strategic health authorities.
      I am optimistic that a crumb will fall from the table, as it did in Committee, and the Minister of State will ask, "Why didn't we think of this first?" If the Secretary of State had made his remarks earlier, we could have amended the Bill in Committee. The Minister of State would not have been so hard-nosed in Committee as to oppose our amendments on strategic health authorities. I hope that he will be more relaxed and more amenable to amendments Nos. 6 and 7, which would play an
      182
      important role in empowering local communities before the establishment of strategic health authorities. They would make communities feel that they were part of the system, and people would be reassured that their opinions, ideas and recommendations were being taken into account.
      Amendment No. 8 is straightforward. It looks modest but it is important, concerning as it does any funding and financial liabilities conferred on a new primary care trust under the new system. It may represent a belt-and-braces approach because I believe that the Minister of State said in Committee that, with one exception, health authorities do not have deficits. He may therefore argue, and I will listen carefully, that the amendment is not needed because when the new system is established, no deficits or liabilities will be conferred on the PCTs. However, this is an important issue that needs to be considered because nobody wants to strangle the new system at birth with debts that the PCTs did not incur.
      5.15 pm
      Finally, amendment No. 9—again, a straightforward amendment—states:
      "In determining the amount to be allotted to a Primary Care Trust, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the health needs of the population served by that Trust."
      A modest proposal: I assume that few people in the Chamber would disagree with its sentiments. It is important that the funding of health care is based on the needs of the local population and, of course, there are different needs in different parts of the country and among different populations. Off the top of my head, in my own area of mid-Essex there is a pressing need for even more money than the increase because, as the Minister is all too aware, our hospital waiting lists have not fallen for a single day below the level at which they were when the Government came to power on 1 May 1997. I have said before, and have told the Prime Minister, who does not seem to have an answer, that there is a pressing need to take into account local considerations; for some reason, the Government cannot honour their promise to bring down waiting lists in mid-Essex.
      There are other interesting criteria. I am sure that you are an avid reader of Hansard, Madam Deputy Speaker. One should look at the figures; I am choosing my words carefully because, I confess, I made a mistake 10 days ago in a written question. I asked the Government for health spending per head of population in Sedgefield, West Chelmsford, South-West Surrey and North-West Hampshire. Their response surprised me although, in another way, it did not. Funnily enough, Sedgefield receives noticeably more funding per head of population than West Chelmsford, South-West Surrey and North-West Hampshire—but not according to the answer, because, to be fair to the Minister of State, I was not specific and asked only for the amount. He gave me the weighted amount; his answer showed that the four areas, give or take £10 or so, each received about the same.
      If one asks the question that I should have asked—"What is the actual spend?"—the amounts are significantly different. Sedgefield gets significantly more per head of population than the other constituencies. I do not imagine that that was the case 10 years ago and I imagine that, in a few years' time, it will not be so.
      Dr. Evan Harris: My understanding is that the weighted capitation allocation

      183
      formula was introduced by the Conservatives as a change from the one used by the old resource allocation working party. It was amended on the advice of the University of York by this Government or the previous Government. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman will find that it has always been the case that deprivation, because of greater health needs, rightly leads to greater funding.
      Mr. Burns: I accept that. I thought that that was what I was saying about the amendment: different circumstances—including social deprivation, but others as well—determine the amount of health spending. We are trying to include that in the Bill; we must have regard to the population's health needs. To be fair, RAWP, for reasons that I shall not go into, was a flawed system, certainly for people in the home counties. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) changed the system to one that depended more on allocation per head of population. Indeed, when the Secretary of State first came to the Department as a Minister in 1997—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will now get back to the main point in his amendment.
      Mr. Burns: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      When funding allocations are made to PCTs, it is important that the needs of the population served by that trust are taken into account, for health rather than political reasons. On those grounds, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. One lives in hope. It is a new year, and the Minister is a reasonable man.
      Finally, I urge the Minister to consider carefully the time scale for the changeover to PCTs. It would be a crying shame if their introduction was marred by the fact that the system did not run smoothly. With the money that will be available, there is potential for PCTs to make a real difference to local people.
      Dr. Evan Harris: I shall comment briefly on the amendments in the group and speak to my amendment (a) to Government amendment No. 23, before the Minister moves the amendment. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) knows that I share his concerns about the speed of the change being imposed on the health service and the fact that there is to be yet more structural change. There seems to be no coherent strategy emanating from the Government under the Health Act 1999. As the hon. Gentleman said in Committee and repeated today, the national plan did not envisage that all primary care groups would have to become primary care trusts, no matter what.
      As I said on Second Reading and in Committee, part of the motivation for the changes seems to be that the Government want to be seen to be doing something and are therefore substituting activity for action. I expect that the Government will resist the new clause for the same reasons as they have done before.
      Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 may well be covered by provisions in the Bill. Government amendment No. 23 deals with consultation issues. There is little enthusiasm for yet more amendments on that subject, such as amendments Nos. 6 and 7, because of the consultation arrangements already included.
      184
      I recognise that Government amendment No. 23 is a response to concerns raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and others.
      Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman should give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who spoke to the amendment. The hon. Member for Leigh then agreed.
      Dr. Harris: I am more than willing to do so. I apologise if the hon. Member for West Chelmsford is deeply offended by not having had due recognition of the fact that he raised concerns about the degree of consultation. We all agree that there should be adequate consultation about strategic health authorities when boundaries and names are changed. I feel so strongly about the matter that I tabled an amendment to Government amendment No. 23, which would specify that the Secretary of State "shall", not simply "may", make regulations. I hope that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford will support that.
      Under previous arrangements, when there were community health councils, there was a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on such changes. That duty had existed for 23 years, since the National Health Service Act 1977. It seems that the obligation to consult—that is, the Secretary of State's duty to make regulations—has not exactly fettered Governments in reforming names, structures or boundaries since then. We have been inundated with reforms over those 23 years. If the Government choose to resist amendment (a) to Government amendment No. 23, they must explain why they place a lower priority on consultation than in the past, making it a mere optional extra if the whim takes the Secretary of State.
      The question is whether the Government will empower local communities by asking them what they think. I had a useful meeting with the Under-Secretary of State which touched on the matter. She kindly responded by letter, and I hope she will not mind if I quote it. She stated:
      "The Government amendment specifies that the Secretary of State may make regulations, rather than shall."
      She said that the reason for that was:
      "ensuring that there is scope for flexibility in the future."
      The only remaining flexibility relates to the ability not to make regulations on consulting local communities. If the Government want such flexibility, it can only be to water down obligations for which they should be providing. I hope that they will reconsider the wording of Government amendment No. 23. If they resist amendment (a) thereto, we will have to raise the matter in the House of Lords.
      As I said in an intervention, I am not entirely sure of the purpose of amendment No. 9, or of what it would produce. I understand that allocations that are part of weighted capitation are sensitive to the health needs of the local community. My concern is that the Government often go too far in seeking to take parts of that cake for central allocation, which inevitably does not ensure that allocation is transparent. The formula is complex, but at least we know what we are dealing with and allocations move slowly towards that formula when there is growth in the system.

      185
      I look forward to hearing the Government's response to my concern about Government amendment No. 23.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: I should like in particular to address amendment No. 6, which relates to the setting up of strategic health authorities. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said about primary care trusts, as I believe that they have been established too quickly. We often attack the Government for dragging their feet and not producing the documents that we want. For example, in the north-east, we are waiting for a White Paper on regional government—indeed, we are waiting, waiting and waiting. However, in this case, the speed of the changes has been far too great.
      An interesting example is the speed with which local health authorities in the north-east had to operate in order to set up a strategic health authority and carry out the consultation that was involved. The Department of Health launched the initiative on 7 September and it had to be finished by 30 November. That was a very considerable job for four health authorities covering a population of almost 2 million. Indeed, it was an enormous job. The chief executives of the health authorities that cover Northumberland, Newcastle and north Tyneside, Gateshead and south Tyneside and Sunderland joined together and set up a small project team in order to carry out the consultation, and it is worth considering what they achieved in that period. They held 38 meetings with the public, and dished out 6,000 copies of the consultation document and 33,000 copies of the summary leaflet. That was all done within the very tight space of time that I have mentioned. Moreover, 12 public meetings were held—one in each authority area. A proper presentation was given at each meeting, but sadly they were not well attended, as so often happens, especially when so little warning is given.
      One of the results of such a rushed operation was that members of the general public did not have an opportunity to register what was going on and attend the meetings. We cannot blame the project board for trying, but given the Government's rushed timetable, it was impossible to interest very many local people. The board helpfully published a summary of the consultation process. As well as mailing all the usual suspects, including local authorities, parish councils and so on, it tried to seek publicity in the media and picked 4,000 people at random from electoral registers in order to write to them. The net result, however, was that the biggest attendance at any of the public meetings was in Gateshead, where 20 people attended. The worst attendance was in Ashington, where only one member of the public turned up.
      I regret to say that in my constituency, where many people are extremely interested in what goes on, only six people turned up. I know my constituency well, so I am aware that there is very strong community spirit in Hexham. It seems inconceivable that only six people in Hexham were interested in attending a public meeting relating to a matter as important as the establishment of a new strategic health authority and all the primary care trusts that flow from it. Responsibility for what happened can be laid directly at the door of the rushed consultation process.
      186
      5.30 pm
      It is worth dwelling on the results of the meetings, which comprised professionals as well as members of the public. The summary states:
      "At most meetings comments were made about the pace of change and the enormity of the proposed changes. This was particularly in terms of the responsibilities for primary care trusts as new or developing organisations."
      That was much on people's minds. The major anxiety of those involved in providing health care in the north-east was that great change was being made extremely quickly. My hon. Friends have identified that, and I do not understand why Ministers have to rush all the changes.
      The summary also concluded:
      "At most of the meetings there were comments about the potential for public confusion with so many organisational changes taking place within the NHS."
      Again, members of the public, those involved in local authorities, health professionals and members of community health councils were worried that the process was being rushed and that more time was needed.
      Another lesson is that most people wanted information about the operation of the new systems. They wanted reassurance that the process of change would not create instability in the health service and the health economy. Our amendments are important because it is not necessary to rush matters. I do not understand why the Government should launch a consultation process to set up a strategic health authority that will serve nearly 2 million people on 7 September and expect it to be in place by April 2002, when we are still discussing the measure that relates to it in January.
      Mr. Francois: I want to deal with two specific matters: primary care trusts and strategic health authorities. In an earlier intervention, I gave the example of the Rochford primary care trust, which covers part of my constituency and several GP practices in Castle Point. I said that when it was a primary health group, it hesitated before applying for trust status, partly because some GPs were anxious about the pace at which the Government were attempting to push the process forward. I understand that the PCG has now applied for trust status, and that it has recently received formal approval from the Department of Health, or is close to doing so.
      In the past few years, GPs have had to cope with a tremendous amount of organisational change, such as the abolition of GP fundholding and its replacement by PCGs. Just as GPs were adjusting to the changes, the Government decided that they wanted them to be organised in PCTs rather than PCGs. More responsibility is associated with the former. Today, the Secretary of State made a speech which, it is worth reiterating, was not delivered in the House. He said that there may be further changes to the organisation and responsibilities of PCTs. I cannot pursue that further now if I am to remain in order. However, it is fair to point out that there will have been three, potentially four, major changes in almost as many years to the organisation by means of which GPs deliver primary care to the public.
      As we all know, GPs are busy. They can be expected to accommodate only so much change without its adversely affecting their ability to provide an adequate service to the patients whom they serve.

      187
      I shall give a practical example from my constituency. In the town of South Woodham Ferrers, a number of GPs have lists in excess of 2,000 patients long; one has a list in excess of 3,000. It defeats me how people who have to cope with that many patients can also realistically be expected to find the time to cope with yet more organisational change of the type alluded to earlier today.
      All the strategic health authorities were originally meant to be going live by 1 April this year. The Government have said repeatedly that they intend to adhere to that deadline, despite being told by many people who work in these areas that it would be practically impossible to do so. We are now some two and a half months away from that deadline, yet the senior appointments have not yet been confirmed in many strategic health authorities. Even in those SHAs whose chairmen and chief executives have been confirmed, the principal directors who will report to them have, in most cases, not been. The senior management teams in a large number of the SHAs are not yet in place, even though they are supposed to go live some two and a half months from today.
      There are other major issues to consider as well as the management of the SHAs. The place in which a number of them will be located has not yet been determined. Furthermore, the information technology systems that the SHAs will use has in many cases not been determined, particularly in cases in which perhaps two or three health authorities are being merged into one SHA. Funnily enough, in a number of cases, we find that they are all using slightly different IT systems, which will now require a great deal of work to make them all talk to one another. Alternatively, some of the SHAs might have to go back to square one, abandon the legacy systems that have been inherited and come up with an entirely new IT system.
      These are all significant issues that will require a great deal of time and careful thinking. Yet, in theory, all these problems up and down the country will be solved in a matter of a few months. The people working in these areas are putting in tremendous hours to try to make all this happen in the allocated time, but realistically it is not enough. There is only so much that human effort can achieve.
      It is worth stressing these points for one fundamental reason. Even leaving aside what has been said this morning and this afternoon, the creation of primary care trusts—and the movement of responsibility and, particularly, funding to those trusts—is a fundamental part of the Government's 10-year plan for the national health service. The creation of strategic health authorities is also an important part of that plan. If these elements are so important to the Government's overall conception, it seems ridiculous to rush them through in such an ill thought out way. If these key building blocks for the scheme are not launched successfully, the whole plan will be in danger of unravelling.
      It is not unreasonable to point that out to Ministers, or to ask them, at the eleventh hour, to pause and allocate more time, to give these already overworked people a fighting chance of trying to bring this off.
      Dr. Murrison: I am happy to say—and the Minister will be pleased to hear—that in Wiltshire, we are well ahead of the power curve in relation to turning PCGs into
      188
      PCTs. I am conscious, however, of areas of the country in which that is simply not the case. I support PCTs; the Government have built a cogent way ahead for primary care and I welcome that. My concern is that this fundamentally good plan is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) said, destined to fail in many areas of the country if it is not given sufficient time.
      This week, the Health Service Journal has told us that delays in publishing guidance on the roles and responsibilities of management boards running strategic health authorities are causing grief for 27 chief executives appointed so far. We naturally assume that those people would feel buoyed up by their appointment to new roles, or indeed relieved to have jobs at all at a time of uncertainty in the health service, yet they appear to be fairly critical and worried about the fact that there are aspects of the job about which they are not certain.
      That suggests to me that Ministers have handed down an unrealistic timetable for implementing the changes. Indeed, the second national tracker survey of 71 primary care trusts and primary care groups, which was supported by the Government, says:
      "Progress in commissioning, health improvement and partnership working is slower. Lack of reliability and timely information and insufficient managerial capacity remain".
      In other words, the system is creaking under the pressure of changes in the NHS, which is not in a state to accommodate these changes in this time scale.
      May I deal with strategic health authorities, because they have caused considerable grief across the country? A principal reason for that is that they have been insufficiently explained to people. Although it is not for me to be an apologist for the Government, I have spent considerable time reassuring those who have written to me that the SHAs and the boundaries that they impose should not impact on clinical networks and people getting health care as they do at the moment. The fact that they are worried and have had to contact me suggests that the changes are being pursued in such a way and according to such a brief time scale that the message is simply not getting across.
      We have heard from the British Medical Association how many loose ends remain, particularly in relation to SHAs. It is concerned about academic medicine, which is in a parlous state. We have yet to hear how SHAs will further the agenda for it. Insufficient thought has been given to that, which shows that insufficient time was available for Richmond house to get its head round the complexity of the NHS and how the proposals will melt into it and improve the situation.
      We have yet to hear whether tertiary health services will be the responsibility of SHAs, how PCTs will fit in or whether the regions will have a part to play. In other words, there is confusion—we have not been told. Again, that is not so much the fault of Richmond house or of Ministers; it is just that these things take time to work through, but the time scale is far too tight for that. I fully support the creation of PCTs, which is a positive move for primary care that is to be warmly welcomed, but I share the concerns of my hon. Friends that, in their haste, the Government risk the whole thing tumbling down like a pack of cards.
      It is ironic that we are discussing the pace of change and, indeed, change of this nature as a Gallup poll published today shows that 40 per cent. of people think

      189
      that the NHS is getting worse. Admittedly, a cheery and fairly optimistic minority of 13 per cent. reckon that it is getting better, but the balance think that it has remained static. It is difficult to see how the Bill will improve health outcomes—health care to patients—and I have yet to work out how that will happen.
      The Government are intent on driving the Bill through, but I urge them to revisit the timetable to which they have committed themselves. In that helpful spirit, I draw their attention to the new clause.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. John Baron: As the Minister is well aware from our deliberations in Committee, I, too, have reservations about the speed at which the reforms are being introduced. I am especially concerned because—if we are to believe the figures—by September 2004 75 per cent. of all spending will be dictated to a large extent by the PCTs. I am also in favour of the concept of localising health care as much as possible to ensure that patient care is given appropriate attention and meets required standards. My concern is that the speed of the reforms will put in jeopardy the foundation stones of the Bill, which in essence I support.
      The National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, in collaboration with the King's Fund, has carried out a second national tracker survey of 71 primary care groups and trusts. Professor David Wilkin, the project director of the survey, has commented that
      "there is a real danger the management of the organisational changes is going to divert attention from the core functions of improving care."
      He said that the pace of change was being dictated by Government timetables rather than a
      "process of learning and building on experience."
      He believes that improvements can be made but that
      "it's important to make sure we are not trying to do everything at once."
      The PCTs, where they exist, are relatively new organisations and the demands outlined may be beyond their existing capabilities. The PCTs need time to bed in and to get used to the important roles that they will perform in the new structure of the NHS. PCTs are already experiencing difficulties in recruiting clinical staff and those staff able, willing and competent to participate in the new functions. I have visited PCTs—as, I am sure, have other hon. Members—while they are taking on those new responsibilities, and have heard their concern that they cannot find the required calibre of management to fulfil the functions envisaged in the Bill in such a short time. Whether the deadline is spring 2003 or October 2003—as mentioned in Committee—it is an ambitious timetable given the tasks involved. There are some 120 PCGs, many of which are in the early stages of converting to PCT status.
      I have two specific concerns about funding, and I would appreciate it if the Minister would address them. First, will PCTs be saddled with the outstanding deficits of health authorities as part of the devolution process? That would leave the PCTs without the resources to implement their devolved responsibilities, let alone achieve the Government's targets. Arguably, with ever increasing central directives and no additional resources, there will
      190
      be little opportunity to improve the provision of health care over and above that achieved by the authorities the PCTs are to supplant.
      My second concern is that it is unclear whether PCT funds will be protected from the revenue consequences of any major building projects. If PCTs are not protected from those consequences, concerns will arise in areas where boundary changes following the establishment of strategic health authorities mean that PCTs may retrospectively become liable for the revenue consequences of a major building project.
      I am sure that the House would appreciate clarification from the Minister on those two issues. We all know that the devil is in the detail with a Bill of this sort, but those two examples give rise to the legitimate concern that the reforms—especially the establishment of PCTs—are being rushed through without due consideration for the consequences. I for one would much appreciate the Minister's clarification on those issues.
      Mr. Hutton: I start by referring to Government amendment No. 23 and the Opposition amendments that relate to it. As hon. Members who were members of the Standing Committee will be aware, I agreed in Committee to reflect further on the need for an amendment to provide statutory provisions concerning consultation in respect of the names, boundaries and mergers of strategic health authorities. It is clear that the Bill should now make statutory provision for such consultation and Government amendment No. 23 has been tabled to give effect to that.
      I would like to place on record my gratitude to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for drawing my attention to the issue in Committee. It will come as no surprise to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford that I do not think that amendment. No. 6 is necessary. It would restrict the requirement for consultation to health professionals, local authorities and the public.
      Amendment No. 23 allows for much wider consultation than the hon. Gentleman is proposing. I have concluded that, given the level of detail required, it would be best to deal with this issue by means of regulations rather than in the Bill. This is in line with, for example, the provisions for consultation on NHS trusts set out in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990—legislation introduced by the previous Conservative Government.
      In part, that addresses some of the arguments that I wanted to deploy against amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), which would put a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations. We have also already carried out extensive consultation in relation to the first wave of SHAs—the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and others have referred to that—and we do not want to have to re-run that process. That would not be in anyone's best interests.
      The vast majority of other regulation-making powers in primary legislation—concerning consultation on, for example, health authority structures and boundaries—do not put a duty on the Secretary of State. We have followed the standard pattern in drafting our amendment, which I hope is acceptable to the House.
      The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon was in some confusion about the Government's intentions. I want to make it clear to him that the Secretary of State

      191
      will make the regulations about consultation for SHAs. There would be precious little point in tabling the amendment if he were not of a mind to do that.
      I also want to make it clear that we certainly do not place a lower importance on consultation in the new NHS. It is very important that we involve and carry with us the public, who will be affected by the direction of reform that is being implemented through the NHS. They have a democratic legitimacy and an entitlement to make their voices and views heard at all levels when change is being proposed to health organisations and structures and to local health services.
      Rather than preview some of the arguments that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), will go through later, I shall say that it is clear that the reforms that we are asking the House to support today will strengthen and not weaken the role of public participation and involvement in the NHS.
      Dr. Evan Harris: As the Minister has been so clear, it is likely that I will suggest that this matter is not pursued in the House of Lords if the norm in these circumstances is that there should not be a duty to make regulations, but that the Secretary of State "may" do so. Will he reflect, however, on whether the Government—rather than he himself—are very good at consulting? We have heard announcements today about the structure and functioning of NHS trusts, on which there has been very little consultation.
      Mr. Hutton: There is an established and democratic procedure for how these things are done. It would be an unusual constitutional innovation for Opposition Members—I know that it is not being proposed today—to impose a statutory duty on a Secretary of State to consult before he was minded to announce any change of policy or to look at a way in which reform might be taken forward. There is a reasonable case for saying that when substantial reform is proposed to the NHS, there should be consultation. That has always been the spirit and practice of the Government; it is one that we intend to take forward. It cannot be argued—in terms of either the Bill or the amendment—that the Government in any way diminish the role of the public, or the voice of the public being heard effectively in the affairs of the NHS; far from it.
      Amendment No. 7 would impose a duty to consult before a health authority was established in Wales. However, it is clear that health authorities in Wales will only continue to exist until they are abolished on 31 March 2003. The policy intention in Wales is to create local health boards, as covered in clause 6. The only practical effect of the amendments would be to fetter the devolved powers that the House has already granted to Wales under the Government of Wales Act 1998. While there is no requirement to consult on the establishment of a health authority, the Welsh Assembly has conducted a full and open consultation in relation to the establishment of local health boards in Wales.
      The remainder of this group of amendments deal with technical issues to do with the boundaries of primary care trusts. Following the consultation on the new SHA boundaries, it has become clear that a small number of PCTs—perhaps two or three—will cross the new SHA
      192
      boundaries. Current legislation does not explicitly state that PCTs which cross health authority boundaries must not be established, but there is an underlying assumption in the way in which the Bill has been drafted that all PCTs will, in fact, fall within one health authority. It remains our intention that, in the vast majority of cases, PCTs should not cross the boundaries of SHAs.
      There is an argument to be made about the value of consultation and the importance of listening to local voices about where boundaries should be drawn across the NHS. For local flexibility to be maintained, and so that clinical networks—rightly referred to by the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) as important—should not be disrupted, it is important that, in those exceptional cases, it should be possible for PCTs to straddle SHA boundaries, if those boundaries have strong local support and make obvious sense.
      The Government amendments make provision for allowing PCTs which straddle SHA boundaries to be established—putting that issue beyond doubt—and provide for each SHA to receive the PCT's annual financial, patients forum and other reports. In essence, this group of amendments will serve to preserve maximum flexibility around PCT boundaries; that supports the principles of local decision making, which is fully consistent with shifting power and responsibility to the front-line. There are a number of points in primary legislation that need to be amended to allow for this, and that is why this group of amendments is relatively large.
      Amendment No. 25 makes a number of amendments to schedule 5A of the National Health Service Act 1977: to allow any SHA in whose area the PCT is established to meet preparatory costs; to allow any SHA to make available premises and other facilities during the preparatory period; and to provide for the PCT's annual financial and other reports to be sent to all SHAs in whose area the PCT is established.
      Amendment No. 26 provides for any SHA in whose area the PCT is established to give directions to that PCT. Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 make provision for the reports of patients forums to go to all SHAs in whose area the PCT is established. Amendments Nos. 24, 27, 28, 54, 55 and 61 make minor, consequential and technical amendments that are necessary to give full effect to the policy intentions.
      The bulk of our time this evening has been spent on new clause 1. I understand fully the concerns expressed by Opposition Members about the pace of change and the way in which the reforms are being handled. However, as was the case when the previous Administration attempted organisational reform of the NHS, there will always be those who say that that should not be done. There will be those who say that it is being done too quickly; some will say that it is the wrong reform.
      We have heard all those arguments this afternoon. Of course, when deciding the pace at which change should be made, the Government have to weigh the upheaval and disruption that a change of this scale and magnitude will inevitably cause against the benefits that we envisage that it will bring.
      6 pm
      The Government have to find the balance between those two competing arguments, and we cannot pretend

      193
      that they can be spirited away somehow. We therefore must be clear that the reforms, whose potential benefits for the NHS were questioned to some extent by the hon. Member for Westbury, will bring about substantial improvements in the performance, management and delivery of health care services. We are clear about that, and I hope that Labour Members in general are too.
      As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear today, the NHS is a large organisation. It has more than 1.2 million employees and treats more than 20 million patients a year. It operates in all our constituencies, at a number of different levels of intensity. It is inconceivable in this modern age that the sort of care that we want to be available could be delivered by the structures that presently exist, given the pressures on services, the introduction of new technologies and the speed at which things change in the delivery of medical services.
      Therefore, the change has to happen. It is necessary, although of course it will be difficult for some. That is always the nature of any substantial and radical reforms. These are radical reforms, but our judgment is that they will benefit patients, and therefore all our constituents.
      I was interested to hear Opposition Members say that they supported the reforms in general terms, but that their primary concern was about the speed at which the reforms were being introduced. As I said, I fully understand those concerns, but I think that the Government have got the balance and the judgment right.
      I am sure that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford moved new clause 1 with the best of intentions, but I do not believe that he has thought through the new clause's implications. First, it would create a new and I believe rather inappropriate role for the health service commissioner, which would add considerably to his already substantial work load. It would also be beyond the role envisaged for him under the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993.
      Also, new clause 1 could disrupt the provision of health care services, as it would create a vacuum while PCTs were being investigated, especially in relation to their new responsibilities for family health services. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for a Birmingham constituency that I cannot call to mind just now—
      Dr. Evan Harris: Selly Oak.
      Mr. Hutton: I was referring, of course, to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones). It is a very fine part of Birmingham, and I have visited it.
      It is not clear from the new clause who would be responsible for commissioning and delivering health care services. Moreover, it assumes that all the functions being allocated to PCTs will be new to them. That thread of misconception underlay most of the arguments presented by Opposition Members, as many of the functions to be directly conferred on PCTs are being exercised by them already, on behalf of their health authorities.
      The main difference is that the Bill will mean that PCTs will assume responsibility for all family health services. I accept that that is a substantial change, but many of the arguments about the readiness of PCTs to discharge their
      194
      new responsibilities overlook the fact that many have already been established successfully, and have been delivering their wider commissioning responsibilities for some time.
      In Standing Committee, I made it clear that we anticipated that all primary care groups will have gained PCT status before October 2002. In fact, 86 new PCTs have been approved by Ministers for April 2002, and 58 further applications are still with Ministers for approval. I expect that the vast majority of those will be approved in the very near future. Therefore, given that 164 PCTs are already in operation, it is clear that the majority of the country will be covered by April 2002.
      In Committee, I referred to 11 primary care groups that were still consulting on the proposals. Of those, 10 have now applied for PCT status. Their submissions are with Ministers and have been included in the figure of 58 applications that I mentioned earlier. The remaining PCG intends to apply for PCT status, and that application will be considered as soon as possible.
      Therefore, to suggest that PCTs lack the capacity to deliver their new responsibilities simply ignores the truth of the matter. Better support is already being given to practices and clinicians, and services are better integrated and more effective. There is better access, and decision making is carried out closer to patients and local communities.
      In the debate, an extensive reliance was placed on the tracker survey commissioned out by the national primary care research and development centre at Manchester—another excellent academic centre—in collaboration with the King's Fund. As Opposition Members rightly noted, the survey covered 72 of the 481 primary care groups established in 1999. The survey covered a three-month period between October and December 2000.
      I do not dispute the accuracy of the data at the time, but it is historic information. The Opposition rested their entire case for new clause 1 on the results of a tracker survey, and I think that that was a total mistake. Given the information available, and the concerns that have been raised about the performance of PCGs and PCTs, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford would have had a reasonable argument if the Department of Health had done nothing. However, no mention was made of the effort that has been put in since the tracker survey was published to provide better and more effective support to PCGs and PCTs, as they take on their new responsibilities.
      Those efforts continue to be made. The new leadership centre proposed in the NHS plan will play an important role. In addition, Barbara Hakin, an outstanding PCT chief executive from Bradford, is leading the management development programme for new PCT senior managers. Her excellent services are beginning to make a significant and positive contribution.
      Some people will always say that a reform of this magnitude is wrong, or a source of concern. I do not doubt for a second the legitimacy of such arguments, or the right of people to express them. Of course people who are worried about reform should express their unease, but the view should not be formed that other people—equally eminent and respectable—have not expressed positive and supportive views about the pace and direction of change.
      The argument this afternoon has been very one sided, as it was in Standing Committee. It is fine for Opposition Members to express their concern, but they should also

      195
      acknowledge the positive developments that have taken place and the progress that has been made. If the Conservative party wants to be an effective Opposition who scrutinise legislation properly, Conservative Members must be able to make both sides of the argument, as that would certainly improve the quality of legislative scrutiny.
      It would also be wrong to assume that PCTs are not getting the support that they need, as I have tried to make clear. Therefore, I believe that new clause 1 is mistaken, and I am not entirely sure of the motivation that lies behind it. It was designed as an amendment that would help the Government's reform programme, but we must beware of Greeks in that situation.
      With respect to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford and to other hon. Members, the arguments in favour of new clause 1 are not persuasive, and I cannot ask Labour Members to support it.
      Mr. Francois: Either by accident or design, the Minister has said very little about strategic health authorities. Does he accept that it is integral to the Government plan that the SHAs must succeed? Is not it also a part of the plan that merging other health authorities into SHAs is a deliberate attempt to reduce head counts and thus to free up more money for patient care? Everyone realises that there will be job losses as a result of the mergers. Is not the Minister asking people to work flat out, on an incredibly tight timetable, to get the SHAs up and running, even though those same people have no idea whether they will have a job in the surviving organisation in a few months time? Is not—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.
      Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman has certainly done that, but I was not referring in detail to SHAs, as the amendments are about PCTs. I was trying to explain the Government's thinking about the establishment of PCTs, and about whether that should be delayed. I have mentioned the duty of consultation on SHAs—
      Mr. Francois: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This group of amendments comes under the heading "Establishment of Strategic Health Authorities and Primary Care Trusts".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
      Mr. Hutton: I do not want to delay our proceedings. We are talking about new clause 1; the hon. Gentleman interrupted me when I was talking about new clause 1, which is about primary care trusts and not strategic health authorities. I dealt with the arguments on strategic health authorities when I referred to Government amendment No. 23 and the amendment that has been proposed to it. I am not short-changing the House, nor am I gnoring the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has been trying to deploy.
      The hon. Gentleman is right that organisational changes may mean that people lose their jobs as a result. The NHS has a responsibility; we will discharge it to make sure that we act fairly in relation to the employees at all times
      196
      during the process of change. There are exciting new opportunities presented by the reforms for which we seek the House's support, particularly in relation to the new roles and responsibilities of primary care trusts. The hon. Gentleman, who takes a close interest in these matters, will know that many currently working in health authorities are looking towards employment in the new primary care trusts and will find employment in that area.
      The hon. Gentleman's wider point about what should motivate the Government as they consider these reforms is fair. What motivates us is a simple desire to improve the quality of the national health service. We will do that, in this instance, by making the NHS more streamlined, less bureaucratic, more focused on patient care and making sure in the process that we get better value for the record investment in the national health service. That is an entirely appropriate responsibility for the Government and Ministers to discharge, so I shall certainly not apologise to the hon. Gentleman or to anyone else for those considerations.
      Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 deal with funding arrangements under the new system. Amendment No. 8 would require the Secretary of State to take into account the assets and liabilities contained in the balance sheet when determining allocations to primary care trusts. This area is inevitably technical and complex, but I will try, as far as possible, to keep the issues simple, not only so that the House can understand them but so that I can.
      Usually only those assets and liabilities associated with the functions assumed by the PCTs will transfer to them. The process is that PCTs agree with the relevant health authorities and, where appropriate, NHS trusts the balances that will transfer. These amounts will normally be straightforward and attributable to specific PCTs. However, there may be cases in which that is not appropriate or practicable. That might include any small outstanding health authority running cost charges which cross boundaries—utilities bills, for example—or there may be circumstances in which an under or over-performance on service agreements, such as maternity services, might have arisen. In these circumstances, other equitable methods will be used, such as a simple apportionment.
      Turning to the financial consequences of transferring a liability to a PCT, as we would expect in any public or private sector body, there will always be amounts due in income and amounts due to be paid at the year end. In the case of health authorities, most of those sums will be moneys owed to and from other NHS bodies. PCTs will inherit these balances from health authorities. I think that that is fair and reasonable. The overall resources available to PCTs for spending on health care in-year, however, will be unaffected by these inherited balances.
      Cash will, of course, be required by the PCT physically to discharge the liability at some point in the future. However, that is largely a question of timing and can be taken into account if necessary when agreeing the cash financing of the PCT. As a strict consequence, the amendment is unnecessary.
      The practical effect of amendment No. 9 would be to require the Secretary of State to take into account the health needs of a primary care trust's population when he makes an allocation. We all accept that different parts of the country and different localities have different health care requirements and needs. I agree with the

      197
      hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon on that. It is partly a reflection of deprivation but may also be a result of geography. The national resource allocation formula that we use to determine fair shares for health authorities and primary care trusts recognises this. It is already used to establish fair share targets for primary care trusts, and while allocations are still made to health authorities, they are required to pass resources on to primary care trusts in accordance with national guidance.
      We have asked the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation to review the operation of the formula at primary care trust level. When in future we allocate resources direct to primary care trusts, we will have a national formula that takes into account the health needs of a primary care trust's population. We will have a pace of change policy to bring primary care trusts towards their targets, or fair shares, determined by the formula.
      6.15 pm
      Allocations to local authorities—probably the most obvious and direct comparison that we could make in this context—are determined on comparable formulae, which also need to take into account many different issues. As with those for health authorities and PCTs, and in order to preserve maximum flexibility in a rapidly changing area, the formulae used by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions are not set out in primary legislation. Neither is the formula for allocations to NHS organisations. It has never been the policy of successive Governments to specify part or all of the detail of the formula or the issues that should be taken into account in determining allocations to NHS organisations, whether PCTs, trusts or health authorities. There are powerful and convincing arguments for not doing that.
      To some extent, amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are contradictory. Amendment No. 9 wants health care needs to be the basis upon which allocations should be determined to NHS trusts and PCTs, but amendment No. 8 wants the Secretary of State to take into account the financial liabilities of those organisations as well. I do not want to make a meal of this, but the hon. Member for West Chelmsford is to some extent pointing in two different directions on this. Is it a question of need or of a range of financial circumstances? He cannot have it both ways.
      One could play devil's advocate and raise the question of surpluses. If one is to take account of liabilities under the hon. Gentleman's formula, why should the Secretary of State not take surpluses into account as well? I think it best to make sure that the allocation formula to trusts is based on health care needs. Meeting the health care needs of local people should be the exclusive determinant. That is precisely how we are addressing those issues.
      There is an argument, which the hon. Gentleman raised, about whether his health authority or trust is fairly funded compared with a range of others. Most Labour Members would find it difficult to see the fairness of the comparison between West Chelmsford and Sedgefield and other parts of the country that he was trying to identify. It is on the basis of equity and fairness that the NHS should be funded according to the health care needs of local people. So I cannot accept amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
      198
      We have had a fairly full debate about these issues. We have gone over territory which is very familiar to those of us who served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. Conservative Members have raised a perfectly reasonable set of concerns, but my response to them, and to new clause 1 in particular, is that they have not acknowledged the progress that has been made since the second tracker survey was published. They have not weighed up, as we are required to do, the balance between the necessary changes, the organisational upheaval that they would impose on the service and the benefits to patients and the wider national health service. It is a complicated balancing equation, but our responsibility in government is to act first and foremost in the interests of patients. That is precisely what we are doing and why I do not want the House to accept the new clause.
      Dr. Murrison: I am concerned about the Minister's dismissal of the second tracker survey, which is only months old. The work may have been carried out in the latter part of 2000 but it was published some time after that. If the right hon. Gentleman is so dismissive about the survey such a short time after its publication, why did he support it in the first place?
      Mr. Hutton: I am not dismissive of the tracker survey. We think that it is a very important piece of work. It has helped us to respond to the concerns and criticisms made at the time. That is why we have put into place a substantial programme of primary care trust development work right across the NHS. I am not dismissing the contribution that the tracker survey has made. I am simply disputing the use that Conservative Members are making of it for the purposes of this argument. That is a very different issue.
      In relation to these provisions, as to others, the House has an important decision to make tonight. These reforms are important and I accept that they are radical. However, they are motivated by a clear, simple and transparent principle—to make sure that as much responsibility, power and authority in the national health service is devolved as close to the front line as possible. That will allow the innovation, enterprise and experience of NHS managers to be used to the fullest possible benefit of staff, patients and the public as a whole. That is why the Bill should be supported by the House and the new clause, which has been considered carefully, should be rejected.
      Mr. Burns: I listened to the Minister with great care. As a humble Opposition Member, I should like to say how grateful I am that a crumb has fallen from the Government's table and that the Minister has seen the strength of the argument put by my hon. Friends and me in Committee, and that he has in effect accepted amendment No. 6—albeit by substituting it with Government amendment No. 23. I am delighted that he has seen common sense and accepted the wisdom of what we and—to be fair—the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) were trying to do and has drafted an amendment of his own. We have to be grateful for small mercies and this is one of those occasions, so I thank the Minister for that.
      The Minister said that amendment No. 8 was horribly technical and that he did not want to go into the minutiae of its detail in case he confused my hon. Friends and me and, indeed, himself. Unusually I shall take the Minister

      199
      at his word; I shall not press either amendment No. 6 or amendment No. 8 to a vote. I, too, am not qualified to argue on the minutiae of the amendment. Having listened to the Minister, I shall also not press amendments No. 9 and No. 7.
      I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks on new clause 1. Although the drafting of the provision might have been flawed and it might indeed have been improved, I am disappointed that the Minister is not minded to accept it. The new clause was a genuine attempt to try to help the Government, as I said earlier. If the House is to change a crucial system that relates to two pillars of the NHS—its funding and its seamless provision of care—one obviously wants to ensure that the service works smoothly during the changeover from one system to another.
      From the evidence that my hon. Friends and I have provided, both in Committee and during today's debate, we believe that there could be problems. As many of us pointed out during the debates on the Bill, we are not alone in expressing such concerns: health professionals and respected professional bodies such as the BMA have all expressed concern. However, I accept that the Government have the whip hand.
      We have made a genuine attempt to try to help them, but they feel that our help is unnecessary and that things will be all right on the night. The jury is out on that. As a responsible Member of the House I hope that I am wrong. No one wants the system to be fraught with problems and mistakes. No one wants a hiccup in the provision of health care for our constituents, so I hope that I am wrong.
      I do not know whether I am wrong; equally, I am not convinced that the Government know that they are right—we shall see. I reiterate that I hope that we are wrong. I hope that the system is seamless and that our constituents do not experience disruption or problems. We have tried our best.
      As the Government are not prepared to take the lifeline of help that we are responsibly offering them, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 2

      COMMUNITY HEALTH COUNCILS: SCHEME FOR REFORM
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament within 12 months of the date of coming into force of this section regulations setting out a scheme for the reform of the Community Health Councils in England.
      (2) The scheme set out by the Secretary of State in regulations under subsection (1) above shall extend to all parts of the health service (including the provision of Part II services under the 1977 Act).
      (3) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for access by members of a Community Health Council to premises from which services under Part II of the 1977 Act are provided.
      (4) The scheme set out by the Secretary of State in regulations under subsection (1) shall provide for the proper representation of the population in the area served by a Community Health Council on that council.
      (5) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Burns.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Burns: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 5—Establishment of Patients' Councils—
      '(1) The Secretary of State shall, subject to subsection (2) below, establish a body to be known as a Patients' Council ("Councils") 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); each council shall be appointed from among members of relevant Primary Care Trust Patients' Forums and NHS Trust Patients' Forums operating in that area and representatives from relevant community interest groups.
      (2) 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.
      (3) The functions of a Council are to represent the interests in the health service of the public in its district and in particular to—

      (a) facilitate the co-ordination of the activities of member Patients' Forums including by the provision of staff and services to Patients' Forums,

      (b) provide or make arrangements for the provision of services under section 19A of the NHS Act 1977 (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 mentioned in sections 7, 8 and 10 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001) the views of members of the public in its area about matters affecting their health,

      (d) advise the bodies mentioned in subsection (4) 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.

      (4) The bodies referred to in subsection (3)(d) are—

      (a) health service bodies,

      (b) other public bodies, and

      (c) others providing services to the public or a section of the public.

      (5) The Secretary of State shall, following consultation with the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, Community Health Councils, patients' and carers' organisations and the wider community, by regulation make provision in relation to Councils as to—

      (a) the Patients' Forums and other community interest groups from which members of the Council are to be appointed,

      (b) any qualification or disqualification from membership,

      (c) terms of appointment,

      (d) the proceedings of a Council,

      (e) the discharge of any functions of a Council by a committee of the Council or by a joint committee appointed with another Council,

      (f) the circumstances in which Councils will co-operate with each other in the exercise of their functions and exercise functions jointly with one or more other Councils,

      201

      (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 NHS 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.

      (6) 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).
      (7) In section 21(10) of the Local Government Act 2000 (membership of overview and scrutiny committees) after the words "who are not members of the authority" there shall be inserted ("and shall include a person appointed by the relevant Patients' Council").
      (8) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Health Authorities Act 1995 as amended by this Act after "(c) a prescribed number of officers of the Health Authority" there shall be inserted—
      "(d) persons appointed by the relevant Patients' Councils.".'.
      New clause 7—Duty of Secretary of State and Strategic Health Authorities to consult—
      'In subsection 11(2) of the Health and Social Care Act 2001, paragraph (a) is omitted and the following is inserted—
      "(a) the Secretary of State,
      (aa) Strategic Health Authorities,".'.
      New clause 8—Functions of overview and scrutiny committees—
      '(1) In subsection 7(1) of the Health and Social Care Act 2001, after "recommendations" the words "and referrals to the Secretary of State" are inserted.
      (2) In subsection 7(3) of that Act, after paragraph (a) there is inserted—
      "(aa) as to matters relating to the health service in the authority's area which the committee may refer to the Secretary of State,".'.
      Amendment No. 1, in clause 15, page 20, line 2, leave out Clause 15.
      Government amendments Nos. 33, and amendment (a) thereto, and 34.
      Amendment No. 2, in clause 16, page 21, line 4, leave out Clause 16.
      Amendment No. 73, line 20, at end insert—
      '(but for the purposes of this section "promises" shall not include the private living quarters of any person)'.
      Amendment No. 3, in clause 17, page 21, line 31, leave out Clause 17.
      Government amendment No. 37.
      Amendment No. 4, in clause 18, page 22, line 13, leave out Clause 18.
      202
      Amendment No. 70, in page 22, line 27, after "Forums", insert—
      'by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health'.
      Amendment No. 63, line 27, leave out "other facilities and staff' and insert "and other facilities".
      Government amendment No. 38.
      Amendment No. 64, line 37, after "by", insert "a Patients" Council,".
      Government amendment No. 39.
      Amendment No. 65, in page 23, line 1, after "by", insert "a Patients" Council,".
      Amendment No. 71, line 2, after "Authorities", insert—
      'and overview and scrutiny committees'.
      Amendment No. 72, line 3, after "of", insert ", or referrals from,".
      Amendment No. 66, line 20, after "Forum", insert ", a Patients" Council".
      Amendment No. 67, line 24, after "section 15" insert—
      'and a Patients' Council under section
      [Establishment of Patients' Councils]'.
      Amendment No. 68, in clause 19, page 23, line 43, after "Forums", insert "and Patients" Councils".
      Amendment No. 69, in page 24, leave out lines 5 to 10 and insert—
      '(g) coordinating and supporting the activities of Patients' Councils in respect of their activities provided for at subsection (3)(c) of section [Establishment of Patients' Councils],'.
      Amendment No. 5, in clause 20, page 25, line 23, leave out Clause 20.
      Amendment No. 11, in page 26, line 5, at end insert—
      '(7A) This section may not be brought into force until the Secretary of State has issued a certificate stating that in his opinion the bodies established under section 15 are fully functional and performing their duties effectively throughout England.'.
      Mr. Burns: Even at this late stage, new clause 2 will try to stop the Government making a pernicious and vindictive attempt to stifle any opposition to the abolition of community health councils. As most hon. Members in the Chamber will remember, there is a long history to this sad and sorry affair.
      When the Government introduced the Health and Social Care Bill during the last Parliament, they tried to remove CHCs. They were ruthless in their determination to brook no opposition in this place, to have their way and to ensure that the CHCs were removed by what is known in common parlance as a patsy—a lapdog of an apology for a forum for patients who had grievances against the local NHS in their area.
      Far too many people saw through that attempt to get rid of a "troublesome priest"—in the words of Henry II. The CHCs were a thorn in the side of the Government because they had the guts and the courage to represent the people they had been created to look after and to speak their mind about failure in the provision of health care locally or about injustice in the health service.
      The Opposition and—to their credit—several independently minded Labour Members fought the case vigorously, but the Government steamrollered the measure through the House before the general election.

      203
      However, their attempt to abolish CHCs was thwarted by the common sense and experience of another place. The Government had to drop their disgraceful proposal so as to ensure that the remaining contents of the Health and Social Care Bill reached the statute book before Dissolution in May 2001.
      At the first opportunity in the new Parliament, the Government shamelessly brought back those proposals in this Bill, but for the life of me I cannot understand why. Community health councils were created as long ago as 1974. They represent and help members of the public within the orbit of the health service. They are independent bodies, which is crucial. They have teeth and power; for example, if a CHC does not agree with a health authority or a trust about a proposed hospital closure and formally objects, the proposal has to go to the Secretary of State for decision. They have built up tremendous expertise and experience in looking after patients, and the Under-Secretary will certainly be aware of that.
      I shall come to the Under-Secretary's role a little later, but she will be aware that I believe that CHCs have done more than enough to justify their retention. On average, they assist about 30,000 people a year. A recent poll conducted by Health Which? found that 84 per cent. of those who had contacted their CHCs found the advice given to them very or fairly useful, which suggests an extremely high satisfaction rate.
      Similarly, a recent report, "Hidden Volunteers", conducted by Community Service Volunteers, estimated that CHC members contributed through their dedicated work about £7.9 million worth of free labour to the NHS. No one in the Chamber would underestimate their work. They have been extremely brave. They have devoted a great deal of their time and effort to fulfilling their role, looking after those people whom it is their job to represent and help.
      What do the Government want to do? They want to abolish CHCs. I shall not be convinced by their reasons for wanting to abolish CHCs, whatever the Under-Secretary says, because there is only one reason: they do not like opposition. Those who oppose them and have the temerity to embarrass them, by highlighting failings in their policy or in its implementation, have to be silenced because they are out of kilter. That is an extraordinary reason to get rid of any organisation, and I shall be particularly interested to hear the Under-Secretary's response. I have heard her response once before in Committee, and I suspect that it will be along similar lines today.
      The Under-Secretary chaired Salford CHC from 1993 to 1997, so more than any hon. Member in the Chamber tonight she has a working experience and knowledge of how good CHCs are. I suspect that, between 1993 and 1997, she thought with justification—she chaired that CHC and she is an able individual—that Salford CHC was very good indeed at fulfilling its functions. I do not think for a minute that she wanted her CHC, or any other, to be abolished. As I am sure she would have said if the previous Government had proposed to abolish CHCs, they had an important, independent role to play, and they played it extremely well.
      6.30 pm
      Sadly, times have changed, and the Under-Secretary will stand at the Dispatch Box later tonight to seek to
      204
      persuade her right hon. and hon. Friends to sign the CHCs' death note, which is a staggering turnabout in four to five years. I do not believe that the quality of the work done by CHCs has deteriorated in four or five years to such an extent that it warrants their abolition. If the Government feel that CHCs have a patchy record or that improvements need to be made in some of them, why do the Government simply not reform them and change the law to improve and strengthen them? Surely that is the right way forward.
      If satisfaction among CHCs' client group is high, if the perception is that they do a very good job in their local communities—the Under-Secretary was directly involved with them until relatively recently, and I assume that she thought that her CHC did a very good job, as I am sure it did—and if some of their functions could be performed even better, why not simply introduce legislation to strengthen and improve them?
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: Would we not have a very much better idea of why the Government propose to abolish CHCs if we had got round to discussing clause 20 in Committee? It is worth reminding ourselves that it was not discussed because of the ludicrous system of timetabling and programming Bills. We are blind about the Government's real reasons for wanting to abolish CHCs.
      Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, because of the guillotine, the Committee had no opportunity to discuss what everyone considers the most important clause—clause 20. This, therefore, is the first time that we have been able properly to discuss the issue since Second Reading.
      We attempted to discuss CHCs during debates on an earlier clause, but we are never able to discuss any amendment that we might have wished to move in Committee because of the tightness of that guillotine. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and I hope that the report of his intervention will be read with keen interest, especially in another place, when it has to deal with the Bill later this year.
      Dr. Evan Harris: I have not followed the full detail of exactly which amendment the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but he will remember that, despite the guillotine, we had time to have a lengthy debate in Committee on whether CHCs could be reformed, not abolished, and that we voted on that amendment. We both agreed that we got little out of the Under-Secretary in terms of a considered response because she is passionate about her model, but most people prefer the model proposed in the new clause.
      Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The only disadvantage or sadness about the debates that we managed to have in Committee was that they were related to earlier clauses on the back of the Government's proposals; we were unable to have specific debates on clause 20, solely under which CHCs will be abolished. The debate that we had was better than nothing, but we would have welcomed proper and full debate at the time on the specific clause that deals with the abolition of the CHCs.
      The procedure that the Government have adopted to rid themselves of this network of councils throughout the country has been typified by a brazen lack of regard for

      205
      the views of others. No doubt, those who support the Government on this issue will say that a consultation process took place. If they believe that, they will believe in a number of things that it is not wise to believe in.
      When the Government sent out their consultation document, the basic assumption in point 1.5, which deals with this issue, was that CHCs would be abolished. The document did not ask whether they should be abolished, or whether they should be reformed and improved. It simply stated that
      "the immediate focus of this document is the Government's intention to legislate at the earliest opportunity to replace CHCs."
      That is really wonderful if one wants open, frank, straightforward and meaningful consultation.
      Before discussion even began, the Government set down what they would do at the end of the process. If the views expressed in the submissions that they received from members of the public, people who have dedicated their lives to working for CHCs, hon. Members on both sides of the House, other organisations inside and outside the NHS and local authorities did not coincide with the criteria in point 1.5 of the consultation document, they were disregarded. That is what the Government have sought to do ever since they introduced their original legislation on the matter.
      My preferred option is for retention, reform and improvement, which is what new clause 2 seeks to provide. It would give the Government a breathing space in which they could make proposals to improve and reform the existing structure. In no way do I support the Government's proposals, because they would not lead to the independent integrity of the complaints procedure and of the organisation for patients remaining intact.
      Unfortunately, I am not confident that the Government are prepared to reconsider at this late stage and to abandon what they have been seeking to use their large majority to ram through Parliament. However, I know that some Labour Members will not be bamboozled into supporting such a Government poodle. When we discuss the other new clauses in the group, it will be interesting to hear the comments of other Members to hear precisely what their proposals intend to do.
      The Government are making a great mistake and they do themselves no credit by sticking rigidly to their plan to ram clause 20 through the House tonight. I only hope that the other place gives careful consideration to the issue and to the comments of Members on both sides of the House. With its expertise and role as a revising Chamber, I hope that the other place will try to bring some common sense to the Government on this issue.
      Mr. David Hinchliffe: I wish to speak to new clause 5 and to its consequential amendments. It is worth making the point that all three main parties, as well as the Independent Member, have signed up to the new clause and that a number of outside organisations believe that it is the appropriate way forward. We have backing from the Patients Association, the Consumers Association, Age Concern, the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, the Royal College of Nursing and several other important national bodies.
      206
      I shall briefly sum up the purpose of the new clause. I do not wish to speak at length, because the issue has been rehearsed several times in this Parliament, including on Second Reading, and in the last Parliament before the general election.
      I have always been concerned that, since the inception of the national health service in 1948, there has been a lack of sense of ownership of the service by its users. It has been a challenge for successive Governments to address that question, and I am not sure that we have yet come up with a coherent solution. I have always been concerned that there has been a consistent lack of democracy in the NHS, particularly at a local level.
      I have favoured a role for local government and I have been very conscious that the democratic deficit has been maintained by the concern of certain professionals—particularly in the medical profession—to obstruct what they regard as the political control resulting from politicians and elected people asking questions about the direction of the service at a local level.
      Community health councils were advanced in 1974 as the patients' voice. I had the privilege of serving on a CHC from 1974, and was vice-chairman of one for many years before I became a member of the local health authority. It is fair to say that CHCs have had variable success. In some areas, they have done a first-class job in representing the interests of patients but, in others, they have been less effective.
      6.45 pm
      I do not accept the statement of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) that the Government do not like opposition and that their motivation for removing CHCs is the result of that. I believe that there are sound reasons for re-examining a system that since 1974 has, in some respects, served us quite well but, in others, not as well as it should have done. The time has come for reforms and I support aspects of the direction in which the Government are moving.
      The previous Parliament considered the Health and Social Care Act 2001 and I recognise that it contained a number of positive elements. I certainly commended them at the time. I have always believed in an important role for local government, so I was very happy that the Government came up with the idea of having overview and scrutiny committees based in local authorities. They were given the power to object to key changes in policy, such as closures, and have the statutory function that CHCs have traditionally had.
      I was always concerned that CHCs, as constituted, did not have a democratic mandate. Local authorities have such a mandate and are accountable to the electorate. Therefore, on issues such as closure and change of use, the local democratic system should play a major part and people should be able to express their views.
      I also supported the idea of patient advocacy liaison services—PALS. The revised idea for PALS to be based in trusts to deal with complaints is a good one. I was in my local primary care trust only yesterday and saw the PALS organisation very well signposted. People can go there to seek advice and support, and I welcome that.
      I also supported the proposal for patients forums. My concern was that there would be a need to examine the level above those forums in the local health economy,

      207
      which is why we had an important debate on patients councils when we considered the Health and Social Care Act 2001. In a sense, we return to that debate tonight.
      I believe that I had an agreement with the Under-Secretary's predecessors in the Department of Health before the election to include some positive elements of CHCs in the new framework. My slight concern, however, was that, when my amendments were discussed in another place, the Minister in the House of Lords gave a somewhat different version of patients councils than I had proposed in the Commons. Hon. Members who had followed the debate recognised that the emphasis was different in the two Houses, which is why it was difficult to get the proposals through the Lords.
      I warmly praise the Under-Secretary's role, because she has gone out of her way to listen to those of us inside the House and elsewhere who have serious concerns. She has worked long and hard to come up with a solution that will come as near as possible to meeting my concerns and those of other hon. Members. It has been a pleasure to work with her, because she has genuinely tried very hard to find a solution. We are inches apart, but those inches are extremely important. Therefore, I wish to expand on the issues on which there is a slight difference between us.
      The positive changes in the Bill include the creation of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. I spoke at length to my hon. Friend about this issue last summer and I recognise that she has a passionate concern to engage in the health service disadvantaged groups and those who never had a say about their local health care. As she knows, I occasionally visit her constituency to watch rugby league and I am aware of the problems that it faces. I know that she wishes to engage in the health service people who were not previously involved in any way.
      I welcome the fact that the commission will have an enabling role, will be involved in developing a public voice and will be concerned with those who have no voice. In the last Parliament, I made the point that the main users of the NHS in my area were young women with children, and they have no voice. The main users are not engaged with the health service in any way. I recognise the need to encourage that involvement and to listen to people with first-hand experience of the problems that they face.
      I welcome my hon. Friend's proposal for a common badging system—I hope that it is taken a stage further. If we have a symbol that is known nationally and locally, people will know where to go to have their voice heard in the NHS. That idea could extend to advocacy.
      I shall briefly list my key concerns about the Government's proposals. I am worried that the system is too complex and that many people will not understand it. I mentioned on Second Reading that I did not fully understand it. Although I now have a better idea of what the Minister is trying to achieve, I still believe that the system is over-complex and that it needs to be simplified.
      The fragmentation of the separate patients forums also concerns me. They will focus on the individual work of their trusts and, as I said in a debate in the last Parliament, we need to look beyond that because it is too narrow. I am also worried about the lack of independent back-up and support for patients forums. They may well have to rely on the trusts that they are deemed responsible for monitoring.
      208
      In the last Parliament, the Health Committee examined adverse incidents in the NHS and the complaints system. In respect of serious complaints, it thought that independent advocacy, which is a stage beyond the PALS role, should be based within the CHCs. The patients councils that I propose should also have a role in the structure, and the monitoring and scrutiny of forums should be linked to the advocacy function.
      New clause 5 and consequential amendments would ensure that patients councils were included in the Bill and that they were made up of forum members so that they offered an overview of local health issues, because that is lacking. I accept that the Minister made it clear that she expects the commission's local networks to do that job, but members of patients councils of individual forums need to be able to get together to look across the local health economy. The Government do not propose that, although I think that my hon. Friend said that it will be encouraged.
      I want patients councils to be serviced by the commission's local network. The secretariats would comprise the commission's local networkers so that national standards are linked to the local priorities set by patients councils, which are close to the grass roots and patients' concerns.
      Finally, the Health Committee envisaged basing the advocacy function within patients councils, which would give a consistent and easily identifiable base for that work. I hope that the badging system can be applied to that so that people are clear about where they need to go when they have serious problems.
      I do not want to say much more because we have rehearsed these arguments several times and most hon. Members are well aware of the issues. I hope that my proposal would provide a unifying structure of lay people at the level of the local health economy, offering an overview of that economy that is lacking in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister implied that she will try to bring that about by regulation. I am afraid that I have been in this place long enough to have heard similar offers by numerous Ministers in different Governments. This is not meant as any disrespect to her, but I want that provision written into the Bill. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will accept my proposal.
      Dr. Evan Harris: I agree with what the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said about the Minister's conduct. She has always been available to listen to the multiple objections to her proposals. It is just as well she is a listening Minister, because otherwise we would be even more frustrated.
      I also agree with everything else that the hon. Gentleman said, and I shall not cover the same ground except to point out, as I think he would recognise, that we have discussed this before. During the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2001, my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) stood where I am now and moved a similar amendment or new clause before the Bill went to the House of Lords and the proposal ran out of time. I hope that we do not have to go as far this time and that the Minister will find a way to recognise that the proposal in new clause 5, which has also been tabled by the Liberal Democrats, is a compromise. Some people would have preferred community health councils to be reformed rather than abolished.

      209
      New clause 2 would have an effect similar to a proposal that we debated in Committee which sought to reform community health councils to take account of what the Government describe as the new NHS. We wanted to ensure that they had the functions and membership that Ministers, in many cases correctly, thought would be necessary to interact with the new NHS. The Minister rebutted or objected to our suggestions even more firmly than we argued them. New clause 2 is an attempt to persuade the Government to reform community health councils.
      The Liberal Democrat party, which moved a similar amendment in Committee, supports the thrust of new clause 2, but we are also willing to put our names to an amendment that would go further. The advantage of new clause 5 is that it creates a structure for patients forums to interact in. Its functional approach places the roles of co-ordination and advocacy—advocacy in terms of changes to the local health service, not as defined in other parts of the Bill—at the level of overview and scrutiny committees. That will be of mutual benefit to patients forums that want to ensure that they have adequate mechanisms and structures to feed in opinions to the overview and scrutiny committees. It will also be of significant benefit to local authority overview and scrutiny committees to have patients councils that broadly cover the same area. They will be a single, effective and empowering channel—I am surprised to use the word "empowering"; I usually try to avoid it—for the concerns of patients and the public to be brought to the attention of the overview and scrutiny committees.
      I join the hon. Member for Wakefield in thanking the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales. I also thank London Health Link. Not only did they provide advice on how our amendments and new clauses should be framed, but they recognised that things have to change. The Minister should at least concede that we are no longer fighting the principle of whether there should be patients forums. To an extent, if one accepts new clause 5, one accepts the abolition of CHCs. Those bodies have shown a willingness to meet the Government more than half way, because all the other structures that the Government propose will be in place. The framework is sensible. It is in tune with what the Government sometimes claim they want for the local networks. It is possible for us to rally around the framework and improve it.
      7 pm
      I turn now to other new clauses and amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends. New clause 7 seeks to insert in the Health and Social Care Act 2001 a duty to consult. That duty would fall not only on strategic health authorities, PCTs and trusts but on the Secretary of State, or rather on bodies that function at a higher level than strategic health authorities and to which the Secretary of State could delegate the duty. I am concerned about bodies such as the national strategic commissioning advisory group, or NSCAG, and the regional specialist commissioning groups, which have a significant input into health service policy. They make recommendations and proposals for changes to significant areas of care, such as heart and lung services at a national level and paediatric
      210
      intensive care at a regional level. If we are to have a complete consultation system, the necessary mechanisms must be in place.
      The Government feel that the new clause is not necessary because strategic health authorities have a duty to consult and some of those supra-strategic health authority bodies will be made up of strategic health authorities. One of those may act as the lead authority and will therefore have the duty, the time and the personnel to consult all the patients forums and relevant groups in the area. However, it is questionable whether those circumstances will always pertain. Certainly it is hard to see how there would be a lead authority for consultation on a decision made by NSCAG or even by a regional specialist group. The Minister should state clearly that there will be no gap in the procedure, or she should accept the new clause.
      New clause 8 is important because it would close an existing loophole. Those of us who carefully followed the proceedings on this Bill and on the Health and Social Care Bill will know that the important power of referral to the Secretary of State is currently exercised by community health councils, which are to be abolished. That function has not been given to patients forums, so we must ask which body will have the power to refer to the Secretary of State significant issues such as the failure of consultation or concerns about decisions made following consultation.
      We have been assured that the function will be performed by the overview and scrutiny committees, but it is unclear whether the committees have that power, and it is important that the position be made clear. New clause 8 would do so—there is no disagreement about that—but I hope that the Minister will advise us as to whether the power exists. If she wants to resist the new clause, it would be nice if that advice were made available in written form. One would have hoped for it to be available before we had to decide whether to press the new clause, but the Bill has other parliamentary stages to come.
      I may be able to explain amendment (a) to Government amendment No. 33 in interventions when the Minister is speaking to amendment No. 33. It makes a concession, which we requested in Committee, that patients forums will have the power to refer to the overview and scrutiny committee anything that they feel needs to be considered. Our amendment seeks to make it clear that the overview and scrutiny committee would have a duty to respond to that referral.
      The Government say that they are reluctant to impose duties on local councils—indeed, they say that it is their policy not to do so—but that will come as a surprise to councils throughout the country. On such an important issue, where responsibility for consideration, oversight and scrutiny of health service changes is, in a welcome move, being shifted to local authorities, overview and scrutiny committees should have a duty to respond to patients forums. They should not necessarily have to take on all their concerns, but they should at least have to consider the issues. I hope that the Minister will ensure that that occurs.
      There are many other amendments in this group, but I hope that the Minister will allow me to intervene to clarify the purpose of some of the Government amendments. In conclusion, I am determined to support the proposals,

      211
      on which I took the lead in Committee, to reform community health councils because they are a tried and tested model, so I shall support new clause 2.
      I am, however, much more optimistic that new clause 5 will secure support from hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the Government. I hope that we will find a way to ensure that the best of the Government's proposals are combined with the best ideas of the community health councils and of hon. Members of all parties to form an effective organisation, an effective structure and, most importantly, an effective function. We must ensure that the NHS is subject to the scrutiny and input of patients and the public.
      Stephen Hesford: I was unable to serve on the Standing Committee as I was a member of another Committee, so I rise to make points that I would have made in Committee if I had been present.
      I always listen with great care to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), but I cannot support new clause 5, which is a compromise. Neither can I support new clause 2. I served on a community health council for four years in the early 1990s, and I was a vice-chair in Manchester, just around the corner from my hon. Friend. It is unfair in the extreme of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) to chide the Minister about the fact that nothing can change. The fact that someone has served on a community health council does not prevent them from seeing it in its true light. As the hon. Gentleman said, community health councils were set up in 1974, and times have changed. If he will forgive me for saying so, new clause 2 is opportunistic and backward-looking. It does not deal with the fact that substantial reform is necessary, as many hon. Members have come to realise.
      Mr. Burns: Absolutely: reform is necessary.
      Stephen Hesford: Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene?
      Mr. Burns: The whole point of my argument is that reform is necessary. If the system does not seem to be working as well as it should, the Government should reform it, not abolish it.
      Stephen Hesford: It is political opportunism to take that backward-looking view. Confusion reigns because, interestingly, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who has put his name to new clause 2, has also put his name to new clause 5. He cannot have it both ways.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: Perhaps I can enlighten the hon. Gentleman as to why my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has signed his name to both new clauses. He made it clear that he supported new clause 2, but as it is unlikely to succeed he supported new clause 5 as a second option. That is perfectly logical.
      Stephen Hesford: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I credit him for supporting his absent colleague, but I am afraid that he has not dealt with the illogicality of the position adopted by the hon. Member for Macclesfield.
      212
      I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield that new clause 5 is over-fussy, over-lengthy and shares with new clause 2 the problem of not grasping the nettle that the Government have grasped in introducing the reform of community health councils. Both new clauses seek a delay.
      Dr. Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman described new clause 5 as over-lengthy. To avoid comparisons with a certain king and accusations of having too many notes, perhaps he will say which bits of it are redundant to achieving the purpose sought by the change. Or does he think that there is a limit to the length of new clauses that hon. Members should introduce in principle?
      Stephen Hesford: I am afraid that I shall not go down that road—[Interruption.] No, no.
      The strong support that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield received from Liberal Democrats shows that, in effect, his new clause has not grasped the issue; it is a compromise too far. The Bill is not the same as the one that came before the House in the last Parliament. I commend my hon. Friend's tribute to the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), who has indeed clearly listened. The Government have travelled a long way on reform; I urge the House to accept that she and the Government have travelled far enough. Some problems that were rightly identified have now been addressed. The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, for example, is a valuable addition.
      I know that other Members want to participate in our debate so, to conclude, I will say only that new clauses 2 and 5 seek delay; they do not get to grips with the problem. The Government were right to introduce their proposals and I urge the House to reject both new clauses.
      Dr. Richard Taylor: I, too, pay tribute to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. As I have said before in the House, she has written that the views of citizens will be valued,
      "'listened to and acted upon'".—[Official Report, 8 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 468.]
      I find myself in a similar position to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)' s. If I had thought there was any chance of new clause 2 being accepted, I would have put my name to it. The compromise in new clause 5 is much more realistic and would allow us to take on and support some of the changes that the Government are making.
      Why abolish community health councils? That question has never yet been answered. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) takes a charitable view which, I am sure, is right. CHCs have achieved patchy success, are variable and could certainly be improved. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) takes a more powerful view, which I share; in some instances, CHCs have been a thorn in the side of the Government. I know that only too well; my own CHC, of which I was a member at the time, had the resources to take the local health authority to judicial review. What did civil servants do locally? A high-powered officer of the NHS executive in the west midlands came to visit the little Kidderminster and District CHC, threatening that if it took the local health authority to court, that could cost it £220,000 to £250,000. The local CHC was sufficiently strong-minded not to bow to that threat.

      213
      I should like to explore a little more what we shall lose when we lose CHCs. At the moment, we have a thoroughly independent voice—an independent citizens' watchdog. I am deeply suspicious of the Secretary of State's attempts to establish independent bodies. To get him out of reviewing and making the final decision on hospital reconfigurations, we now have an "independent" reconfiguration panel. It is too early to know how independent it is. On the other hand, we already have an independent NHS Appointments Commission. This week, the Health Service Journal shows that it has appointed the 28 chairs of strategic health authorities, 24 of whom are already trust or authority chairs. Remarkably, 17 of them are health authority chairs who will be out of a job on 1 April. However, 24 of those 28 appointments were previously made by the Secretary of State and have just been rubber-stamped by the independent commission.
      7.15 pm
      We are also losing a one-stop shop. I should like to illustrate that with an example from Worcestershire. The hon. Member for Wakefield implied that there will be a difficulty. In Worcestershire, we have three CHCs, conveniently situated in the major conurbations. We shall have six forums—I should love to know whether the plural is forums or fora—because we have three primary care trusts, a county-wide acute hospital trust, and an ambulance trust, and we shall have a mental health trust. Because the PCTs are sharing out health authority functions, one can see that a single patient might need to consult or take advice from three, possibly four, patients forums. That is the strongest reason for having a drawing-together body. The patients council, as suggested in new clause 5, appears to be a body that could draw together functions and situations, making it easier for individual citizens to express their concerns.
      To conclude, as I have already said, I would much rather that CHCs were reviewed and strengthened, as is the case with Wales and with the equivalent of CHCs in Scotland. However, I have been in the House long enough to begin to realise what is possible and what is not. New clause 5, which would establish patients councils, appears to offer the chance of retaining independence and bringing organisations together within the overall framework of the Bill, so I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Patrick Hall: I should like to comment on the context of new clause 5, which seeks to co-ordinate and integrate locally a replacement system for community health councils. I am tempted, but shall not go down the road of trying to summarise what has happened since July 2000, when the abolition of CHCs was first announced in the NHS plan. We have come a long way since then; much time has been spent trying to understand a replacement structure and system that, for too long, was over-complex and unclear.
      After last year's general election, and notably in the Government's response to the listening exercise, which was led by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, we got to a point where we recognised that the fragmentation that had characterised previous thinking was unsatisfactory. The essential functions were integration; co-ordination; and informing and supporting patients forums, patient
      214
      advocacy liaison services and local authority overview and scrutiny committees. The Government agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) who, in an amendment tabled last May, tried to pull all those functions together in patients councils. They all seemed to be accepted, clarified, fully retained and acknowledged in the Government document published last September in response to the listening exercise. The only difference was that the Government did not want to call the new way forward patients councils. That is okay by me. The Government have described what they want to see put in place as patients councils plus. Fine. The intention was clear. Many of us who have considered these matters with some concern were reassured.
      However, the Bill does no more than provide a framework. Many of the matters about which there are concerns in the House and outside will not be clarified until regulations are published. That is the problem. I suggested on Second Reading that perhaps draft regulations could be published during the Committee stage, to give people an idea of how the picture would emerge. We need to see how the mechanism might operate. I want it to work, and I know that the Government do as well. My suggestion was not taken up, but that is up to the Government.
      I do not know for sure how the integration and support function of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, through its local networks, working with lay reference groups and operating local outreach teams, will work. The intentions are clear, as I have acknowledged, but the mechanism has not yet been clarified sufficiently. We need some examples of how the local networks will work and the sort of geographical area that they will cover. It has been flagged up that they should be at PCT level, but that needs to be confirmed. I know that the Government do not wish to be prescriptive. I understand that, but the danger then is that we are too vague and we cannot see the picture, yet here we are, deciding on legislation tonight. We need to know also about the resourcing of the local networks of the commission, and about the staffing.
      Dr. Evan Harris: I am listening closely to the hon. Gentleman's thoughtful contribution. I know that he is asking questions about what the area should be, but whether it is patient councils or local networks coming from on high in the commission, does he accept that there is a strong argument for ensuring that the area is generally the area covered by the relevant overview and scrutiny committee, to enable co-ordination with the scrutiny function?
      Mr. Hall: That should be the largest geographical area covered by the replacement co-ordinating body. I have some questions about that, but I shall not take up the time of the House. That proposal would be logical, but in some instances the area covered might be too big. Communities do not necessarily fall entirely into one county council area, for example. It may be necessary to split that into smaller areas. I would certainly argue for that in the case of Bedfordshire, but I did not intend to bring that into the debate, as I do not want to complicate it. The matter has been far too complicated, and for far too long. We need to come to some clear conclusions, preferably today, and not wait for the other place to deal with it.

      215
      I understood that the local networks would be established to carry out the local overview, co-ordination, support and integration work that many of us said was missing a few months ago. The Government acknowledged that and brought those functions back in. However, I am now not sure about that. I understand that the Government intend to create a locally based collective voice of patients forums, which could well be another body, in addition to the network—another body that will need to be resourced in order to function. That is the impression that I got from the briefing that was made available. It states that in black and white.
      I understand that it is intended that the additional body that will be the collective voice of the patients forums will be underpinned by legislation, forcing patients forums to work together and forcing the networks and the wider commission to listen to the outcome of the deliberations of the patients forums. My questions are intended to be helpful and constructive, and to tease out these matters so that we can be clear and move on. I am not clear about the matter, and I have tried to follow it over recent months. The Government have had plenty of opportunity to remove all doubts, but I still have serious doubts.
      New clause 5 has the advantage, at least, of being robust and clear. It provides a simple mechanism, which, last autumn, I thought that the local networks would fulfil. If that is the case, let me be persuaded. If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is to respond to this part of the debate, and if she does not want the House to accept new clause 5, she will have to explain clearly why. She will need to describe how the system will work and give an example of how it will work on the ground somewhere; otherwise these matters will continue to confuse. If we are confused at this stage in the legislative process, that could make matters far worse months and years down the line. We need the plan to work on the ground, with real people. It is time for us to move on to a better system. I urge my hon. Friend to help us to do that.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) in our short debate. He has made well a number of important points that have been worrying people, including members of the community health council in my constituency. We are moving into unknown territory, and at this late stage of the Bill, we still do not have answers to those questions. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) asked the most cogent question—why the Government are proposing such a system. We have had no proper explanation of why we need such a complicated change. I hope that at this late hour we will get an explanation from the Minister.
      Rather more years ago than I care to remember, I used to be a member of something called an area health authority. Those were abolished, but seem to be coming back in a slightly different guise, called a strategic health authority. I remember only too well how our hearts sank when members of the community health council rose to speak. They were a thorn in our side. They discharged their job extremely effectively, and after a time we began to respect them for the way that they worked and their dedication to their job.
      It is true that not all CHCs are perfect. Some were undoubtedly poor. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made our position clear. We are not against change. The hon. Member for Wirral, West
      216
      (Stephen Hesford) seemed to think that we were going backwards and arguing for the status quo. We are not doing that. We argue that we should build on a good foundation, which the community health councils provide. Let us make changes, rather than throwing them all out.
      The patients will be left with a confusing plethora of patients forums. In Northumberland we are to have one primary care trust, but in County Durham, for example, there are to be six PCTs, and each one will presumably have a patients forum. We will have an ambulance trust and a mental health trust, and I understand that the county council and the NHS are getting together to provide a community care trust, which will take over the functions of the social services department and merge them into one trust.
      Even now it is hard enough to involve patients in the affairs of the NHS. The attitude still prevails that treatment from the health service is some sort of privilege, and that one should be grateful to be seen by a doctor. Increasingly, patients know that if they have a complaint, they can turn to the community health council. Citizens advice bureaux and others will point them in that direction, but patients will have great difficulty in finding their way through the maze to the appropriate patients forum.
      Stephen Hesford: Is not one of the strengths of the new system its location in the places that patients use? One of the downsides of the old system—perhaps the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members share my experience in this respect—is that if we were to go into the street now and ask a British citizen whether they had heard of a community health council, they would say no. [Interruption.] That is my overwhelming experience. People have not heard of CHCs after almost 30 years.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Atkinson: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I must disagree. There is more chance of people finding community health councils than patients forums. If he thinks that the system would be improved by placing representatives in the major hospitals, ambulance stations or wherever else, the community health councils can consider that proposal. As we are proposing to reform CHCs, the suggestion is certainly worth discussing. I do not rule it out, but I must restate my view that we will lose a great deal by abolishing CHCs, which are independent and can build up a considerable body of expertise over the years. They know the health service in the areas that they serve, but we will lose that expertise, which is a great pity.
      Northumberland community health council, which serves my area, has written asking me to support new clause 5 if the Opposition's proposal fails. It points out that it has dealt in the past 12 months with complaints about the health service from 178 patients in the county. That shows how much good work it does. The health service is going through another revolution as a result of the Bill and other legislation, so it is completely daft to abolish the patients organisation when it will probably be most needed and to introduce a new system that is untried and unclear at a vital time for the health service.
      I want briefly to speak to amendment No. 73, which stands in my name and relates to patients forums and their power. We had a small debate in Committee about the

      217
      matter with which it deals. My concern is that the patients forums are being given extreme power. In particular, they are given the right of entry into premises. All of us need to be guardians of our freedom. In that context, I cannot see any reason why members of a patients forum should have a compulsory right of access to health service premises, including the surgeries of doctors and pharmacists. My constituency has doctors and pharmacists who work as sole practitioners and operate from their homes. The pharmacists live above the shop, so to speak. The powers in the Bill give patients forums a right of entry into such premises. My amendment seeks to specify that the power should not extend to the living quarters of doctors and pharmacists and I hope that the Minister will be reasonably helpful in that regard.
      I cannot see any reason why patients forums should have such powers and I would be grateful for some explanation. Can the Minister imagine a doctor saying "In no circumstances can you come into my surgery" to members of patients forums who are seeking an appointment to make a visit? In the rare event of that happening, the Commission for Health Improvement could use its powers of entry. Surely that is sufficient.
      Lynne Jones: Surely, patients forums should have access to areas to which patients themselves have access.
      Mr. Atkinson: Yes, but they should not have compulsory powers. I am sure that the hon. Lady cannot imagine why they would need the powers. Why do they need a right of entry? It is inconceivable that a hospital or any other health body would say "You can't come in" to a patients forum. Why must we give patients forums draconian powers, giving lay people a right to rummage through the private possessions of a doctor or pharmacist? The hon. Lady shakes her head, but it is true. The powers in clause 16, which deals with entry and inspection of premises, allow the Secretary of State to make regulations giving the right and power of entry. We need to be aware of people's civil liberties. As I said, if entry is refused, the Commission for Health Improvement, which has the appropriate powers, can enter the premises if it is believed that something serious is happening.
      I hope that the Minister will consider amendment No. 73, as I think that Parliament has a right to protect the rights of individuals. They have been sorely hammered in recent months, and this is one occasion when we could avoid hammering them even more.
      Dr. Murrison: The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) inadvertently made a very good point in his intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). He suggested that, in his constituency, if one asked a person in the street about their CHC, they would not know anything about it. In my constituency, people would know about their CHC.
      Stephen Hesford: I said that we would get that answer if we were to walk outside now and speak to people in the street. I do not represent Cities of London and Westminster.
      Dr. Murrison: I am grateful for that correction, but I think that the meaning was clear. In Westbury, people
      218
      know all about their CHC. The point is that there are differences in practice throughout the country. There are good CHCs and some that are not quite so good, but the fact that they are good means that they are a good basis on which to build and reform. That is the thrust of the Opposition's argument about CHCs.
      Bath and District CHC monitors health care services provided by two health authorities, two ambulance NHS trusts, two acute hospital trusts, a mental health partnership trust, two PCTs and a PCG. When my constituents are poorly, many of them—especially the vulnerable and elderly—end up dealing with local NHS services that are provided by two or more trusts. None the less, however many trusts they use, in their view, they are using the national health service in a fairly seamless fashion. My CHC centres its work on ensuring that patients receive the very best seamless provision of quality health services as they navigate their way around the multiple tiers of the national health service. Seamlessness is one of its strengths, but a strength that the Bill threatens.
      The Association of Community Health Councils is, understandably, rather hurt and upset. Indeed, it is bewildered. It said:
      "The proposed alternatives to CHCs as set out in the Bill fall far short of meeting the widespread concerns about the independence of the new bodies and their lack of integration. If the Secretary of State pushes ahead with this bill in its current form patients will lose a respected, effective, independent health Watchdog and in its place they will get a system that is more fragmented, more confusing to the public and less independent."
      CHCs are certainly watchdogs, but what we have been offered in their place is poodles, and lots of them: oodles of poodles, in confusing myriad PALS and patients forums. The proposals made by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) in new clause 5 are interesting, but they are second best. They suggest that we should keep our poodles and merely have something that might turn out to be a watchdog.
      That brings us to cost. Despite the advice of the Opposition, the Government have set their face against building on the CHC model. My CHC costs £118,664, but its chief officer estimates that it will cost £750,000 to provide PALS alone. Indeed, the current edition of the Health Service Journal suggests that it will cost 10 times the amount spent on CHCs to provide the new services outlined in the Bill.
      Roy Can-Hill, professor of medical and social statistics at York said of the new system:
      "We're going to end up spending all the possible savings from Shifting the Balance of Power and it's still unclear how effective this … will be."
      We should ask not only about the source of the money and the opportunity costs involved, but where the Government suppose that the army of volunteers required for staffing will come from. Those of us who have been heavily involved in the voluntary sector know that it has become increasingly difficult to get people, especially those with the right skills, to commit themselves for nothing. If public enthusiasm for the Bill is anything to go by, it seems unlikely that folk will queue up to lend their services to PALS and patient forums.
      I am sure that my CHC's plea for a more integrated approach is echoed throughout the country. Patients, who view the NHS as a whole, not in little bits, would

      219
      thus have a one-stop shop for their anxieties and representations. Conservative Members believe that reforming CHCs, not abolishing them, is the way ahead. If that is beyond the Government, can we place a duty on trusts to ensure that their poodles in a geographical area at least talk or bark to one another? Surely there is scope for sharing financial and human resources, thus driving down the appalling costs that informed opinion has forecast for the proposals, and making the best use of finite voluntary effort.
      Mr. Baron: The Bill would abolish CHCs in England without replacing them with any community-led overview of the local NHS. England would be the only part of the United Kingdom without CHCs or a similar body. The measure proposes a confusing array of new mechanisms, which would make it more difficult for people to understand the system, influence the local NHS or obtain independent help when they needed it.
      The proposed new system is difficult to understand because it is so fragmented and complex. The Bill proposes overlapping and separate organisations, which may serve only to confuse patients and the public. Without clarification from the start, there is a danger that much energy will be diverted into sterile competition as different organisations jockey for position in their local communities. That would be a complete waste of resources and energy. Elizabeth Manero, the chair of London Health Link, warned that the proposed system would be "a charter for tokenism". She said that it was "fragmented" and did not comply with recommendations from the Bristol inquiry for fully independent bodies.
      Individual patients forums would have a remit for considering only their trust's services, with no formal mechanism for coming together to provide an informed overview of the local NHS from the patients and the public's perspective. Patients forums would be run entirely by volunteers and have no paid staff. I imagine that they would seek support from a separate body of paid staff—the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health—or that they may be forced to rely on help from the trust that they monitor. That would compromise their ability to be an effective and independent watchdog.
      People who require independent help with problems with the NHS or complaints would have to approach other organisations, for example, the independent complaints advocacy service. Separate organisations make up ICAS, and it would therefore be more difficult to scrutinise and monitor complaints as they were processed. Staff of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health would be tied up in the bureaucratic exercise of tendering, monitoring and evaluating ICAS.
      I have two further anxieties. First, the Bill removes the requirement to consult about changes to functions and boundaries of key NHS organisations, such as strategic health authorities, PCTs and NHS trusts. Community health councils must currently be consulted on such changes. The Bill does not specify the organisation that will take on that function. That is worrying.
      7.45 pm
      Secondly, the new structures will be much more expensive than CHCs. It is proposed to abolish CHCs without any guarantee that sufficient funding will be made
      220
      available to ensure that their replacements are properly resourced. Again, that is worrying. Community health councils should be given more time to reform. They have had faults in the past, but, overall, they have championed patients by monitoring the health care in their local communities. They should be given more time to reform and I therefore support new clause 2.
      Mr. David Amess: I support new clauses 2 and 5. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) is not naive, but I have observed him on the Select Committee on Health, and he is a gentleman in every sense. He asked the Minister why CHCs should be abolished; perhaps I can help him. The Government dislike any criticism, and they are especially upset about criticism from Labour supporters. When Labour Members were in opposition, they loved CHCs because they were critical of the Conservative Government. Now we have a rotten Labour Government, and they cannot abide criticism from CHCs, especially from Labour activists.
      The Under-Secretary who will reply to the debate has been a great champion of CHCs. The hon. Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Bedford (Mr. Hall) also have an honourable record in consistently championing the cause of CHCs. However, there is no doubt that what we are being offered as a replacement will not do. The proposals are ill thought out and shambolic.
      If CHCs continued to exist, they would champion the cause of one of my constituents, a lady, who was diagnosed with lung cancer eight weeks ago. The cancer is operable, but she has been waiting eight weeks for an operation. The cancer is pressing on the spine but nothing has been done because of delays. Southend community health council will take up the lady's cause. As her Member of Parliament, I am doing everything that I can. I have tried to talk to the bed manager, who was on holiday for a week. No one was in charge during that time. When we spoke to the person today, we were told that further time was needed to examine the matter. Southend community health council is disgusted by the fact that my constituent has had to wait eight weeks. Her family are distraught about the circumstances, and they will not forgive the Government unless something happens.
      I have received a letter from Southend community health council, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said, which expresses its anxieties about the Government's plans. Community health councils are enthusiastic about changes that benefit patients and the public. They do not claim that there should be no change. They are certainly not arguing for the status quo.
      CHCs have been an effective independent watchdog in the NHS for the past 27 years. In that time, Southend community health council has helped thousands of people. The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) said that people in his constituency had not heard of CHCs. I am surprised at that. In my area, and those of most other hon. Members, if people had not heard of CHCs before the current campaign, they jolly well have now. People probably took them for granted, but now they are clutching at this precious commodity, and saying that what is being offered in its place will not do.

      221
      The new proposals threaten to eliminate the only effective, integrated independent watchdog that patients have, without putting forward an adequate replacement. The letter that I received from Southend community health council states:
      "In the wake of recent scandals, such as Shipman, Ledward and the fiddling of waiting lists, this seems particularly ill advised."
      It goes on to say that the proposals with which the Minister will probably try to seduce the House shortly are
      "fragmented and confusing … without a unifying community-led element at local health economy level."
      The Government, when they were in opposition, never turned away from using any briefing from the British Medical Association. For 18 years, the BMA was the Labour party's watchdog. However, since 1997, we never hear the Government say a word of good about the BMA. All hon. Members will have received a briefing from the association, stating how disappointed it is with the proposals.
      The Secretary of State for Health put his foot in it in a big way today. Those of us who witnessed what happened during the private notice question and heard not one "Hear hear" from the Government Benches saw his proposals go down like a lead balloon. Today, the Labour Government are privatising the national health service. There can be no doubt about that. It has taken a Labour Government to do so. A number of hon. Members who sit on the Select Committee on Health are present in the Chamber now. When the Secretary of State came before us last week to give evidence on the private health sector, not a word was mentioned about these extraordinary proposals when we questioned him.
      The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was obviously extremely upset about the proposals earlier, and I think that says it all. No doubt we shall hear from the Labour party in the weeks ahead about its plans to charge for all sorts of services that have traditionally been free under the national health service. It is not too late for the Government to admit that they are wrong about abolishing community health councils, to rethink their proposals, and to accept new clauses 2 and 5. If they did that, the hon. Member for Southend, West and the whole of the country would think far more of the Government than they do at the moment.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): Following the last contribution, I will try to bring us back down to earth, and closer to reality and to the clauses that we are discussing. I want to deal with new clause 2 and the consequential amendments and then new clause 5. Obviously, many of the same issues are involved in both new clauses.
      I reject absolutely the idea that this is a vindictive or pernicious attempt to attack community health councils, as has been alleged by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). He knows very well that, in Committee, I put on record on three or four occasions my personal tribute to the excellent work carried out by many community health councils up and down the land. That stems partly from my own experience, and also from my fairly detailed knowledge of the work that has been carried out over many years by staff in CHCs and, crucially, by volunteer members who have given of their time unstintingly to try to improve the health service.
      222
      That is not to say that realistic, down-to-earth, grounded people do not recognise the limitations of those organisations. Many such people want actively to embrace change and to consider new ways of working; they have the courage to examine new forms of organisation that can strengthen the patients voice.
      Mr. Burns: Will the Minister tell the House how many members of community health councils in England wrote to the Department of Health, following the consultation process, saying that they wanted the CHCs to be abolished?
      Ms Blears: I have already spoken in detail to the hon. Gentleman about Wirral CHC. He knows that extremely well.
      Dr. Evan Harris: It was Wigan.
      Ms Blears: It was not Wigan, it was Wirral. That CHC has welcomed the proposals. Many members of CHCs have been in touch with me, either in writing or in person. Many came to the nine regional listening events that were held up and down the country, and broadly welcomed many of the proposals. Yes, they had concerns, but they were willing—unlike some intransigent, inflexible Conservative Members—to embrace change and to consider new ways of working that could help to strengthen the voice of patients and the public in the system.
      Our new system aims to be more accessible, accountable, independent, robust and effective. We are not starting from scratch. We have genuinely tried to build on the best of the existing work being done in public and patient involvement. That involves not only CHCs. We must not forget that a whole range of patient organisations has been involved in this work for many years. There is a tendency to think that public and patient involvement involves only CHCs. The process that we have undertaken over the past few months has enabled many organisations to get more involved and to see how they can make a more effective contribution in future.
      The current system of CHCs has been in place for about 27 years. Inevitably, any change will encounter resistance and uncertainty, and people will cleave to what they know because they do not know what the new system will look like. I acknowledge that there has been a need for the Government to try to explain the changes. Certainly, over the past seven months, I have been out and about with other Ministers and officials from the Department, talking to people in local communities to ensure that we get our vision of a more effective, independent, integrated system across to them.
      Only last Thursday, I spent three and a half hours meeting representatives of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales. We agreed at the end of the meeting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said, that we were only inches apart in terms of the things that we wanted to do. We made many changes during the listening exercise and as a response to the listening document. We showed that we had not just listened; we had not just heard what people said, we had acted on it as well. This was not a sham process, an empty attempt at consultation. This was real, engaged activity. We were prepared to listen and to act.
      There is broad consensus about the functions of the new system. The functions of the new commission have been broadly welcomed. There is also consensus about the need

      223
      to involve people who traditionally have not had a say in the health service—people in excluded and marginalised communities who have been ignored for many years when services have been shaped, developed and drawn up. There is a willingness in the field to draw in a wide range of individuals and groups, and to make sure that their voices are right at the centre of shaping services for patients.
      The consultation process has been an extremely good one, and that is not just my view. I draw to the attention of hon. Members a letter circulated by the Long-Term Medical Conditions Alliance. The alliance represents the Alzheimer's Association, the British Cardiac Patients Association, the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, all long-standing, respected patients' organisations. They welcome the new proposals, and state, quite realistically, that
      "bearing in mind the impossibility of accommodating everybody's wishes in their entirety, the key concerns raised during"
      the consultation
      "have been addressed in the latest set of proposals."
      They welcome the initiatives in the Bill, specifically the local networks, which will enable the commission to bring together patients forums to build capacity for involvement in the community. They say:
      "We believe that the proposals contained in the Bill will allow diversity to develop, and that any amendment involving yet more committees (such as the Patients' Councils"
      in new clause 5
      "would lead to the strangling of genuine citizen involvement and the promotion of bureaucracy at the expense of the voice of individual users of the NHS."
      I want to deal with that point in particular.
      8 pm
      Lynne Jones: I have read the LMCA letter, but those bodies represent people with long-term medical conditions who are regularly engaged with medical services. Patients forums are therefore much more likely to involve patients who take a long-term interest in them. Those with acute conditions go in and out of the system. With respect, the view of those organisations is not necessarily representative of patients as a whole.
      Ms Blears: I would not say that that is the view of all patients, but it is extremely important, given which organisations are members of the alliance, and it shows that widespread support exists.
      Dr. Harris: If we are trading organisations, the Minister may be aware of the view of the Patients Association, which has at least as much legitimacy in this respect as the LMCA:
      "The Government has been truly determined to get rid of an effective local voice for patients in the form of Community Health Councils … This amendment"—
      new clause 5—
      "offers a compromise and an opportunity for patients to have an independent and powerful say in what's happening to their health services locally."
      Ms Blears: Organisations take specific views and I shall outline why our proposals encompass all the functions in new clause 5 and will enable us to go even
      224
      further. I have described them to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield as patients councils plus, and I genuinely believe that those on the way in which the commission would operate are exactly that.
      We have heard the arguments about reform on various occasions. Over the past five years—the period highlighted by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford—the NHS has changed dramatically and it is about to change even more fundamentally still. Therefore, there is a need to put in place a new system of patient and public involvement that properly reflects all the different NHS levels and functions to ensure that, where there needs to be public involvement, it is sited in the most appropriate place in the service so that it can act as a key lever for driving up standards and change. No longer should patients be outside the system, able to react only after the event.
      The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) has gone to his CHC to look after the interests of his constituent, who appears to be in a dire situation, but the CHC has to act after the event and from the outside. The new structures will put the PALS system inside that trust, so it will be on the spot to provide assistance to that constituent where it matters and when he or she needs it. The system will be a powerful force for ensuring that the trust, its consultants and the service that that constituent receives improve. Therefore, I genuinely believe that what we are introducing is much more appropriate for the changed NHS. We are putting patients and the public right at the heart of the system, which is where they need to be and where they can make the most difference.
      I want to deal in detail with the concept of patients councils in new clause 5. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) said, it is important that I set out how the commission would work so that people can visualise the way in which the system may be drawn together. All the concerns about fragmentation can be addressed. Many Members have mentioned the need to ensure that the system is integrated and that there is an overview of the whole health community. That is very important.
      The concept of patients councils, which was introduced by previous legislation, has helped to inform the arrangements before us. Over the past year, we have developed our proposals in the light of those ideas and many others. This has not been a static process in which the Government have taken a fixed view. We have taken on board the views of many stakeholders in the system and the proposals have been much improved over the past year or so.
      The system will take on board all the functions set out in new clause 5, but it will also allow for a more dynamic and much more influential arrangement that is fit for the purpose of empowering all the people whom we want to involve in the NHS. First, we all agree that there must be a mechanism to pull together the informed overview of the patient experience across a specified area. That overview is fundamental. We must ensure that we collect all the data from PALS, the patients forums, the trends and the themes that emerge from independent complaints and advocacy services so that we have in one place all the information we need to know what the NHS is like in a certain community or neighbourhood and what is causing concern regularly, not just as a one-off. Currently,

      225
      there is no one place in which all that intelligence can be held, but we shall be able to ensure that there is such a place in future.
      The commission will go out locally and engage hard-to-reach groups and people from marginalised communities. It will get not only the views of long-term and acute patients, but, perhaps, those of the homeless, people in the travelling community and people from black and ethnic minority groups—the voice out there that has never shaped the service before. The commission may use that data, that intelligence, those views and those concerns to ensure that reports are prepared not narrowly—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. If the Minister does not address the Chair, it is difficult to hear her.
      Ms Blears: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The commission will draw in all that experience across the local area. We all agree that patients do not fit conveniently or snugly into NHS or local government boundaries and that patients' experience often transcends various trusts—they go from one to another. It is important that we are able to draw that experience together. We must ensure that patients forums and ICAS providers are sufficiently supported so that they can develop.
      Patients forums in particular are new organisations and they will need to be properly staffed and facilitated to ensure that they can grow. Those organisations must work together to share their outcomes, plan joint work and identify trends and themes. Above all, the whole patient and public involvement system must be geared to hearing the voices of people, not a few representatives who purport to speak for the community. The community must find a way to express itself.
      The public will want to know how they can gain access to every part of the public and patient involvement service, where they can get in touch with PALS, how to get in touch with patients forums, what the overview and scrutiny committees will do, what the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement can do for them and where, at every single point, they can get their needs, concerns and grievances addressed. It is absolutely crucial that all those organisations be led by the public and by patients—lay members determining their priorities in the community.
      All those provisions are dealt with in the Bill, so new clause 5 is unnecessary, not because the issues are unimportant, but because they are catered for and because such a patients council might prove inhibiting to other important features.
      The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health is the fundamental change to our proposals following the introduction of the Health and Social Care Act 2001. It will have core national functions and a range of local functions that have been universally recognised as being pivotal to the system's effective operation. The Bill says that the commission must operate at PCT level in local communities.
      Patients forums will have their ear to the ground in respect of the trusts and PCTs to which they relate. They will have a real insight into what patients really think
      226
      about trust services. We acknowledge that they will be trust focused, so we must ensure that that knowledge and insight is brought together. What does it mean for patients overall? We intend to require patients forums to come together regularly to share their findings and to talk about emerging trends.
      As is argued for the patients council, information sharing is critical to ensuring that the patient's journey is truly understood and captured. We shall use the regulation-making powers in clause 15(4) to require patients forums to work together. That will enable best practice to emerge and inform the commission about those areas in which there are stresses and strains and where further work is needed. A strength of CHCs was that they could see such trends emerging. We shall ensure that that strength is not lost in the new system.
      We envisage the commission and patients forums forging partnerships across different boundaries. We do not want to tie those boundaries down to specific and restrictive areas, because they will work in many different ways. Many issues span different PCTs and the commission will need to work across those areas and with lay members in partnerships and to have the flexibility to do so.
      We think that the concept of a patients council, as expressed in new clause 5, would inevitably result in a limiting of the remit of the public and patient involvement system. It would also require a service organisation to support that organisation. I am keen to maximise the use of our resources in carrying out the consultation work that local people want to happen, instead of in servicing committees, taking minutes and the other aspects of a bureaucratic organisation. There would need to be 150 patients councils established, which would mean another 150 bodies in what hon. Members have already called a complex and complicated system. I do not want us to be tied to servicing such organisations, although the functions of the patients councils are crucial to making the system work.
      We have to ensure that the commission will respond to what patients forums tell it are the important issues in their community. We have the flexibility in the Bill to make secondary legislation that will set out the relationship between the commission and patients forums, to ensure that when forums highlight an issue the commission takes it on board. We can ensure that patients forum representatives—the lay members—set the work programme for the commission and ensure that community priorities are at the top of the agenda. We shall use regulation-making powers to require the commission to have specific regard to the recommendations of joint patients forums when planning programmes of work.
      By using the two regulation-making powers already in the Bill, we will be able to set up all the functions of the patients councils, as set out in new clause 5, and we can do much more. We will not be rigid or tied to a specific structure. The commission will go out into communities and hear those different voices and draw in those socially excluded groups and marginalised communities. We will be able to move on. It is a matter of having the courage to consider new ways of working. We are all tempted to stick with what we know because it is comfortable and

      227
      we have seen it in practice, but we must now push forward the boundaries and consider new ways of working to empower the public, too.
      Dr. Evan Harris: Nothing in new clause 5 prevents the Secretary of State from making regulations to fine-tune the functions of patients councils, but the Minister described the provision of staff who would enable patients to make their views known to the relevant organisations as creating a bureaucracy. However, when staff are provided to support other organisations, that is called providing appropriate support for effective mechanisms. Simply labelling something a bureaucracy when the Government do not like it is not worthy of the issues involved.
      Ms Blears: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be staff. The staff of the commission will support the patients forums. The staff will also go out into the communities to find the volunteers mentioned by the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) and give them support, education, training and guidance—which they have never had before—before they are placed on patients forums and other bodies. That will ensure that patients and the public are empowered to challenge professionals. The representatives will be really fit for the purpose of serving on those bodies and will be able to feel that they can make a significant difference and a real contribution.
      One of the aims of patients councils will be to make real links with local government. Some of the biggest determinants of good health are the issues that local government is responsible for, such as education, housing, transport and the environment. The commission will not be confined to an NHS model but will be able to make crucial links with local government, which have been championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield on many occasions. I am a little disappointed that my hon. Friend is not able to trust the Government's undertaking to put these measures into law through the use of the regulation-making powers. I have put our intention to ensure that those functions are carried out on the record and I am disappointed that my hon. Friend will not accept that.
      8.15 pm
      Amendment No. 73, supported by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), deals with the rights of patients forums to inspect various properties. The matter was raised in Committee and I said that I would consider it. It is not our intention to hand to patients forums a set of draconian powers. We have said that patients forums should be able to inspect everywhere a patient goes, but that does not mean a right of access to private living accommodation. There will be appropriate limitations and restrictions in the regulations that we intend to enact. It will be necessary to spell out the circumstances in which patients forums can inspect various properties, and we will have to be conscious of the right to privacy under the human rights legislation. I therefore reject the amendment, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my reassurance.
      Amendments Nos. 38 and 70 relate to the accounts and funding arrangements for patients forums. Independence for patients forums was a key issue in Committee and it is our intention to reinforce their independence through
      228
      the legislation. There is a saying that he who pays the piper calls the tune, and concern was expressed in Committee that if trusts were to be responsible for the finances of patients forums, those bodies would not feel able to be critical or independent. Government amendment No. 38 will ensure that it is the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health that will provide the funding and accounts for patients forums as arm's-length independent organisations. That will ensure that patients forums are independent of trusts in every way, including in their financing. I would hope that that will be sufficient for the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) to withdraw his amendment.
      I turn to the relationship of patients forums with the rest of the proposed system. Patients forums will be powerful and influential bodies, but we recognise that there will be times when the forums might feel that a significant issue from the patient's perspective has not been properly taken account of by the trusts that they monitor. In such circumstances, the forums might want to alert the overview and scrutiny committees, which will have the legal powers to scrutinise the NHS on that issue. Local OSCs will provide the democratic element, through democratically elected members, and we think it right that forums should refer issues of concern that have not been satisfactorily addressed to the OSC. The amendment has been widely welcomed by ACHCEW and patients' organisations, and I hope that hon. Members will also welcome it.
      The democratic rights of local government must be a matter for its determination. We do not want to add to the Bill a requirement for OSCs to respond to referrals from the patients forum, because it is properly a matter for local government to decide what to do with those referrals in the course of the programme of scrutiny. However, it would be good practice to respond and we shall put in guidance our view on how OSCs should perform their functions. We would like to see a close relationship between OSCs and the patients forums. The OSCs should indicate, when they get a referral, what they intend to do—whether they will note the matter or look into it further. Government amendment No. 33 will join up the system between patients forums and OSCs, and I hope that it will be welcomed. Consequential amendments provide the necessary definitions and, on that basis, I would ask the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon to reconsider his amendment.
      In Committee, the important matter of the right of overview and scrutiny committees to refer contested reconfigurations to the Secretary of State was raised. At the moment, the way in which community health councils deal with the matter is, as I said in Committee, tortuous, in that they rely on referrals to regulations. These are important matters, and I want the new powers for overview and scrutiny committees to refer contested reconfigurations to the Secretary of State to be no less rigorous than those that community health councils enjoyed.
      I also want to clarify the situation about referrals on process and on merit. In relation to new clause 8, I would like to be able to consider further the details that are proposed. The drafting proposed by the new clause may not be sufficient to achieve the objective, and I would want to consider the proposals further.

      229
      Finally, new clause 7 seeks to amend section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act, which provides a duty on the NHS to make arrangements to involve and consult the public on decisions that it takes about the provision and delivery of services. It is not necessary to include the Secretary of State in the list of bodies to whom section 11 of the Act applies. The Secretary of State himself delegates all functions in relation to health services—to health authorities, to NHS trusts or to PCTs.
      A full list of potential providers of health services is already included in the Health and Social Care Act. Paragraph 34(a) of schedule 8 to the Bill extends the provision to strategic health authorities. On that basis, I would resist the new clause. There is sufficient definition of the bodies that are required to consult under section 11 to fulfil all the scenarios that have been put before us. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is going down the road of hypothetical situations and the Bill will be sufficiently robust to meet his concerns.
      Dr. Evan Harris: What about my point about NSCAG?
      Ms Blears: I have made the point that all the health service's functions are delegated by the Secretary of State. The way in which the consultation is carried out—whether by a lead strategic health authority or by a national organisation—is a delegation by the Secretary of State of a function of the health service. I genuinely believe that the Bill is comprehensive enough to cover the scenarios set out by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon.
      I hope that, during my speech, I have answered most of the issues that hon. Members have raised. Through the new system, we are genuinely trying to achieve a much more robust, independent and effective system of patient and public involvement. Hon. Members must look forward and have the courage to embrace new ways of working. They must not simply look for the traditional systems that they know and love but which do not provide an effective, independent and vigorous system for patients in our health service. This system will deliver that for the good of the people whom we represent.
      Mr. Burns: I listened carefully to the Under-Secretary, and I think that she and the Government are trying to sell us a pup. She gave no credible reason why community health councils should be abolished. She gave no credible explanation of why they could not be reformed and kept in an improved state. For that reason, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support new clause 2.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 323.

      Division No. 130]

      [8.22 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Baldry, Tony

      Allan, Richard

      Barker, Gregory

      Amess, David

      Baron, John

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Barrett, John

      Beggs, Roy

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Bellingham, Henry

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bercow, John

      Bacon, Richard

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Baker, Norman

      Blunt, Crispin

      230

      Boswell, Tim

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Brady, Graham

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Brake, Tom

      Key, Robert

      Brazier, Julian

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Breed, Colin

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lamb, Norman

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Lansley, Andrew

      Burns, Simon

      Laws, David

      Burstow, Paul

      Leigh, Edward

      Burt, Alistair

      Letwin, Oliver

      Butterfill, John

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Lidington, David

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Cameron, David

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Loughton, Tim

      Cash, William

      Luff, Peter

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Chope, Christopher

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Clappison, James

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Mates, Michael

      Collins, Tim

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Conway, Derek

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Mercer, Patrick

      Cotter, Brian

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Cran, James

      Moore, Michael

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Norman, Archie

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Oaten, Mark

      Doughty, Sue

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

      Ottaway, Richard

      Evans, Nigel

      Page, Richard

      Fabricant, Michael

      Paice, James

      Fallon, Michael

      Paterson, Owen

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Pickles, Eric

      Flight, Howard

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Price, Adam

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Prisk, Mark

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Pugh, Dr John

      Francois, Mark

      Randall, John

      Garnier, Edward

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Gibb, Nick

      Rendel, David

      Gidley, Sandra

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Gray, James

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Grayling, Chris

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Ruffley, David

      Greenway, John

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hammond, Philip

      Selous, Andrew

      Hancock, Mike

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Harvey, Nick

      Simmonds, Mark

      Hawkins, Nick

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Hayes, John

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

      Heald, Oliver

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Heath, David

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hendry, Charles

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hermon, Lady

      Spink, Bob

      Hoban, Mark

      Spring, Richard

      Holmes, Paul

      Steen, Anthony

      Horam, John

      Streeter, Gary

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hunter, Andrew

      Swire, Hugo

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Syms, Robert

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      231

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Webb, Steve

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Whittingdale, John

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Wilkinson, John

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Thurso, John

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Willis, Phil

      Wilshire, David

      Tredinnick, David

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Trend, Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Tyler, Paul

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Viggers, Peter

      Walter, Robert

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Waterson, Nigel

      Dr. Julian Lewis and

      Watkinson, Angela

      Mr. Laurence Robertson

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Allen, Graham

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Cummings, John

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Austin, John

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Baird, Vera

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Barnes, Harry

      Dalyell, Tam

      Barron, Kevin

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Battle, John

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bayley, Hugh

      David, Wayne

      Beard, Nigel

      Davidson, Ian

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bell, Stuart

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

      Bennett, Andrew

      Benton, Joe

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Berry, Roger

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Best, Harold

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Blackman, Liz

      Dismore, Andrew

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dobbin, Jim

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Doran, Frank

      Brennan, Kevin

      Dowd, Jim

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Drew, David

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Bryant, Chris

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Burgon, Colin

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Cairns, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Etherington, Bill

      Caplin, Ivor

      Farrelly, Paul

      Casale, Roger

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Caton, Martin

      Fisher, Mark

      Cawsey, Ian

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Challen, Colin

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Chaytor, David

      Flint, Caroline

      Clapham, Michael

      Flynn, Paul

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Follett, Barbara

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Foulkes, George

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

      Gardiner, Barry

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clelland, David

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Coaker, Vernon

      Gilroy, Linda

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Godsiff, Roger

      Cohen, Harry

      Goggins, Paul

      Cooper, Yvette

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Corston, Jean

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cousins, Jim

      Grogan, John

      Cranston, Ross

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Crausby, David

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      232

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McNulty, Tony

      Hanson, David

      MacShane, Denis

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Havard, Dai

      McWilliam, John

      Healey, John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mann, John

      Hendrick, Mark

      Marris, Rob

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Heppell, John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Heyes, David

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hill, Keith

      Martlew, Eric

      Hinchliffe, David

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hodge, Margaret

      Meale, Alan

      Hoey, Kate

      Merron, Gillian

      Hood, Jimmy

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hope, Phil

      Miliband, David

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Miller, Andrew

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Mole, Chris

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Moran, Margaret

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Morgan, Julie

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Mullin, Chris

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      Organ, Diana

      Joyce, Eric

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Owen, Albert

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Pearson, Ian

      Kemp, Fraser

      Perham, Linda

      Khabra, Piara S

      Picking, Anne

      Kidney, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Pike, Peter

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Plaskitt, James

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Pond, Chris

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Lammy, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Laxton, Bob

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Leslie, Christopher

      Purnell, James

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rammell, Bill

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Rapson, Syd

      Linton, Martin

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Lloyd, Tony

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Love, Andrew

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lucas, Ian

      Luke, Iain

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lyons, John

      Rooney, Terry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ross, Ernie

      McCabe, Stephen

      Roy, Frank

      McCafferty, Chris

      Ruane, Chris

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Ruddock, Joan

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Ryan, Joan

      MacDougall, John

      Salter, Martin

      McFall, John

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sawford, Phil

      McKechin, Ann

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Shaw, Jonathan

      233

      Sheerman, Barry

      Touhig, Don

      Sheridan, Jim

      Trickett, Jon

      Simon, Siôn

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Tynan, Bill

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Vaz, Keith

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Southworth, Helen

      Watson, Tom

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Watts, David

      Squire, Rachel

      White, Brian

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stevenson, George

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

      Wills, Michael

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Winnick, David

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wood, Mike

      Stringer, Graham

      Woodward, Shaun

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Woolas, Phil

      Tami, Mark

      Worthington, Tony

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wray, James

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Timms, Stephen

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Todd, Mark

      Dan Norris.

      Question accordingly negatived.

      New Clause 3

        THE HEALTH INSPECTORATE
        '(1) There shall be a body corporate known as the Health Inspectorate, which will take effect from 1st April 2004.
        (2) The Health Inspectorate shall assume at that date the functions undertaken prior to that date by—

        (i) The National Institute for Clinical Excellence,

        (ii) The Commission for Health Improvement,

        (iii) The National Care Standards Commission, and

        (iv) The Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals.

        (3) The Secretary of State may by order make such amendments of the legislation relating to the health service in England and Wales as in his opinion facilitate, or are otherwise desirable in connection with subsections (1) and (2) above.'.—[Mr. Heald.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Heald: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed clause, in line 5, leave out—
        '(i) The National Institute for Clinical Excellence.'.
        Amendment (b) to the proposed clause, in line 8, leave out—
        '(iv) The Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals.'.
        234
        New clause 4—Public health functions of the Commission for Health Improvement—
        'The Commission for Health Improvement shall have such further functions as may be prescribed relating to the management, coordination, provision or quality of public health services for which prescribed NHS bodies, service providers, local authorities or other bodies have responsibility.'.
        New clause 10—The Commission for Health Improvement: amendments to section 20 of the Health Act 1999—
        '(1) Section 20 of the Health Act 1999 is amended as follows:—
        (2) After paragraph (1) (e) there is inserted—
        "(f) the function of conducting reviews of and making reports on the guidance on priorities for the NHS set out by the Secretary of State, regional directors of the health service, and Strategic Health Authorities"
        (3) After subsection (1) there is inserted—
        "(1A) in carrying out the functions set out in subsections 20(1)(a) to (e) the Commission shall, where appropriate, review, investigate and report on the guidance on priorities for the NHS set out by the Secretary of State, regional directors of the health service, and Strategic Health Authorities."
        (4) Subsections (3) and (4) are repealed'.
        Amendment No. 89, in clause 12, page 17, line 15 after "others", insert—
        '(including but not limited to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the relevant royal colleges, regional directors of the Health Service, the NHS Executive and the Secretary of State)'.
        Amendment No. 88, in page 17, line 29 at end insert—
        '(1C) The criteria referred to in subsection (1A)(b) shall be agreed between the Commission, the Secretary of State and the relevant royal colleges, which shall take due account of the adequacy of resources available to meet the performance indicators.'.
        Government amendments Nos. 29 to 32, and 57 and 58.
        Mr. Heald: In a world of reform by soundbite, where the answer to every issue is to set up a new commission, a new institute, a new agency or a new committee, surely there comes a time—[Interruption.]
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members who are interested in holding private conversations—[Interruption.] Order. That includes the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis). Hon. Members who are not interested in listening to the debate would serve their colleagues better by leaving the Chamber.
        Mr. Heald: Surely there comes a time to rationalise, and new clauses 3 and 4 would do just that. New clause 3 would combine the functions of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the Commission for Health Improvement, the National Care Standards Commission and the Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals in one body known as the health inspectorate.
        The Government have a piecemeal approach to reform: an issue arises, a committee is set up. That has led to a plethora of commissions, institutes and the like. It has also led to particular issues to do with the National Care Standards Commission and the CHI. The NCSC will monitor and inspect private sector providers. The CHI will inspect the same providers if NHS patients are at their premises. Surely only one body should do that work.

        235
        We know that Government policy is changing fast. Only last year the Secretary of State was saying that the national health service was "thankfully" a monopoly provider. The right hon. Gentleman said that
        "by and large, we thankfully have one monopoly provider and that is the NHS. As long as a Labour Government are in power, that will remain the position."—[Official Report,26 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 500.]
        When the Bill was being prepared, that was indeed the right hon. Gentleman's view; yet by 7 December 2001—six months later—he was saying:
        "Where we need to get to is a position where the NHS is no longer a monopoly provider of care but it does become a monopoly funder of care."
        In other words, in six months, the Secretary of State went from a monopolist to a non-monopolist.
        Having given us the NHS plan in 2000 and the Bill in 2001, the right hon. Gentleman has now come up with another big idea to rescue the day. The reason is that, despite his promises and despite his words, he was wrong. There has been no delivery: all talk, no delivery.
        Today we have heard about foundation hospitals. As the changes are made, the case for an all-embracing health inspectorate grows. There would be no demarcation disputes between private sector monitoring and public sector monitoring. There would be less red tape and better co-ordination. There would be fewer burdens on busy clinicians, nurses and other staff. Indeed, if some of the comments are to be believed, the Government will embrace a national health service provided by third parties and will simply act as a regulator. In that case, why do we need this plethora of commissions, inspectorates and the like? Surely it makes sense to rationalise the situation.
        Under new clause 4, we would extend the role of the CHI to cover the monitoring, inspection, reporting, co-ordination, management and quality of public health. On 10 January, the chief medical officer announced a new committee—the national infection control and health protection agency—which will assess the threat of new and emerging infections and diseases and implement vaccinations. That is necessary simply because of the Government's lamentable failure in public health.
        In a report published in February 2000, the National Audit Office exposed huge discrepancies in performance between hospitals. It found that infections caught while in hospital were killing about 5,000 people a year and infecting about 100,000. The very old, the very young, those undergoing invasive standard procedures and those with suppressed immune systems were particularly susceptible. Hospital staff were not practising basic hygiene. The NAO found that infection rates could be reduced by 15 per cent. by better application of existing knowledge and realistic infection control practices.
        The NAO also found that there was insufficient funding, that there was no up-to-date information and that hospital infections were costing the health service £1 billion a year. It said that the NHS could save hundreds of millions of pounds if it tackled infection seriously, and that the high number of patients occupying beds and contributing to the problem could be improved.
        Against that background of the Government's failure to take public health and infection seriously, exactly what happens when Labour is in power can be shown by referring to certain diseases. The number of tuberculosis cases has risen enormously in recent years. In
        236
        September 1999, the Department of Health asked the health authorities to suspend routine immunisation in schools for 10 to 14-year-olds because of a shortage of vaccine, yet that programme has still not been fully reinstated.
        The number of BCG vaccinations fell from 518,000 in 1997 to 137,000 in 2001—a decrease of almost 400,000—yet the number of TB cases reached a 15-year high. According to the British Thoracic Society, the number of adults and children with the respiratory disease TB was at record levels. The figure rose by a fifth between 1987 and 1988, and London has become the capital for TB.
        The rise in sexually transmitted diseases has been remarkable, too. Between 1999 and 2000, the incidence of syphilis increased by 51 per cent.; gonorrhoea increased by 25 per cent.; and chlamydia by 12 per cent. We have seen a similar picture with other diseases. So there is an epidemic of TB and sexually transmitted diseases are increasing.
        Dr. Evan Harris: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's topic; it used to be my field, but I am little confused—perhaps I am missing some amendments—about its relevance to new clause 3, about which important issues remain to be discussed. He refers to important issues, but they are not necessarily connected with new clause 3.
        Mr. Heald: Perhaps I have been so speedy in my remarks that the hon. Gentleman has not noticed that I have moved on to new clause 4, under which we would require the CHI to take an interest in public health services. The reason why that is important is the Government's neglect of very important issues, such as those diseases, and the hon. Gentleman might make common cause with us about that. Certainly, when the Select Committee report on public health was debated recently in Westminster Hall, he and I agreed that the Government have an appalling public health record.
        Although the chief medical officer has belatedly set up yet another committee, the hon. Gentleman may agree—certainly his amendments to new clause 3 suggest it—that it would be better to have one effective body than to have committee upon committee upon committee. On 10 January, the chief medical officer reported that he was setting up the national infection control and health protection agency, but the new clause suggests that the Commission for Health Improvement could deal with such issues as well.
        8.45 pm
        One hopes that the Commission for Health Improvement will give advice to all the health bodies in the country. If it has the role of providing advice and support, it is surely odd to set up yet another new agency to give advice on public health when we already have a body that meets and liaises with all the other bodies and authorities to deal with the issues. We therefore suggest the rational approach of dealing with the matter through one body.
        The Government have recently, belatedly, produced a strategy on sexual health. However, there has been great criticism of it. The response from the George House Trust has been to say that the Government are following the "wrong strategy". It states:
        "Much is made by the Government of the need for the joined-up working' … but not so on HIV."

        237
        It points out that to achieve
        "the long term aims of a reduction of HIV transmission and the best possible quality of life for people with HIV requires a cross-Government approach."
        It criticises the Government for providing something worse than that, adding:
        "The document almost doesn't deserve the name 'national strategy'."
        Building on their weakness on this issue, the Government have produced yet another document that is short on the sort of detail that those in the community who have to deal with such illnesses think is necessary.
        Mr. Hutton: I understand that the hon. Gentleman's new clauses and amendments deal essentially with the role and responsibilities of the Commission for Health Improvement for what he described as public health areas. He has now moved on to the sexual health strategy and sexual health services, but that is one issue for which the Commission for Health Improvement already has competence and jurisdiction.
        Mr. Heald: The point that I am making is that we should join up the functions. If the Minister had attended the debate in Westminster Hall, he would know that public health is a well recognised field. Like the Select Committee on Health, we went through the history of the subject and back to 1850 and the earliest steps taken in public health. We reached the conclusion—and a consensus even with the Minister's colleague who attended the debate—that sexual health was part of public health. It obviously has a medical dimension too.
        On haemophilia, the fact that recombinant factor 8 is not available across the whole United Kingdom has been a failure of public health policy. So the public are right to be concerned that the Government do not know what they are doing for public health. The Select Committee on Health has done an important job of highlighting the vital nature of the issue, but I return to my central point. Why do we need yet another new committee? Why not give the Commission for Health Improvement the job of being a combined inspectorate that brings together the four bodies mentioned in new clause 3, while having additional responsibilities for public health?
        The British Medical Association has expressed concern that the new arrangements in the Bill may lead to some areas having no public health doctor advising either the PCT or the strategic health authority. Will the Minister address the issue and tell us whether he is satisfied with that? The national tracker survey mentioned in previous debates concluded that
        "most PCGs and PCTs feel they need more public health support".
        So why not give the job to the people who advise on all the other matters? Why not give it to a unified body or to the Commission for Health Improvement?
        Other new clauses and amendments are before the House, and I shall leave it to other Members to describe them. However, I hope that the Minister will, for once, move away from the Government's gimmicky, soundbite approach that we see so often. Every time there is a problem, they set up a committee. Why can we not rationalise and at least bring all the powers together in one body?
        238
        On a non-partisan note, when financial controls and checks were disparate and a plethora of bodies dealt with financial regulation, the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered the problem and decided to bring those bodies together with a strong regulator, the Financial Services Authority, to cover all financial regulation. If that is good enough for financial regulation, why is it not good enough for health regulation? Let us bring the bodies together, give them some teeth and have real expertise. I ask the Minister to look on the new clause with the same affection as he showed for our proposals on consultation.
        Dr. Evan Harris: Before addressing the new clause and amendments that the Liberal Democrats have tabled, I want to deal with new clause 3, which would amalgamate the functions of the Commission for Health Improvement, the National Care Standards Commission, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals. I am half with the Conservatives on that. The hon. Gentleman knows that for a long time we have thought that there should be one quality regulator for both the private sector and the NHS. Such an inspectorate would have specialist departments to deal with, for example, the inspection of care homes, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) is an expert. We believe that the nature of the inspectorate should be to consider issues of quality in both sectors, with powers to be discussed and arranged later in our proceedings.
        We also believe, however, that NICE and the Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals are separate bodies with separate functions. We have made it clear to the Government that we support their quality initiative, even if it means more acronyms. That is the price we have to pay for the previous lack of machinery to deal with quality assurance in the health service. So we accept that two of the bodies could be combined, which is the purpose of amendments (a) and (b) to new clause 3.
        Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when the Government thought of having two bodies, they favoured a monopoly supply in the NHS, so there would have been little overlap? Now that they are coming forward with changed proposals, it is far more important that one body should deal with such matters; otherwise, more than one body will survey the same premises.
        Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman is too generous. I do not think that the Government provided a rational reason for the separation, especially with regard to the fact that NHS patients in private hospitals would be subject to Commission for Health Improvement inspection, which means two separate bodies going to similar sectors. It is true that the then Secretary of State took a separatist view of the private sector, but I do not think that that approach was ever rationalised. I do not believe that it can be.
        Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman, like the Conservatives, overlooks the implications and consequences of section 9 of the Care Standards Act 2000, which prevents the duplication to which he refers. In the present situation, it offers a sensible way to deal with his reasonable concerns and criticisms.
        Dr. Harris: That section might deal with one form of duplication, but it does not address the duplication of

        239
        structure. I am concerned about the duplication of two bodies that could more easily pool best practice and identify lessons to be learned from each other by being in one inspectorate. I am sure that if we revisited this issue, the Government would accept the establishment of one body, albeit with different specialisations.
        New clause 10 is important and touches on matters that we raised in Committee. The Government say that they want the CHI to be more independent. Together with amendments Nos. 88 and 89, the new clause would ensure that they deliver on that and that the body really is independent. Under the cloak of greater independence, the measures would have the commission doing the Government's bidding, because it will be put in charge of measuring hospitals against performance criteria laid down by the Government, but it will have no duty to ensure that those criteria are sensible.
        Amendment No. 89 seeks to ensure that those criteria would be discussed and agreed by the commission, the Government and the royal colleges. The commission, rather than simply measuring how well hospitals, trusts and PCTs jump through hoops and how high they jump, should have some input, with the royal colleges, in determining the nature of the hoops.
        In the past, there have been ridiculous performance criteria with political objectives. In fact "ridiculous" is a polite description. For example, trusts that put patients ahead of political targets by treating urgent cases quickly, even at the expense of creating a few more long waiters—I accept that in general waiting times are too long—get marked down in performance tables compared with those that deal with long waiters, and have no one waiting over 15 months, by delaying waiting times for urgent operations from one month to three months. Patients come out worse in the second case, but the trust scores higher on the crazy performance criteria.
        I accept that there must be some performance monitoring, but let us have sensible criteria. Politicians will do as they do, so it would be sensible to ensure that the commission is able to agree criteria with the Government and the royal colleges. The Government have made efforts to engage the royal colleges in such discussions, but it is clear, as the Minister said in Committee, that the criteria in the Bill will be set by the Government and they will be designed to meet Government targets.
        The Government should not be allowed to get away with imposing distortions on the health service unless they are satisfied that they can pass muster with the newly independent commission. New clause 10 would give the commission the power to conduct reviews and draw up reports on the guidance on NHS priorities set out by the Secretary of State and the people to whom he delegates those powers. If priorities and planning guidance emerged that would not inevitably lead to improved quality but merely dealt with subsidiary matters unrelated to patient outcomes, they could be subject to a report by the commission. The Secretary of State could, of course, choose to ignore that report, but at least the information would be out in the open, and the Minister would have subjected the priorities emanating from his Department to the same scrutiny as the conduct of the trusts that seek to meet those criteria will be subjected to.
        One amendment seeks to ensure that when setting the criteria some regard would be paid to resources and their effect on the ability of hospitals, trusts and PCTs to meet
        240
        those criteria. There is nothing more invidious and depressing for trusts than to be named and shamed, as the Government indicate they will do and as they have done through the zero rating, when they fail to meet performance criteria, solely because they do not have the necessary staff or capacity. Delayed discharges, for example, are well beyond the control of even the best public sector or even—dare I say it?—private sector managers. That amendment should not be a threat to the Minister; indeed, he may argue, as I do, that it would be a benefit because it would ensure that trusts get a fair deal. Without performance monitoring that does not have a devastating effect on morale, we will not have the health service that we require.
        I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that at the appropriate moment you will allow us to call a vote on new clause 10, if the Government oppose it.
        Mr. Hutton: I shall speak to the Government amendments before I turn to those in the names of Opposition Members. Amendments Nos. 29 to 32 are technical amendments that relate to the Commission for Health Improvement. Amendment No. 29 concerns the commission's investigatory role, and the remaining amendments deal with its role under the new system of local health boards to be established in Wales.
        9 pm
        Amendment No. 29 is designed to ensure that confidential information can be disclosed to the Commission for Health Improvement when it is carrying out investigations in relation to special health authorities or other bodies that may in future be prescribed in regulations under section 20(1)(e) of the Health Act 1999, not only when it carries out investigations in relation to health authorities, PCTs and NHS trusts. Whenever we discuss confidential information and its disclosure, it is important that we address the essential safeguards needed to ensure that there are no abuses. Those safeguards have already been built into the existing legislation.
        The Commission for Health Improvement may obtain personally identifiable confidential information only in the circumstances specified in 23(2)(d) of the 1999 Act. Broadly, those circumstances are where it is not practicable to disclose the information in an anonymous form; where there is a serious risk to the health or safety of patients; and where the risk and urgency involved mean that the information needs to be disclosed without consent. Those are stringent and necessary safeguards.
        Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 are technical drafting mechanisms to address the fact that local health boards will be set up at a future date in Wales. Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 are also technical amendments, consequential on the creation of local health boards. The practical effect of amendment No. 57 would be to ensure that CHI' s functions in relation to local health boards under section 20 of the 1999 Act operate once such boards are established and given responsibility for health care. The practical effect of amendment No. 58 would be to ensure that local health boards are subject to the appropriate provisions of existing legislation.
        The principal debate and arguments in relation to this group of amendments has concerned new clauses 3, 4 and 10. New clause 3 seeks to create a new health inspectorate by bringing together a number of current or proposed

        241
        bodies. In tabling new clauses 3 and 4, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) has, properly and correctly, raised an important issue with which I have a great deal of sympathy. However, I have serious doubts about the drafting and wider effects of the new clauses, which means that I cannot accept them this evening. Clearly, as the hon. Gentleman said—and I agree—there is a strong case for effective co-ordination between various agencies in the field and for ensuring that the NHS is not subject to unnecessary or bureaucratic regulatory inspections. That is a key objective for the Government, which we need to keep under careful and continuous review.
        My overall concerns about the new clauses, especially new clause 3, are to do with the mixture of distinct functions and the disruption that that kind of change would inevitably cause at this moment in time, particularly when the National Care Standards Commission has not even begun to discharge its statutory functions and CHI has not taken on its new and expanded role under the Bill. While there is no doubt at all that the sort of collaboration and co-ordination that the hon. Gentleman and I want must continue and be strengthened, the proposed health inspectorate would create a new body with what might be described as an indigestible and confusing mixture of NHS and wider regulation and inspection roles. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), we should not lose sight, in our rush to reform, of other ways in which we can facilitate the type of operation that he and I want to see, especially the use of section 9 of the Care Standards Act 2000.
        We have already made provision for greater co-ordination between CHI and the Audit Commission in the Bill. Additionally, we have provided powers for the sharing of functions between the National Care Standards Commission and CHI, which has entered into important memorandums of understanding with a range of organisations, such as the royal colleges. We were able to send copies of those memorandums of understanding to members of the Standing Committee; I hope that they found that useful. In the present circumstances, that is the right way to proceed.
        I wish to make it clear to the House that we are considering, as part of our response to Professor Kennedy's report on the Bristol royal infirmary inquiry, what further steps might be taken to improve the co-ordination of the activities of those various bodies. As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, and, I hope, the House, knows, the Government's response to the report will be published in the near future. While I fully understand his arguments and strongly sympathise with them, I am not in a position to support his particular attempt to resolve those problems. As I said, the difficulties can be addressed in the present circumstances in other ways—less bureaucratic ways than the drastic changes and upheavals proposed. That is particularly true in relation to the National Care Standards Commission, which has not yet started its work.
        Amendments (a) and (b) tabled by the Liberal Democrats to new clause 3 would mean that the new health inspectorate would perform the functions of the Commission for Health Improvement and the National Care Standards Commission, but not those of the National
        242
        Institute for Clinical Excellence or the new Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals. As I have already indicated, the proposal to establish a single health inspectorate as set out in new clause 3 may have some attractions, but it confuses the very different roles of the bodies concerned and ignores the actual and potential collaboration between them. By reducing the number of bodies involved, the amendments inevitably mitigate the confusion, but do not remove it entirely.
        I have tried to explain to the hon. Members for North-East Hertfordshire and for Oxford, West and Abingdon that we are examining the issues closely, but there are genuine difficulties with the new clause. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire may or may not be prepared to accept that, but I assure him and the House that the Government are studying these matters carefully.
        New clause 4 would allow CHI to be given new functions in relation to what are described in the new clause as "public health" services. That is not a term defined in the Health Act 1999, which set up the Commission for Health Improvement. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire was right to draw attention to the chief medical officer's report last week, which announced plans for a new national infection control and health protection agency, which is designed to streamline the services involved in the prevention and control of infectious diseases.
        The agency would subsume the functions of a number of the bodies of expertise which currently provide health protection services, including the Public Health Laboratory Service, the National Radiological Protection Board, the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research—CAMAR—and the National Focus for Chemical Incidents.
        The establishment of such a new agency would clearly raise important questions about its relationship to the Commission for Health Improvement, to which we are not yet in a position to give a final answer, but which we will consider carefully. I accept that new clause 4 raises an important issue, which requires serious consideration, alongside the issues raised by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire in relation to new clause 3.
        There are undoubted arguments in favour of giving recognition to the importance of public health services, as proposed in new clause 4. However, complex issues are involved in clarifying the range of public health services that might appropriately be brought within CHI's remit, the relationships with both the bodies responsible for those services and those responsible for their inspection or regulation now and in future, and the legislative consequences arising.
        I therefore propose that the new clause should not be accepted tonight, but I am happy to give an assurance to its proposers and to other right hon. and hon. Members that we are giving serious consideration to ways in which the issues that it raises might best be taken forward. I intend to keep right hon. and hon. Members fully informed of progress on the matter.
        The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire will not be surprised that I take issue with his general description of the Government's record in relation to public health. That traduces the policies that the Government are taking forward and fundamentally misrepresents them. The

        243
        Government have a good and strong record in relation to public health issues, which we intend to pursue into the future.
        The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire raised a version of new clause 10 in Committee—
        Mr. Heald: Does the Minister agree that there is a TB epidemic, vaccinations are down, and the sexual health of the nation is worse than it has been for a good deal of time? There are numerous public health issues—the re-use of surgical equipment is another, and all the diseases in hospitals. The Government's record does not look good. How would he defend it?
        Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman gives a highly selective account. He did not mention, for example, the enormous success of the introduction of the meningitis vaccine into the NHS. He did not refer to the flu vaccination policy that we have successfully introduced, and which has made a significant impact on dealing with winter pressures across the NHS. He did not mention the introduction of new public health strategies and policies for young people, including the policy to ensure that children at school have access to fresh fruit.
        The hon. Gentleman can pick and choose and describe that record as a failure, but that is not an impressive argument. It overlooks the positive achievements. Of course, there is always more to do in the public health arena, but to say that the Government are doing nothing and that the public health of the nation has deteriorated is a travesty of the facts.
        In Committee, we had a revealing discussion with the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon about new clause 10, which would give the Commission for Health Improvement the additional function of reviewing guidance on NHS priorities issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, directors of health and social care regions and strategic health authorities. It would ensure that the commission reviews, investigates and reports on that guidance in carrying out its other functions. There is genuine disagreement between us about the proper and effective role of the commission and of Ministers and the House in holding the specified people to account. This is an important point to thrash out. He might say that I am presenting a travesty of his argument, but I must put it to the House that the new clause is about transferring responsibility for scrutinising the work of Ministers to the Commission for Health Improvement. That is the wrong thing to do.
        Dr. Evan Harris: That is a travesty.
        Mr. Hutton: None the less, it is what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do and it is a mistake. It is perfectly legitimate and reasonable for Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to set priorities for the national health service. The hon. Gentleman' s election manifesto was full of priorities for the national health service. It dealt with the extra staff that he wanted to recruit and the extra procedures and so on that the Liberal Democrats wanted to introduce in the national health service. It is complete nonsense to suggest that it is inappropriate for Ministers to set priorities for the public services, including national health services, and to be accountable to the House. They should be
        244
        accountable not to a ministerial or public body set up by the House, but to the House itself. That is the right constitutional balance.
        Dr. Evan Harris: I intervene merely to make the same point as I made in Standing Committee. No one is suggesting that these priorities should not be set by Ministers. One can argue about their volume and the frequency with which they are sent out, but the question is whether they will be open to scrutiny in terms of their impact on the quality of patient care. Use of funds is a separate issue.
        Mr. Hutton: Again, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the current arrangements for ensuring the scrutiny that he and others, including me, want. It is not correct to say that the only way of ensuring the scrutiny that he and others want is to give the Commission for Health Improvement the proposed new function. A range of tools and mechanisms is available to aid the process of scrutinising Government policy. We should bear in mind the National Audit Office, the Audit Commission and the role of this place and the Select Committee on Health, which is so ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). A range of effective measures is already in place to ensure that the decisions taken by Ministers are subject to effective scrutiny. It is important that they are subject to such scrutiny. My argument with him is about his choice of the Commission for Health Improvement as the body that should provide additional scrutiny in respect of such decision making. I do not believe that that is the right way forward.
        As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill strengthens the powers of the Commission for Health Improvement to do a better job throughout the national health service and to report to the House on what it has found out about the state of the health service. If the Liberal Democrats are looking for more effective ways of scrutinising Ministers and more ammunition in that regard, he should be aware that we are providing him with exactly that sort of ammunition. It is up to them to use it, but it is incorrect to suggest either that the current arrangements are defective and therefore justify new clause 10 or that Ministers are fighting shy of giving the Commission for Health Improvement a range of effective powers to deal with the issues that he and others have raised.
        I have tried to set out my arguments clearly. I hope that the House will support the Government amendments and not seek to press the new clause.
        Mr. Heald: The Minister's approach to new clauses 3 and 4 was constructive. We do not agree about the Government's record on public health, which we think is lamentable. None the less, he considered the new clauses and explained the complexity of the issues and made some points that I would like to consider further. I am not promising that the issues will not be raised again in the other place, but I shall not press the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      New Clause 5

        ESTABLISHMENT OF PATIENTS' COUNCILS
        '(1) The Secretary of State shall, subject to subsection (2) below, establish a body to be known as a Patients' Council ("Councils") in

        245
        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); each council shall be appointed from among members of relevant Primary Care Trust Patients' Forums and NHS Trust Patients' Forums operating in that area and representatives from relevant community interest groups.
        (2) 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.
        (3) The functions of a Council are to represent the interests in the health service of the public in its district and in particular to—

        (a) facilitate the co-ordination of the activities of member Patients' Forums including by the provision of staff and services to Patients' Forums,

        (b) provide or make arrangements for the provision of services under section 19A of the NHS Act 1977 (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 mentioned in sections 7, 8 and 10 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001) the views of members of the public in its area about matters affecting their health,

        (d) advise the bodies mentioned in subsection (4) 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.

        (4) The bodies referred to in subsection (3)(d) are—

        (a) health service bodies,

        (b) other public bodies, and

        (c) others providing services to the public or a section of the public.

        (5) The Secretary of State shall, following consultation with the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, Community Health Councils, patients' and carers' organisations and the wider community, by regulation make provision in relation to Councils as to—

        (a) the Patients' Forums and other community interest groups from which members of the Council are to be appointed,

        (b) any qualification or disqualification from membership,

        (c) terms of appointment,

        (d) the proceedings of a Council,

        (e) the discharge of any functions of a Council by a committee of the Council or by a joint committee appointed with another Council,

        (f) the circumstances in which Councils will co-operate with each other in the exercise of their functions and exercise functions jointly with one or more other Councils,

        (g) funding of Councils and the provision of staff, premises and other facilities,

        (h) the preparation and publication by a Council of annual accounts,

        (i) the provision of information (including descriptions of information which are or are not to be provided) to a Council by an NHS Trust, a Primary Care Trust, a Strategic Health Authority, the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, the relevant local
        246
        authorities or a person providing independent advocacy services (within the meaning given by section I9A of the NHS 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.

        (6) 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).
        (7) In section 21(10) of the Local Government Act 2000 (membership of overview and scrutiny committees) after the words "who are not members of the authority" there shall be inserted ("and shall include a person appointed by the relevant Patients' Council").
        (8) In paragraph I of Schedule I to the Health Authorities Act 1995 as amended by this Act after "(c) a prescribed number of officers of the Health Authority" there shall be inserted—
        "(d) persons appointed by the relevant Patients' Councils.".'.—[Mr. Hinchliffe]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 296.

        Division No. 131]

        [9.14 pm

        AYES

        Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

        Chope, Christopher

        Allan, Richard

        Clappison, James

        Amess, David

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

        Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Cohen, Harry

        Austin, John

        Collins, Tim

        Bacon, Richard

        Conway, Derek

        Baker, Norman

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Baldry, Tony

        Cormack, Sir Patrick

        Barker, Gregory

        Cotter, Brian

        Barnes, Harry

        Cousins, Jim

        Baron, John

        Cran, James

        Barrett, John

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Beggs, Roy

        Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

        Bellingham, Henry

        Djanogly, Jonathan

        Bercow, John

        Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Doughty, Sue

        Blunt, Crispin

        Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

        Boswell, Tim

        Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

        Brady, Graham

        Etherington, Bill

        Brake, Tom

        Evans, Nigel

        Brazier, Julian

        Ewing, Annabelle

        Breed, Colin

        Fabricant, Michael

        Brooke, Mrs Annette L

        Fallon, Michael

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

        Bruce, Malcolm

        Field, Mark (Cities of London)

        Burns, Simon

        Flight, Howard

        Burstow, Paul

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        Burt, Alistair

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Butterfill, John

        Fox, Dr Liam

        Cable, Dr Vincent

        Francois, Mark

        Calton, Mrs Patsy

        Garnier, Edward

        Cameron, David

        George, Andrew (St Ives)

        Carmichael, Alistair

        Gerrard, Neil

        Cash, William

        Gibb, Nick

        Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        Gidley, Sandra

        247

        Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

        Price, Adam

        Gray, James

        Prisk, Mark

        Grayling, Chris

        Pugh, Dr John

        Green, Damian (Ashford)

        Randall, John

        Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Greenway, John

        Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

        Grieve, Dominic

        Rendel, David

        Hammond, Philip

        Robathan, Andrew

        Hancock, Mike

        Robertson, Angus (Moray)

        Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

        Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

        Harvey, Nick

        Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

        Hawkins, Nick

        Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

        Hayes, John

        Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

        Heald, Oliver

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Heath, David

        Ruffley, David

        Hermon, Lady

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Hinchliffe, David

        Salmond, Alex

        Hoban, Mark

        Sanders, Adrian

        Hoey, Kate

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Holmes, Paul

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Horam, John

        Selous, Andrew

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

        Shepherd, Richard

        Hunter, Andrew

        Simmonds, Mark

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Skinner, Dennis

        Jones, Lynne (Sally Oak)

        Key, Robert

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

        Kirkbride, Miss Julie

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Spelman, Mrs Caroline

        Spicer Sir Michael

        Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

        Spink, Bob

        Laing, Mrs Eleanor

        Lamb, Norman

        Spring, Richard

        Lansley, Andrew

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Laws, David

        Steen, Anthony

        Leigh, Edward

        Streeter, Gary

        Letwin, Oliver

        Stunell, Andrew

        Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

        Swayne, Desmond

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        Swire, Hugo

        Liddell-Grainger, Ian

        Syms, Robert

        Lidington, David

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Taylor, John (Solihull)

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Loughton, Tim

        Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

        Luff, Peter

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        McIntosh, Miss Anne

        Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

        MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

        Tonge, Dr Jenny

        Maclean, Rt Hon David

        Tredinnick, David

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Trend, Michael

        Malins, Humfrey

        Trickett, Jon

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

        Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Tyler, Paul

        Marshall-Andrews, Robert

        Viggers, Peter

        Mates, Michael

        Walter, Robert

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

        Wareing, Robert N

        May, Mrs Theresa

        Waterson, Nigel

        Meale, Alan

        Watkinson, Angela

        Mercer, Patrick

        Webb, Steve

        Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

        Weir, Michael

        Moore, Michael

        Whittingdale, John

        Moss, Malcolm

        Wiggin, Bill

        Murrison, Dr Andrew

        Wilkinson, John

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

        Norman, Archie

        Williams, Roger (Brecon)

        Oaten, Mark

        Willis, Phil

        O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

        Wilshire, David

        Öpik, Lembit

        Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

        Osborne, George (Tatton)

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

        Ottaway, Richard

        Wishart, Pete

        Page, Richard

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Paice, James

        Younger-Ross, Richard

        Paterson, Owen

        Perham, Linda

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Pickles, Eric

        Mr. Kelvin Hopkins and

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        John McDonnell.

        248

        NOES

        Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

        Dismore, Andrew

        Allen, Graham

        Dobbin, Jim

        Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

        Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

        Doran, Frank

        Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

        Dowd, Jim

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Baird, Vera

        Edwards, Huw

        Barron, Kevin

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        Battle, John

        Ennis, Jeff

        Bayley, Hugh

        Farrelly, Paul

        Beard, Nigel

        Fisher, Mark

        Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

        Bell, Stuart

        Flint, Caroline

        Bennett, Andrew

        Flynn, Paul

        Benton, Joe

        Follett, Barbara

        Berry, Roger

        Foster, Michael (Worcester)

        Best, Harold

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Blackman, Liz

        Foulkes, George

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Gardiner, Barry

        Blizzard, Bob

        George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

        Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

        Gilroy, Linda

        Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

        Godsiff, Roger

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Goggins, Paul

        Brennan, Kevin

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Bryant, Chris

        Grogan, John

        Burgon, Colin

        Hain, Rt Hon Peter

        Cairns, David

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Hanson, David

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

        Caplin, Ivor

        Havard, Dai

        Casale, Roger

        Healey, John

        Caton, Martin

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        Cawsey, Ian

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Challen, Colin

        Hendrick, Mark

        Chaytor, David

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Clapham, Michael

        Heppell, John

        Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

        Hesford, Stephen

        Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Heyes, David

        Hill, Keith

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Hodge, Margaret

        Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

        Hood, Jimmy

        Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Hope, Phil

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Howells, Dr Kim

        Clelland, David

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Coaker, Vernon

        Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Corston, Jean

        Hutton, Rt Hon John

        Cranston, Ross

        Iddon, Dr Brian

        Crausby, David

        Illsley, Eric

        Cummings, John

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

        Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

        Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Dalyell, Tam

        Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        Joyce, Eric

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        David, Wayne

        Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

        Davidson, Ian

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Kemp, Fraser

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Khabra, Piara S

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

        Kidney, David

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

        Denham, Rt Hon John

        Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

        Dhanda, Parmjit

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        249

        Ladyman, Dr Stephen

        Rammell, Bill

        Lammy, David

        Rapson, Syd

        Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

        Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

        Laxton, Bob

        Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

        Lazarowicz, Mark

        Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

        Leslie, Christopher

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

        Linton, Martin

        Rooney, Terry

        Lloyd, Tony

        Ross, Ernie

        Love, Andrew

        Roy, Frank

        Lucas, Ian

        Ruane, Chris

        Luke, Iain

        Ruddock, Joan

        Lyons, John

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Salter, Martin

        McCabe, Stephen

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        McCafferty, Chris

        Savidge, Malcolm

        McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

        Sawford, Phil

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Shaw, Jonathan

        MacDonald, Calum

        MacDougall, John

        Sheerman, Barry

        McFall, John

        Sheridan, Jim

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        Simon, Siôn

        McIsaac, Shona

        Smith, Angela (Basildon)

        McKechin, Ann

        Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

        McKenna, Rosemary

        Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        McNamara, Kevin

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        McNulty, Tony

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        MacShane, Denis

        Southworth, Helen

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Spellar, Rt Hon John

        McWilliam, John

        Mallaber, Judy

        Squire, Rachel

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        Mann, John

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Marris, Rob

        Stevenson, George

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Stewart, David (Inverness E)

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        Martlew, Eric

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Merron, Gillian

        Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

        Michael, Rt Hon Alun

        Stringer, Graham

        Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        Miliband, David

        Miller, Andrew

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Moffatt, Laura

        Tami, Mark

        Mole, Chris

        Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

        Moran, Margaret

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        Morgan, Julie

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

        Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

        Mullin, Chris

        Timms, Stephen

        Munn, Ms Meg

        Tipping, Paddy

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Todd, Mark

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Touhig, Don

        Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Truswell, Paul

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        O'Hara Edward

        Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

        O'Neill, Martin

        Organ, Diana

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Osborne, George (Tatton)

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Owen, Albert

        Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Tynan, Bill

        Pearson, Ian

        Vaz, Keith

        Picking, Anne

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Pike, Peter

        Ward, Ms Claire

        Plaskitt, James

        Watson, Tom

        Pollard, Kerry

        Watts, David

        Pond, Chris

        White, Brian

        Pope, Greg

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Prescott, Rt Hon John

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Purnell, James

        Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

        Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

        Winnick, David

        250

        Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Wood, Mike

        Wright, David (Telford)

        Woodward, Shaun

        Woolas, Phil

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Worthington, Tony

        Mr. Nick Ainger and

        Wray, James

        Dan Norris.

        Question accordingly negatived.

      New Clause 10

        THE COMMISSION FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT:AMENDMENT TO SECTION 20 OF THE HEALTH ACT 1999
        '(1) Section 20 of the Health Act 1999 is amended as follows:—
        (2) After paragraph (1) (e) there is inserted—
        "(f) the function of conducting reviews of and making reports on the guidance on priorities for the NHS set out by the Secretary of State, regional directors of the health service, and Strategic Health Authorities"
        (3) After subsection (1) there is inserted—
        "(1A) in carrying out the functions set out in subsections 20(1)(a) to (e) the Commission shall, where appropriate, review, investigate and report on the guidance on priorities for the NHS set out by the Secretary of State, regional directors of the health service, and Strategic Health Authorities."
        (4) Subsections (3) and (4) are repealed'.—[Dr. Evan Harris.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 52, Noes 326.

        Division No.132]

        [9.29 pm

        AYES

        Allan, Richard

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Baker, Norman

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

        Barrett, John

        Moore, Michael

        Beggs, Roy

        Oaten, Mark

        Brake, Tom

        Öpik, Lembit

        Breed, Colin

        Price, Adam

        Bruce, Malcolm

        Pugh, Dr John

        Burstow, Paul

        Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

        Cable, Dr Vincent

        Rendel, David

        Calton, Mrs Patsy

        Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

        Carmichael, Alistair

        Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

        Cotter, Brian

        Sanders, Adrian

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

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

        Doughty, Sue

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Stunell, Andrew

        George, Andrew (St Ives)

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Gidley, Sandra

        Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

        Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

        Tonge, Dr Jenny

        Hancock, Mike

        Tyler, Paul

        Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

        Webb, Steve

        Harvey, Nick

        Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

        Heath, David

        Williams, Roger (Brecon)

        Hermon, Lady

        Willis, Phil

        Holmes, Paul

        Younger-Ross, Richard

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Lamb, Norman

        Bob Russell and

        Laws, David

        Mrs. Annette L. Brooke.

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Allen, Graham

        Austin, John

        Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

        Baird, Vera

        Barnes, Harry

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

        Barron, Kevin

        Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

        Battle, John

        251

        Bayley, Hugh

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        Beard, Nigel

        Ennis, Jeff

        Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

        Etherington, Bill

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Farrelly, Paul

        Bell, Stuart

        Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

        Bennett, Andrew

        Fisher, Mark

        Benton, Joe

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        Berry, Roger

        Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

        Best, Harold

        Flint, Caroline

        Blackman, Liz

        Flynn, Paul

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Follett, Barbara

        Blizzard, Bob

        Foster, Michael (Worcester)

        Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

        Foulkes, George

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Gardiner, Barry

        Brennan, Kevin

        George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

        Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

        Gerrard, Neil

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        Bryant, Chris

        Gilroy, Linda

        Burgon, Colin

        Godsiff, Roger

        Cairns, David

        Goggins, Paul

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Caplin, Ivor

        Grogan, John

        Casale, Roger

        Hain, Rt Hon Peter

        Caton, Martin

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Cawsey, Ian

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Challen, Colin

        Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

        Chaytor, David

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Clapham, Michael

        Hanson, David

        Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

        Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

        Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Havard, Dai

        Healey, John

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Hendrick, Mark

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Heppell, John

        Clelland, David

        Hesford, Stephen

        Coaker, Vernon

        Heyes, David

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Hill, Keith

        Cohen, Harry

        Hinchliffe, David

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Hodge, Margaret

        Corston, Jean

        Hoey, Kate

        Cousins, Jim

        Hood, Jimmy

        Cranston, Ross

        Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

        Crausby, David

        Hope, Phil

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Cummings, John

        Howells, Dr Kim

        Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

        Hutton, Rt Hon John

        Dalyell, Tam

        Iddon, Dr Brian

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        Illsley, Eric

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        David, Wayne

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

        Davidson, Ian

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

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

        Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

        Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Denham, Rt Hon John

        Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

        Dhanda, Parmjit

        Joyce, Eric

        Dismore, Andrew

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Dobbin, Jim

        Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

        Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Kemp, Fraser

        Doran, Frank

        Khabra, Piara S

        Dowd, Jim

        Kidney, David

        Drew, David

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

        Edwards, Huw

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        252

        Ladyman, Dr Stephen

        Pope, Greg

        Lammy, David

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Laxton, Bob

        Prescott, Rt Hon John

        Lazarowicz, Mark

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Leslie, Christopher

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Purnell, James

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

        Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

        Rammell, Bill

        Linton, Martin

        Rapson, Syd

        Lloyd, Tony

        Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

        Love, Andrew

        Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

        Lucas, Ian

        Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

        Luke, Iain

        Lyons, John

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Rooney, Terry

        McCabe, Stephen

        Ross, Ernie

        McCafferty, Chris

        Roy, Frank

        McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

        Ruane, Chris

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Ruddock, Joan

        MacDonald, Calum

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        McDonnell, John

        Salter, Martin

        MacDougall, John

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        McFall, John

        Savidge, Malcolm

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        Sawford, Phil

        McIsaac, Shona

        Sedgemore, Brian

        McKechin, Ann

        Shaw, Jonathan

        McKenna, Rosemary

        Sheerman, Barry

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Sheridan, Jim

        McNamara, Kevin

        Simon, Siôn

        McNulty, Tony

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Skinner, Dennis

        McWilliam, John

        Smith, Angela (Basildon)

        Mallaber, Judy

        Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

        Mann, John

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        Marris, Rob

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Southworth, Helen

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Spellar, Rt Hon John

        Marshall-Andrews, Robert

        Squire, Rachel

        Martlew, Eric

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Meale, Alan

        Stevenson, George

        Merron, Gillian

        Stewart, David (Inverness E)

        Michael, Rt Hon Alun

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Miliband, David

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Miller, Andrew

        Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

        Moffatt, Laura

        Stringer, Graham

        Mole, Chris

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Moran, Margaret

        Tami, Mark

        Morgan, Julie

        Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

        Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

        Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

        Mullin, Chris

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        Munn, Ms Meg

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Timms, Stephen

        Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

        Tipping, Paddy

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Todd, Mark

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Touhig, Don

        O'Hara, Edward

        Trickett, Jon

        O'Neill, Martin

        Truswell, Paul

        Organ, Diana

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

        Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

        Owen, Albert

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Pearson, Ian

        Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

        Perham, Linda

        Tynan, Bill

        Picking, Anne

        Vaz, Keith

        Pickthall, Colin

        Ward, Ms Claire

        Pike, Peter

        Wareing, Robert N

        Plaskitt, James

        Watson, Tom

        Pollard, Kerry

        Watts, David

        Pond, Chris

        White, Brian

        253

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Woolas, Phil

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Worthington, Tony

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

        Wray, James

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Wright, David (Telford)

        Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

        Wyatt, Derek

        Winnick, David

        Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Wood, Mike

        Mr. Nick Ainger and

        Woodward, Shaun

        Dan Norris.

        Question accordingly negatived.

      Clause 1

        ENGLISH HEALTH AUTHORITIES: CHANGE OF NAME
        Amendment made: No. 23, in page 2, line 25, at end insert—
        '(4A) The Secretary of State may make regulations containing requirements as to consultation which must be complied with before he makes an order under this section which relates to a Strategic Health Authority, and if he does make such regulations he shall not make such an order unless such of those requirements (if any) as are applicable have been complied with.
        (4B) Consultation requirements contained in regulations under subsection (4A) are in addition to, and not in substitution for, any other consultation requirements which may apply.'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

      Clause 2

        PRIMARY CARE TRUSTS
        Amendments made: No. 24, in page 2, line 41, leave out "is amended as follows" and insert—
        '(which provides for the establishment of Primary Care Trusts) is amended as provided in subsections (2) and (3)'.
        No. 25, in page 3, line 4, at end insert—
        '( ) Schedule 5A to the 1977 Act (which makes further provision about Primary Care Trusts) is amended as follows—

        (a) in paragraph 2(3)—

        (i) for "the Health Authority in whose area a Primary Care Trust is established to meet the costs" there is substituted "a Strategic Health Authority whose area includes any part of the area of a Primary Care Trust to meet costs", and

        (ii) in paragraph (b), after "meet" there is inserted "(or to contribute towards its meeting)",

        (b) in paragraph 2(4), for "the Health Authority in whose area a Primary Care Trust is established" there is substituted "a Strategic Health Authority whose area includes any part of the area of a Primary Care Trust",

        (c) in paragraph 16(1), for "the Health Authority within whose area the trust's area falls" there is substituted "each Strategic Health Authority whose area includes any part of the trust's area", and

        (d) in paragraph 16(3), for "the Health Authority within whose area the trust's area falls" there is substituted "any Strategic Health Authority whose area includes any part of the trust's area".'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

      Clause 3

        DIRECTIONS: DISTRIBUTION OF FUNCTIONS
        Amendments made: No. 26, in page 3, line 17, after "Trust", insert "any part of".
        No. 74, in page 3, line 38, leave out from "under" to end of line 39 and insert—
        'preceding provisions), in subsection (1A)—

        (a) "or" is inserted after paragraph (a),

        254

        (b) paragraph (b) is omitted, and

        (c) in paragraph (c), for "16D, 17 or 17A" there is substituted "16D or 17".'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

      Clause 5

        LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTEES
        Amendments made: No. 27, in page 5, line 24, leave out—
        'by the Strategic Health Authority whose area includes the area of the Primary Care Trust'.
        No. 28, in page 5, line 31, leave out—
        'by the Strategic Health Authority whose area includes the area of the Primary Care Trust'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

      Clause 6

        LOCAL HEALTH BOARDS
        Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 6, line 37, at end insert "but no more than fourteen.'.
        Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 21, in page 7, leave out lines 29 to 31 and insert—
        '(c) by both of the following: NHS trusts and Local Health Boards.'.
        No. 20, in clause 9, page 10, line 30, at end insert
        'and
        (c) sums required, on application by Local Health Boards, to deal with major health emergencies.'.
        No. 10, in page 10, line 39, at end insert—
        '(2A) In determining the amount to be allotted to a Health Board, the National Assembly for Wales shall have regard to the health needs of the population served by that Board'.
        Government amendments Nos. 75, 84 and 85.
        Mr. Griffiths: I want to devote some time in the Chamber to a brief discussion of the number of health boards that will be needed in Wales to ensure that an effective health service works in co-operation with local government. There is no need to press the amendment to a vote, as the Bill is flexible enough to allow the National Assembly for Wales to decide how many health boards are needed. The maximum number possible is 22, as that is the number of local government units in Wales.
        I have no problem with the principle that the units of government for the health service in Wales should be organised in the same way as the units of local government there. Where I differ with the National Assembly is that I believe that we should look at the degree of coterminosity between the health service and local government in Wales from the point of view of the health service, rather than of local government.
        Jane Hutt, the Minister for Health and Social Services in Wales, feels that it would be best to have 22 local health boards, which would work alongside the trusts in Wales. I believe that it would be better if the local health boards were to mirror the trusts in Wales, although I accept that in a few places it could be argued that the trusts are too large to have only one local health board.

        255
        I am looking for flexibility, and I think that 14 local health boards would be enough to maintain the principle of coterminosity, and to deliver an effective health service in Wales. For example, in my Bridgend constituency, the present plans mean that Bridgend and Neath-Port Talbot will have separate local health boards, both of which will be within the boundaries of the Bro Morgannwg national health service trust.
        Under my proposal, there would be one local health board within the Bro Morgannwg NHS trust, and it would contain representatives of the two local government units. If that health board wanted to create separate sub-committees for Bridgend and for Neath-Port Talbot, it would be free to do so. I believe that my proposal would lead to the more efficient delivery of health services and to better co-ordination with local government.
        I have spoken to all the trusts in Wales that would be affected by the proposals, and two of them feel that they would have to negotiate with 22 local health boards for the delivery of the health services that they provide. I shall not go into the details, but more than two thirds of the trusts believe that their negotiating procedures with local health boards will be more complex than the same procedures with the existing health authorities. Therefore, my plea to the National Assembly is that it should reconsider whether 22 local health boards are needed, and that it should settle for a maximum of 14, or fewer.
        Julie Morgan: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the advantage of exact coterminosity between health boards and local authorities is that preventive and primary care would be given the highest priority as a result of the authority's involvement with housing, the environment, transport and so on? Those issues are vital to health, and it would be bound to be to the advantage of the health of local people if they were the primary concern of a coterminous local authority.
        Mr. Griffiths: I beg to disagree with my hon. Friend on this issue. In the Bro Morgannwg trust that covers my local authority area, there are two local authorities. One health board would have representatives of both local authorities. I believe that they would be able to negotiate better on that basis than if there were two separate local health boards. However, that is a matter of opinion. I believe that 14 would provide sufficient flexibility for one or two larger trusts to have more than one local health board.
        I hope that these issues will be considered seriously in Cardiff. As the person who had the honour of having responsibility for the health service in Wales immediately after the 1997 election, I created the local health boards—or groups, as they then were—because I wanted coterminosity between local government and the health service in Wales. In terms of their responsibilities, the local health boards will be mini health authorities. We will have much better local health boards if we have to staff 14 rather than 22.
        We do not have time to go into all the other arguments that I would like to make—I will put those privately to the Minister for Health and Social Services in Wales. However, I wanted to flag up this issue because it is important in delivering a more effective and efficient health service while still ensuring strong co-operation between the health service and local government in Wales.
        9.45 pm
        Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I shall be very brief because there is hardly any time left. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) that the number of health boards proposed is excessive. I believe that they are likely to be expensive and too bureaucratic. There is room in the Bill to reduce the number of boards so that we can maintain the coterminosity that my hon. Friend mentioned, while retaining a degree of efficiency and flexibility in the delivery of the health service in Wales.
        The majority of those working in the health service in Wales who were consulted and replied to the consultation also agreed that the number of bodies suggested in the new structure would be unwieldy. Unfortunately, the House has never been given proper access to an analysis of that consultation procedure, perhaps because the results would prove to be opposed to the proposals.
        There is sufficient flexibility in the Bill, as my hon. Friend has said. I ask the Welsh Assembly to retain coterminosity but to reduce the number of boards so that we can have an efficient system that delivers health care to people in Wales without tying them down to the over-bureaucratic and wasteful system that 22 boards would create.
        Mr. Roger Williams: I should like to comment from a Welsh point of view. I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) in whose name the amendment stands. They were both responsible for the delivery of health services in the Welsh Office, as it then was, and were very helpful to people in my constituency when we were making representations on health issues.
        I was disappointed to see these amendments but rather glad to hear how they were interpreted by the hon. Gentlemen. I felt that the amendments went against the spirit of devolution in trying to tie the Assembly to a specific pattern for the health structure in Wales. That would have been unfortunate.
        The coterminosity element is especially important in the delivery of social services. One of the main impediments to that delivery in Wales—as it is in England and Wales—has been the delayed departure of patients from hospital to their homes or to nursing homes. The system will work much better if there is full coterminosity between local health boards and local authorities.
        I am pleased that the hon. Gentlemen are not going to press the amendment to a vote because the Assembly will certainly undertake further consultation and will take the results on board. The decisions reached by the Assembly will result in the most appropriate structure for Wales.
        Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are not going to reach amendment No. 12 to clause 21. That clause was never discussed in Committee—nor were clauses 8 and 20—owing to lack of time. The timetable motion was hopelessly unrealistic. Would it be possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to consider whether there is some way in which you could use your offices to ensure that on a Bill of this sort we do not end up in the ludicrous position of being unable to debate three of its most important parts?
        Mr. Speaker: By making a point of order the hon. Gentleman is taking time out of the debate. When I chair the proceedings, I take one amendment at a time. The fact that we shall not reach an amendment is not a matter for me to consider: I consider only what is before the House.
        Hywel Williams: I am glad to hear the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) plead for coterminosity. That is an extremely important point. However, the House should bear in mind the points made in an earlier debate by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies). He pointed out that under the current proposals there are likely to be as many as 52 bodies concerned with the delivery of health in Wales, as well as the Welsh Assembly Government—the WAG—and its Committees. That presents the obvious dangers both of complexity and of the lottery in health care.
        The proposal made by the hon. Member for Bridgend might, indeed, reduce the number of local health boards and that might be very useful in terms of critical mass—they might be more effective. It might also mean that we avoid some of the dangers that have become apparent since the reorganisation of local government brought in 22 small local authorities. Some of them cover small populations and are thus quite weak in respect of some of their powers and functions. However, the dangers of complexity and of a local lottery in health care would remain.
        I support my party's policy on this matter: to establish an all-Wales commissioning body. That is a coherent policy which would avoid complexity and the threat of a health lottery. It is also plain common sense in a nation of only 3 million people.
        The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): In the short time left for the debate, I commend Government amendments Nos. 74, 84 and 85. They are technical amendments that will ensure clarity as regards local health boards.
        My hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) were formerly Health Ministers at the Welsh Office. When Jane Hutt, the Minister for Health and Social Services in the National Assembly, reads our proceedings she will note their comments with great interest. I am sure that they and other Members who have spoken in this brief debate will agree that clause 6 refers to the establishment of local health boards by the National Assembly for Wales. It does not refer to a specific number of health boards. In other words, the principle of setting up local health boards is established by the House of Commons and by Parliament, but the Assembly, through the devolution settlement, agrees on the number.
        I know that my hon. Friends agree with that principle because it is the principle of devolution. The hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) and for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) also know that the secondary legislation that will implement the setting up of those local health boards has quite properly been devolved.
        After lots of consultation and debates in Committee, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for
        258
        Wales attended on behalf of the Government, and in the plenary season of the National Assembly for Wales, it was agreed that it would be sensible to ensure that the local health boards coincided with the local authorities that deliver other services, such as social services, and deal with other public health matters. That makes eminent sense, and in this very short debate we have seen the partnership between Parliament and the assembly work to deliver the best possible health service for the people of Wales. There has been a long consultation process on this issue, which is important to Assembly Members because, at the end of the day, we represent the same people in Wales, irrespective of whether we are Members of Parliament or Assembly Members.
        Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I agree with the Secretary of State when he says that the Welsh Assembly should take those final decisions, but will he tell the House whether he has been privy to the results of the consultation that has taken place and whether he can make the analysis of those results available to the House? It is very unsatisfactory to debate a Bill on Report when we still do not know the results of the analysis of the consultation on which that Bill was brought about.
        Mr. Murphy: I am advised that that information has been placed in the Library and in the assembly's library. If that is not the case, I shall be happy to discuss the details of the results of that consultation with my hon. Friend and the Minister for Health and Social Services in Wales, but the point that I make is still valid. The way in which the restructuring will occur is the direct result of working with Members of Parliament and Assembly Members.
        Of course, the House will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend set up the local health boards when he was Minister with responsibility for health in Wales. So the structure was started some years ago by a Labour Government working under the pre-devolution structures, but the assembly has now decided that this is the way to proceed, and we, in turn, have debated such matters in Committee and on the Floor of the House. That bodes well for the people of Wales, and I commend the Government amendments and hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment.
        Mr. Win Griffiths: I have already said that I wanted to place on the record my view that Wales could manage perfectly well with 14 local health boards. The Bill will empower the Minister for Health and Social Security and the assembly to create between one and 22 boards, but I hope that they will listen to the suggestion that there should be 14 of them. On that basis, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 9
        FUNDING OF LOCAL HEALTH BOARDS
        Amendment made: No. 75, in page 11, line 15, leave out "Trust" and insert "Board".—[Ms Blears.]
      Clause 13

        COMMISSION FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT: INSPECTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS
        Amendments made: No. 29, in page 18, line 40, after "(db)", insert—
        ', or any functions equivalent to those under section 20(1)(c) prescribed under section 20(1)(e)'.
        No. 30, in page 18, line 45, at end insert—
        '( ) premises owned or controlled by a Local Health Board,'.
        No. 31, in page 19, line 3, leave out—
        'persons mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) have'
        and insert—
        'an NHS body, a service provider or a Local Health Board has'.
        No. 32, in page 19, line 6, after "20(7)", insert "(disregarding section 20(8)(b))".—[Mr. Hutton.]

      Clause 15

        ESTABLISHMENT OF PATIENTS' FORUMS
        Amendments made: No. 33, in page 20, line 22, at end insert—
        '( ) If, in the course of exercising its functions, a Patients' Forum becomes aware of any matter which in its view should be considered by a relevant overview and scrutiny committee, the Forum may refer that matter to the committee.'.
        No. 34, in page 20, line 45, at end insert—
        ' "relevant overview and scrutiny committee", in relation to a Patients' Forum, means any overview and scrutiny committee in relation to which the Primary Care Trust or NHS trust for which the Forum is established is a local NHS body by virtue of regulations made under section 7(4) of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (including that provision as read with section 8(5) and as applied by section 10(2) of that Act),'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

      Clause 17

        ANNUAL REPORTS
        Amendments made: No. 35, in page 21, line 40, leave out "the" and insert "each".
        No. 36, in page 21, line 41, after "(i)", insert "any part of".
        No. 37, in page 22, line 1, leave out from "(d)" to end of line 5 and insert—
        'any relevant overview and scrutiny committee within the meaning given by section 15.'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

      Clause 18

        SUPPLEMENTARY
        Amendments made: No. 38, in page 22, line 34, leave out—
        'NHS trust or Primary Care Trust for which it is established'
        and insert—
        'Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health'.
        No. 39, in page 22, line 43, at end insert—
        '( ) the referral of matters by a Patients' Forum to a relevant overview and scrutiny committee (within the meaning given by section 15).'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

      Clause 23

        THE COUNCIL FOR THE REGULATION OF HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS
        Amendments made: No. 76, in page 28, line 32, leave out "Part of this Act" and insert "group of sections".
        No. 77, in page 29, line 19, leave out "In subsection (1),".—[Mr. Hutton.]

      Clause 25

        REGULATORY BODIES AND THE COUNCIL
        Amendment made: No. 40, in page 31, line 14, after "not)", insert—
        'or by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

      Clause 27

        REFERENCE OF DISCIPLINARY CASES BY COUNCIL TO COURT
        Amendments made: No. 41, in page 32, line 22, leave out paragraph (b).
        No. 42, in page 32, line 43, leave out "22(4)" and insert "22".
        No. 43, in page 32, line 44, leave out "of unacceptable professional conduct" and insert—
        'referred to the Professional Conduct Committee'.
        No. 44, in page 32, line 47, leave out "22(4)" and insert "22".
        No. 45, in page 33, line 2, at end insert—
        '(k) any corresponding measure taken in relation to a member of a profession regulated by the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960 (c.66) or, after the repeal of that Act by virtue of section 60(3) of the 1999 Act, by any such Order in Council under section 60 of the 1999 Act as is mentioned in section 23(3)(i).'.
        No. 46, in page 33, line 8, after "visitor,", insert—
        'or to any such person as is mentioned in subsection (1)(k)'.
        No. 47, in page 33, line 12, leave out "(j)" and insert "(k)".—[Mr. Hutton.]

      Clause 29

        DENTISTS
        Amendments made: No. 48, in page 36, line 1, after "is", insert—
        '(or if he were registered would be)'.
        No. 49, in page 36, line 3, after "is", insert—
        '(or if he were registered would be)'.
        No. 50, in page 36, line 14, before "substitute", insert
        '(in the case of an appeal against a determination under section 27 above or a direction under section 28 above)'.
        No. 51, in page 36, line 19, leave out "or the Health Committee" and insert
        ', the Health Committee or the Continuing Professional Development Committee'.
        No. 52, in page 36, line 21, after "above", insert—
        'or Schedule 3A to this Act'.
        No. 53, in page 36, line 40, at end insert—
        '(5) In section 34A of the Dentists Act 1984 (c.24) (professional training and development requirements), in subsection (7)(b), for "to Her Majesty in Council" there is substituted "under section 29 above to the relevant court".
        (6) Subsection (5) has effect—

        (a) upon the coming into force of this section, if that happens after the coming into force of article 8 of the Dentists Act 1984 (Amendment) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/3926) ("the Dentists Order") so far as that article effects the insertion into the Dentists Act 1984 (c.24) of the new section 34A(7)(b),

        (b) otherwise, immediately after the coming into force to that extent of that article.

        (7) If this section comes into force before article 10(3) of the Dentists Order—

        (a) paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of article 10(3) of that Order are revoked upon the coming into force of this section, and

        (b) until the coming into force of the remainder of article 10(3) of that Order, section 29 of the Dentists Act 1984 (c.24) (as amended by this section) is to be read with the modifications set out in subsection (8).

        (8) The modifications are that section 29 is to be read as if—

        (a) in each of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1A), the words "(or if he were registered would be)" were omitted,

        (b) in paragraph (c) of subsection (3), the words "(in the case of an appeal against a determination under section 27 above or a direction under section 28 above)" were omitted, and

        (c) in paragraph (d) of subsection (3)—

        (i) for the words ", the Health Committee or the Continuing Professional Development Committee" there were substituted "or the Health Committee", and

        (ii) the words "or Schedule 3A to this Act" were omitted.'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

      Clause 40

        SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
        Amendments made: No. 78, in page 43, line 31, leave out "and".
        No. 79, in page 43, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 36 and insert—
        ' "NHS trust" has the same meaning as in the 1977 Act.'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

      Schedule 1

        ENGLISH HEALTH AUTHORITIES: CHANGE OF NAME
        Amendments made: No. 80, in page 46, line 5, leave out "sections 11 to 17" and insert "preceding provisions".
        No. 81, in page 47, line 42, leave out "Authority or" and insert "Authority,".—[Mr. Hutton.]
        Amendments made: No. 54, in page 48, line 38, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
        No. 55, in page 48, line 42, leave out—
        'in paragraph 16 (in both places) and'—[Mr. Hutton.]

        Schedule 2

          REALLOCATION OF FUNCTIONS OF HEALTH AUTHORITIES TO PRIMARY CARE TRUSTS
          Amendment made: No. 82, in page 58, line 9, leave out "before "Health Authority"" and insert—
          'after "Strategic Health Authority," (inserted by paragraph 28(d) of Schedule 1 to this Act)'.—[Mr. Hutton.]
          It being 10 o'clock, MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [20 November 2001].
          Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
          Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
          The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 201.

          Division No. 133]

          [10 pm

          AYES

          Abbott, Ms Diane

          Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

          Ainger, Nick

          Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

          Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

          Clelland, David

          Allen, Graham

          Coaker, Vernon

          Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

          Coffey, Ms Ann

          Cohen, Harry

          Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

          Corston, Jean

          Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

          Cousins, Jim

          Atherton, Ms Candy

          Cranston, Ross

          Atkins, Charlotte

          Crausby, David

          Austin, John

          Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

          Baird, Vera

          Cummings, John

          Barnes, Harry

          Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

          Barron, Kevin

          Battle, John

          Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

          Bayley, Hugh

          Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

          Beard, Nigel

          Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

          Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

          Dalyell, Tam

          Begg, Miss Anne

          Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

          Bell, Stuart

          Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

          Bennett, Andrew

          David, Wayne

          Benton, Joe

          Davidson, Ian

          Berry, Roger

          Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

          Best, Harold

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

          Blackman, Liz

          Blears, Ms Hazel

          Dean, Mrs Janet

          Blizzard, Bob

          Denham, Rt Hon John

          Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

          Dhanda, Parmjit

          Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

          Dismore, Andrew

          Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

          Dobbin, Jim

          Brennan, Kevin

          Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

          Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

          Donohoe, Brian H

          Doran, Frank

          Bryant, Chris

          Dowd, Jim

          Burgon, Colin

          Drew, David

          Cairns, David

          Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

          Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

          Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

          Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

          Edwards, Huw

          Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

          Ellman, Mrs Louise

          Caplin, Ivor

          Ennis, Jeff

          Casale, Roger

          Etherington, Bill

          Caton, Martin

          Farrelly, Paul

          Cawsey, Ian

          Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

          Challen, Colin

          Fisher, Mark

          Chaytor, David

          Fitzpatrick, Jim

          Clapham, Michael

          Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

          Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

          Flint, Caroline

          Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

          Flynn, Paul

          Follett, Barbara

          Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

          Foster, Michael (Worcester)

          Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

          Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

          Foulkes, George

          263

          Gardiner, Barry

          McAvoy, Thomas

          George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

          McCabe, Stephen

          Gerrard, Neil

          McCafferty, Chris

          Gibson, Dr Ian

          McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

          Gilroy, Linda

          McDonagh, Siobhain

          Godsiff, Roger

          MacDonald, Calum

          Goggins, Paul

          MacDougall, John

          Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

          McFall, John

          Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

          McGuire, Mrs Anne

          Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

          McIsaac, Shona

          Grogan, John

          McKechin, Ann

          Hain, Rt Hon Peter

          McKenna, Rosemary

          Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

          Mackinlay, Andrew

          Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

          McNamara, Kevin

          Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

          McNulty, Tony

          Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

          MacShane, Denis

          Hanson, David

          Mactaggart, Fiona

          Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

          McWilliam, John

          Havard, Dai

          Mallaber, Judy

          Healey, John

          Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

          Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

          Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

          Mann, John

          Hendrick, Mark

          Marris, Rob

          Hepburn, Stephen

          Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

          Heppell, John

          Marshall, David (Shettleston)

          Hesford, Stephen

          Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

          Heyes, David

          Marshall-Andrews, Robert

          Hill, Keith

          Martlew, Eric

          Hinchliffe, David

          Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

          Hodge, Margaret

          Meale, Alan

          Hoey, Kate

          Merron, Gillian

          Hood, Jimmy

          Michael, Rt Hon Alun

          Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

          Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

          Hope, Phil

          Miliband, David

          Hopkins, Kelvin

          Miller, Andrew

          Howells, Dr Kim

          Moffatt, Laura

          Hoyle, Lindsay

          Mole, Chris

          Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

          Moonie, Dr Lewis

          Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

          Moran, Margaret

          Humble, Mrs Joan

          Morgan, Julie

          Hutton, Rt Hon John

          Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

          Iddon, Dr Brian

          Mullin, Chris

          Illsley, Eric

          Munn, Ms Meg

          Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

          Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

          Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

          Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

          Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

          Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

          Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

          Naysmith, Dr Doug

          Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

          Norris, Dan

          Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

          O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

          Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

          O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

          Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

          O'Hara, Edward

          Joyce, Eric

          O'Neill, Martin

          Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

          Organ Diana

          Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

          Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

          Kemp, Fraser

          Owen, Albert

          Khabra, Piara S

          Palmer, Dr Nick

          Kidney, David

          Perham, Linda

          King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

          Picking, Anne

          King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

          Pickthall, Colin

          Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

          Pike, Peter

          Kumar, Dr Ashok

          Plaskitt, James

          Ladyman, Dr Stephen

          Pollard, Kerry

          Lammy, David

          Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

          Pond, Chris

          Laxton, Bob

          Pope, Greg

          Lazarowicz, Mark

          Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

          Leslie, Christopher

          Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

          Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

          Prescott, Rt Hon John

          Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

          Primarolo, Dawn

          Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

          Prosser, Gwyn

          Linton, Martin

          Purchase, Ken

          Lloyd, Tony

          Purnell, James

          Love, Andrew

          Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

          Lucas, Ian

          Rammell, Bill

          Luke, Iain

          Rapson, Syd

          Lyons, John

          Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

          264

          Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

          Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

          Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

          Taylor, David (NW Leics)

          Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

          Roche, Mrs Barbara

          Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

          Rooney, Terry

          Timms, Stephen

          Ross, Ernie

          Tipping, Paddy

          Roy, Frank

          Todd, Mark

          Ruane, Chris

          Touhig, Don

          Ruddock, Joan

          Trickett, Jon

          Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

          Truswell, Paul

          Salter, Martin

          Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

          Sarwar, Mohammad

          Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

          Savidge, Malcolm

          Turner, Neil (Wigan)

          Sawford, Phil

          Twigg, Derek (Halton)

          Sedgemore, Brian

          Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

          Shaw, Jonathan

          Tynan, Bill

          Sheerman, Barry

          Vis, Dr Rudi

          Sheridan, Jim

          Ward, Ms Claire

          Simon, Siôn

          Wareing, Robert N

          Skinner, Dennis

          Watson, Tom

          Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

          Watts, David

          Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

          White, Brian

          Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

          Whitehead, Dr Alan

          Smith, John (Glamorgan)

          Wicks, Malcolm

          Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

          Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

          Southworth, Helen

          Spellar, Rt Hon John

          Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

          Squire, Rachel

          Winnick, David

          Starkey, Dr Phyllis

          Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

          Steinberg, Gerry

          Wood, Mike

          Stevenson, George

          Woodward, Shaun

          Stewart, David (Inverness E)

          Woolas, Phil

          Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

          Worthington, Tony

          Stinchcombe, Paul

          Wray, James

          Stoate, Dr Howard

          Wright Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

          Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

          Wright, David (Telford)

          Stringer, Graham

          Wyatt, Derek

          Stuart, Ms Gisela

          Sutcliffe, Gerry

          Tellers for the Ayes:

          Tami, Mark

          Angela Smith and

          Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

          Mr. Ian Pearson.

          NOES

          Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

          Calton, Mrs Patsy

          Allan, Richard

          Cameron, David

          Amess, David

          Carmichael, Alistair

          Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

          Cash, William

          Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

          Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

          Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

          Bacon, Richard

          Chope, Christopher

          Baker, Norman

          Clappison, James

          Baldry, Tony

          Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

          Barker, Gregory

          Baron, John

          Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

          Barrett, John

          Collins, Tim

          Beggs, Roy

          Conway, Derek

          Bellingham, Henry

          Cormack, Sir Patrick

          Bercow, John

          Cotter, Brian

          Beresford, Sir Paul

          Cran, James

          Blunt, Crispin

          Davey, Edward (Kingston)

          Boswell, Tim

          Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

          Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

          Djanogly, Jonathan

          Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

          Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

          Brady, Graham

          Doughty, Sue

          Brake, Tom

          Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

          Brazier, Julian

          Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

          Breed, Colin

          Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

          Brooke, Mrs Annette L

          Evans, Nigel

          Browning, Mrs Angela

          Ewing, Annabelle

          Bruce, Malcolm

          Fabricant, Michael

          Burnett, John

          Fallon, Michael

          Burns, Simon

          Field, Mark (Cities of London)

          Burstow, Paul

          Flight, Howard

          Burt, Alistair

          Forth, Rt Hon Eric

          Butterfill, John

          Foster, Don (Bath)

          Cable, Dr Vincent

          Fox, Dr Liam

          265

          Francois, Mark

          Moore, Michael

          Garnier, Edward

          Moss, Malcolm

          George, Andrew (St Ives)

          Murrison, Dr Andrew

          Gibb, Nick

          Norman, Archie

          Gidley, Sandra

          Oaten, Mark

          Gray, James

          O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

          Grayling, Chris

          Osborne, George (Tatton)

          Green, Damian (Ashford)

          Ottaway, Richard

          Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

          Page, Richard

          Greenway, John

          Paice, James

          Grieve, Dominic

          Paterson, Owen

          Hammond, Philip

          Pickles, Eric

          Hancock, Mike

          Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

          Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

          Price, Adam

          Harvey, Nick

          Prisk, Mark

          Hawkins, Nick

          Pugh, Dr John

          Hayes, John

          Randall, John

          Heald, Oliver

          Redwood, Rt Hon John

          Heath, David

          Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

          Hendry, Charles

          Rendel, David

          Hermon, Lady

          Robathan, Andrew

          Hoban, Mark

          Robertson, Angus (Moray)

          Holmes, Paul

          Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

          Horam, John

          Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

          Howard, Rt Hon Michael

          Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

          Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

          Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

          Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

          Roe, Mrs Marion

          Hunter, Andrew

          Ruffley, David

          Jack, Rt Hon Michael

          Russell, Bob (Colchester)

          Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

          Salmond, Alex

          Jenkin, Bernard

          Sanders, Adrian

          Johnson, Boris (Henley)

          Sayeed, Jonathan

          Key, Robert

          Selous, Andrew

          Kirkbride, Miss Julie

          Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

          Kirkwood, Archy

          Shepherd, Richard

          Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

          Simmonds, Mark

          Laing, Mrs Eleanor

          Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

          Lamb, Norman

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

          Lansley, Andrew

          Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

          Laws, David

          Spelman, Mrs Caroline

          Leigh, Edward

          Spicer, Sir Michael

          Letwin, Oliver

          Spink, Bob

          Liddell-Grainger, Ian

          Spring, Richard

          Lidington, David

          Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

          Llwyd, Elfyn

          Steen, Anthony

          Loughton, Tim

          Streeter, Gary

          Luff, Peter

          Stunell, Andrew

          McIntosh, Miss Anne

          Swayne, Desmond

          MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

          Swire, Hugo

          Maclean, Rt Hon David

          Syms, Robert

          McLoughlin, Patrick

          Tapsell, Sir Peter

          Malins, Humfrey

          Taylor, John (Solihull)

          Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

          Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

          Mates, Michael

          Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

          Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

          Taylor, Sir Teddy

          May, Mrs Theresa

          Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

          Mercer, Patrick

          Thurso, John

          Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

          Tonge, Dr Jenny

          266

          Tredinnick, David

          Wilkinson, John

          Trend, Michael

          Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

          Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

          Willis, Phil

          Tyler, Paul

          Wilshire, David

          Viggers Peter

          Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

          Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

          Walter, Robert

          Wishart, Pete

          Waterson, Nigel

          Young, Rt Hon Sir George

          Watkinson, Angela

          Younger-Ross, Richard

          Webb, Steve

          Weir, Michael

          Tellers for the Noes:

          Whittingdale, John

          Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

          Wiggin, Bill

          Dr. Julian Lewis.

          Question accordingly agreed to.
          Bill read the Third time, and passed.

        SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
        Motion made,
        That, following the Order of 20th November 2000, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John Mc William, Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Edward O'Hara be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
        Hon. Members: Object.

  PETITION

    Houghton Regis
    10.15 pm
    Andrew Selous: I am grateful for the opportunity to present this petition to the House. It has been signed by 658 of my constituents from the town of Houghton Regis in Bedfordshire, which has a population of some 17,000 people but, at present, does not have a bank. That is particularly injurious to my constituents because transport to the neighbouring towns is difficult and slow; a large number of elderly people in Houghton Regis need access to a bank. Bank premises in the town are vacant and available for use. The British Bankers Association is conducting a pilot study to reintroduce banks to areas but, unfortunately, Houghton Regis does not qualify. The petition states:
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the British Banking Association to include Houghton Regis in its counter-sharing pilot scheme.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  School Places (East Sussex)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  10.17 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I cannot help but feel a certain irony in taking part in this debate, as I spoke in last Friday's debate on pensions and annuities. However, Eastbourne is like that; we have a large elderly population but, as I shall describe, we also have a fast-growing population of young people, which is estimated to continue well into this century. As I am sure you do, Mr. Speaker, I have a personal rule of thumb; if I am not getting angry letters about something, it is probably okay and there is not a problem.
  Increasingly, in recent years I have been getting letters from disappointed parents who cannot get their children into the school of their choice. In East Sussex, parents are given three choices—the local education authority prefers to call them preferences, but I think that that is a distinction without any difference. On a number of occasions of which I am aware—no doubt there have been others—parents have not got their children into any of their three choices. I am so concerned about resources and the allocation of school places in my constituency that I have recently announced a programme to revisit all its schools in the coming months to see the problems for myself.
  There is a problem in the primary schools. According to the briefing that the LEA kindly provided, in the East Sussex school organisation plan—SOP—for 2002 to 2005–06, the number of primary age pupils, which has grown substantially, will decline in the county as a whole. In Eastbourne, however, the total number of primary age pupils is expected to increase by about 100 in the next two years. There is already a problem in primary schools. I believe that Ocklynge junior school in my constituency is the largest junior school not just in the country, but in Europe. Only the other day, I visited Stafford junior school in my constituency, which is being pressured to take a total of 370 pupils, when it was originally designed to take a maximum of 280. I saw for myself the four mobile classrooms—I hesitate to use the word "temporary" as it is often misused in the circumstances—in its grounds.
  The problem is therefore widespread at every level of education in my constituency and in other parts of East Sussex. I have reached the conclusion that in the medium term we need another new school in Eastbourne, or at least a major extension of one or more of the existing schools. The SOP shows a continuing marked increase of some 1,200 in the number of secondary-age pupils across the county over the plan period. However, in Eastbourne it is expected that the total number of secondary-age pupils will increase by more than 600, or almost 12 per cent., during the period of the plan.
  A working group chaired by the lead member for education, Councillor Rupert Simmons, concluded that taking into account likely new housing that the Government seek to impose on the area, 700 new places will be required. The group concluded that up to 350 new places will certainly be needed by 2005. A number of options have been identified.
  That is not to say that there is no good news. We have the £16 million committed by the county council to the new secondary school, the Causeway school, which will
  268
  provide up to 950 places. The Church of England-aided school, Bishop Bell, is about to commence a £2 million project to provide 150 additional places. I should mention in passing that Bishop Bell is the most oversubscribed school in the entire county, largely owing to the efforts of its excellent head teacher, Mr. Terry Boatwright.
  I am pleased to say that in only a few short months, the new Conservative administration in East Sussex has got a grip under Councillor Simmons's leadership and is looking at priorities, which was not achieved during the previous eight years of Liberal Democrat control. In particular, the previous administration seems to have ignored the view of the district auditor in his report in 1998, which stated that the margin for parental preference in Eastbourne was very small.
  The figures are extraordinary. With the exception of the new Causeway school, which is still in the process of filling up, every secondary school in my constituency is well over capacity, with percentages ranging from 8 per cent. up to 19 per cent. In the case of the Eastbourne technology college, formerly Hampden Park school, the LEA and the governors are allowing for the possibility of it being up to 26 per cent. over capacity. That shows an enormous pressure on school places and on staff and pupils.
  It is true that there are vacant places in Eastbourne, but it is also true that, without exception, they all exist at Eastbourne technology college. That is interesting for two reasons. First, ETC is already 19 per cent. over capacity. Secondly, for reasons that may not be fair, may be historical and are beyond the scope of this debate, Eastbourne technology college is currently not a popular school, in the sense of attracting as many first preferences as some other secondary schools.
  That causes an additional problem. Despite the excellent work of the staff, and particularly the relatively new head teacher, Janet Felkin, there are parents whose children are assigned to Eastbourne technology college although it was not one of their three preferences, and who are not happy about that situation. That is the only school, as confirmed by the director of education, Denise Stokoe, that has spare places. She states in her letter to me:
  "As you can see, there are sufficient places in the town overall. There is a particular problem that all the spare places are at one school."
  Councillor Simmons remarked in an e-mail to me on the matter that the council has set out the basis of a development plan, brought together all the six secondary heads involved, and is seeking to devise a plan. He says:
  "Mobile Huts can bail us out of a temporary situation but only for so long. Willingdon"—
  that is, Willingdon school—
  "are running with 20 now and all in a poor condition."
  He goes on to talk about an extremely limited capital budget. All those issues will be addressed at a meeting of the council's cabinet on 31 January.
  An interesting option that emerged only today in a press statement from the LEA is that of moving the existing Cavendish school to what is effectively a greenfield site at Cross Levels way to give the school up-to-date facilities and, perhaps even more important, to increase its size to

  269
  about 1,200 places. As the statement makes clear, councillors have yet to make decisions about resources for the forward capital programme. It states:
  "At this stage, there can be no guarantee of funding for the plan."
  This is a question not merely of numbers, however, but of the real human problems caused by the figures. For example, Mr. Keith Martin, one of my constituents, has fought a tenacious battle to try to get his daughter Claire into the school of his and his wife's choice. That has not been possible and they have been offered a place at Eastbourne technology college. Claire is still being tutored at home at great expense and inconvenience to all concerned. There seems to be a state of impasse at the moment as far as her education is concerned.
  The other day, a local teacher sent me an e-mail that stated:
  "Morale has never been so low in all my 31 years of teaching. The paperwork and bureaucracy mean that we are working every evening and weekends to complete so many meaningless documents that are not helping the children one jot."
  She went on to write:
  "I urge you to revisit … schools in your constituency and find out just how underfunded they all are … Oldies like myself are counting the years until we retire … Now everything has become prescriptive and the joy has gone out of teachers' lives."
  That is a crushing indictment of the current system.
  We have a worrying picture of the effect of the current situation on class sizes, the pressures on teachers, the possible prejudice to the education of local children in Eastbourne and elsewhere in East Sussex and the undermining of parental choice. I have three questions for the Minister. First, does she accept the scale of the pressures that I have described and agree that they must be addressed? Secondly, does she accept that, in the short term, the problems of the existing facilities, such as temporary classrooms, must be tackled? Thirdly, does she accept that, in the medium term, my constituents need either another new secondary school or significant extensions to one or more existing schools and that the planning for that development, whichever option is adopted, must start now? I want to be able to go back to my constituents, such as Mr. Martin and many others, and give them reassuring answers to those questions after tonight's debate.
  10.28 pm
  The Minister for Lifelong Learning (Margaret Hodge): I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on securing this debate. I am delighted to hear that he is undertaking a programme of visiting his local schools. I must admit that I am surprised that that is not a regular part of what he chooses to do. Even speaking as one of us busy Ministers, I can say that I make it a point in my schedule to ensure that I regularly visit schools. Indeed, there is never a time when a school has not seen me within about 18 months.
  Mr. Waterson: If the Minister had been listening with her usual care, she would have heard me use the word "revisit".
  Margaret Hodge: I heard the word "revisit", but I am none the less surprised because regular visits are a feature
  270
  of my constituency duties. I hope that all Members of Parliament show such interest in the educational infrastructure of their constituencies.
  I welcome the debate because it gives us an opportunity to put on record our approach to ensuring a framework that provides choice and opportunity for children and their families. I understand and sympathise with the anxieties that the hon. Gentleman's constituents have expressed in correspondence. It is proper to raise them in the House, and I am delighted that he has done that.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that many solutions to the problems that he has raised are in the hands of the Conservative-controlled local education authority and local people. We have properly made it their job to plan for and provide the necessary places so that parents and children can enjoy the choice that he wishes them to have. After the debate, I hope that he will go back to his colleagues on the local education authority and encourage them to get on with planning to ensure that proper bids are submitted to the Department so that we can respond to the needs that he has highlighted.
  Tonight's debate allows me to explain the national context in which local decisions about the allocation of school places are made. It also gives me the opportunity to outline our proposals in the Education Bill, which is currently being considered in Committee, and to explain how they will reinforce our priorities and ensure choice in local communities.
  Since we have been in government, we have made clear our overriding commitment to improving educational standards. We aim to ensure that parents and children have a choice and the best way of doing that is through equally good schools. That is vital to making equality of opportunity and parental choice a reality.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), who is present, is dealing with the Bill in Committee. Its focus is the transformation of our secondary schools, which the hon. Member for Eastbourne mentioned. I want to draw his attention to several proposals in the Bill that will support his aspirations for his local community.
  We propose to expand the successful specialist schools programme, which will help to extend diversity, and hence choice, in secondary schools. Schools ready for specialist status will be encouraged to seek it, and we will support those who are working towards it.
  Successful schools will be encouraged to excel and innovate. We intend to give the best schools greater freedom—for example, to take new approaches to staffing, or to accelerated learning.
  We are establishing a schools innovation unit to work with teachers and heads, and to help stimulate and disseminate new ideas, especially in relation to catering better for pupils' different requirements and aspirations.
  We hope that governing bodies in the hon. Gentleman's area will be able to work together to create families of local schools, sharing problems and pooling resources in everyone's best interests. Those proposals will help us to raise standards, which will help to enhance opportunity and create choice.
  We are responding to the wishes of many parents who try to ensure that successful and popular schools are able to expand more easily. That is especially relevant to the

  271
  hon. Gentleman's anxieties. The governing bodies of successful schools will be able to appeal to the adjudicator if their proposals for expansion are turned down by the school organisation committee.
  In the Bill, we not only focus on how to encourage and support best schools, but recognise the need to tackle low standards in schools. The hon. Gentleman talked about the lack of popularity of Eastbourne technology college. I hope that some of the measures that we are introducing will support improvements in quality and standards in all schools in his constituency.
  Schools that face challenging circumstances will receive a programme of support, with the aim of setting a floor and ensuring that a specific number of pupils at every school obtain five GCSEs at grade A to C by 2006. It is to East Sussex local education authority's credit that only one of its schools fell within the category of challenging schools—that is, those in which 25 per cent. or fewer pupils gained five or more GCSEs at A* to C grade. I am pleased to say that that school improved its performance in 2001, with 30 per cent. of its pupils having achieved 5 GCSEs at grade A* to C.
  Local education authorities will invite—or, if necessary, be instructed to invite—external partners to help turn around failing schools. None of our plans to improve standards can come to fruition unless we have sufficient well trained, well motivated teachers in place. The one letter that the hon. Gentleman chose to read to the House does not, in my view, reflect the feeling of most teachers, who recognise that we are investing as best we can to ensure that they can focus on the job that they do best, and for which they are trained, which is teaching. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support our proposals to modernise the teaching profession.
  Teacher recruitment and retention is a key issue to us. In the lifetime of this Parliament, we will recruit 10,000 more teachers and the crucial 20,000 more support staff who will support them in their administrative work, much of which is necessary if we are properly to monitor the fact that we are raising standards in schools. We have doubled the money given to East Sussex local education authority last year for recruitment and retention of teachers. In 2002–03, it will receive £703,000. How that is spent will be determined locally, and I hope that it will be spent wisely to improve recruitment and retention.
  I now want to respond to the specific local concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman. The law gives parents the right to express a preference for the school at which they wish their child to be educated, but it has never guaranteed every parent a place for their child at the school of their choice. I understand the frustration of parents whose application has been unsuccessful. Indeed, in my time, I have shared that frustration. However, if a school has more applications than places, it cannot admit every applicant. In those circumstances, places have to be allocated among applicants according to a local education authority's published oversubscription criteria. Some schools have always been more popular than others.
  LEAs have a duty to provide sufficient school places for their area. We believe that decisions about the organisation of school places are best taken locally by the people who know the area. That is why, through the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, we established a new framework for local decision making. LEAs now have a duty to prepare a school organisation
  272
  plan covering a five-year period, and that has to be a rolling programme. The plan sets out how the LEA proposes to deal with surpluses and deficits of school provision, and what provision it intends to make for pupils with special educational needs.
  Independent school organisation committees have also been established for each LEA area. Their role is to consider the plans and to take decisions about statutory proposals affecting the local organisation of school places. School organisation committees are independent statutory bodies answerable to their local communities. If any LEA is able to demonstrate an overall deficit in school places, it can apply for funding in the annual capital round. I urge the hon. Gentleman to return to his local education authority and tell it to get on with putting in such an application.
  Our officials are aware of the pressures on school places in East Sussex, but finding a solution to those pressures is an issue that has to be addressed by the local education authority, and through the local school organisation committee. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be completely wrong of the Government to impose a solution centrally. It must be the responsibility of the local education authority to come forward with its preferred solution. I concur with the figures that the hon. Gentleman put before the House. We have figures showing more than 1,000 surplus primary school places in East Sussex, and a shortfall of around 270 secondary school places.
  The LEA has shown in its projections that demand for places will continue to increase over the next three or four years, particularly in the secondary sector. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Eastbourne, it also forecasts a continuing increase in demand for primary school places in the next two years, but that will decline.
  As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the growing pressure on secondary schools is a concern, but as he also noted, officers and local head teachers have been working together to analyse the information and consider ways to meet the pressure on them. They estimate that they need about 700 extra secondary school places by 2010, although about half must be available by 2005. I hope that the council will shortly consider the four-year capital programme for the Eastbourne area alone.
  I am pleased that the LEA has added capacity through the phased expansion schools, such as the Causeway school, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, has increased its numbers to 600 pupils. It will eventually accommodate 900. We support the LEA's requirement to meet the demand for places through basic need funding.
  Throughout the county, including Eastbourne, a large number of new homes are planned or under construction. That is a healthy development in any locality. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government are not responding to the capital pressures arising from providing additional places in his constituency. This Government, more than any other in my memory, have put more money into capital initiatives and ensured better investment, despite the huge backlog that we inherited. There is no reason to suggest that we have in any way inhibited the necessary expansion of places in East Sussex. The onus lies with the LEA to make appropriate proposals that it can justify in relation to the extra demand.

  273
  To give an example, we have already committed £10.5 million for an additional 292 primary, 1,273 secondary and 49 post-16 places between the 1999–2000 and 2001–02 financial years. We have just committed a further £10.98 million of basic need funding for 2002–03 to 2004–05, to provide an additional 247 primary and 1,012 secondary places. That allocation fully meets the LEA's bid to us for basic need funding for primary and secondary school places, and it shows our commitment to work constructively with the LEA. However, I again urge the hon. Gentleman to ask his colleagues in the LEA to get on with making appropriate proposals to us.
  On the secondary sector, I have mentioned the expansion at the Causeway school; Bishop Bell Church of England school is also being expanded for 2002–03. If the council cabinet agrees to the proposals put to it for further capital programmes, more places should be available from 2003. The LEA and its schools must continue to work in partnership to monitor and plan to meet the need for additional provision.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke of the need to replace temporary classrooms. I fully agree that schools must have accommodation that is fit for purpose, providing an environment in which schools can work effectively and children can learn. That is why we have greatly increased capital investment in schools since we came to office. In the past four years, we have made £5.3 billion available
  274
  and a further £8.5 billion is being made available over the next three years. By 2003–04, annual capital investment will be £3.5 billion.
  That commitment will allow LEAs and schools to make real progress in modernising schools so that they are fit for the 21st century. That includes replacing temporary facilities that are no longer suitable, but I stress again that the onus lies with the LEA to put sensible, workable propositions to us.
  The Government have made a real commitment to investment in schools. We have made real progress in driving up standards in all our schools. We have set out an agenda for change, especially at secondary school level, that will deliver an education through the years of compulsory schooling that is fit for the new millennium. The cumulative effect of those numerous initiatives will be to raise standards so that ultimately the choice that parents will have to make should be between good schools, rather than between good schools and schools that need to improve.
  While the Government can facilitate and support progress, establish an appropriate framework and provide proper funding, the onus to deliver properly for local people must rest with local LEAs. We would expect them to respond appropriately to pressures on demand, and to plan and provide enough places for children in their areas.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Single European Currency
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Dan Norris.]
9.30 am
Mr. Bill Wiggin: I declare my interest with Commerzbank, which is declared in the Register of Members' Interests, and I took advice on the content of the debate before I sought it. Commerzbank is a German bank that already accounts in euros. The debate therefore does not specifically and directly affect the body in which I have a registered interest, but relates to the Government's policy to change the national currency, which would affect everyone who uses the pound. The Government specified that five tests must be completed before a referendum would be called. Their position used to be that we would join when we had satisfied all five.
In The Observer on 6 January 2002, a senior Treasury source said:
"There can only be a referendum if there's a government recommendation to join. There'll only be a recommendation to join if the five tests are met. If not, there won't be a referendum."
On GMTV's Sunday programme on the same day, however, the Minister for Europe said:
"The government will form a view on the basis of the economic assessment, so if you like, it's a political judgment on the basis of an economic assessment."
Gus O'Donnell was right when he said in The Times on 4 January 2002:
"Economics can never be clear and unambiguous. Ultimately it will be a political decision."
The waters were muddied further when the Chancellor said that the economic case must be clear and unambiguous. He put his party in an impossible situation that needs clarification. I have included the dates because Gus O'Donnell's statement came before the Chancellor reiterated that there could be a referendum only when the economic case was clear and unambiguous.
Today, we are trying to find out what the Government really mean. The problem is that the five economic tests are flawed and some members of the Government at last recognise that. I do not believe that the case for the euro can be made successfully, that restrictions on free markets will deliver greater economic success, or that the loss of the right to determine our interest rates will deliver greater stability. The loss of our right to make economic decisions is a loss of freedom and responsibility. It can never be dressed up as a long-term economic benefit. The decision is political and it is spin to suggest that the five economic tests could prove otherwise.
Dr. Julian Lewis: In support of my hon. Friend's contention, if he had nothing better to do on new year's eve, he might have heard the interview on
2WH
BBC 1 news with the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi. In response to a question about the launch of the euro and whether the project was political, he said with a smile:
"This is not economic. This is…a pure political process."
Mr. Wiggin: I did not hear Romano Prodi say that, but I agree with the gist of the message. The problem is that the five economic tests no longer make economic sense. The first test is convergence and it should be the most important. Cyclical convergence data suggest that our economy is more in tune with the United States than with the rest of Europe. The correlation of the cycles between the United States and the United Kingdom tends to be higher than between the United Kingdom and Germany.
Clearly, there has been almost no correlation between Britain's economic cycle and that of the eurozone in the past decade. The structural convergence differences are significant and have altered little since October 1997. There are many differences, of which a principal one is trade. The eurozone accounts for only 43 per cent. of British trade, and the figure of 60 per cent. that the Prime Minister mentioned is too optimistic. United Kingdom exports to the far east have grown twice as quickly as those of other EU members. High levels of home ownership make Britain more sensitive to interest rates. Britain's pension situation is the opposite of that of the rest of Europe. As the number of European pensioners grows, the problem gets worse. The economic tools for dealing with the pension debt could have a disastrous effect on Britain.
Mr. John Redwood: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about different patterns of trade. The Prime Minister is considering the trade of goods: a more favourable comparison. Does my hon. Friend agree that the economic relationship that requires closer co-operation is mutual investment? Mutual investment is in evidence far more with the United States of America: we get little investment from Germany or France.
Mr. Wiggin: I agree with my right hon. Friend and one of the tests deals with investment.
The solutions to the pension debt are either an increase in taxation or higher inflation to erode its value. Either of those solutions would damage Britain. Britain is the only net exporter of oil in the European Union; therefore, its reaction to a shift in the price of oil is the opposite of other EU countries. That emphasises another problem: would including Britain in the euro destabilise the currency further? It may be worse for the euro than it is for us.
The second test is flexibility. Flexibility in the labour market and the tax system are needed, but the eurozone is deficient in both. Without added flexibility or the safety valve of currency movement, the single currency is effectively a straitjacket. Dr. Otmar Issing, the chief economist at the European central bank, described that lack of flexibility as an almost lethal threat to monetary union. The second test would be better if the onus was on the eurozone to make markets more flexible to compensate for the inflexibility of a single monetary policy. The flow of labour is not the same as that of

3WH
capital, which can cross borders easily. Social, cultural and economic barriers remain. The Financial Times said that the EU has labour markets that are six times less mobile than those of the US.
The other crucial element of flexibility is in fiscal policy. About 45 per cent. of US federal taxes, which are 19 per cent. of GDP, are used to iron out imbalances. The EU budget is only 1.27 per cent. and has no structure for transferring money to compensate for the problems of monetary union, nor the political backing for it. Neither the eurozone nor Britain would be any more flexible than it was in 1997, when the tests were deemed to have been failed.
Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman mentions fiscal transfers that help iron out problems among different countries in the euro zone. Does he accept that fiscal transfer mechanisms will be retained in sovereign member states, which will help adjustment?
Mr. Wiggin: I hope that that may be the case, but it is not at the moment. It does not seem that it will be the case: there is no will or political backing for it.
The third test is investment, which was touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). Business investment as a share of GDP is higher than at any other time in the past 40 years. It is higher in the United Kingdom than in the US, France or Germany. We should think twice before undertaking a fundamental change in macro-economic policy: strong investment is dependent on macro-economic stability. The Government are forever boasting about the achievements of the independent Bank of England. Do they want to take credit for an independent central bank or its abolition? It would be replaced by a seat on the monetary policy committee in the European central bank.
The fourth test concerns the City, which shows few signs of struggling outside the eurozone. Its interests may be jeopardised by joining the euro. London is the largest centre for foreign exchange trading and the euro presents few problems. The number of EU financial institutions has increased from 238 in 1998 to 350 in 2001: an increase of about 50 per cent. The real threat to the City lies in membership of the euro. The UK position outside the eurozone is its strength, with less pressure for tax harmonisation. If the UK had been inside the eurozone, it might have given way on the withholding tax argument.
The fifth test is the effect on jobs and British prosperity as a whole. If we take the four previous tests together, it is clear that the euro is unlikely to promote higher growth stability and a lasting increase in jobs. It is impossible to make the case that joining the euro would have a clear unambiguous benefit; it would be easier to argue that it would have clear unambiguous costs.
Since the creation of the eurozone, there is no evidence that Britain's decision to remain outside has cost our economy any jobs, even in the manufacturing sector. The Government say that they are proud of our unemployment rate and low interest rates. On 7 March 2001, the Chancellor said:
4WH
"I can also report that manufacturing—despite the euro-sterling exchange rate—grew last year by 1.6 per cent. Manufacturing productivity grew by 4.4 per cent., manufacturing exports by 11.8 per cent., and it is to the credit of thousands of British companies that overall British exports grew by 7.4 per cent."—[Official Report, 7 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 296.]
That puts in perspective manufacturers' claims that foreign exchange insurance is a significant cost to their competitiveness.
The arguments in favour of joining the euro are speckled with expressions such as "one market, one money" or "Britain will lose jobs and investment". That is clearly not the case. The political argument about lacking influence is probably the weakest. The concept of exchanging total control over our interest rates for a place on the European central bank monetary policy committee seems a bad bargain. The argument about making policy for our European neighbours instead of setting an example for them to follow is weak. It implies that any sensible suggestions will be ignored unless we are a member of that gang and that only by being a gang member will we have respect. What a childish and unworthy gamble to take with our nation's prosperity.
In a meeting with the Governor of the Bank of England, I asked why he did not intervene more in the currency markets to buy euros and sell sterling. He replied that although he was allowed to intervene, he did not feel that that was necessary. I also asked why, when buying the weak euro seemed a bargain and an investment that would make British goods more competitive, he showed a remarkable lack of confidence in the euro, which surprised and worried me. He wanted to know when it would strengthen and he is not alone.
A single currency is, as I said, an economic straitjacket. Although people may say that it is in the country's best economic interests, it cannot compete with free movements and free-floating international markets. The currency is a safety valve, allowing or forcing countries to adjust their economic situation safely. It also acts as a warning light and confidence indicator. The currency price is determined by people who are prepared to consider all the variables and to put their money where their mouth is. Efforts to curtail that activity consistently end in disaster. Every time that a Government try to improve on the free market, they lose, as in Argentina, where people pegged themselves to the US dollar, or in Britain when we were expelled from the ERM. We must learn from our mistakes and emulate countries such as Canada, which can live alongside its trading partners without adopting their currency.
The Government need to tell us the rate at which they want us to join. That would be far more useful than the five economic tests. It would give us a monetary target that would give clear guidance to businesses, letting them know what their longer-term competitiveness would be. Of course, one rate will not suit all businesses because one size never fits everyone. It cannot and will not fit all, whether we are talking about interest rates, exchange rates or even clothing. We should be asking ourselves, with all due diligence, not whether we are good enough to join the euro, but whether the euro is good enough for us to join and, all things considered, whether it would benefit from our joining. The answer is no.

5WH
With Germany fast approaching debt levels of about 3 per cent. of gross domestic product, I accept that there may be concern for the euro's long-term stability, so perhaps this is a good moment for the Government to bow out. The purpose of this debate is to get a clear view from the Government about how they intend to proceed with their referendum. As I showed, none of the five economic tests holds up to close inspection, and now that notes and coins have been introduced, what is holding the referendum back?
The criteria for calling the referendum are entirely political. They are based on a socialist dream of one enormous European state, perhaps founded on a natural dislike or distrust of America, or perhaps based on the communist theme of collectivism. The reasons for joining are no longer economic and never will be. As the ulterior motive is exposed, what is holding the Government back, apart from almost certain defeat?
Seriously, let us stop pretending that this single currency is a good idea and let us move on. If the Government will not abandon their determination to join, perhaps now is the time to step up to the plate. Call the referendum now. It is time to let the people have their say. Using a hard-headed assessment of Britain's economic interests, one is bound to conclude that Britain can never be guaranteed a long-term improved economic position through adopting the euro. Therefore, it is time to admit defeat and either call the referendum or throw in the towel and start dealing with the crisis in health and transport.
9.45 am
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) on securing this useful debate and on his excellent summary of the case against joining the euro. I was sitting with my head held desperately in my hands just to stop myself from nodding in agreement with most of what he said. The hypothesis on which he based his speech is accurate. Government policy on this issue is absolutely clear. I am, unusually for me, totally in agreement with it. It is a third way between the two extremes. One extreme is that we may go in but on the other hand we may not, and the other extreme is that we may not go in but on the other hand we may. Government policy sits right there in the middle, happily watching what is going on with vacuous good will, saying, "God bless her and all who ail in her."
I see no need to change that policy, particularly since we have now had that so-called great event, the arrival of the notes and coins of the single currency. It demands no great skill to fill thousands and thousands of ATMs with paper currency. I imagine that forgery would be fairly easy with new notes, but I am sure that the details will be kept quiet and we will only know whether prosecutions result after some time. Nor will we know immediately about the price hike that the new currency will obviously allow. People will round up prices. There will be an inflationary effect. It might necessitate an increase in interest rates in euroland, but we will not know that until the figures come out. The immediate consequences are non-existent. We are therefore left with the basic issues of why it may not work and why we should not think about joining it. There are three paramount reasons for that, apart from the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Leominster.
6WH
First, there will be clear and strong political tensions in the coming year. Germany desperately needs a reduction in interest rates and perhaps a more competitive, that is to say lower, euro. France and Germany both have elections this year. Both will therefore press Mr. Duisenberg, the great deflator, to reduce interest rates and exude some confidence and happiness to the electorate. That will produce uncertainties and public arguments and pressures that will not be good for confidence in the euro. There is a possibility, therefore, that confidence will be affected and the euro will go down again. We must bear that in mind in the coming months.
Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the system does not include any machinery of redistribution, which it needs if it is to produce convergence. One interest rate cannot possibly cover the very different circumstances of the Irish, Spanish or German economies. The German economy is now in its third quarter of zero growth. It is technically in a recession. In that situation there has to be some means of redistribution to help the economies that are adversely affected by the single currency.
A nation state can redistribute about 40 per cent. of its gross domestic product to the regions, but that cannot be done in euroland, which suffers from a single economic policy. Only about 1.5 per cent. of Europe's GDP can be redistributed, and in the long term that will produce stresses and strains in the system, or even break it.
Thirdly, there is the problem of Maastricht's requirement and the stability pact. In a recession, Germany will be knocking close to the ceiling of 3 per cent. of GDP in the public sector deficit. It might well break through that ceiling this year, because as unemployment increases there is more social security spending and less tax revenue. The stability pact will therefore require sanctions. Will they be imposed? Germany wanted sanctions to ensure that budgetary integrity was maintained, but they would be a worrying blow to confidence and would affect world confidence in the euro.
We do not yet have solutions to those long-term problems, which I fear will produce difficulties for the euro. We need to sit back and wait and see what happens rather than rush to join the euro now, with the headlong enthusiasm of a bunch of impetuous Liberal Democrats.
The crucial, unspoken, issue is the sixth test—the Chancellor's codicil—or the exchange rates. At what exchange rate can we begin to envisage or talk about going in? It was confidential, but I can now reveal that I have a secret role in Government that is similar to Lord Birt's. I am coming out in support of Lord Birt because he has been unfairly and unnecessarily attacked for his role, which is similar to mine. I send periodic memos to the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the Governor of the Bank of England advising them on economic policy. It is not so much blue sky thinking as grey North sea, or sludgy, thinking, which lacks Lord Birt's brilliance. However, my memorandums have much in common with Lord Birt's, in that they are never published and never read. My memos to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor emphasise the importance of the exchange rate issue, and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has replied to many of them. The replies are beautifully written and make interesting reading; I am having them

7WH
set to music by Andrew Lloyd Webber. However, they do not respond to the crucial argument about the exchange rate.
Sterling is substantially over-valued, especially against the euro. We came out of the exchange rate mechanism because we could not maintain the relativity of DM2.95; the last exchange rate figure before the deutschmark disappeared was about DM3.20. The Liberal Democrats tell us that we went into the exchange rate mechanism, which they enthusiastically urged us to do, at an over-valued rate. I remember when the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) took large, enthusiastic, Liberal crowds into Downing street, where they chanted, "Move to the narrower bands now." They tell us that the exchange rate then was over-valued, but they wanted to lock us into that over-valuation of DM2.95 by moving to the narrower band.
The pound is over-valued. We can argue about whether that is due to a rise in the pound—in some respects it is—or to the 20 per cent. fall in the euro since it was inaugurated, which it has not yet made good. However, to go in at that exchange rate would damage our shrinking manufacturing base, set it in concrete and make this country permanently uncompetitive.
Therefore, we must know the rate at which we would consider going in and whether we can achieve it. The Government have made it absolutely clear that they will not manage sterling down to a competitive rate. If sterling fell, the Bank of England would be eager to intervene to put up interest rates to stop any further fall. It is a kind of doomsday scenario.
Mr. Redwood: Has the hon. Gentleman seen recent press releases from the Commission—they appear to be authentic—that say that we would have to join the exchange rate mechanism and suffer penal servitude for two years before being admitted to the euro? Is there not an even stronger case that there would be automatic devices for deflating Britain when the Commission thought it right? Under the exchange rate mechanism, 4 million are out of work in Germany. How many will be out of work in Britain?
Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention; his comments are correct. I have always assumed that, under treaty requirements, we would go in at the exchange rate and have to sustain relativity for two years before entry.
The exchange rate is far too high. It has been maintained for a long period, and there is no sign that it will come down; there is an insistence on market rates. Unless the other countries are desperate to get us in, it is unlikely—impossible—that they would give us a special deal. The question is insoluble. Until the Government think their way through it, there is no point in even talking about entry, referendums or the benefits and disadvantages of the euro. We cannot go in at the given exchange rate.
8WH
A further fact is illustrated by Anatole Kaletsky's article in The Times business news today. We are, and have been for some time, doing better outside the euro than those countries that are in it, yet the euro is supposed to bring advantages.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: The strongest economies in the European Union at present are Denmark, Sweden and Britain. Is it a coincidence that they are all outside the euro?
Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I hope that his disloyalty does not bring retribution and that his true and irrefutable statement is not seen as criticism of Government policy. We should bear it in mind when we consider going in. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has introduced a Bill to make the euro legal tender in this country, but he has not explained who would pay the exchange rate costs.
There is much fuss and hoo-hah about referendums, going in at an early date and expressing our enthusiasm for Europe. It gives the Liberal Democrats something useful to do, which is a valuable service; it takes them off the streets and away from paving stones. The newspapers have something to write about—I particularly admire the efforts of Polly Toynbee. Every time the euro is mentioned, out comes a huge gush of euro enthusiasm, and the media conspiracy is furthered. All that keeps my hon. Friends and I happily arguing the other side, but it is a total distraction from the real job of governing, which is to shape and build the strength of the British economy and to serve the purpose of the people. Membership of the euro would be deeply damaging to that process.
9.58 am
Mr. John Redwood: In my usual way, I have some friendly advice for the Government. They are in a hole: they would love to hold a referendum but think that they cannot win it, so they have hesitated to announce a referendum. They now suggest that the issue is one of economics, whereas their advisers occasionally let slip that it is not primarily about economics but big politics.
A single currency is, fundamentally, about who runs the country's economy and sets the rules. It is about which politicians and officials make which decisions. I compare joining the single currency to taking out a bank account with the neighbours. I get on pretty well with my neighbours and our relations are cordial, especially over Christmas and new year, when we exchange gifts and drinks. However, I do not feel that our relationship would be strengthened by pooling sovereignty—as it is inadequately described—and having a joint bank account. I would always be worried about whether they or I were putting more in and whether the overdraft was available when I needed it or they had already used it.
Mr. John Bercow: I like the idea.
Mr. Redwood: Uncharacteristically for a shadow Chief Secretary, my hon. Friend is implying that he would be spendthrift and draw out money rather early.

9WH
If we had a joint bank account, I would be the mug who would be doing the saving and ensuring that we met the bank's requirements.
Mr. Edward Davey: Would the right hon. Gentleman pool sovereignty with his neighbours on anything?
Mr. Redwood: I would be very careful about pooling sovereignty. It is indivisible, and we either have or do not have it. It is better to keep it and conduct friendly negotiations and relations with people. I want to be friends with our partners in Europe. I want to trade and work jointly with them when it makes sense, but it is better to keep the main decisions in our own hands.
I should have said that I have declared my interests in the register.
Mr. Davey: The right hon. Gentleman is clear that he is not keen on giving away sovereignty on any issue. Would he advocate pulling out of the European Union, NATO or any international institution in which the UK has pooled sovereignty?
Mr. Redwood: No, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point about negotiation, agreement and compromise-reaching with treaty proposals that make sense while keeping the right to make our own decisions, which is what NATO implies, and giving away our powers to make important decisions about our future, which is what the Liberal Democrats seem to think life is all about. I suppose that having been out of power for so long, they are casual about the powers that this country has to govern itself. Most of my electors are not casual about that. They elect people to the House and expect us to make decisions in their interest. They do not always get the overall team that they would like, but they know that they can have another go at a subsequent general election. They can hold the Government to account through the electoral process. What is the point of doing that if all the crucial decisions are taken elsewhere by unelected bureaucrats and officials?
Mr. Gregory Barker: Is not the crucial difference between the single currency and NATO that a country can withdraw from NATO, as the French have done in the past, whereas we could not withdraw from a single currency without the most catastrophic consequences? That fundamental difference totally escapes the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Redwood: That is right. Another powerful distinction is that NATO does not have a supreme court that judges the actions of Her Majesty's Government and this Parliament and tells us whether we are doing things correctly. NATO proceeds by agreement, and we do not have to send our forces to fight if we do not want to. NATO has been an amicable and successful treaty organisation since the second world war, and has done a lot to keep the peace in western Europe and the rest of the world. It has been a singular success story, which the EU has not yet proved to be, and is trying to take ever more power from us. The EU is probably best known for its common fisheries and agricultural policies. Many people in Britain feel that those policies have not worked in our interest and could have been improved.
10WH
I want to give the Government some advice. If they are serious that this is an economic issue to be judged by five economic tests, they can prove it with their actions. The Minister today, or the Chancellor shortly when he has prepared the ground, should tell us exactly how the tests will be assessed. Most of them could provide quantitative answers. Using the figures available, we could assess whether our growth rate is getting closer to or more distant from those of Germany and France, how our inflation rates are doing and how our financial services industry is faring outside the euro. We could assess how flexible our labour market is compared with those of Germany and France by examining, for example, unemployment figures and job placement rates.
Will the Government set out exactly how the tests will be judged, stop the pretence that the work is so secret and important that it can be done only by Treasury officials in private and give us a quarterly statement to bring us up to date on whether we are closer to or further away from meeting the five tests? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), who said in his excellent opening speech that we are moving further away from meeting the tests, and closer in many major respects to the United States economy than to the German or French economies. If the Treasury disagrees, will it set out how the tests are to be judged and publish quarterly figures so we can assess the position?
Mr. Bercow: Is not the need for a continuing assessment underlined by the verdict of PricewaterhouseCoopers that on no fewer than five counts—growth, output, unemployment, short-term interest rates and the current account—convergence is expected to be further away in 2002 than in 2001?
Mr. Redwood: That is very likely: it is my understanding of the position. The European Union is also capable of carrying out the analysis, and has published some good reports that show how the British economy diverges, whereas others in euroland are coming closer together. The Government should explain how the tests are to be assessed and provide regular bulletins on how well we are doing.
The Government should also explain how current economic policy is designed to bring us closer to qualifying under the five economic tests. We have received no statement of principle from the Government. They tell us that their policy is to join the single currency, and that it will be achieved by moving closer to the euroland economies and satisfying the five tests. Will they please make a statement to explain how they are tailoring policy to achieve that?
My worry is that the Government are not doing anything because they are split. Some Ministers want never to join the single currency but are quiet about it in public; some are sceptical about joining; some are desperate to join as soon as possible at any rate and whatever the consequences; and some others, who were brilliantly described by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), will go along with whatever the Chancellor and the Prime Minister agree—if they ever do—and take a different view according to the twists, turns and spinning of the day. A wide spectrum of opinion exists within ministerial ranks, and an even wider one within the ranks of Labour Back Benchers.

11WH
The Government do not know what to do about the splits, so they pretend to settle the matter in private under the five economic tests in the hope that by some miracle the party will come together and present a political opportunity. My next piece of advice to the Government is that parties do not come together if divisions are allowed to carry on, but only when there is strong leadership, as we proved on the issue of the euro. We had far more difficulties as a party when, like the present Government, we did not take a clear view; we now have no problems because, under the previous and the present leader, we have adopted the clear position that we oppose joining the euro. Our party has come together, and the Government should offer some leadership to their own party and to the country on this crucial issue.
My next piece of advice mirrors what other participants in the debate have said. If we are going to buy something—even a pig in a poke—we should know its price, but we have not been told the price at which the Government want to buy the euro. It is the most crucial matter in the whole scheme. Why cannot the price be named when it is so critical?
When people from both ends of the political spectrum and the business community who urged the Conservative Government to enter the exchange rate mechanism discovered how bad it was, they often argued that it was because the rate was wrong. They did not say so when we entered the ERM: that was left to a minority inside the Government such as myself, but we were overridden by a huge consensus across the parties, in the media, among fashionable commentators and others who thought it was right to go in and did not worry about the price. If those people have learnt any lesson and now understand that the price was crucial, why are they not now saying that we must debate the price of entry into the euro as a first priority before we go any further with the scheme?
I fear that going in at the current rate would be damaging to large chunks of our manufacturing industry, which is already under pressure as a result of current interest rate and currency exchange rate levels and policy. If those conditions became permanent, it would be difficult to offer hope to such businesses. The Government should give us some information on what assessment they have made for a safe entry rate. Assuming that that safe entry rate is considerably lower than the current rate, they should then tell us how they plan to get there, and when they intend to enter the exchange rate mechanism.
It is quite clear that our European partners and the Commission believe that the treaty sets out very clearly that we have to join the exchange rate mechanism. If the Government are not of that view, will they tell Parliament when they intend to negotiate with our European partners and the Commission yet another special deal for Britain to allow us to enter without spending two years in the exchange rate mechanism? Would the Government at the same time negotiate the entry rate, because it would be of considerable interest to our partners? Although many people would like a lower exchange rate, many of our partners want to keep
12WH
our rate very high, for obvious competitive reasons. When will the Government try to negotiate an entry rate?
I advise the Government, as a long-standing and consistent opponent of the exchange rate mechanism, inside and outside Government, that if they are serious about the euro, they should join the exchange rate mechanism, because it is clearly a very necessary preparation for a single currency. Although I believe that being in the exchange rate mechanism would be damaging, at least we could get out of it. If the Government have still not learnt the lesson, they should spend time in the exchange rate mechanism so that they discover that European currency schemes do not work for Britain. It may be better to do that than to go straight into the single currency and discover over a long period just how much damage it can do.
I do not believe that the Government are serious about holding a referendum. I do not believe that they will hold a referendum in this Parliament. I believe the referendum is entirely about politics. I think that Ministers across the Government are divided and hold a range of different views, which is exactly what happens when there is no consistent and clear leadership in favour of a particular policy.
We need to know the price of entry and when the Government are going into the exchange rate mechanism, and we need some sensible statements on how the economic tests will be judged. If the Government do none of those things, we will be right to conclude that they are not serious about this matter.
Mr. Edward O'Hara: It might be helpful if I announce that wind-ups will commence at 10.30 am. I shall allocate 10 minutes to each speaker.
10.11 am
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) on raising this important subject. I would also echo many of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who speaks so much sense. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor takes his advice to heart.
I was encouraged by the tone of caution in the Prime Minister's recent comments, which I draw to the attention of hon. Members. Yesterday, in The Daily Telegraph, he said:
"Membership of the Euro is not inevitable".
That is a very good point. He also said that it would be judged on the economic criteria, which would not be fudged. He has even said that life outside the euro is possible. I would go further and suggest that life inside the euro will be uncertain and difficult. Indeed, I think it is a bus that we would do well to miss, because it is going in the wrong direction.
Another encouraging comment from this side of the political fence was from Commissioner Kinnock, who said that we do not need to make a decision for another five years. I do not mind when the decision is made, as long as we make the right decision.
The story of the eurozone so far is not a happy one. Despite all the europhoria, the euro has depreciated by 30 per cent. against the US dollar, which is hardly

13WH
indicative of confidence. The eurozone has been performing poorly in economic terms, especially compared with the United Kingdom, which in spite of the relatively high value of our currency, has still been doing remarkably well. That suggests that there is more confidence in Britain than there is in the eurozone.
Let us look at Germany, which is the largest and most powerful economy in the eurozone, and the one that has to work if the eurozone is to succeed. Germany has had something like 1 per cent. growth this year—that is the present rate—and there is very high unemployment there. Chancellor Schroder is facing a difficult general election, which he may well lose as a result of Germany's failure to perform economically during his term of office. Chancellor Schroder initially said:
"Membership of the Euro will insulate against external economic shocks."
That is an interesting thought. More recently, he blamed Germany's poor economic performance on the US downturn. He cannot have it both ways: either the euro insulates the economy from what happens in the US, or it does not and the US can affect it.
Fixed exchange rates and single currency systems have inherent problems. There are difficulties in entering at the right exchange rate and it is difficult to maintain a single currency if different parts of the zone perform differently. If there is no scope for fiscal transfers and the other features that one would expect of an integrated economy, there will be differential economic growth throughout the eurozone, which will eventually lead to strain between member states.
When considering countries that have tried fixed exchange rate systems, or have tied their currency to another, Argentina springs to mind. This week it elected a president described as "left wing", which is comforting to me. He floated the peso, which devalued by 40 per cent. on the first day of trading. The alignment of the currency to the dollar was mistaken and had a terrible effect on the Argentinean economy. Argentina was one of the strongest economies not only in the Americas, but in the world. It is now on its knees.
Russia experienced serious problems when it fixed its currency at an over-valued rate against a hard currency. It began to recover only when the rouble was floated downwards. It was hardly an advert for capitalism that the Russian economy halved in the 10 years after the failure of communism. That was a disaster for the notion of a fixed exchange rate system.
More recently, Malaysia provided an example of good practice. During the problems in the far east several years ago, Malaysia was told by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank not to devalue its currency. It ignored the IMF, imposed exchange controls, devalued its currency and bounced back in a year. It did what any sensible country would do: it managed its macro-economic criteria according to its economic needs. That did not damage the world economy because the collapse of Malaysia would not have helped the far east.
We have our own experiences of fixed exchange rate systems. One was the gold standard period of 1925 to 1931. It was Churchill's decision, but he was pushed by the economic establishment to appreciate the currency and adopt the gold standard. That led to the 1931 disaster, which had the unexpected effect of destroying
14WH
the Labour Government. It was not a deep-laid plot, because the Conservatives had not anticipated that Labour Government. The devaluation after 1931 led to gradual recovery throughout the 1930s.
A more recent UK example is the exchange rate mechanism period: 1990 to 1992. Conservative Members may regret that because it was the major factor in destroying the Conservative Government's credibility, which led to Labour's victory in 1997. I was pleased about that, but it was not sensible economics. The significant depreciation after that gave an enormous kick to the economy, which has grown steadily since. The enormous growth that took place after that depreciation allowed us to sustain a high exchange rate. If the UK entered the eurozone at the present exchange rate, we could have a 1931 or 1992 on our hands, but this time there would be no escape route.
Exchange rates are significant. When I was growing up, Germany was cited as the economic miracle of the post-war era. At school, everyone complained of the low value of the deutschmark that gave the Germans an unfair advantage. Germany used that advantage for several decades to build up its economy. That was deliberate because the west wanted to ensure that West Germany succeeded economically so that the communists could not point the finger at a failing economy. The difference in performance compared with East Germany was obvious to everyone, and eventually led to reunification.
Reunification was interesting because again there was an exchange rate problem. One ostmark was exchanged for one deutschmark, which was a massive over-valuation of the East German currency that led to the East German economy being almost annihilated overnight. The problem was overcome by vast fiscal transfers from wealthy West Germany that had built up surpluses during the economic miracle. There was no problem because it was a single country that had the possibility of massive fiscal transfers. The eurozone is not in that position.
Mr. Mark Francois: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned Germany several times. An implication of the single currency is that it will eventually lead to a single taxation system. Only a few weeks ago, Hans Eichel, the German Finance Minister, argued for a single taxation system throughout the eurozone. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that a single European taxation system would be in the interests of the United Kingdom if we were part of it?
Mr. Hopkins: I understand that our Government, and many others, argue that there will be no single taxation system. Only this week, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary said that we would not harmonise duties, let alone income tax or other forms of taxation, and I support her argument. Even if taxes were harmonised, that would not necessarily provide scope for the vast fiscal transfers that would also be needed. Tax can be one way, but we must have a universal tax and benefits system. The McDougal report suggested that regional transfers might have to be multiplied by 14 or 15 before fiscal transfers were sufficient. The question is whether the rich zones will tolerate multiplying regional transfers by 15 and having a universal tax and benefits system so

15WH
that rich Germans or French people pay taxes for poor Welsh people. That is not on the cards, but it might cause some political stress in some richer countries.
On 6 January 2002, The Observer published an article by Faisal Islam in which he described a worst-case scenario. He also outlined a best-case scenario, which is less credible and which I have not had enough time to read. He wrote:
"The German economy fails to improve, but Euro-area interest rates cannot be pushed too far down, because of relative buoyancy in the rest of the Eurozone. Pressure mounts on the German government to boost its economy through tax cuts and spending increases funded by increased borrowing. The European Commission and the ECB join together to lobby for a strict application of the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact. German public opinion turns against the idea of Europe."
He went on to suggest that as a result, we might lose a referendum, which would seriously damage the credibility of the euro, and eventually the people of Europe would turn against the idea. I believe that we are in the early stage of that scenario, and I applaud the recent caution of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor towards our possible entry into the eurozone.
10.22 am
Mr. Bill Tynan: I hope to bring some balance to the debate. I appear to be in a time warp to the 1970s, when the Labour party constantly tore itself apart over whether we should be involved in Europe. The situation is the same today, although there appears to be unity among hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. It is important that we look at where we are and understand that several problems must be addressed. That is why the economic tests must be examined, as they have been this morning, and why a referendum is essential. If we have a referendum, we can have that debate in public. Informed debate is essential. We seem to be forgetting that, on 1 January 2002, 12 countries accepted the euro. They had decided to move into a common currency that they believed was beneficial, and that I also believe would be beneficial, provided that the economic tests are met.
There was not unanimity across Europe, and people were concerned. A young Spanish man is living in my home at the moment, and he was saying before Christmas that his mother and father, who have businesses in a small village in north Spain, were concerned about the transition to the euro. He believed that they would continue to use their national currency. He went home for three weeks and came back with the message that there was no problem because of the preparation that had been done. That is one of my concerns. If we wait and only talk about whether to enter the euro, rather than making the proper preparation, we will be left behind the rest of Europe, and we cannot afford that.
In my brief contribution, I want to emphasis the benefits that exist in Europe. Some of the comments from the official Opposition were a bit rich. They have claimed that every Budget over the past four years was the wrong way to go and would lead to recession and job losses. I have heard that story continually from them, and the opposite is true. We have low interest rates and unemployment levels, and we have growth. We should
16WH
note also that The Financial Times yesterday had the results of a MORI poll, which had surveyed the 500 leading businesses in the UK, showing a one-third increase in support for joining the euro, up to 59 per cent. of those top businesses.
We must have a balanced debate. I do not think that we have had that this morning, and I urge the Government to examine seriously the preparation for the euro, based on the need to move forward. When the arguments are put, we can win a referendum.
10.26 am
Mr. Edward Davey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) on securing the debate. Given that this is the first chance that the House has had to debate the subject since the recess and the momentous events of 1 January, it is particularly welcome.
I thank particularly the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) for beginning to restore some balance. As I sat here listening to today's speeches, it was as if 1 January had not happened. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) referred to it, but he dismissed the convergence and changeover as a trivial matter that was just about filling some ATMs throughout the high streets of continental Europe. It was a significant change, showing what can be achieved practically and the change of the climate and psychology around, and the attitude to, the single currency. It is a real and not a virtual currency now and is becoming accepted in wallets and tills throughout continental Europe.
We should celebrate that success in this Parliament and send a message of congratulations to our continental partners. I hear laughter from the Conservative Benches. I thought that the Conservatives were now wishing the project well, and I was pleased to see their leader doing just that, and welcoming the success of the changeover. I hope that Conservative Members will continue that message, because it is in our interest that the process succeeds. I know that some Eurosceptics believe that it is in their interest for it to fail, but 1 January sent a clear message that it will work, because it has a political backing. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was right: this is a political as well as economic project. It has political support in continental Europe, and we should celebrate its success.
This debate focuses on Government policy on the single currency, and there are some interesting issues. As I understand it, the Government have said that they are in favour in principle, and that there are five tests with which they will make an assessment within two years of the last general election. There will then be a referendum and in the meantime, they are making preparations. That is Government policy in a nutshell. It is good that they are in favour in principle—it is nice to see that they have one principle. I just hope to see efforts made towards enacting that principle, which would be a start of sorts.

17WH
However, as we all know, the five tests—convergence, flexibility, investment and the effects on the City and on jobs—are a fig leaf to keep the Government and the Labour party together on these rocky political waters until they decide that it is politically right to join.
Mr. Redwood: I believe that the Liberal party, unlike the Government, did some interesting work on entry rates and concluded that we should enter at a considerably lower rate against the euro than the current 62p. What rate has the hon. Gentleman in mind and how would we get there? How would we need to change economic policy to reach an entry rate that the Liberal party would think acceptable?
Mr. Davey: I am grateful for that intervention; I shall deal in some detail during my remarks with the right hon. Gentleman's points. He is right in referring to the report entitled "Britain's Adoption of the Euro" from the expert commission established by my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats. It had various eminent economists, former members of the MPC and people such as Martin Weale from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, Richard Portes and John Williamson. He is a leading macro-economic expert on exchange rates and the inventor of one of the three main economic theories on exchange rates—fundamental equilibrium exchange rates.
The commission produced a long and detailed report, which dealt with the issue under discussion. It suggested the rate of 1.45 euros to the pound, which is significantly lower than the current rate of 1.62. It also said, however, that if relative productivity trends changed in the meantime, there might be a case for a slightly higher rate. My colleagues and I agree with the substance of the report. I believe that such a rate would be competitive and would enable us to enter the single currency successfully. Clearly, however, the rate has to be negotiated, and I shall come to that point in due course.
Let me focus on the Government's tests, because they are a bit of a smokescreen. Publications from Her Majesty's Treasury will no doubt try to make out that the tests are terribly important, but the reality is that most of them have been met, more or less, and it is difficult to get clear measurements for them anyway. That is why the Government have to set up a process to work out how to make the assessment. If the tests were obvious and easy to quantify, there would not have to be such a long process to work out how to do the assessment. However, as the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have said, the problem with the five tests is that they miss out the key test—the test of the exchange rate.
A debate about what would be a sustainable exchange rate is needed, and the Government have a duty to lead it. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby has been an ardent fan of promoting such a discussion over many years. I have been involved with economic debates in and outside the House in which he has mentioned the exchange rate and the need to devalue. He has argued for devaluation from three or four different exchange rates over that time. It should always go down in the hon. Gentleman's view, but that argument could be valid in particular circumstances. The key is how we go about generating a consensus in the wider economic
18WH
establishment and the markets about what would be a sustainable long-term exchange rate for the country. We have seen no leadership on that from the Government, which is a huge omission.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I argued for a competitive exchange rate—that was the essence of my argument—not a process of continuous devaluation. The real question is not the Government's position but how the Liberal Democrats propose that we reach their exchange rate of 1.45. Should we intervene in markets or should there be a process of benign neglect? If the country signifies that it wants to enter, will the rate suddenly fall to the requisite level, because the force is with the Liberals?
Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I have two points in answer. First, if the markets believe that a consensus is emerging in this country and with our European partners about a certain rate, there will be a certain glide path in the markets as they underpin a particular rate with credibility that Britain will join. We saw that with the lira when the Italian Government decided to join in 1996. It was interesting that for a few days after the Labour Government were re-elected, the markets assumed that there would be a greater commitment to joining the single currency and the pound depreciated quite substantially. The Treasury and the Bank of England had to talk up the pound, saying that there was no intention to join within the next few years, that the five tests would be difficult and that the British people must be persuaded. There was a concerted effort to shift the markets back.
That makes my point for me: if the markets think that Britain is going to join they realise that we cannot join at the current rate. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby argued, it is overvalued. The markets will help us do the job if they believe that there is a credible commitment to joining. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that policy changes are needed. One of this Government's problems is that by not enunciating that key test—the test of the exchange rate—they are not giving any direction to policy to try to bring about convergence to a long-term sustainable exchange rate. That is a huge omission.
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman raises some interesting points. He now proposes a devaluation of about 11 per cent. from today's level. Given that about a third of the things we buy in the shops are imported or are influenced by import prices, he is looking at an inflation of 4 per cent. as a direct result of the devaluation. Under the present rules, the Bank of England would have to hike interest rates to stop that happening. Would he want to override the Bank of England rules to allow the inflation?
Mr. Davey: As the right hon. Gentleman would no doubt agree, it is possible to depreciate exchange rates without inflationary consequences, as happened when we left the exchange rate mechanism. It does not follow that depreciation immediately results in higher prices because that is, using the economist's term, ceteris

19WH
paribus. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks that the pound was overvalued. It should therefore follow—
Mr. Edward O'Hara: Order. I call the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
10.37 am
Mr. John Bercow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) on securing the debate and on his clinical dissection of the Government's policy. I thank everyone who took part, but I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who made a characteristically coruscating speech, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and to the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), whose prospects for advancement have not been greatly assisted today, but whose reputation for sound sense and personal integrity now stands at an all-time high.
Ministers in all parts of the Government are arguing like ferrets in a sack not about whether to abolish our national currency—they are agreed about that—but about when to do so and why. The debate got under way early in the new year. On 2 January the Minister for Europe told The Guardian—who else?—that he doubted
"that it is possible to run a sort of parallel currency economy".
The next day his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary disowned him, saying:
"I just ask people to calm down."
The former Foreign Secretary, who has been feeling somewhat sore of late, obviously could not resist joining the fray. The Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), declared on 6 January on "Breakfast with Frost":
"If we want to continue with that very strong powerful leading role within the European Union it is going to be more challenging to do that if we are outside the inner club".
He was promptly slapped down by the Prime Minister in an interview in La Repubblica, which was reproduced in The Sun on 8 January. He said:
"I am convinced that Great Britain can be an essential partner, if we wish, a leading partner in Europe on fundamental issues such as defence, economic reforms, protecting the environment and other matters."
He said that entry into the euro is "another issue altogether". The internecine conflict raging at the heart of the Government is unedifying to observers and undignified for participants but, above all, it is a betrayal of the people on an issue of vital national importance.
I want to be fair to the Government. Let us start with the Chancellor's declaration of the Government's position on the European single currency:
"To sum up, we believe that, in principle, British membership of a successful single currency would be beneficial to Britain and Europe; the key factor is whether the economic benefits of joining for business and industry are clear and unambiguous."[Official Report, 27 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 588.]
The problem with the position that he articulated four years and three months ago is that it has been shot to pieces by the head of macro-economics at the Treasury,
20WH
who is the director of the assessment team charged with determining whether the five criteria have been met. Gus O'Donnell famously—perhaps infamously, depending on one's point of view—said:
"Economics can never be clear and unambiguous."
In such circumstances, the best and most honourable course for the Prime Minister, who has stuck to the absurd "clear and unambiguous" line for the past four years, would be to give up the unequal struggle. He would earn brownie points by acknowledging that the policy of the past four and a half years is rudderless and that it has been comprehensively discredited; it was based on a false premise. He could drop any further plans to take Britain into the euro. He could apologise for wasting people's time and withdraw from the fray.
An expression springs to mind about pigs flying. Hell would freeze over before the Prime Minister treated us to such a refreshing outburst of candour. However, we must ask why a clear and unambiguous case on economic grounds cannot be made for British membership of the euro. The explanation relates to the essence of the euro. The euro is not only about the seamless, or otherwise, introduction of notes and coins but about who sets the interest rate for members of the eurozone. The Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Eddie George, who is a respected authority, said on the BBC World Service "World Business Report" on 4 January:
"The risk is that single interest rates, which has to go with the single currency, is not going to be appropriate for all the member countries at the same time."
Two weeks earlier, on 22 December 2001, he said in The Daily Telegraph that the one-size-fits-all policy represented
"a disadvantage and a special risk".
We do not have to gaze into a crystal ball when we can read the book.
Mr. Hopkins: Is it not the case that present interest rates in the eurozone are too low for Ireland and too high for Germany?
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is almost always correct, and this occasion is not an exception. He anticipated my comments. The European Commission undertook a report in 2001 on the European economy. Chapter 2 devotes a substantial section to the difficulties. Specifically, it reports on page 69 that no fewer than seven member states have suffered excessive demand pressures. It refers to the particular circumstances of Germany and France and their need for lower interest rates.
We have already heard of the danger that the European Commission will insist on British membership of the exchange rate mechanism as a prerequisite for entry to the single currency. We should listen to and heed the European Commission's report, which states:
"Monetary conditions in a single member state can be inappropriate considering the cyclical conditions, as the single euro-area interest rate may not be in line with the individual needs."

21WH
It then goes on, rather prosaically, but helpfully, to point out that
"for individual member states, the creation of a single currency area implies the loss of monetary adjustment mechanisms in response to economic shocks."
In straightforward terms, what does that mean? It means that if the economy was in a mess, we could not cut interest rates to reflect the domestic circumstances. We know the desperate damage that can be done because we know about the repossessions, bankruptcies and loss of jobs that occurred in our own economy when we were in the temporary but horrendous straitjacket of the exchange rate mechanism. To go from that to permanent incarceration in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) legendarily described as a burning building with no exits does not seem to be indicative of much common sense in the Government.
How can we have the same interest rate policy as Germany with its 4 million people unemployed and Holland with its inflation touching 5 per cent? It is so transparently absurd that only an extraordinarily clever and sophisticated person could fail to see this obvious point. It leads one to the conclusion that the euro is not really about economics but about politics.
I said that the best course was for the Prime Minister to withdraw and not go forward with the project. The other option would be simply to say, "Yes, I am hell-bent on dragging Britain into the euro with a cost I cannot calculate, for a benefit that I cannot enumerate, and at a risk to the self-government of the country that I dare not admit. But I want to get on with my partners, I fancy being President of the European Commission, and I am going to try and cajole, bully, brow-beat and harangue the British people into accepting the project."
It is time that we ceased to have a Government policy mired in contradiction, deception, humbug and superficial thinking. We are owed an explanation of what the Government are really about. The place for that explanation is here, the time for it is now. I look forward, with eager anticipation and bated breath for the response of the Minister.
10.47 am
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I am delighted to be here again with you, Mr. O'Hara, in the Chair for this very important Adjournment debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) on securing the debate. It is interesting to note that the new intake of Conservative Members of Parliament are just as preoccupied with Europe as the older hands. I thought that the public had already made a judgment on the Conservatives' attitudes to Europe not just once, but twice, but it is very useful to have this debate.
I should put on the record, in a nutshell, the Government's policy towards the single currency. The Government's policy on the membership of the single currency remains as set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in October 1997, and as restated by the Prime Minister in February 1999:
"In principle, the Government are in favour of UK membership of EMU. In practice, the economic conditions must be right. The determining factor underpinning any Government decision on membership of the single currency is the national economic interest, and whether the economic case for joining is clear and unambiguous. If it is, there is no constitutional bar to joining."
22WH
As the Chancellor said in his October 1997 statement:
"the five economic tests will define whether a clear and unambiguous case can be made."
The Government are, of course, committed to carrying out a comprehensive and rigorous assessment of those economic tests. We will not, under any circumstances, take any risks with our hard-won economic stability. I note with interest that the hon. Member for Leominster first argued that the economic tests were flawed and then used them as more or less the entire content of his speech. I take that to mean that he agrees with Government policy on the five tests that they are the appropriate tools to carry out an assessment. I am not terribly surprised. The IMF, an independent commentator, stated in its 2001 report on the UK economy that the five tests were
"consistent with the economic considerations which would be important for the decision to join a monetary union."
Mr. Bercow: My inquiry is simple: how can the Government expect to achieve what the director of the assessment team says can never be achieved?
Ruth Kelly: The IMF made it clear that the five tests were the appropriate way of making the assessment. I am about to explore those tests in greater detail and to explain, in response to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), how we intend to carry them out.
The first of the five tests is sustainable conversion between Britain and the economies of the single currency. The second is whether there is sufficient flexibility to cope with economic change. The third is the effect on investment, the fourth the impact on our financial services industry, and the fifth the effect on employment. The Chancellor has said that the Treasury will complete an assessment of the five tests within two years of the start of this Parliament. The assessment has not yet started, but the necessary preliminary analysis—technical work necessary to allow us to undertake the assessment as promised—is under way.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham asked how the tests would be carried out. As he knows, the preliminary work that will underlie and inform the assessment is already under way. The scope of the preliminary technical work was set out in the 1997 assessment. Although new developments have occurred since then, the underlying issues to be analysed remain the same, and the five tests remain unchanged.
Mr. Edward Davey: Can the Minister tell us when she expects the initial work on assessment to be completed?
Ruth Kelly: That would be premature. Important issues have to be gone through to ensure that we have the right framework to underpin any assessment. As I said, the analysis will be comprehensive and rigorous.
Mr. Francois: The Minister has maintained this morning that the Chancellor's policy—that the outcome depends on analysis of the five tests—is paramount. Will she explain the recent comment of the chairman of the Labour party that, as economists rarely agree, the economics do not really matter, so it is ultimately a political decision? Who is correct and what is Labour policy?
Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are completely at one about Labour policy on the single currency—we are in favour, in principle, of joining monetary union, but we must, in practice, meet the five economic tests. I am about to explain how we intend to carry out those tests and how our preliminary work will inform our assessment.
Mr. Francois: Will the Minister give way?
Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman should allow me to expand my point.
The preliminary and technical work will update our analysis of the cyclical behaviour of the UK economy relative to the euro area. It will assess relative responses to economic shocks, the mechanisms by which product, labour and capital markets adjust and how well and quickly they work. Other relevant considerations are the impact of the single currency on the costs and availability of capital, macro-economic stability, the stability of the real effect of exchange rate and the location, quality and quantity of investment. The effect of the single currency on financial services, including the changes in the sector that have occurred in the UK and the euro area since 1997, and its impact on trade, competition and productivity are also relevant.
That list is by no means exhaustive, as preliminary work continues to evolve to take account of the latest technical research and analysis. More detail is provided in the Treasury note issued in November last year, which deals with the content and timing of the preliminary and technical work. Hon. Members will find a copy in the Library.
I can tell the right hon. Member for Wokingham that the Government have no intention of providing a running commentary on either the preliminary work or the five tests. The assessment will be carried out within the first two years of this Parliament, which is what the Government are committed to. It does not make sense to try to update that information daily, weekly or monthly.
Mr. Francois: I am sorry to contradict the Minister, but it is evident that members of the Government are giving a running commentary on the process. Barely a day goes by without members of the Government contradicting each other in public. Perhaps she should have a word with her colleagues. We are greatly amused by their running commentary.
Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. No one in the Government has given a running commentary on the five tests. I shall respond to the points made about them, especially about the level of the exchange rate, if hon. Members will allow me to do so.
The Government said that the exchange rate at which sterling would enter the single currency must be consistent with economic fundamentals in the United Kingdom and compatible with sustainable convergence between the UK and other euro area economies. It is not a sixth test; that is the Government's policy, which we have set out. The Government believe, as several European Councils have recognised, that what matters
24WH
for a stable economic exchange rate, are sound economic fundamentals. The Luxembourg Council stated in December 1997 that
"in general, exchange rates should be seen as the outcome of all other economic polices."
That is why I fundamentally disagree with the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). The Government should not try artificially to massage down the level of the exchange rate, which is properly the outcome of sound economic fundamentals. That is why we put in place measures such as the new fiscal rules, the monetary framework and the independence of the Bank of England.
Mr. Redwood rose—
Ruth Kelly: It may pre-empt the question that the right hon. Member for Wokingham is about to ask when I say that the Government have no intention of rejoining the exchange rate mechanism—
Mr. Redwood indicated assent.
Ruth Kelly: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman assents.
Mr. Redwood: Would the Minister be happy for us to go in at 62p? Is she saying that the economic tests would take place against the background of that fairly stable exchange rate in recent months of 62p to the euro? Is that the preferred entry rate?
Ruth Kelly: I am certainly not going to give a running commentary on the level of the exchange rate, or on any of our economic assessments. As I said, the best and soundest way to determine a strong exchange rate consistent with economic fundamentals is as the outcome of other sound economic policies. I give way for the last time to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Bercow: In the light of what the Minister said about there not being a running commentary on the policy on the euro, my sound advice to her is that she should watch her back and reflect on who is now sitting behind her.
Ruth Kelly: I shall not take any notice of the hon. Gentleman on that matter. Our policy is clear.
My hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) raised the issues of pension liabilities and the stability pact. I greatly enjoyed my hon. Friends' speeches, which I found most entertaining. British taxpayers will not make payments to the Community and to other member states to pay for other countries' pension liabilities, whether or not we join the euro. Rules on excessive deficits and on the stability and growth pact mean that participating member states will not be able to finance their pension liabilities through economic borrowing; they will have to cut spending or raise contributions. There is no bail-out option for countries that do not take the appropriate action to reform their economies and to ensure that they have a sustainable fiscal position. I do not want to start a discussion about the situation of

25WH
other countries, but we will play our part in the debate in Europe on the sensible interpretation of the stability and growth pact.
As time is short, I shall again set out our position: in principle, we are clearly in favour of joining the euro, but in practice the five economic tests must be met before the Government take a decision. The Cabinet will make a recommendation to Government, who will put the decision to the people. The final decision will be determined in a referendum of the British people.

Middle East
11 am
Roger Casale: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the political situation in the middle east. Difficult though it may be at the best of times, I shall take a balanced and bipartisan approach to the debate. I hope that many colleagues from the Labour Friends of Israel and the Labour Middle East Council will participate in the debate. I am a member of both organisations, and I look forward to hearing contributions by Members of equivalent organisations in the Opposition parties. In taking a bipartisan approach, I run the risk of pleasing no one and offending all. I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity to correct any imbalance that may inadvertently colour my introduction, as well as stating more boldly the case from either side of the Palestine-Israel divide.
One advantage in taking a middle way in discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict is that it is easier to resist the temptation to suggest that we can resolve the conflict by putting pressure on either side. I see no prospect of a return to the peace process unless the consent of both sides is freely given. One purpose of this debate is to explore what possibilities exist for moving Israel and Palestine away from conflict and back on to the path of peace. That will not be achieved by applying external pressure or by pulling levers of influence. The internal dynamic of the relationship must change.
We must recognise however, that the middle east peace process is in crisis. That is not just a matter for the Israelis and the Palestinians but a threat to international security. We must constantly dedicate ourselves to doing what we can to get the middle east peace process back on track. The situation in the middle east is explosive. One need only think of what might happen if there were another terrorist outrage along the lines of 11 September, and the risk of regional spill-over is very real.
We must recognise that relations between the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority have deteriorated markedly. Without dialogue, no negotiation is possible. Not just the prospect of a lasting settlement in the middle east is at stake, but the possibility of any kind of peace process at all.
I have called the debate, because I refuse to accept, and I do not believe our Government should accept, a counsel of despair. Despite the temptation to back away from the issue in the face of escalating violence and extremism, I believe that it is imperative for Britain, Europe and the international community to engage constructively with the middle east. I do not wish to focus on how we got to the present impasse or spend time looking at who is to blame. We must try to dissect the true nature and depth of the present crisis and examine the role that Britain, the EU and the international community can play in moving forward the agenda about the future of the middle east.
The elements of the present crisis in the middle east are clear. There is a humanitarian crisis on an unprecedented scale, even for a region where bloodshed has been the constant companion of century-long conflict. Since the start of the second intifada, in September 2000, more than 1,000 people have been

27WH
killed, many of them women and children, and 80 per cent. of them Palestinian. The number of Israelis killed in the conflict has increased three times since Ariel Sharon became Prime Minister of Israel. The death rate is higher than at any time in the contemporary period of the conflict.
As the number of deaths increases, so does the record of physical, economic and social damage on both sides. The number of Palestinians who live in absolute poverty on less than $2 a day has more than doubled and, according to the latest World Bank figures, is more than 50 per cent. of the population. Some 100,000 Palestinian jobs have been lost in Israel, and 60,000 jobs have been lost in the West Bank and Gaza strip because of the closures policy. One in five Israelis now live below the poverty line, a figure that has increased by 10 per cent. from last year. Unemployment in Israel has risen to nearly 10 per cent. as the Israeli economy slows down in the face of global recession and as a direct result of the political and security crisis.
The political and security crisis is the most important element of the current crisis. The Israeli deputy head of military intelligence, Brigadier-General Yossi Kuperwasser, visited the House of Commons yesterday with Rear-Admiral Meshita, head of naval intelligence. I asked him whether he had abandoned all hope of peace. He said that he had not, but that no peace could be made with Yasser Arafat. However, Arafat more than anyone symbolises, and even personifies, to the international community Palestinian hopes and dreams for a Palestinian state. He told me that Arafat ordered the Karine A boat directly from Iran in collaboration with Hezbollah. That serious allegation threatens to escalate further the violence and the security crisis in the middle east.
Sadly, I could not attend the meeting, but I received the report, of Shimon Peres's visit to the House of Commons last July. He asked us what Israelis could do in the face of such terrorist atrocities and to stop the suicide bombers. Even before the atrocities of 11 September in America, none of us had a reply. One more Palestinian, Raed Mahmoud Karmi, was killed in a car bomb explosion yesterday. He was accused of having killed six Israelis. Another Israeli was killed yesterday, and so the cycle repeats itself. However, the outcome of the Israeli reprisals is to push Hamas increasingly into the mainstream to the point at which they seem to enjoy support of almost 40 per cent. If the strategy continues, Hamas may become the leading element in the Palestinian territories. The Palestinians fear that that is the Israeli Government's political objective. They believe that Israel knows that the international community will line up against Hamas but will not do so against Arafat. If that is the Israeli agenda, the prospect of a further deterioration in the security situation is great.
The nub of the political crisis is the crisis of leadership and the corresponding crisis of confidence on both sides in each other's leaderships. In the face of this crisis, the European Union External Relations Commissioner, Chris Patten, said in a statement to the European Parliament on 12 December 2001:
"We need to focus our efforts on how to prevent the death of the peace process itself".
28WH
A pessimistic Palestinian view is that there seems to be no Israeli Government agenda for negotiation and peace. Instead, the agenda seems to be to undermine Arafat and the Palestinian Authority as a precursor to undermining the idea of a Palestinian state. However, it is Arafat himself who embodies the aspiration for a Palestinian state. The existence of a Palestinian authority keeps alive the prospect of achieving that state through negotiation. To lose sight altogether of the dream of a future Palestinian state or to destroy the organisation—the Palestinian Authority—that could negotiate a lasting peace with the Israelis would plunge the Palestinian territories into a permanent state of anarchy, the middle east into a permanent state of war and would massively compromise Israeli security for years to come. If that is where the process is leading, it is leading towards the edge of an abyss.
From the Israeli side, a pessimistic view would say that Arafat has no game plan. Moderate Israelis feel let down; they hold Arafat responsible for encouraging support for extremist groups not just in the Palestinian territories, but in Israel as well. Moderate Israelis have lost faith in Arafat as a leader and potential partner in peace. They insist that he must go and that the international community should apply pressure on him to do so. They accept that Arafat may be under effective house arrest in Ramallah for years. If that pessimistic view prevails, it will be damaging from the point of view of trust. There will be more bombs, and the only people to gain will be the extremists.
I have tried to present the bleakest scenarios from both the Israeli and Palestinian sides. I want now to turn to the question of whether it is possible to take a more optimistic view. That is not to take an unrealistic view, but to tell the story with a more optimistic sense of the potentialities that may yet be developed. Can we dare to believe that there is a way of going from a lose-lose situation back to a win-win situation? To put it another way: is there a way back to the peace process?
We can take some heart from the recent example of Pakistan. General Musharraf has impressed the Indians and increased his own credibility not just with what he has said as leader, but with what he has done and how he has behaved. Can we learn from that recent experience in trying to de-escalate a conflict and reduce violence, and apply that lesson to the middle east? A second reason to be optimistic is based on the idea that there is widespread consensus, even in Israel, about what the end point of the peace process should look like. Israel must have complete security guaranteed within its borders, and Palestinians must be able to live in peace and dignity within their own state, which will incorporate most of the West Bank and have shared sovereignty over Jerusalem. Most people agree that security for Israel and justice for all the historic peoples of the middle east are the essential building blocks for stability and peace.
One reason why many people, even on the Israeli left, do not trust Arafat is because they believe that he has talked too often about deals and temporary measures rather than fundamental reform. The Israelis do not believe that Arafat can deliver reform, and now is the time for him to show that he can. That will be difficult to do as he is under effective house arrest in Ramallah and does not have the authority and resources needed to carry out effective action. The little authority and

29WH
resources that he has are under continuous attack. The Israelis and Sharon must understand that the policy of prevention is not working. Since Sharon has been Prime Minister, three times as many Israelis have been killed in terrorist attacks. Sharon talks again and again about making pacts with leading Palestinian families and producing a village league system, but that will never come about because of the strong and indestructible sense of Palestinian national identity.
Sharon must show flexibility. He must release Arafat from house arrest. Arafat must show that he can restrain the suicide bombers and bring about a cessation of violence and a complete disbanding of all terrorist organisations. He will need to go further. We should examine textbooks and the approach to the curriculum in Palestinian schools, and look to revise history books to accept the existence of the state of Israel. We must monitor Palestinian television and media to ensure that suicide bombers are no longer glorified.
It is not easy to put pressure on either Arafat or Sharon and, in current circumstances, we are right to be cautious of doing so because it might have perverse effects. However, we must encourage Arafat and Sharon to realise that the way forward lies in their hands. Pakistan and India further illustrate the point. It is in the interest of both sides to de-escalate the conflict. Only then can we start to find a way back to the Mitchell process and the road to peace.
One of the most positive aspects of the Mitchell plan was that it linked Israeli security with the idea that Arafat needs a political lever to get out of this mess. The lever in Mitchell was to be the lifting of closures and a freeze on settlement building—in other words, an end to taking any more land. The political levers to de-escalate the conflict are not yet in hand, but we must look for them or try to create them.
In the final part of my speech, I wish to comment on the role that Britain, the EU and the international community can and should play in creating the levers to help resolve the present crisis. Difficult though it is to act, the fundamental case for the international community taking action is clear. As I said, we should be cautious about the pressure that we seek to apply, but we should also resist the temptation to stand back completely.
Since the November suicide bombings, the international community has tended to pull back from engagement. We must resist, for that way lies a counsel of despair. It is not easy to know what we should do in such a crisis, but it is far better to act. The key issue is how, not whether, we should get involved. The crisis in the middle east is a threat to international security, not just an issue between Palestinians and Israelis. Other states—such as Jordan, which has 40 per cent. of the refugee population, and Lebanon—may get sucked into the conflict. If there were another terrorist atrocity in the west, the situation could get much worse.
We should recognise that Britain has not just a humanitarian duty, but a strategic interest. If things go wrong, it may damage, perhaps irreparably, the international coalition against terrorism. We also have historic ties through the former exercise of the British mandate and through our role in the treaties that reshaped the middle east at the end of the first world war.
30WH
The Prime Minister has been active in the middle east in the autumn through his shuttle diplomacy. Since the latest waves of suicide bombings in November and early December, it has become more difficult to play that role, but it is important not to give the impression that our middle east policy is being blown off course by contradictory winds that seem to blow from Europe, America or indeed the middle east itself. We must show consistency and coherence. How can we expect Palestinians and Israelis to do so if we are not prepared to do the same?
The Israeli Government would like to see Britain play a bigger role in putting pressure on Arafat. As Foreign Minister Peres has said, speaking on Israeli radio on 6 January:
"We would like a united front, worldwide, that stands against terror. If instead of choosing terror (as the target), we shall choose Arafat, we shall never have a united front."
A common Israeli complaint about the EU is that Europeans fail to understand Israel's need for a cast-iron security response and a security guarantee before it can act. It is not difficult to see why the Americans are left to play the leading role at the present time, and we should support General Zinni in his mission. However, the engagement of Britain and the European Union is essential to producing a balanced response from the international community and the influence of Britain and Europe could be the key to making the optimistic view that I have outlined prevail.
Part of the difficulty is that the EU is simply not seen as having the clout to influence the peace process or a return to it. It can be the financial backer of the Palestinian Authority, but only the US is seen as able to push things through politically. Despite the EU's economic might, it has not generally been thought to have enough political muscle to pull any levers in the region. Nevertheless, the EU has been trying, through the work of External Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten and the EU's High Representative Solana, to play a constructive role in retrieving the achievements of the Oslo process and bringing the parties back to the road to peace as outlined in the Mitchell report. It has sought all the time to take a balanced approach.
The Council of Ministers has called on the Palestinian Authority to dismantle Hamas and Jihad and to bring those who commit terrorist acts to justice. It has also called on Israel to withdraw its military forces, end the extra judicial killings, lift the closures and restrictions on Palestinian people and end the bombing of property and infrastructure. However, its calls, especially to the pro-Palestinian side of the declaration, fall on deaf Israeli ears. There is nevertheless a lot the EU can do and has done in economic terms. In recent months, more than 108 million euros has been given to the Palestinian Authority, in addition to more than 3 billion euros that was invested in the West Bank and Gaza Strip since 1994. The EU has also recognised the importance of backing the Palestinian Authority as the only structure capable of providing basic services and a minimum of security guarantees, and the only alternative to anarchy and increasing support for Hamas and Jihad.
The EU has done more than anyone else to promote elections, the fight against corruption and the rule of law in the Palestinian territories. It is right, especially at this time of acute crisis, that it should continue to seek to promote moderation and pluralism, trying not to let the

31WH
Palestinian Authority collapse and to fall into the hands of terrorists and extremists. The EU is a strong and benign influence in the area, but it lacks political clout. EU political influence would be greatly strengthened if Britain took more of a lead in shaping EU policy and initiatives in relation to the middle east. It would help to make the EU a player in middle east affairs and not just the organisation that helps to pay.
I want to leave plenty of time for other speakers to take part in the debate. There may be many points that hon. Members wish to make, both about the EU and Britain's role. I hope that they will also wish to make points about the role of international organisations and the international community. We have seen in the past that international observers and the fact-finding missions that were undertaken by the European Union under the Sharm el-Sheikh fact-finding initiative can play a particularly useful role. They can give a clearer, more objective analysis of what is going on in the middle east. Indeed, while they may not put direct pressure on the parties to the negotiation, they can shape the parameters of that negotiation.
The international agreements that have been made are just that: they are not simply agreements between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Not only do we have a stake in the outcome, but we are deeply involved in the process. The international community cannot walk away from that process. There may be calls for greater respect for international conventions by the Israelis as well as the Palestinians. Indeed, there may be calls for international observers to try to de-escalate the violence and to find the road to peace.
I have concentrated on the enhanced role which I believe the EU can play under British leadership, especially given the key role that Britain can play by linking European and American initiatives. I hope that colleagues will comment on the wider international dimension.
Perhaps I might conclude with the words of Henry Siegman, a respected middle east expert and senior research fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York. In December, he wrote in the International Herald Tribune:
"An Israeli strategy of countering terrorism that relies solely on counter-terrorism and greater repression will not produce greater security for Israel's citizens. To the contrary, such a limited strategy will predictably produce only greater loss of Israeli lives. Policies which reinforce the despair of Palestinians by killing their hope for an end to the occupation will inevitably fuel escalating violence."
The Government must push to keep the present crisis in the middle east at the top of the international agenda; the international community must remain engaged. We must think creatively and for the long term about what we in Britain, in Europe and across the world can do to shape the conditions and parameters that will help the Palestinians and Israelis find the road back to peace. Nothing short of that will secure stability, human rights and justice in the region. Thank you, Mr. O'Hara, for allowing me to initiate the debate.
11.26 am
Mr. Ernie Ross: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) on securing the debate and allowing us to discuss an issue that most of us have spent all of our political lives trying to deal with. Listening to my hon. Friend trying to be even-handed, I was reminded of my party, which has always alleged that its position is even-handed and balanced. However, we are dealing not with two rights and two wrongs, but only with one right and one wrong. Israel has occupied the West Bank and Gaza since its invasion in 1967. It is breaking international law. Until Israel ends its occupation, there can be no peace; that is as clear as the nose on anyone's face. All the attempts to try to talk around that fact and find some other way forward are nonsense.
Part of the problem has been that successive Governments, including previous Labour Governments, have tried to be balanced. One cannot be balanced with a country that does not accept the application of international law. We could spend hours reviewing and arguing about various events that have taken place since 1967: assaults, terrorist attacks, resistance to occupation, closures, demolition. However, Israel does not accept that it is breaking international law; therein lies the problem.
Unless and until we have an American Administration that will tell the Israelis in blunt terms that they must end their illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, there will be no peace in the middle east. We all know that; it is time that we said it. The events of the past few months have demonstrated that we will not make progress unless we speak honestly in this place.
The Minister for Europe has more experience than most of us in arguing such a case. He comes from South Africa, a country in which grave injustice existed, and he grew up fighting the apartheid movement. If he were released from the chains that bind him, his comments this morning would be much more helpful to the Israelis and the Palestinians. However, the realities of his office mean that he will attempt to be balanced. There is no way that we can have a balanced debate.
The only occasion on which Israel has ever done what the international community recognised as right was when James Baker, the then United States Secretary of State in the Government of President Bush's father, told it in no uncertain terms what it had to do. He made it clear to an American-Israeli committee that there would be no $10,000 million for a housing programme unless the Israelis entered negotiations with the Palestinians, so we had the Madrid negotiations. The Israeli leadership who went to Madrid had no intention of making them successful, but at least they were forced to go by the American Administration's clear determination not to give that money otherwise. That forced the Israelis to accept some form of reality.
We should be trying today to point the way forward. Can there be peace? Yes, but only if Israel accepts the Palestinians as cultural, political and practical equals. The imbalance in the argument is overwhelming: Israel is the fourth or fifth ranked military power in the world. We see F16s used against a civilian population and the demolition that results. We see the Israelis' capacity to

33WH
break into zone A areas, which were allegedly under the Palestinian Authority's control, with impunity. They used to roll through the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon—UNIFIL—in southern Lebanon with the same excuse.
The Israeli Prime Minister has a history, which we all know. He was in charge of Israeli defence forces when Israel invaded the Lebanon in June 1982, and it is worth reminding people of what happened. In a debate at the United Nations, Israel claimed that the Palestinians were responsible for 150 infractions or activities against Israel, despite the fact that George Shultz, the then American Secretary of State, had an agreement with the Palestinians that there would be no incursions into Israel from Lebanon. Despite the fact that there had been no incursions, Israel invaded Lebanon. What was the purpose of the invasion? As the leopard has not changed his spots, so the purpose was to try to get rid of the Palestine Liberation Organisation and Arafat and to leave the Palestinians, who were living under occupation, without a body that could negotiate on their behalf.
That action did not succeed in 1982 and it will not succeed today. Yasser Arafat is the elected leader of the Palestinian people, whether Ariel Sharon or, indeed, we like it or not. To our credit, we have always made it clear that any attack on Arafat would not have our support, but we are not doing enough to sustain his position. Picking up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, how can Arafat exercise control over militants in the Palestinian community if he is locked up in Ramallah? Listening to Foreign Office spokesmen, however, we might imagine that he has a magic wand that he can wave. When the security forces that Arafat employs are attacked and the Israeli defence forces indicate that anyone seen in a uniform will be shot, how can he exercise control over the Palestinian people? The whole idea is nonsense.
If there is to be peace, the Israelis must start treating their Palestinian opposites as equals. They need to sit down seriously and allow them to negotiate. Only then will peace be possible. The minimum action required to bring peace is an end to occupation. We need a clear statement from the Israelis, not one about some mythical land for peace that means that they want to retain large parts of the West Bank. We need a real determination to end occupation in its entirety. If the people who live in the settlements now want to stay there, the Palestinians would be happy for them to live there in a Palestinian state, but the Israeli Government must tell the settlers that either they come back to what we all accept and recognise is the state of Israel, or they will have to live in a Palestinian state, with all its implications.
The Israelis will have to stop the settlement building. Even Colin Powell, in his speech in Kentucky on 19 November, recognised that settlement activity has severely undermined Palestinian trust and hope. He said:
"Israeli settlement activity has severely undermined Palestinian trust and hope. It pre-empts and prejudges the outcomes of negotiations and, in doing so, cripples chances for real peace and security. The United States has long opposed settlement activity. Consistent with the report of the Committee headed by Senator George Mitchell, settlement activity must stop."
34WH
Yet it is not stopping; all sorts of reasons are being found for the existing settlements to be expanded. The settlements must end.
As anyone who is honestly trying to tackle the issue knows, the third and most difficult part for the Israelis is to recognise the right of Palestinian refugees to self-determination as laid down in resolution 194, the right to say that they want to return to the place that they came from. Our side has been trying to help the Israelis to understand that recognising the rights of Palestinian refugees is not such a big threat to them.
I recommend the report "Right of Return" that the joint parliamentary middle east Committees sent to all hon. Members. It quotes verbatim the words of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Palestine; they accept that Israel exists and that some of the homes to which they want to return are in the state of Israel. However, the report also makes it clear that the Palestinians understand their rights as refugees; they want to live in peace but they want Israel to recognise their rights. I recommend the publication to colleagues who are members of the Labour Friends of Israel group and to other hon. Members; I ask them to listen to the voices of Palestinians living in the most abject conditions saying that despite many years as refugees, they want to live in peace with their Israeli counterparts. If an Israeli Government were brave enough to accept that, we could look forward to discussions taking place, and a settlement in the middle east peace process, which many of us have worked for for most of our political lives.
11.38 am
Richard Burden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) on securing the debate and on his approach to the subject.
I have been to the part of the world that we are discussing several times in the past few years, most recently in October last year, when Israeli tanks were on the streets of Bethlehem, and I saw the devastation of homes and businesses. In Gaza, where olive groves once stood but which is now wasteland, I saw the contrast with the lush green Israeli settlements beyond. My party was mobbed by children in the town of Khan Yunis, where they lived and played in the wreckage of bullet and shell-scarred buildings that were once Palestinian homes. That never fails to shock me; however often I go there, I am not immune to it. It is strange for a politician to say it, but I was lost for words when people there asked me what we were doing to stop what had been happening to them, not for weeks or months, but for decades. When we come back to this country, we come back to the west. We know that it is important, but strangely the debate changes. The human tragedy, the actual effect on real people seems to diminish in importance, and it suddenly becomes a matter of high diplomacy, of what is possible and what is not possible among leaders. Remembering a Palestinian woman who asked, "What are you actually doing about it?" one becomes very humbled.
My hon. Friend is right when he says that, for an agreement to come out of this, both sides need to want it. I am reminded of the comment of the well-known Israeli peace campaigner, Uri Aunery, who was in

35WH
Parliament a few weeks ago and who said that the trouble was that one either has a monologue or a dialogue. A monologue is where one person talks to himself, and a dialogue is where two people talk to themselves. That is a problem that has often blighted this conflict. We must grasp the issue of balance, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) mentioned, and he was right to do so. We have not adopted a balanced approach to the crisis. In trying to adopt a position that is conventionally regarded as balanced, the fundamentally unequal situation is not balanced at all. It allows oppression to go on.
In an article in The Guardian in October, Polly Toynbee picked up the matter and compared the different treatments of two brutal and appalling assassinations: one by Israeli security forces of Abu Ali Mustafa, the leader of the PFLP, and one of Israeli Cabinet Minister, Ze'evi. Both were extremists, both were uncompromising and both were prepared to use violence. However, one was described as a human tragedy. Ze'evi may have been an extremist, but he had a family. He was a human being. As Polly Toynbee put it, he had a hinterland. When it came to the PFLP leader, however, he was just a political leader. The focus was not on him—no one knew whether he had a family or a wife—but on the political impact.
Stalin once said that one death is a tragedy, but a million deaths is a statistic. That is the problem with that part of the world: people on both sides have been responsible for appalling levels of violence. Let us work out the scale of that. Since the start of the intifada, 911 Palestinians have died. As a proportion of the population of the West Bank and Gaza, that is the equivalent of 16,000 people dying in the United Kingdom, or 75,000 people dying in the United States.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon rightly says that this issue should not be put on the back burner. But are we honestly saying that if 16,000 people died in this country, or 75,000 people in the United States, we would regard it simply as an issue of high diplomacy rather than as something that needed to be tackled urgently? We must be clear about such matters.
It is right that we call for an end to violence, but we need to say clearly to Israel that it cannot call for an end to violence on one side while continuing with an assassination policy—another assassination occurred yesterday. It is unacceptable and it undermines opportunities for peace. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon said, the actions of Sharon, and all too often the actions of groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, are each other's best recruiting sergeants.
Israel has an unconditional right to live in peace within secure borders. However, the international community must insist that Israel cannot demand that unconditional right for itself while assuming that it has discretion over whether anyone else has rights in that part of the world. Just imagine the outcry if a Palestinian group went into Israeli Government buildings in Jerusalem and took Sharon hostage at gunpoint in his office, and then said that they would not allow him to move out of that office unless he arrested those responsible for the assassination of Palestinian leaders. What would the international response be to that? Yet,
36WH
is it acceptable, or is it not that Israel holds in virtual house arrest President Arafat with tanks at the door of his Ramallah offices?
International law needs to be respected in that part of the world as elsewhere. My hon. Friend is right to say that that means an end to occupation. It also means that, while occupation is in existence, the provisions of the fourth Geneva convention need to be respected. The convention forbids collective punishment of people, yet the demolition of 58 homes in Rafah last week breaches that convention. Article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention prevents an occupying power from transferring parts of its civilian population to occupied territory. The settlements contravene that convention. The UK is a high contracting party to that convention, and in December some high contracting parties met, although the meeting was boycotted by Israel and the United States. It was good that most parties met and that they said that the breaches of the Geneva convention must end. However, non-governmental organisations were disappointed and argued that there is no enforcement mechanism. We must address that urgently.
I would like to address my last point to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe. Israel has preferential trade relations with the European Union, under the EU-Israel Association agreement. It imports into the EU goods, under preference, produced in settlements in the occupied territories: settlements that are illegal under international law. That breaches the EU agreement, as Ministers have acknowledged several times. When Israel has been questioned about those imports, it has not answered fully requests for information from the EU. I have tabled several questions to my right hon. Friend and other Ministers about that agreement. In November, the EU-Israel Association Council met to consider those matters. I know that my right hon. Friend and the EU are concerned about the matter, but what are we doing about it? If Israel is refusing to answer questions fully, what are we doing to monitor what is coming into the EU that may be illegal under the agreement? If it is not possible to monitor that process properly, and it relies on the co-operation of a state that is prepared to breach the agreement in such a flagrant manner, the EU should consider whether the EU-Israel Association agreement can continue. I hope that my right hon. Friend will address that matter when he sums up.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon on securing the debate. The matter is of huge importance to world peace, and to our credibility in large parts of the world. If we want to bring about a just peace, it is time to move on from simply demanding talks and an end to the violence. We must do that, but we must also call a spade a spade. We must consider the essential elements of peace, and apply to the middle east the sort of standards that we apply to many other parts of the world.
11.48 am
Mr. Neil Gerrard: My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) began the debate by questioning whether there was a way forward. I agree with the last two speakers. We cannot move forward as long as the Israeli Government have a political agenda to destabilise the Palestinian Authority

37WH
and Yasser Arafat—they have done that by labelling him as a terrorist and refusing to allow him to visit Bethlehem last Christmas.
In the short term, everyone wants an end to violence and a willingness to return to talks, but that will not happen as long as peace moves are accompanied by impossible demands or artificial timetables—for example, saying that talks will not begin until seven days without violence have passed, in the knowledge that assassinations will continue regardless. If we had taken that approach to Northern Ireland and said that we would not enter into any political discussions as long as there was violence from whatever source, we would still not have started negotiations or made political progress.
Something may be gained in the short term from trying to persuade both sides to accept international observers in the occupied territories. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) was right to say that the United Kingdom must be plain about the possible terms for any long-term settlement. Simply saying that we need to return to the terms of the Oslo agreement is not the basis for a long-term agreement. That long-term agreement would have to be on the basis of UN resolutions and international law, and is not just about an end to settlement building.
We are still at the stage of talking about the need to end the expansion of settlements. However, we need to return to the fundamental fact that every settlement in the West Bank and Gaza is illegal. There are only two options: either those settlements go or, as my hon. Friend said, their inhabitants live in a Palestinian state and under the control of that state rather than that of some occupying army that believes that it can walk in at any time and do what it likes.
Anyone who has visited the region, seen the settlements on the hilltops in the West Bank and the water that is being taken, and has contrasted that with what happens in Gaza and the conditions there, knows that peace will not happen while those conditions prevail. There have been suicide bombings, but much of the fighting and many of the killings over the past few months have occurred around those settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. They are the focus of the problem.
The other big issue that must be addressed in the long term is refugees. My hon. Friend and I were involved in the report to which he referred. People have lived in refugee camps in Lebanon and Gaza for years and see no prospect of getting out of those terrible conditions. It is evident that unless something is done to deal with the problem, there will be no lasting peace. We must recognise the imbalance. It is no good saying that we will be even handed in a situation that is not even handed by its nature. Rather than talking simply about what is needed in the short term to get negotiations going again to achieve a ceasefire—we are doing too much of that—we must speak plainly about what is needed in the long term.
11.53 am
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) for securing the debate at a crucial time. The Government must address the injustices that empower those who use political extremism and violence to advance their cause. The Taliban's defeat does not make
38WH
the world a safer place. The poverty and injustice that fuel terrorism remain. It beggars belief that at a time when the United States, Britain and the west build alliances to counter terrorism, the Israeli Prime Minister has reacted with brutal force against the Palestinian people.
Since the tragic events of 11 September, there have been widespread violations of basic human rights by Israeli security forces against Palestinians. Settlements continue to be developed on disputed land, while tanks have rolled into Gaza and the West Bank. Since 1967, Israel has continued to contravene the United Nations charter and resolutions, but successive US Administrations have ignored it. It is the single biggest obstacle to peace in Palestine, with American policy causing resentment and fuelling terrorist violence and bloodshed.
In the west, we rightly criticise nations with no respect for human rights, but are reluctant to criticise Israel. Last month, young children died in Israeli missile attacks aimed at a Palestinian extremist wanted by Israel. Ariel Sharon has exercised force with no concern for casualties among the wider population. Innocent bystanders are always the victims, whether they are caught in the latest missile attack on the Gaza strip or trapped by a suicide bomber on a bus or in a cafe. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary assured us that Britain would remain even handed. To achieve that, our Government must not remain blind to the Israeli abuses exposed in recent weeks.
Amnesty International has shown the clear failure to halt torture of Palestinian prisoners, and the United Nations children fund—UNICEF—has expressed concerns about 160 children held in Israeli jails who regularly suffer violence. I fully support the condemnation of the sickening suicide bombers, but it should not be followed by a grudging acceptance of Sharon's actions. Will the Minister assure me that the Prime Minister's goal of recognition for a Palestinian state existing peacefully alongside Israel remains a genuine aspiration for the Government and not one that has been shelved?
Palestinian leaders are vital allies in the struggle against terrorism. By offering no support at this vital time, Britain and the US help only those who seek to marginalise and weaken Arafat. That is not only Sharon and hardliners in his Administration, but the violent extremists among the Palestinians and wider Arab communities. We are fast losing the trust of the Palestinian people, and rebuilding that trust will require swift action and genuine gestures of support. We must tackle injustice in Palestine and elsewhere. It is patently obvious that sanctions on Iraq have not been successful. The Iraqi people have been weakened, but Saddam Hussein has been strengthened. How can sanctions benefit any of us when their impact bolsters a dictator while children suffer and die in poverty? The continuing dispute over Kashmir presents a real threat to peace and stability. It must be addressed by not only India and Pakistan but the wider world. My hon. Friend the

39WH
Member for Wimbledon commented about the leadership of President Musharraf. He is right; President Musharraf has taken a bold step—
Mr. Edward O'Hara: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying far beyond the scope of this debate at the moment.
Mr. Sarwar: Thank you, Mr. O'Hara.
We will never win the hearts and minds of the oppressed people in any of those countries without facing up to our responsibilities as a key partner of the United States and a leading nation in Europe. The Western allies let down people in the middle east after the Gulf war, and they must not be let down again. The consequences will be terrible if Britain and our allies in the west fail to engage fully with nations in the region.
Key allies of the US such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia are growing increasingly frustrated at the United States' failure to exert pressure on Israel to implement UN resolutions 242 and 338. Crown Prince Abdullah stated that Saudi Arabia stood at the side of the US around the globe, but recently told President Bush that he had made no effort to rein in Israel. I welcome the Prime Minister's renewed commitment to tackle terrorism and its causes, but urge our Government to redouble their efforts where injustice fuels violent extremism and threatens us all.
11.59 am
Mr. Michael Moore: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I congratulate the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) on securing this debate on a crucial issue at a crucial time. He made a thoughtful contribution and explained the development over time of the many intricacies of the conflict. We have heard passionate contributions from hon. Members who have taken issue with the notion of even-handedness, and have made powerful arguments about the difficulties that have befallen the Palestinian communities in the middle east. I hope that I shall not depart from an even-handed approach as I develop my brief thoughts and set out the Liberal Democrat position on the current crisis.
We have witnessed a cycle of despair, hope and renewed despair over many years with gruelling regularity. Over the weeks, months and years, the cycle has a familiar ring to it. The latest reports have struck a depressing note. The optimism felt before Christmas when Yasser Arafat's clampdown of 16 December was announced has given way in the past couple of weeks to more killings and revenge. It seems a long way from the hopes expressed by the Mitchell commission and the Oslo agreement before it.
On the face of it, the Mitchell commission did not seek very much. It saw the restoration of trust as essential, and wanted an unconditional cessation of violence and the resumption of security co-operation with cooling-off periods and confidence-building measures. Confidence on either side is now at a low ebb. Even-handedness has taken a pasting in the debate, but it is essential. The Government of Israel should recall that it was agreed at the Mitchell commission that all settlement activity, including the natural growth of existing settlements,
40WH
should be frozen and that the Israelis should stop destroying homes. Equally, the agreement made it clear that terrorism was reprehensible and that the Palestinian Authority should make a 100 per cent. effort to prevent terrorist operations and to punish perpetrators. As we heard this morning, that has not come without difficulties.
The difficulties facing all sides seeking a peaceful solution to the middle east crisis are not insignificant. We heard earlier about how many deaths have accompanied the crisis: more than 600—some say more than 800—Palestinians and nearly 200 Israelis have died. Those are shocking figures, both proportionately and absolutely. The trust mentioned by Mitchell clearly does not exist.
In recent months the international position has exerted an increasing influence. The cloud of 11 September still lingers, and the events of that day have been used by both sides to exploit middle east politics. The tragedy of 11 September was not the cause of conflict in the middle east, but has been used as an excuse and makes the need for a solution all the more pressing.
Concern remains about the spread of the conflict beyond Afghanistan and the middle east, perhaps to countries such as Iraq. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, we must make it clear—especially with our Government standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States—that we would disapprove of any extension of the conflict beyond Afghanistan in the absence of incontrovertible evidence, particularly of the consequences for the middle east.
In the sharp focus of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the prospects for peace might seem blurred. However, for all the worries about it, proper dialogue is the only solution. In seeking peace, we should consider the steps set out by Senator Mitchell. Peace should be based on core principles and United Nations resolutions. We must recognise, as must the combatants, that Israel has the right to live in peace in secure, recognised boundaries, free from threats and acts of force, and that the Palestinians are entitled to justice, land and a viable state.
We have heard requests for plain speaking, which is vital with Israel. Israel must freeze settlement building and desist from armed incursions into Palestinian areas. If we are to resolve the murderous disputes, Israel must not continue to undermine Arafat. For its part, the Palestinian Authority must sustain efforts to root out terrorists in its own areas and put its own house in order. The responsibilities for those outside the middle east are enormous, and the international community must not lose sight of that.
In the past, expectations have been raised, only to be dashed. The primacy of international law has been proclaimed in Afghanistan, but has often been ignored in the middle east. After the Gulf war, significant progress was made. After 11 September, it was hoped that more progress would be made, but in recent days that optimism has faded away. Our Government, acting with EU partners and in alliance with the United States, have a responsibility to ensure a return to dialogue and to keep striving for peace.
12.7 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan: I thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) for securing the debate. It reflects well on the House that Members take an interest in a vital region: the greatest of Gordian knots in foreign affairs. I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said.
I come to the debate having worked for 20 years in the oil trade, conducting extensive business in the Arabian Gulf and Pakistan. Members will find a full list of my past connections in the Register of Members' Interests. More recently, I spent the new year in Oman as a guest of the Government, and I discussed the present middle east situation with many prominent Ministers, catching the end of the Gulf Co-operation Council meeting, which was held in Muscat. My background puts me in the unusual position of being a Front-Bench spokesman at severe risk of knowing what he is talking about.
The deterioration in relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority last December turned the eyes of the world once again to a dispute that is the backdrop to all middle eastern affairs. It is a dispute with energies and passions that we would prefer to see channelled into efforts for peace and stability. Millions of Palestinians feel humiliated and stateless; millions of Israelis feel threatened and insecure. We must address that reality and look across the Arabian peninsula to a groundswell of dangerous resentment against regimes unwilling to adapt to the Times. In our attitude towards Israel and Palestine, we must beware of taking up entrenched positions that we refuse to revise subsequently. We must find a way of diluting the polarisation of opinion between pro-Israelis and pro-Arabs. In a world where conflict resolution should be a top priority for us all, it is not nonsense to declare that one is pro both when faced with a choice between Israelis and Arabs. If one is pro peace, there is no alternative. Such a view is in no way incompatible with condemning violence by whichever side against innocent civilians.
In December, the Conservative party and President Bush condemned the sickening suicide bombings in Israel. We called on Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority to act swiftly, not only to detain those directly responsible for terrorist acts, but to ensure that all suspects were immediately brought into custody. We did so because such terrorist actions can only put the peace process at risk. The de-escalation of terrorist attacks after Yasser Arafat's call to militants on 16 December shows that he still has influence, which he must be committed to wielding. The Palestinian Authority must accept its responsibilities and show that it will not hide behind a smokescreen of excuses for inaction. Similarly, there can be no progress without security for Israel within clear and internationally recognised borders, an unreserved recognition of the state of Israel's right to exist, and a Palestinian willingness to place the Palestinian right of return to Israel on the agenda for reconsideration and modification. There can be neither progress nor peace without a halt to the suicide attacks and terrorist outrages or a genuine will to make concessions and build trust.
The events of 11 September were tragic, and the horror echoed around the world. However, we may find some good in that day if we learn the lessons. We must strive to persuade those who feel deeply disillusioned
42WH
and resentful that radical terrorist groups, such as Islamic Jihad or Hezbollah, are not the answer. They are perversions of Islam, not spokesmen for it. We must address perceived Arab grievances and respect Arab opinion. There can be no lasting prosperity and security in the middle east until a compromise is brokered between Israeli and Arab positions, mutual fears are met with confidence-building measures, and the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people are met for a viable Palestinian state. Anthony Zinni and Javier Solana are two respected envoys and able negotiators who are on the ground to press the case for peace. A framework is also embodied in former senator George Mitchell's peace plan that has been agreed by all sides.
I want to make the Conservative party's position clear in relation to the proposals. George Mitchell urges Israel and the Palestinians to
"reaffirm their commitment to existing agreements".
He calls for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, for Palestinians to crack down on terrorism and for Israel to freeze all new construction of settlements. The plan has a framework for peace and progress. I have already stressed the vital importance of the guaranteed security of Israel, but in recognising the need for a Palestinian state we must make it clear that the process is two-sided.
All too often, Palestinians feel humiliated and stateless. Israel's frequent incursions into Gaza and the West Bank make them feel powerless and vulnerable. The Palestinians are a proud and historic people, and there can be no long-term peace until that wrong is put right. Self-determination was mentioned earlier, and is often touted as the answer to easing concerns. However, without a clear definition of what a viable Palestinian state would entail, self-determination risks becoming meaningless.
The hope that was evident on 16 October, when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that he would agree to an independent Palestinian state if Israel's security was guaranteed, has faded. I have no intention of apportioning blame, as that would serve no purpose. Instead, I look forward with hope that such proposals will resurface and that steps will be taken to define such a state. A viable state is one that is sufficiently large to meet the needs of its people, with a guarantee of sufficient resources from its neighbours, if not from within its own borders. Thus, Israel would have to make a commitment to maintain water and power supplies. It also means a state with maritime access, which, in this case, can only be through Gaza. The issue requires careful thought. Similar proposals were proffered at Camp David, and I hope that they are still in the minds of all parties.
However, a debate cannot begin until a full ceasefire is in place. Only that would provide the minimum level of trust needed for a peace process to recommence. The Palestinian Authority cannot renege on its responsibility to rein in terrorists who choose not to recognise Israel's right to exist and who choose not to allow Israel the security from neighbouring states that it has a right to expect.
I commented earlier on the potential instability of the Arabian Gulf. We should remember that the term "middle east" includes the Gulf. The states are all geopolitically linked, and instability in one part

43WH
destabilises the entire region. The backdrop of Arab-Israeli conflict is fundamental to political opinion in all the states. Regimes across the Arabian peninsula find that their capacity and readiness to change is outpaced by the relentless change in the wider world, which is sowing seeds of perilous instability within their borders. Some are attempting to change, but the process is painful and slow.
Iran is undergoing a transition, but it risks being messily derailed if the United States and the west misinterpret its progress and provoke a retrograde turn of events. We must be critical when necessary and continue to press for human rights, but we must also welcome attempts at Modernisation and progress that could lead to Iran's becoming a stable and unthreatening neighbour in the region.
By comparison, Iraq is led by a tyrant who, in addition to subjugating his own people, seems determined to threaten others. We must not flinch from tackling terrorism wherever it exists, but we must be wary of provoking instability and the possible disintegration of Iraq in a post-Saddam Hussein era. We must always be mindful of the strategic balance in the Gulf between a weakened Iraq and a resurgent Iran.
My experience of the Gulf Co-operation Council reveals a growing sense of the need for economic unity and freer markets to access the political and economic benefits of prosperity in the Gulf countries. Economic stability is vital to political stability in the region, and the uneven distribution of economic reward must be addressed, especially for a growing younger generation.
We must recognise Israel's right to exist; we must detail its recognised borders and guarantee its security. For the Palestinians, we must have a proper debate about what would constitute a viable Palestinian state and accept its right to exist. Only when deep-rooted grievances are tackled will the stability that is so vital to every country return to the middle east. It is up to our Government, as much as any other, to do everything that they can to further the process.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Minister will reply to this important debate.
12.19 pm
The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): I very much welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). It is the first time that I have had the pleasure of agreeing with everything that an Opposition spokesman says. Along with my colleagues, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) for initiating the debate. Sadly, we have all seen the cycle of violence and bloodshed in the middle east during the past 16 months, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) spoke eloquently about its tragic consequences. There have been far too many funerals, broken families and shattered lives. Unfortunately, both Israel and the Palestinian Authority have contributed to the crisis, and both have the responsibility to take steps to end the violence and resume political negotiations towards a permanent settlement. We, our European Union partners, the
44WH
United States and the United Nations are trying to help them take the steps towards a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement, not least because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon rightly said, the crisis represents a threat to international security.
We are encouraged by the engagement of the US in recent weeks. We support the vision of a two-state solution that was detailed by President Bush and developed further by US Secretary of State Colin Powell on 19 November. We welcome the strenuous diplomacy of US envoy General Anthony Zinni with both parties. His recent mission from 3 to 6 January opened up the opportunity for progress and raised some cautious optimism among those who have been closely involved. We have urged the US to continue its efforts. The Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), are urging the parties to do everything possible to prepare for the next stage, which is the implementation of the security plan proposed by CIA director George Tenet, as agreed by both parties. The Foreign Secretary has been in almost constant touch, by telephone and in person, with other Foreign Ministers throughout the world during the past few weeks, including during the Christmas and new year break.
We were concerned by the evidence that Palestinian officials were involved in the smuggling of weapons on the boat, the Karine A. However, it is important that the parties do not allow that affair to deflect them from consolidating the progress of recent weeks. We were concerned also by the recent attack by Hamas on Israeli soldiers on the edge of the Gaza Strip, although it is vital that that act does not lead to the renewal of the cycle of violence that we have seen hold the region in its bloody grip for most of the past 16 months.
Mr. Jim Murphy: While I accept that we cannot use the activities of Hamas as a reason to retrace our steps, will my right hon. Friend restate our Government's position that the Palestinian Authority should be doing more to clamp down, arrest and detain the extremists who are causing so much terror in the region?
Peter Hain: Yes. I will come to that point in a minute, but I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention.
Israelis entitled to ensure its own security, and Israelis must be able to live their lives without fear. However, Israel's actions must be proportionate to the threat. We urge it to act with restraint and look beyond the desire for revenge to a vision of a region at peace, which can be achieved only through negotiations. We urge Israel to resume such negotiations soon, and—this is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy)—the Palestinian Authority should at the same time deliver on its promise to end the violence and create the conditions for peace.
I realise that that is difficult. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) spoke about the problems faced by the Palestinian Authority, and he has selflessly promoted justice for the Palestinians over the decades. However, the Palestinian Authority must make a 100 per cent. effort to prevent further instances of violence. It must degrade the terrorist infrastructures of

45WH
Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, properly detain suspected terrorists and remove the threat that they pose to the stability of the region. Terrorism is unacceptable and must be rooted out. As the Prime Minister said, our efforts to counter terrorism worldwide must be accompanied by parallel and sustained efforts to reinvigorate the search for peace in the middle east.
There is a recognised route back to the negotiating table, which we and our European Union partners support. Despite all the setbacks of the past eight months since the publication of the Mitchell committee report, it remains the best and, indeed, only option. Both parties have accepted the recommendations of the Tenet security plan and Mitchell committee report, and they should be implemented without delay. Ultimately, peace between Israel and the Palestinians will come only through a political process on the basis of UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, and the principle of land for peace. That would deliver security for Israel within recognised borders, end the occupation and allow the emergence of a viable, democratic and peaceful Palestinian state.
I am happy to give the assurance requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar): the British Government remain unequivocally committed to an independent and viable Palestinian state, on which the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) argued.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we are fully engaged with the United States and our European Union partners in diplomatic efforts to move the peace process forward. The Prime Minister's special envoy, Lord Levy, has been involved in tireless diplomacy. He visited the region in December, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is there now.
European efforts are energetically led by Mr. Solana, the EU High Representative, who followed the Zinni mission with his own visit to the region between 6 and 9 January. He works within the framework of the Laeken European Council declaration, which reaffirms the package approach. It calls on the Palestinians to deliver on their commitments to end the violence and make arrests, and on Israel to cease actions such as the attacks on Palestinian infrastructure, which undermine the Palestinian Authority's ability to deliver.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) called for international observers, and we, the US and our EU partners believe that third-party monitors could help to overcome obstacles to the implementation of the Mitchell committee recommendations. For monitors to be successful, both parties would have to agree to their presence, and we hope that they will do so.
We are under no illusion about the enormously difficult issues that need to be resolved in negotiations. I re-emphasise that we have repeatedly called for a freeze
46WH
on Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories, including natural growth, under the terms of the Mitchell report. As my hon. Friend said, the settlements are illegal under international law and a real obstacle to peace. We also oppose Israeli closures in the occupied territories, which cause severe economic hardship and unemployment, in turn fuelling hatred and violence and making a comprehensive settlement much more difficult to achieve.
It has been suggested that we should have suspended the EU-Israel Association agreement because of concerns on rules of origin and human rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield asked what we were doing. We have repeatedly raised our concerns with the Israeli Government on political, legal and humanitarian grounds. We did so again with our EU partners at the EU-Israel Association council on 20 November in Brussels. There is evidence that goods from settlements are imported as of Israeli origin. With our EU partners and Israel, we have been working for a speedy and comprehensive solution to that issue in a way that is compatible with European Community law.
We have called on Israel to end its policy of incursions and declare an end to its practice of assassinations, which are illegal under international law and promote tension on the ground. I am sure that we all agree that that is not in Israel's long-term interests. Under the terms of the Tenet plan, Israel is required to end proactive security operations in the Palestinian Authority, and we hope that it will do so.
My hon. Friends have raised a number of issues that divide the two parties and that will need to be resolved in the final status negotiations, leading to a settlement that allows the emergence of a viable Palestinian state and that provides security for Israel. As I have said, two states existing peacefully alongside each other are the two pillars of any solution. The issues still to be resolved are many and include the status of Jerusalem, the right of return for refugees, and borders and natural resources.
This has been a sombre and serious debate, befitting the deadly seriousness of the issues. When I listen to or participate in such debates, I think that in our domestic politics we use words such as "emergency" or "crisis" rather too easily, compared with the awful difficulties encountered by people trying to resolve the problems of violence in the middle east. The Palestinian and Israeli people have suffered from violence and fear for far too long. Sooner or later they must return to the negotiating table, as the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) said. That is the only means of creating peace in the region and ending the terrible violence that blights lives and guarantees that generation after generation will grow up with a sense and feeling of hatred.

Landfill
12.30 pm
Mr. Boris Johnson: I am glad to be able to hold this debate in Westminster Hall. I have applied for it many times. My purpose is to ensure the preservation of a tax credit scheme that has been responsible for improving the lives of people in my constituency in south Oxfordshire in all sorts of unexpected and unsuspected ways and has acted with great sensitivity to local needs and interests. I see that the Annunciator says that Mr. Alan Johnson is speaking. I take no offence. For the purposes of this debate, Mr. Winterton, I am Alan Johnson. You may call me Alan, if you so choose.[Interruption.] Oh, there I am now.
The wonderful landfill tax credit scheme dates back to 1996 and those halcyon days when the Conservatives were in power. They set up the scheme, which works broadly as follows: people dumping huge quantities of waste in holes in the ground in Oxfordshire pay £12 per tonne of waste dumped, rising to £15 per tonne in 2004 for what is called putrescible or household waste. The dumper can recover 20 per cent. of that money if it is spent on various worthy environmental projects. There has been a wide interpretation of the schemes that may be so funded.
The Trust for Oxfordshire's Environment has been able to scatter plenty o'er a smiling land. Lychgates have been repaired; a Norman church in Crowmarsh Gifford has had its roof fixed; two magnificent play parks have been constructed in Berinsfield; a bridge has been built at an accident black spot; disabled access has been supplied at Sonning Common village hall and at several other village halls. Sometimes the sums involved can be considerable, such as the £50,000 that went to the fabled watercress beds at Ewelme; sometimes it is just a few hundred pounds. In all, TOE has spent £1.2 million in south Oxfordshire on more than 100 projects during the past four years.
It is a testimony to the popularity of the scheme in my constituency and in Oxfordshire generally, and the value that local people attach to it, that my constituents have been alarmed to hear that it might be under threat. I have received a great many letters asking whether TOE can continue to scatter its plenty. That is the question that I should like the Minister to answer.
The Government, I am told, would like 65 per cent. of this money to go towards recycling projects. There is great merit in that. We in Britain have a poor record on recycling. We lag far behind our European friends and partners. We tend to dump far more into tips and holes than them, and some of the statistics are terrifying. Whatever hon. Members may think of the newspapers, which I sometimes write for, they may not know that it takes 50 years for a newspaper to rot away in a landfill site. It takes 500 years for a disposable nappy to disintegrate completely. That statistic is particularly bloodcurdling, when one considers that 4 per cent. of household waste is nappies.
We all support the proposition that the country should recycle much more than it does, but we cannot meet our obligations under the EU landfill directive by plundering the landfill tax credit scheme. Ernst & Young calculates that we would need £7 billion of capital
48WH
infrastructure investment in new, sophisticated incinerators to cope with the national waste strategies. The landfill tax credit scheme was worth only £ 109 million last year. There is no reason why 65 per cent. of the scheme's money should not go towards waste management and recycling, given that the total income of the scheme is likely to increase with the increase in the amount of money taken in landfill tax.
I have spoken briefly, but I hope that others will want to speak on this important subject. I hope that the lychgates and water meadows of my Oxfordshire constituency and others will not be sacrificed for the sake of compliance with some European directive—not that I have anything against its being European; perhaps I should refer rather to some bureaucratic desire to comply with the terms of a recycling measure.
The Trust for Oxfordshire's Environment has done a good job, as representations from all over my constituency confirm. It would be a great shame if its functions were taken over and subsumed by local authorities; I fear that in that case the money would not be truly additional and that schemes that benefit local people and greatly please many of my constituents would cease to be funded as they have been in the past.
My message to the Minister is, "Do not get rid of the Trust for Oxfordshire's Environment." In other words, "Don't step on TOE," if I may feebly go for a soundbite.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) I inform hon. Members that the ownership of the debate lies with the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson). Ownership is normally exchanged between the hon. Member who secured the debate and the Minister. It is the custom of the House that if other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate they clear it with the hon. Member concerned, with the Minister and with the occupant of the Chair. I shall call the hon. Member for Huddersfield because he has done so.
I may use my discretion to call the other hon. Gentlemen who are seeking to catch my eye, but it is important that the Minister should have adequate time to reply. He will let me know in the next moment or two how long he would like to reply, and whether he is happy for hon. Members who have not cleared it with him to participate in the debate.
12.37 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Thank you, Mr. Winterton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) on securing such an interesting debate and I thank him and the Minister for giving me permission to contribute to it.
I declare an interest. I chair an organisation called Urban Minds, which is one of the largest not-for-profit environmental groups in the United Kingdom. We carry out larger projects than those concerned with church roofs, lychgates and the other excellent work that is done with some of the money from the landfill tax credit scheme. We received £500,000 from the scheme for an innovative investigation into how brownfield land can be reused for other purposes. An expert team spent two

49WH
years finding out how to reclassify brownfield land for reuse, which is an important step in helping the Government and others who want that land to be brought back into use.
Urban Minds also creates new, profit-making businesses in the private sector that use waste as a raw material. Instead of regarding waste as rubbish, Urban Minds sees it as a new raw material that flows from our towns and cities, which should be used as a raw material, rather than digging holes in the earth's crust and using virgin material.
In terms of the history, I have been around from the very beginning. I saw what they called the Brown-Gummer plot, which was used to introduce this taxation. It was a break with the tradition of great hostility in the Treasury to hypothecating taxation. It was innovative, new, creative and very exciting. I agree with the hon. Member for Henley that it would be a great shame if it came to an end. It would in fact be the end of a bold and innovative experiment.
The tax has had enormous positive effects; for example, many community organisations have done wonderful things to enhance the beauty of the environment. As a result of the tax, many new wetland areas for wildfowl and birds have been established, as well as some high-class research and development partnerships with universities. The tax, and the way in which it is distributed, have resulted in people building partnerships. Universities, local authorities, the private sector, and community groups have done so many creative, small and very bold things.
The tax is not only innovative; it is tough. As with all innovative and new things, mistakes have been made and there have been problems. Some landfill operators and landfill tax credit distributors have done the wrong thing—there is no doubt about that. That is true of all legislation and regulation, however. We can learn from those mistakes. I certainly see a strong case for modifying the present administration system—improving it, but not abolishing it.
If we are going to meet the strict EU targets and the Government's statutory targets on local authorities, this tax has to be used wisely and well. It has to be used to help local authorities to meet those targets. I have no objection to having 60 or 65 per cent. targets for recycling—that is good—but I urge the Minister not to put his faith in local authorities. They are notoriously poor at delivering in these innovative areas. Many of the groups that I am talking about today have been at the cutting edge of the innovative work that local authorities have dragged behind in.
We know of the Minister's reputation for being innovative, but we want this tax to be built on. If 20 per cent. of the landfill tax is good enough to be put into environmental purposes, why not have another 20 per cent. go to local authorities, another 20 to research and development for universities and other research institutes, and another 20 to starting up environmental businesses? That would be a bold way of saying that this is a radical Administration and that it is more radical than its predecessor. I believe that that is the way the Government should go.
The crucial point about the landfill tax credit scheme is that if £10,000 is given to my organisation—or any organisation—it becomes £100,000 through landfill tax
50WH
credit; it is a wonderful accumulator. If one can then get a European resource, the amount can be doubled to £200,000. Through the landfill tax credit, some people can make that original £10,000 into £400,000 or £750,000. That is the accumulator working for the environment.
If the funds available from the scheme become Government money, they cannot be used for such funding. I ask the Minister to think carefully before he makes changes. I ask him to realise that the universal demand from environmentalists, from the waste management companies, and from everyone else, is that he must face the real fact that landfill tax is half of what it should be. It should be boldly and rapidly put up to a decent level that is comparable to that charged by our European neighbours.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Order. I will call all three of the hon. Members who are seeking to catch my eye. They must limit themselves to two minutes.
12.43 pm
Mr. David Cameron: Thank you, Mr. Winterton. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) on securing the debate.
I support the landfill tax credit scheme, which has been a great success in my constituency. It has supported the Wychwood way, which is a walk around Wychwood forest, the Rollright stones and countless woodland and other projects. I have been inundated with letters asking me to lobby the Minister, which I have done on countless occasions through letters, to keep the scheme. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Henley, I support recycling, not least because I live next to a tip, around which I want to reduce the traffic.
I agree with the Trust for Oxfordshire's Environment in that, although I accept that 65 per cent. of funding should be directed to projects that deliver sustainable waste management, I am anxious to see the remaining 35 per cent. remain as a source of funding for good-quality projects that improve the local environment and address wider sustainability issues.
I caution the Minister against replacing the landfill tax credit scheme with, as some have suggested, a public spending scheme. The beauty of the scheme is that it is multi-point to multi-point, which means that lots of people are handing out money and lots of people are applying for it. If it became a public spending scheme, it would become one body and one person's decision, and we would lose, to mix my metaphors, the thousand points of light, which would be a mistake. Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley on raising the matter, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
12.46 pm
Tony Baldry: Thank you, Mr. Winterton. I agree with everything that has been said so far.
The landfill tax credit scheme is excellent, and it should be simplified, not scrapped. The Government should consider two issues. First, they should entrust the

51WH
scheme's regulator with the task of ensuring that sufficient funds are allocated to waste management. If the scheme were abolished, the cost of financing projects by other means would be too high for most volunteers.
Secondly, the Government should consider whether their aspiration to divert 65 per cent. of resources to waste management will ultimately remain an aspiration. As the Environmental Services Association has observed, the landfill tax credit scheme makes a positive contribution, but it will never be large enough to pay for the £7 billion of new infrastructure needed to deliver compliance with the national waste strategy, or to bring the £1.5 billion annually spent on British municipal waste management services up to the £3 billion spent in France, an EU member state with an economy and population similar to the UK's.
I strongly suggest that a new scheme—I echo the remarks made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)—is needed to aspire to waste management, but we should keep the current landfill tax credit scheme so that other environmental initiatives can be encouraged in the community. As we have heard from my hon. Friends, many valuable environmental schemes will disappear if the landfill tax credit scheme is scrapped.
12.47 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Thank you, Mr. Winterton. I shall be extremely brief because I want to allow the Minister time to respond.
The first priority must always be not creating waste in the first place. The second must be to recycle the waste that is created. The last thing that one wants to do with rubbish—I say this as the Member of Parliament for Mid-Bedfordshire, where there are many holes in the ground that are filled with lots of rubbish, including London's rubbish—is to dump it in a hole in the ground or to burn it. The priority for any environmental scheme must be not to create waste in the first place and to recycle what is produced. Historically, we have a poor record on recycling. Much more of the money that is collected by the landfill tax credit scheme should go on recycling because that would be better both for my constituency and for the country as a whole.
12.48 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) on an excellent and well-subscribed debate. He gave us a tour de force in which he shared the delights of watercress beds and church halls in his constituency. He also shared with us the startling fact that it takes 50 years for a newspaper to become biodegradable, while it takes 500 years for a baby's nappy to achieve the same state. That begs the question how long it would take for a newspaper graced by a column from the hon. Gentleman to biodegrade? Would it be 75 years, 100, 450 or maybe even 10? Nevertheless, he has shared with us real knowledge of and sympathy for the organisations that benefit from the landfill tax credit scheme, as have the hon. Members for Witney (Mr. Cameron), for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) and for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) and my hon. Friend the
52WH
Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who has a long-standing knowledge of this subject, and whose contributions to debates and Question Times in the House are eagerly looked forward to by myself and my colleagues.
We need to recognise the importance of this scheme to local communities. It dates back, as was said, to 1996. It represents the outcome and the product of a tax that forms a key part of this Government's strategy to reduce the environmental costs of landfill and encourage waste producers to consider more environmentally friendly alternatives such as minimalisation, reuse and recycling. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire is right to stress the primary importance of the first of those. We all share a belief that reuse and recycling have an important role to play.
One consequence of the arrangements put in place for the landfill tax credit scheme is that the contributions count as tax forgone, so they do not count towards public sector spending. The scheme can therefore support projects that improve local communities around landfill sites, reclaim contaminated land or support research and education into more sustainable waste management.
The path down which my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield urges the Government—to use 80 per cent. of the tax for environmental schemes—is a radical solution. I shall count it as his contribution to the consultation. He will understand, as will other hon. Members, why I do not intend during this debate to pre-empt the outcome of that consultation. However, I assure all hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Henley, who put his case passionately, that we do not come to the consultation process with any foregone conclusions. We want to see more environmental bodies supporting more recycling projects. We are looking at ways of improving the performance of the scheme by encouraging contributors to target their funding at more strategic actions.
We are anxious that more of the available money should go into sustainable waste management. Last year we set an indicative target of 65 per cent. of landfill tax credits to be allocated to sustainable waste management projects, with at least a third of those to be allocated to recycling projects. Initial indications are that the industry has made significant progress towards meeting that target, which is warmly to be welcomed.
The scheme has much to commend it. It has raised some £450 million for spending on the environment, which represents a large amount of landfill tax forgone—over £100 million last year. The amount forgone is likely to grow in the coming year, as we are committed to increasing the rate of landfill tax. Therefore, it is right and proper that we should look closely at the way in which the funds are put to use. In the 2001 Budget we announced our intention to replace all or part of the scheme with a public spending programme directing resources towards Government priorities on sustainable waste management. That is a priority. We are seeking to consult widely on how best to achieve it.
The scheme has been successful at directing money to local community improvement projects. A number of them have been described—new church roofs, revamping of parish halls, nature reserves, playgrounds

53WH
and other local amenities. The recipients of the funding are often small local bodies that may have difficulty in accessing other forms of funding. I take to heart the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield about the innovative approach embraced by the local schemes. They add value that would not necessarily be there if local authorities alone were the providers. That is an important point to bear in mind.
Mr. Sayeed: Will the Minister deal with the position of ENTRUST? As he knows, that organisation runs a scheme involving some 11,000 projects with only 26 staff. Does he think that such a large scheme can be managed with so few staff?
Mr. Boateng: I have met people at ENTRUST and shall do so again. I am satisfied that they are up to the job and delivering a quality service.
There are some positive signs that the waste management industry is responding to the Government's challenge to divert more contributions into sustainable waste management projects, and we welcome that. However, there are areas for improvement. The Exchequer forgoes a large amount of revenue each year. It is important that a national strategy for waste management should receive some benefit from the operation of the scheme. We have adjusted the categories of project that may be funded under the scheme. Devolving control over the funds from the tax credit means that judgments about value for money remain in the hands of contributors. That is not a problem for small schemes delivering local benefits, but it can be a problem in terms of delivering the wider strategic vision that has to be in place to develop sustainable waste management.
There are other matters that it would be wrong for hon. Members to neglect. Various Committees of the House have expressed concerns about transparency. Arrangements for funding projects can become extremely complex. Relationships between contributing site operators, environmental bodies, local authorities, any other third party contributors and those who ultimately benefit from the project can be very close. That can be for the good, but it creates issues of
54WH
transparency that must be addressed. I am satisfied that ENTRUST and others recognise the importance of so doing.
We want to make sure that the network of relationships produces the right outcome. Sometimes it does so in a rather convoluted way that requires close and effective regulation, for which ENTRUST is responsible. The goal of delivering a better environment is one that we share with the communities that are most intimately affected by landfill and other means of disposal. I well recall, as will you, Mr. Winterton, the contribution that was made to our consideration of these matters under a Conservative Administration, long before it became fashionable, by the former Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, Sir Hugh Rossi, who chaired the Select Committee on the Environment. I remember visiting some of the sites in mid-Bedfordshire at that time, when we learned a lesson about the importance of making sure that we better protect the environment and, within that, the importance of better regulation and of enabling and empowering local communities to deal with the concerns that most affect them.
The hon. Member for Henley made an important point in describing the strength of feeling among the environmental trusts that serve his constituency and those of several other hon. Members in the Chamber. The great benefit of those trusts is that they are locally based and represent local opinion. The great benefit of schemes and projects such as those described by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield is that they are directly accountable to those who are living with the problem, and provide a framework and context for innovative and imaginative approaches to tackling local needs. That is something that any new scheme must reflect.
This is an open and genuine consultation and I believe that today's debate, although short, has helped to further it. All the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield and other hon. Members will be taken into account in the course of that consultation, in order that we may better protect the environment at the end of it.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: We all thank the Minister for his reply.

NHS Dentistry (Rossendale Valley)
1 pm
Janet Anderson: It gives me great pleasure that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), is to respond to the debate. She knows Rossendale only too well. Some years ago, she had the good fortune—some may say the misfortune—to work at the town hall there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) would have been here, but he is engaged in important Select Committee business this morning. He very much wishes to be associated with the debate because the town of Haslingden, in the borough of Rossendale and very much part of the Rossendale valley, falls within his parliamentary constituency.
The lack of national health service dentists in Rossendale has been a growing problem in recent months. It is not confined to Rossendale. A recent survey of 91 health authorities in England and Wales claimed that only half of all adults are registered with an NHS dentist. The situation in Rossendale is especially acute and now demands urgent attention and special treatment. It has been raised with me by several of my constituents, of whom I mention one or two.
Mrs. Sheila Charleson of Loveclough wrote to me recently about her family's experience. She said:
"Today I have spent over an hour on the telephone trying to acquire a dental appointment for my son with an NHS dentist. This task has proved impossible despite the fact that the whole family, including previous generations have worked all their lives and paid tax and national insurance contributions! The family were all previously patients of Wood and Duffy at Waterfoot but they now only see private patients and my son cannot afford to pay for private treatment nor indeed afford the insurance premiums required to offset some of the dental expenses
It would appear that within the whole of Rossendale there is not one dental practice taking on NHS patients, a situation I find deplorable and totally unacceptable. I have been informed that the nearest dentist with an NHS list is in Accrington and his list is apparently closed until at least January 2002!
After much frustration and hard work I managed to secure him an appointment at Waterfoot for emergency treatment next Monday 19th November but this will only be for his immediate pain problem and further check-ups and treatment will have to be done elsewhere (where that might be seems to be anyone's guess!)
Something needs to be done immediately about this unacceptable state of affairs as I am sure my son is not the only person faced with this disregard for the health and welfare of the hard working citizens of East Lancashire."
Another constituent whom I would particularly like to mention is David Walsh of Newchurch, whose experience was very sad indeed. He wrote:
"Dear Janet,
On Boxing Day I had to walk from my home here in Newchurch…to the nearest NHS Walk In Centre outside the Rochdale Royal Infirmary. I had a huge tooth abscess. I set off at 7.10 in the morning on foot and I got to the Rochdale Infirmary (the NHS Walk In Centre is just opposite the Accident and Emergency) at 9.50! The dentist was amazed that I'd walked so far to get his help…p.s. I had to walk to Rochdale on Boxing Day because there was no public transport and I cannot drive or ride a bike."
What are the reasons for that situation? They were recently clearly outlined to me by Dr. J. G. Whittle, the consultant in dental public health at the East Lancashire health authority. He told me:
56WH
"The underlying problem with NHS dentistry in East Lancashire is the shortage of dentists willing to come and work in this part of the world. The problem has been compounded by the reduction of dentists in training since the 1980s. The introduction of vocational training in the 1990s means that the first job for many dental graduates is close to the university where they train and this gives the practices involved in that training an advantage in obtaining new dentists
It is true that the number of registered dentists has grown considerably in recent years. However, this is mainly because of dentists from overseas coming to work in Britain. This has not helped East Lancashire because these dentists want to work in the major metropolitan centres which they hear about at home. East Lancashire Health Authority has advertised for dentists in Europe but with no success for this reason
For these reasons our practices have been unable to attract new dentists to the area and their present dentists have been struggling to cope with large lists of NHS patients. Last year the three large practices (in Haslingden, Rawtenstall and Waterfoot), all owned by the same partners, decided that the only way to reduce their workloads was to privatise. The knock-on effect of this has been to overwhelm the other six practices to the point where they are unable to take on any new NHS patients
When we submitted our expression of interest in providing a Personal Dental Services (PDS) pilot for Rossendale in 2001 we requested a dentist for five sessions a week. A few months later when we came to writing the full proposal we increased this to 10 sessions. The PDS we have set up at Haslingden and Waterfoot now provides 11 sessions
However"—
this is perhaps the most disturbing point—
"recent figures from the Dental Practice Board, show that during the quarter ending 30 September 2001, the number of patients (adults and children) registered with East Lancashire dentists fell by 15,358 from 241,873 to 226,515."
I was astonished to learn that
"ninety per cent. of that fall was accounted for in Rossendale where the number of registered patients fell by 13,765 over the three months. At the same time the Emergency Dental Service which was set up to provide care for up to 20 patients a session in the evenings and at weekends is regularly having to cope with 40 patients and more
We have therefore worked with Rossendale PCG and the Burnley Trust to develop proposals for a much larger PDS pilot in Rossendale. We have identified vacant accommodation at both Rawtenstall Health Centre and at Rossendale Hospital. Refurbishment of either would create a unit containing four dental surgeries. Subject to recruitment of dentists this unit could provide up to 40 additional sessions of dental treatment each week. Our first estimates of the costs of such a service are set up funding of approximately £259,000 and recurrent expenditure of about £442,000 per annum
Experience of setting up a PDS in Rossendale has shown that there are some, but not many, dentists who would prefer to work in such a system rather than the general dental service. Therefore, even if we got the funding, it might take some time until it was fully staffed."
Dr. Whittle ends with these thoughts, which I commend to the Minister, on how the Government could help to improve access to dental services in east Lancashire. They could
"introduce fluoridation of the public water supplies in the area. This would reduce dental decay by up to 50 per cent. and reduce the demands on dental services."
They could also
"increase the provision of salaried dental services in Rossendale by supporting the PDS proposal described above",
and
"train dental graduates in Lancashire. The Cumbria and Lancashire Strategic Health Authority Area will be the only one in the North of England without a dental school."

57WH
Lastly, and perhaps most important, the Government could
"direct dentists to under-dentisted areas for their vocational training."
So, in the Rossendale valley at the end of September last year, nearly 14,000 fewer of my constituents were registered with an NHS dentist than were registered three months earlier. That is a staggering statistic, and the situation is likely to be even worse now. As health watchdogs have warned, serious health problems can arise if people stop seeing a dentist altogether. Problems such as cancer of the mouth may not be detected before it is too late.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister can offer some comfort to my constituents by acknowledging that the Government understand the serious situation now facing us in the Rossendale valley and will take urgent steps to put matters right.
1.9 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) on raising this extremely important issue. I have no doubt that her constituents will be pleased that she has raised them in such detail. She has also pointed the way forward with some practical suggestions about action that the Government can take, with local health organisations, to ensure that the problem is eased for her constituents. As she rightly says, I know the Rossendale area quite well. It is a beautiful area that has a lot going for it, but I recognise that her constituents have particular health problems and need a good service.
The whole of east Lancashire has had long-standing problems in gaining access to NHS dentistry. Throughout the 1990s, not just in east Lancashire but in many parts of the country, the NHS dentistry system went through a great deal of strain, with many dentists deciding to opt for private practice instead of concentrating on work in the NHS, as many of them had done previously. That was partly due to some dramatic changes in the remuneration system for dentists and the contractual situation, which meant that working in NHS dentistry became a much less attractive proposition for many dentists. Since the Government were elected, we have tried to take practical steps to draw dentistry back into the NHS, by looking at remuneration and extra incentives for dentists who do a greater proportion of their work in the health service and by training young dentists and involving them in communities across the country.
We must recognise that dentists are independent contractors and can therefore choose whether to practise in the private sector or in the national health service. This may be one area where the Government have fewer levers to direct what happens and must therefore be more imaginative in creating a climate in which dentists want to be part of the national health service. That is a challenge that I face and am enjoying trying to meet.
In September 1996, the Government cut the maximum period allowed between visits so that patients could retain their registration with an NHS dentist. Originally, the period was 24 months between visits. It went down to 15 months and, as a result, hundreds of
58WH
thousands of people were removed from the registers of their NHS dentists. We saw a dramatic fall in the number of people registered and thus the number of people who can get on-going care rather than the emergency care to which my hon. Friend referred. In 1993, 21.6 million adults were registered in this country. That had fallen to 16.8 million in 1999—a dramatic reduction. My hon. Friend is right that in east Lancashire now, and particularly in Rossendale, a worryingly low number of dentists are prepared to take on new NHS patients.
The health authority runs an emergency access service, which is open every night of the week, so that patients can get emergency care. I understand that it is in Accrington, about six or seven miles from Rossendale. At present, 30 to 40 patients a night seek access to that service, so it is clear that the demand exists in the community for dentistry services.
In trying to address those issues, the Government published "Modernising NHS Dentistry-Implementing the NHS Plan", which is part of the overall NHS plan. That document commits us over the next few years to ensuring that everybody can have access to an NHS dentist and to raising the level of oral health, particularly in children, to reducing the massive inequalities in oral health between different communities, and to improving the quality of service offered by NHS dentists. In addition to the plan, the Prime Minister pledged in 1999 that by the end of September 2001, although not everyone would necessarily be registered on a long-term basis, they would at least be able to find a dentist, which they had not been able to do before, by phoning NHS Direct. That system is working in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen and people are being signposted by NHS Direct to dentists who are taking on new patients. However, people often have to travel some distance from their homes for that access.
During the past 18 months, £100 million has been spent on introducing the strategy to increase NHS dentistry. We have tried to be innovative about the way in which that money has been spent to give patients the maximum value. Every health authority had to produce a dentistry action plan to identify gaps in its community and areas in which people were least well served, and produce practical solutions.
The health authority in east Lancashire has come up with a plan to provide dentistry in the community and has set standards that state that people should be able to get routine care within a 10-mile distance, urgent care within 18 miles and emergency care within 12 miles. Those are long distances for people to have to travel, so we would like to improve on the standards. However, it is important to secure a base framework for an NHS service. The plan identifies areas with particular problems such as Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale. The situation is slightly better in Blackburn, Hyndburn and the Ribble valley, but gaps exist there, too.
The health authority plans to introduce incentives into the system to encourage NHS dentists to increase the proportion of its practices devoted to NHS patients; payments are now available to dentists for that. We have given £50,000 to the dental care development fund to incentivise dentists, to which the health authority added £20,000. That is a fair-sized fund, which means that an

59WH
extra 11,000 people can be registered in the area. I take note of my hon. Friend's worry about the dramatic decrease that has happened during the past three months. That has arisen from a decision of three major practices in her constituency to privatise their service and move towards a Denplan system. Those practices are owned by the same dentist, but a decision of such magnitude in a relatively small community can have a disproportionate impact on services available to local people.
The health authority has also put almost £500,000—a significant amount—into the Modernisation fund for distribution to general dental practitioners. In his letter, Dr. Whittle highlighted the difficulties of staffing and the fact that, despite extra funding, it is not always possible to convince young dentists that they want to work in Rossendale, Darwen or other areas away from major metropolitan centres in which those at the beginning of their careers often think they will receive the best practice.
I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that, in 2001–02, seven dental practices in east Lancashire have been approved as vocational training practices and can take on new trainees. It is hoped that young trainees will get to know the community, become settled in the area, appreciate the benefits that Rossendale and east Lancashire have to offer them and their families, and develop practices. The fact that seven practices participate in the vocational system should draw new dentists into the area. New finance will help to establish new practices and the NHS will help to support the costs of establishing dentists in an area—we want to do everything we can to draw them in. We hope that, at the end of their vocational year, the dentists will stay in the communities where they have got to know the patients and the health service.
Another creative way in which we have tried to provide services is through a fourth-wave personal dental services pilot. Salaried dentists are employed by the health authority to provide services to local people. Funding of £360,000 went to a third-wave pilot based in three areas: Rossendale, Burnley and Pendle. The one in Rossendale, in my hon. Friend's constituency, operates at Haslingden and Waterfoot on Mondays, Tuesdays and Fridays, and is well used. My officials will discuss the proposals to extend that personal dental services pilot with the health authority and local people to see whether we can expand the service to provide a greater range of sessions for local people to attend. I do not pretend that that will be easy, because of the staffing issue, and if a service is set up, we must be sure that we can attract the dentists, dental therapists and hygienists so that we obtain value for the money invested. I am more than happy to give the assurance that my officials will explore the prospects for expanding the fourth-wave dental services pilot in my hon. Friend's constituency.
I recognise that some access problems are fuelled by higher-than-average levels of dental disease in people living in my hon. Friend's constituency. As Dr. Whittle said, water fluoridation offers the most effective means of reducing inequalities in oral health, but, as hon. Members know, that is very controversial. We responded to concerns about the safety of water fluoridation by commissioning research into the
60WH
evidence of its effect not just on oral health but on health generally. The Medical Research Council undertook a review that should be completed within the next couple of months and we shall review our policy in the light of the MRC's findings.
In the meantime, I am pleased to confirm that east Lancashire is included in the areas involved in the national "brushing for life" scheme, which I was delighted to launch last autumn. In the scheme, families with young children are given packs containing fluoride toothpaste, a toothbrush and a leaflet on oral hygiene. Health visitors show children how to brush their teeth almost before they have teeth and help them into a habit of good, early oral health care and of regularly brushing their teeth, which can help to reduce some of the problems that arise later in life. I am delighted that east Lancashire is included in that scheme. There will also be regular checks on children's teeth and oral health with lots of encouragement.
We are not encouraging a nanny state telling people what to do; we are making a genuine attempt to persuade people into good habits early in life because what we learn then tends to remain with us for many years. I hope that my hon. Friend will see the scheme in action in some of the schools and child health clinics in her constituency. I am pleased to offer my hon. Friend the comfort that we are trying to direct dentists into her area.
Another matter that Dr. Whittle raised was training. He said that there is no dental school within the Lancashire and Cumbria strategic health authority area and that it is the only strategic health authority in the north-west without a dental school. However, two dental schools—in Liverpool and Manchester—are fairly close to the area and of the 28 strategic health authorities throughout the country, only 10 have dental schools, so Lancashire and Cumbria are not unique in not having a dental school in their immediate area. I accept that, when training young dentists, we must encourage them to spread their wings a little wider than the conurbations of Manchester and Liverpool. That is important for the residents of the whole north-west region.
I hope that I have provided some comfort to my hon. Friend. It is impossible to spirit dentists out of the air. They must be trained and encouraged to work within a national health service that recognises their skills and values their contribution, and in which we have a proper dialogue with them. In recent years, the dental service may have become a little detached from the NHS as a whole. In my negotiations with dentists and in discussions with their professional and representatives groups—I have met them on many occasions—many of them have said that they want to change the way they practise. They want to be part of the NHS, but they want their skills to be properly value and rewarded. We want a national health service in which dentists feel that they are a key part of the primary care team rather than simply drilling and filling, and in which they use their skills to advise on improvements to young people's health in particular. They will then have the satisfaction of seeing people's teeth gradually improve with less need for emergency care and the sort of pain relief required by my hon. Friend's constituent, Mr. Walsh, who had to go through such a gruelling and terrible experience on the day after Christmas. I cannot imagine anything much

61WH
worse than his experience. I hope that in future we can ensure that generally, if not on Boxing day, he has access to an NHS dentist. That is what most people want to find for themselves and their families.
I am pleased to say that the rewards for the profession have been appreciated in recent years. We have paid in full the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Review Body pay awards. They have not been staged. This year the basic pay increase is, I think, 3.6 per cent., which is above inflation. I hope that that will show dentists that we value the services that they provide. We have incentives to try to make them increase the amount of NHS practice that they do. The more dentists we can involve in improving the teeth and oral health of everyone in the country, the better. This is not simply about teeth, but about such matters as oral cancers and general health. Good early dental examination can make a real and significant difference to people's health.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen has raised the issue. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) could not be with us, but I fully appreciate his concern about the matter on behalf of his constituents. I shall certainly endeavour to do whatever I can, through my officials, to ensure that NHS dentistry in Rossendale improves in the months to come. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen has done us all a service by raising this important issue here today.

Law of Trespass
1.26 pm
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Any reasonable person watching news unfold during the Christmas recess will have been truly shocked at two cases in which farmers had their barns invaded by so-called "revellers" and very little action was taken. It might be recalled that, in the Lincolnshire case, the farmer said that he felt more like a farmer in Zimbabwe than in part of the United Kingdom. In the Essex case, outrageously, when the farmer cut off the electricity to the barn, he was arrested by the police and held in his local police station until 5 o'clock in the morning. My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) is taking that matter up with both the police and Ministers at present.
It might be hoped that those incidents were unusual and isolated, but I regret to report that that is not the case. I want to illustrate what has happened twice in my constituency during the last six months. With your indulgence, Mr. Winterton, I shall read some correspondence that illuminates a serious problem.
The first invasion took place on town council playing fields in Bracknell. I shall read from the experienced and well-regarded town clerk Barbara Rumbold's letter to our chief constable, Sir Charles Pollard, dated 27 July. She says:
"On the evening of 10th July gypsies with six caravans moved onto the Wildridings Playing Field, one of our many sites for football pitches in the town. Notice to remove themselves from the site was issued at 9.30 am on the 11th. This group was joined by a further eleven caravans on Saturday the 14th. During this time several requests were made to Bracknell Police to remove them from the site either under Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 or under the Byelaws for the site granted by the Secretary of State in 1983… Whilst occupying this land they chased my own staff off the playing field and made it difficult for any local people to enjoy…their own open space.
As the local police were not prepared to move them, quoting their reluctance in view of the Human Rights Act, we instructed Common Law Bailiffs and the gypsies moved off the site at 7 pm on Tuesday 17th. They moved only across the dual-carriageway to our Ringmead Playing Fields—also football fields. I rang the Bracknell Station when I learnt of their apparent destination and was informed that Officers had been despatched as the caravans were blocking an adjacent bus lane. Your Officers then allowed them to occupy the playing field that is of sufficient size only for one football pitch that has suffered considerable damage
Again more phone calls to Bracknell station failed to result in any action to remove what soon became a much larger camp site, eventually growing to thirty-three caravans when they were evicted by Bailiffs at 8pm on Sunday the 22nd. The Ringmead encampment became particularly offensive as it was so close to local residents."
I would add that I spoke to several local residents who contacted me in fear of their property and safety. Mrs. Rumbold goes on to say:
"The whole site was badly contaminated when vacated, the gypsies having defecated indiscriminately anywhere on the site and having left a particularly foul mess all along the shrubs adjacent to the fence of one particular house
My staff have cleared this disgusting mess consisting of both human and canine excrement, dirty nappies, toilet paper. clothing used as toilet paper, female sanitary goods, bags of vomit, general household waste, heaps of concrete, soil and other building

63WH
materials from the site. It would appear from what we collected that washing had been stolen and goods taken from shops as some of the clothing was still on hangers.
My Council and the residents of both Wildridings and Great Hollands feel that they should have expected better service and co-operation from the local police. Nothing was done to ensure that the local community could peacefully enjoy their own playing fields for which residents pay their Council Tax.
We have Byelaws in Bracknell…that are routinely enforced against the local residents to prevent the fouling of land by dogs yet the gypsies were able to foul the land without penalty.
If local residents had indecently exposed themselves on open ground as the gypsies did they could very well have been arrested.
Local motorists and pedestrians were put at risk by the manner in which the gypsies drove on and off the site and on local roads with little regard for the safety of others.
Harassment took place in local shops and neighbourhood centres.
Whilst we appreciate that some form of dialogue has to be kept open with the gypsies, it was particularly galling for my staff to see the friendly way in which the gypsies were approached by your Officers.
As a minor local authority, this Council has no responsibility whatsoever for gypsies but will incur considerable costs for the two actions so far undertaken for us by the Bailiffs, to say nothing of the clean up costs. The gypsies are still in this area and have been observed checking out more of our football grounds. To the best of my knowledge since January the Bracknell Forest Borough Council have moved gypsies on some twenty-two times. The cost to the local Council Tax Payers is unwarranted and unnecessary.
As you very well know, there is little point in erecting fences, gates, height restriction barriers etc., as these are no deterrent to gypsies who are determined to enter land. They simply remove them or cut the padlocks on gates required for our own access and such criminal damage is ignored. Bracknell is obviously now known as a soft touch where the Police will take no action. You have the powers to remove them but will not use them. It is much easier to keep telling residents that it is down to the local authority to remove them.
My Council, on behalf of the residents of Bracknell is seeking your assurances that you will issue instructions to local Officers to ensure that gypsies will be promptly removed in future using your powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Also that whenever possible they will be deterred from entering local parks and playing fields.
Local residents would…prefer that the Police went back to being a 'Force' and enforced the law as there is little evidence of 'Service' being offered to the local community."
I, too, made representations to the chief constable, as I was shocked and appalled at these events. The reply from his superintendent of specialist operations, Stephen Evans, beggars belief. On 16 August, he wrote to me to say:
"Our policy is based on relevant legislation and the Code of Practice issued by the Home Office in conjunction with the Department of Transport and the Regions. I am sure that you will be aware that the Code of Practice quite clearly sets out considerations that should be taken by all relevant Authorities when dealing with traveller encampments. Our approach to traveller encampments is aimed at being lawful, proportionate and within the guidelines set out in the Codes of Practice. Your letter suggests that we were slow to act"—
in this particular case. He continued:
"This is not the case. Our officers attended these encampments as soon as they were established and made an assessment as to the appropriate course of action. At two of the three encampments,
64WH
our judgement was that it was not appropriate to invoke our powers under Section 61 of the Crime and Disorder Act. This is of course a subjective decision, but it is made in accordance with our policy guidelines and it takes into account all relevant factors, including the codes of practice. Having made such a decision we do not walk away from the problem. Our policy is to continue to monitor traveller encampments, to provide high visibility reassurance patrols, to deal with incidents".
That is hardly reassuring to my constituents.
Stephen Evans then makes the following outrageous statement:
"Travellers are an extremely emotive issue and a decision by us not to invoke our powers under Section 61 is rarely greeted favourably by local people. However I am sure you would agree that it would be cavalier to misuse this power in inappropriate circumstances or to act outside of recognised good practice. If circumstances are such that in our judgement Section 61 should be used then we will not hesitate to use it. However we will be equally robust in not exercising this power if the circumstances are not appropriate. You mention in your letter the issue of Human Rights, which is one of the factors that we will consider. My interpretation of the Human Rights Act is that it applies equally to all groups and sections of society and it is within those parameters that we must operate."
The Minister will not be surprised to learn that my constituents, the town clerk and others were deeply angered by that totally inadequate response.
Just one month ago, a further incident occurred on public property that also cost council tax payers a lot of money. In his letter to me of 14 December, Mr. Bob Lewin, the highly respected principal and chief executive of Bracknell and Wokingham college of further education, said:
"I am reluctant to bring you a problem but I hope you will understand my concerns in this case
At about 6.00pm on Thursday 6 March a large group of travellers was required to leave the town centre car park on Bull Lane, Bracknell. They drove out of the car park, straight into our student car park off Bull Lane which serves our Wick Hill Centre. The attached report prepared by our site manager gives some details."
He proceeded to outline the following concerns:
"This is the second time this year we have had travellers on this site. They are no respecters of property or people's sensitivities (e.g. students aged 11–90 use the footpath from Bull Lane to the Garth Hill School and to the College. The travellers' vehicles were parked across the path on both occasions. You can imagine the threat to their security this causes would-be users of the footpath).
Why on earth should we have to put up with this? Being a public sector organisation we cannot of course resort to the methods private land owners use to rid themselves of unwelcome visitors.
The police took no action to stop the travellers entering our site. They were there; their comment was 'they have to have hard standing'. I happened to be at the Wick Hill site that evening and witnessed the chaotic situation as we helped our students move their cars from the student car park to the much smaller staff car park off Sandy Lane. No student would have considered it safe to leave their car in the car park—which in the event was completely filled by the travellers' cars, vans, caravans and lorries. See also my site manager's comments. The impression he gained was that the police wanted the public car park cleared for the Saturday market and Christmas shopping and the College was somehow expected to cope with the travellers.
As the enclosed report shows, the travellers caused damage and left an appalling mess. The College has to meet the cost of clearing this up and replacing damaged property.
We lose students of course on these occasions as they are scared away by the travellers.
You should know that we cannot use permanent barriers on the site (which in any case I suspect the travellers would destroy): we allow parents of the Sandy Lane Primary School to use the area

65WH
as a drop off point when driving their children to school and we have thousands of students who are eligible each year to use the car park; the issuing of tickets (or any other control system) would be impractical therefore. The entrance to the car park does have a gate. We could not close and lock this on Thursday as this would have trapped our students and their cars. We will be installing a height barrier. After our last invasion we had to erect bollards around the site as the travellers broke through a hedge to gain access. This all costs us money, of which we do not have enough."
I shall quote in part from the report to which he refers, from the site manager Stan Wears. He says:
"I asked if he"—
that is the police inspector—
"could stop the rest of the travellers who were still on Albert Road car park, but I didn't get any support and he seemed to be wanting them all on our site rather than splitting them up, which seems to the College quite bewildering.
I explained we had parents bringing in children during the day to our nursery and Sandy Lane Infant and Junior school, and naturally our own students who would feel threatened by the situation, to which he offered police officers to monitor the situation the next morning.
While we were talking all of our students came down…and removed their cars… The Bracknell Forest Borough Council officers seemed to be more supportive than the Police and as Sites Manager I was quite perplexed by the Police and their lack of support in the situation.
Our staff felt threatened on the Friday and naturally I had to keep going to the site on a regular basis especially during Saturday and Sunday… I arrived at Wick Hill on Sunday…to find the site empty but in a disgusting state, rubbish strewn all over the site, rubbish bags, boxes, gas bottles, rubble and children's toys some usable, some broken. I checked the nursery area and found the hut/storage unit had been broken into over the weekend, which explained the toys all over the site. The grass area had also been used as motorbike run and was cut up and damaged.
The College will have to bear the costs for extra staffing hours regarding security, cleaning and two skips (£250) to remove rubbish. I had to spend late Sunday pm cleaning the car park to make it usable for Monday am. Assistant site managers have also had to be used to help clear up the mess.
We also had Priestwood Families"—
Priestwood is the neighbouring council estate to the car park—
"asking us why the travellers were there and that they felt intimated by their presence."
Naturally, I again made representations to the police. This time, I had a reply from the assistant chief constable, territorial policing, Mr. Steve Love, who said:
"Our local police commanders often feel caught between a rock and a hard place on this issue. Although the police have a power under section 61…to order travellers to quit land, they have no power to direct them where to go when they do quit—they can simply drive down the road onto somewhere else. Nor do they have the power to stop somebody entering onto land in the first place—I myself have stood, without police powers, watching vehicles drive past me onto a recreation ground.
The law and the guidance then require them to balance the human rights of the travellers with the occupier of the land. Because, temporarily at least, the land represents the home of the travellers as soon as they have arrived on it, any eviction of them represents potentially quite a serious infringement of their human rights."
It is the same story again.
Not surprisingly, the excellent Mr. Bob Lewin, principal of the college, was not impressed with the deputy chief constable's inadequate response. In a letter that I received today, he says:
66WH
"Whilst I suppose the human rights of College staff were not infringed when the travellers moved onto our car park, our ability to go about our lawful business most certainly was curtailed! I believe that in Scotland, the Police or the local authority can impound sound systems if they are used in such a way as to annoy neighbours. Is there a basis here for a way of dealing with trespassers—'if you don't move on, we'll impound your lorry'?… As you may be aware, a group of travellers moved onto the borough's car park off Bull Lane last week. My caretakers maintained a twelve hour guard on the entrance to our Bull Lane car park for three weekdays and carried out additional surveillance at the weekend until the travellers had moved on—to ensure they did not move into our car park at times when we could not have the gates locked."
The cost to the college of further education, which is already hard pressed, is huge. The cost to council tax payers, where there are natural budgetary restraints, is great. Ordinary, innocent people—hard-working, normal, straightforward people who live around Bracknell—want to get on with their lives in peace, but they want protection under the law when they are invaded by this scum. They are scum, and I use the word advisedly. People who do what these people have done do not deserve the same human rights as my decent constituents going about their everyday lives. Either the police are not doing a proper job, in which case I hope that the Minister and the Home Secretary will issue directives to police constables to take appropriate action, or Parliament in general and the Government in particular have inadequate legislation.
I return to Assistant Chief Constable Steve Love's letter of 3 January, in which he states:
"There are a number of things which could be done at your own level without which we are unlikely to make much more progress. These include"—
I should be interested in the Minister's comments on these suggestions—
"a legal power, when the police or a local authority directs travellers to leave land, to also direct that they will not return, that nobody else will enter that land, for a period of, say, 12 months, and a minimum distance that they must go having left that land."
His second point is that he needs
"a positive statement that would stand up in law to the effect that there will be a presumption that the human rights of the occupier or owner of land will outweigh the human rights of someone who parks a caravan on it and claims occupation."
Thirdly—I appreciate that this goes beyond the Minister's remit, but I sympathise with the point—he says that he needs
"direction to the Inland Revenue to really take a grip on the 'cash in hand—no overheads' economy, which underpins a lot of traveller activity."
I am not convinced as to who is in the wrong, but I know that my innocent constituents, the residents of Bracknell, are in the right. I initiated this afternoon's debate to establish how they can be properly protected. It must either be for the police to carry out their duties properly, directed by the Home Secretary, or for us as a Parliament, and for the Minister representing the Government, to strengthen the law so that the police can carry out their duties. We cannot have a situation in which ordinary decent people's lives are made a misery, they are under threat, their environment, their homes and their family's lives are ruined for a time and where the cost to individuals, taxpayers and hard-pressed organisations such as Bracknell and Wokingham college have to be met out of their own funds.

67WH
I shall be fascinated to hear what the Minister has to say. I appreciate that most of this will be new to her, but as she does not have long to wind up I would also appreciate a more detailed written response from her or the Home Secretary, because it is vital that this matter is tackled once and for all.
1.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) for raising the issue of trespass with particular reference to the difficulties caused by unauthorised camping. Unauthorised camping is a serious matter, and in many areas it is a challenge to balance the problems that the right hon. Gentleman has graphically described.
It would be a good idea if I began by confirming that travellers are part of our society, and they should be accorded the same rights and dignities as others: they have equal human rights to the settled community. However, human rights also extend to the settled community, and travellers' behaviour and the expectations of that behaviour should therefore be the same for those in the travelling community and the settled community. Anyone who thinks that that is not the case is profoundly wrong. The minority status of travellers and gypsies should not allow them to indulge in crime or antisocial behaviour; nor should it excuse that behaviour. The law should be enforced equally on them.
The right hon. Gentleman might be interested in a recent case in the High Court in which section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994—the part that encompasses police powers—was challenged and found not incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. I hope that that is another reassurance that he will take away with him. Each operation by the police is subject to challenge on the same grounds, so the police must bear the Human Rights Act in mind. However, within the context of what I have just said—that all people's rights are equal in our society—if people behave in an antisocial or criminal way, or in some of the ways that the right hon. Gentleman outlined, the full force of the law can and should be brought to bear.
A variety of legislation is in place to tackle the issue of unauthorised camping. Section 61 of the 1994 Act allows a
"police officer present at the scene"
of an unauthorised camp to direct people to leave if he or she
"reasonably believes that two or more persons are trespassing on land…with the common purpose of residing there"
and reasonable attempts by the landowner to get them to move have been unsuccessful. There must also have been some
"damage to the land or to property",
and the right hon. Gentleman clearly outlined some of that. The travellers must have been "abusive" or "threatening" towards the landowner or agent trying to get them to move, or have brought "six or more vehicles" on to the land.
Once those conditions are fulfilled, a direction can be given to the travellers to leave the land and remove their property from it. When evicted from a place under
68WH
section 61 of the 1994 Act, travellers cannot return to that place within three months. If given a direction to leave, the refusal to do so carries the power of arrest.
That is a discretionary power, and I suspect that that is the nub of the matter. How that power is used operationally is a matter for the chief constable and the local police commander. The legislation does not refer to land forming part of a highway—another loophole, which the right hon. Gentleman did not mention, but which has become obvious to people trying to use the powers.
If the police have any knowledge of any large-scale incursion into an area, they can apply to a district council for an order prohibiting trespassory assemblies for a specified period, under section 14A of the Public Order Act 1986. Once such an application is received, the council may with the Home Secretary's consent make an order banning such assemblies. It is then an offence to assemble in breach of that order. The offence also carries a power of arrest. The police may direct people away from travelling towards such a gathering if an order is in place. That is a more preventive power that exists under current legislation.
Local authorities also have powers, under section 77 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, that enable them to direct any unauthorised campers to leave land where they are camped without consent. It is an offence not to leave as soon as is reasonably practical thereafter.
We have noticed in the operation of the 1994 Act that there is not always sufficient co-ordination between local police and local authorities over whether section 61 or section 77 is appropriate. The legislation works best where there is a proactive association and on-going co-operation between the local authority and police to try to deal with those issues and decide which of the two sections should be used. In the worst examples, the local authority expects the police to use section 61 and the police want the local authority to use section 77, so not a lot of progress is made.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the good practice guidance, "Managing Unauthorised Camping", which featured in the letter from the chief constable that he read. It suggests more proactive co-operation between local agencies, not just the enforcing agencies, to ensure an appropriate response when incursions occur and cause nuisance, criminal damage and other serious disruption. Magistrates courts have powers under section 77 of the 1994 Act to order eviction, so there must also be a good and co-operative relationship with the courts to enable fast action to be taken. Part of the key to dealing with the matter appropriately and quickly when an encampment is causing problems is to persuade those organisations to work together instead of one expecting the other to take action. The good practice guide suggests that.
A landowner may take certain measures for the recovery of land under the civil procedures rule. Sections 1 to 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and common law give the police powers to deal with a variety of other antisocial behaviour, such as public nuisance and breach of the peace. Again, creative and proactive action has often been proved to work when an unauthorised encampment exhibits such behaviour.

69WH
The legislation is discretionary and it is not for me as the Minister to interfere in operational decisions by the police and local authorities. However, the Government have made it clear—not least in asking the Association of Chief Police Officers to revise its guidelines on how to work with the legislation—that police powers can be used at an early stage if necessary. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the way in which the legislation is framed, he will see that it allows early intervention to prevent large-scale incursion, especially if there is evidence that it is being organised.
I suggest gently that the legislation could be used more proactively and imaginatively than in the past to have a preventive effect. I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman about the detailed points, particularly on strengthening the law, but I am not giving a commitment that it will be the Home Office's top priority and he would not expect me to do so.
70WH
New work is being done between the Home Office and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to update the guide in the light of experience. Human Rights Act concerns exist, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if people are treated equally and have their human rights accorded to them, the police are not powerless to take action when criminal damage is done, there is breach of the peace and other laws are broken. I expect that to be taken into account appropriately by local forces. Laws exist that allow a proactive and sometimes preventive approach to the issue, but experience shows that they are more likely to be successful if there is open co-operation between local agencies that allows the law to be used to its maximum effect.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

DEFENCE

  HMS Invincible
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the refit of HMS Invincible will be completed; when she will be ready for service; and if he will make a statement. [26711]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 342W, to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).

  Police
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the results from the review of the MOD police and the Atomic Energy Police will be announced. [27414]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 18 December 2001,Official Report, columns 176–77W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer). Stage 1 of the Ministry of Defence Police Quinquennial Review was completed last year and a copy of the Stage 1 report was placed in the Library of the House. Stage 2 has now commenced and will be completed as soon as possible. Issues relating to the UK Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many MOD police officers and staff there were in January(a) 1999, (b) 2000, (c) 2001 and (d) 2002. [26640]

  Dr. Moonie
  The staff figures for the Ministry of Defence Police Agency for the years 1999 to 2002 were as follows:

  Police

  Civilian

  1 January 1999

  3,625

  240

  1 January 2000

  3,568

  271

  1 January 2001

  3,449

  273

  1 January 2002

  3,328

  263

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Defence Police Federation on the size of the MOD police establishment since 11 September; and if he will make a statement. [26636]

  Dr. Moonie
  No discussions have taken place between Ministry of Defence Ministers and the Defence Police Federation regarding the size of the MOD police establishment since the events of 11 September. MOD police strength, however, is kept under constant review in the light of calls on the resources of the force.
  122W
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what vehicle the Chief Constable of the MOD police uses. [27413]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Chief Constable Ministry of Defence Police currently has the use of a Ford Scorpio. The vehicle is a force asset and can be utilised for other requirements.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many training operations have taken place in Gibraltar in the last three years. [27496]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 740W, to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).

  Wind Turbines
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what resources have been made available to his Department for the fulfilment of its obligations under PPG 22 in advising district councils during the process of the issue of planning consent for an onshore wind turbine. [27333]

  Dr. Moonie
  No specific additional resources have been made available to the Ministry of Defence to enable them to assess onshore or offshore wind turbine proposals.

  The consultation procedure mentioned in PPG 22 is known as Safeguarding. This is a statutorily based system whereby local planning authorities are required to consult the Defence Estates Safeguarding (DE Safeguarding) team on planning applications for development near to certain sites such as aerodromes, explosives storage areas or communications facilities. Safeguarding ensures that no development occurs that would interfere with the safety or effectiveness of military operations. There is no statutory obligation for the local planning authorities to consult DE Safeguarding on developments outside Safeguarded areas. However, as it is now widely recognised that wind turbines may interfere with radar, communication aids and low flying anywhere in the UK, the Safeguarding team is routinely included in consultations.

  Defence Estates Safeguarding section acts as a focal point to co-ordinate the MOD response to both informal proposals from the wind energy industry and formal planning applications from local planning authorities. There are 10 technical advisers within the MOD who are consulted by Defence Estates on wind turbines proposals, all of whom undertake the assessment of the impact of the proposals in addition to their operational duties.

  EU-NATO Co-ordination
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the co-ordination required between the Helsinki Initiative in the European Union and the Defence Capabilities Initiative in NATO countries; and if he will make a statement. [26855]

  Mr. Hoon
  Coherence and transparency between the two initiatives is very good and improvements achieved under either will be mutually beneficial. NATO experts have been closely involved with EU colleagues in work
  123W
  to elaborate, identify and address the capabilities required for the Headline Goal. A large proportion of the capability requirements identified under European Security and Defence Policy, including those where shortfalls remain, are also being addressed by the Defence Capabilities Initiative.

  Petersberg Tasks
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action will be taken to improve the level of enabling forces and weapons which are required to meet the Petersberg Tasks prior to 2008; and if he will make a statement. [26707]

  Mr. Hoon
  Under the Helsinki Headline Goal, EU member states are to be able, by 2003, to deploy and sustain for at least a year up to 60,000 personnel, with air and naval support as necessary, capable of conducting the full spectrum of Petersberg Tasks.

  At a Capabilities Commitment Conference in November 2000 and the further Capabilities Improvement Conference in November 2001, member states contributed a wide range of forces and capabilities to this target. Member states have also agreed to put in place a European Capabilities Action Plan to address remaining shortfalls based on voluntary efforts and building on existing national and multinational initiatives. This work is now being pursued under the Spanish Presidency.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the upper range of possible Petersberg Tasks; what consultation there has been with other EU countries on Petersberg Tasks since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [26856]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Petersberg Tasks, as defined at the Western European Council of Ministers in Bonn in June 1992 and subsequently adopted by the EU in the treaty of Amsterdam are: humanitarian and rescue tasks; peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking. It is impractical to define precisely the upper range of such operations, as this will change depending on the circumstances at the time. The work carried out since Helsinki to elaborate the requirements of the Headline Goal has included as a working assumption a potential use of EU-led forces to separate warring factions.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the three aircraft carriers. [27499]

  Mr. Ingram
  Both HMS Ark Royal and Illustrious will continue in service into the next decade until the two new aircraft carriers enter service. HMS Invincible, the oldest ship of the class, will retire from service towards the end of this decade.

  Battle of Trafalgar
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Government are making to mark the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar. [26528]
  124W
  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is working closely with a number of organisations to develop the Royal Navy's plans for the commemoration of the Battle of Trafalgar in 2005. Led by the Official Nelson Celebrations Committee, which brings together the interests of a wide range of maritime museums and associations connected with the Nelson heritage, a national and international programme of cultural and commemorative events is being discussed, among which a number of events involving the RN are being considered but, at this stage, it is too early to be precise.

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate his Department has made of the cost to its budget since 1 May 1997 of fraud; and if he will make a statement. [27295]

  Dr. Moonie
  The reported estimated cost to the Department of fraud since 1 April 1997 is £4,666,853.

  No abatement is made for subsequent recoveries. The figure relates to a combination of suspected and proven frauds and thefts with estimated values refined from time to time as investigations, sometimes lasting a year or more, reach a conclusion. A significant element of estimated cost or value in any given year relates to initial "at risk" estimates applied to suspected procurement fraud. The majority of these are resolved as "no crime" or have a proven value significantly lower than original estimates.

  West Freugh Airfield
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the development opportunities that would be made possible by commercial development of West Freugh airfield in Wigtownshire. [27030]

  Dr. Moonie
  The opportunities for commercial development of West Freugh airfield in Wigtownshire have been assessed several times in recent years. In each case, it has been concluded that there are few commercial opportunities for development of the airfield.

  Defence Contracts
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many defence contracts are out to tender; and what the estimated value of each contract is. [27500]

  Dr. Moonie
  The tender process is continuous and the Ministry of Defence awards a total of about 40,000 contracts worth about £8 billion per annum. Information on tenders outstanding at any given time is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Tungsten Armour Piercing Round
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what effect the decision to purchase a tungsten armour piercing round will have on existing use of depleted uranium rounds; and if he will make a statement; [27495]

  (2) what factors contributed to his decision to procure a tungsten armour piercing round; and if he will make a statement. [27494]
  125W
  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence already has tungsten armour piercing rounds which are used by Challenger 2 tanks. The further purchase of tungsten ammunition has been proposed for the test and calibration firing of Challenger 2 tanks. Such a buy would have no effect on the use of depleted uranium rounds, since the rounds are used in different roles. The Charm 3 round, which incorporates a depleted uranium penetrator, is a war fighting round, while the tungsten rounds are used in the calibration of the Challenger 2 weapons system.

  QinetiQ
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to float QinetiQ. [27416]

  Dr. Moonie
  There has been no change from the policy described in the DERA PPP consultation document published in April 2000. Our preference is to seek a flotation on the stockmarket as soon as QinetiQ's potential is suitably developed and as soon as we can ensure best value for the taxpayer. As identified in the consultation document, and subsequent statements on the way forward, we have kept open the option of seeking a strategic partner for the business as an intermediate step.

  We have emphasised throughout this process that the precise timing and nature of the transaction will be dependent on value for money considerations and this continues to be the case.

  Gurkhas
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many special arrangements are in place to pay pensions to retired Gurkhas who are sick or disabled; [27497]

  (2) if he will review the tri-partite agreement between the UK, India and Nepal to increase the pension paid to retired Gurkhas. [27498]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the then Minister for the Armed Forces completed a thorough review of Gurkha pensions and gratuities only two years ago. The outcome was a significant improvement in the payments made as a result of a death in service, which brought death in service gratuities for Gurkhas to the level of comparable British Army service personnel, and increases to pension payments of at least 100 per cent.

  Gurkha pensions are not paid at the same rates as British service men as the context in which they are paid is very different. Discharge in Nepal, and the link to Indian Army rates is the basis on which the Gurkhas serve. The levels of pension paid to our Gurkhas reflect the cost of living in Nepal, where they are discharged. Gurkha pensions now compare favourably to professional salaries there. They are also paid earlier than that of a British soldier. Gurkhas receive their pension at the end of their 15 years of service rather than the 22 years required of their British counterparts. In addition, up to 100 per cent. of the Gurkha pension can be passed on as a family pension to a soldier's widow until her death or remarriage and then to unmarried children up to the age of 25 years.

  Sick or disabled Gurkha pensioners are able to nominate an individual, usually a family member or friend, to collect their pensions in cash from one of the
  126W
  three pension paying offices in Kathmandu, Pokhara and Itahari, or from one of the 24 Area Welfare Centres situated throughout Nepal. A significant number of sick and disabled Gurkha pensioners choose to receive their pension this way, but it is impossible to identify the precise number without making manual checks to over 25,000 pension records. The information could, therefore, be provided only at disproportionate cost.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people were employed in his Department in each of the last four years. [23802]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The numbers of staff in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are shown in table C of Civil Service Statistics 2000, published on 31 August 2001. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Scottish Executive Officers
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Scottish Executive Officers who work internationally under arrangements reached between the Scotland Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office report to the Scotland Office; and how many of them are accorded diplomatic status. [23603]

  Mr. Straw
  Scottish Executive Officers work internationally under the arrangements agreed in the Concordat on International Relations. The Framework for co-operation is between the devolved Administrations and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Accordingly, Scottish Executive Officers report to both. The FCO has assisted the Scottish Executive to set up an office in Brussels and has given five staff in Scottish Executive EU Office diplomatic status. The Scottish Executive Officer in the British Embassy in Washington also has diplomatic status.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Zimbabwe authorities regarding the treatment of members of the foreign and domestic press. [23884]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary issued a strong statement on 24 November expressing his concern at the comments of the Zimbabwean Government spokesman which implied that foreign and local journalists were assisting terrorists. The British High Commissioner in Zimbabwe made formal representations to the Foreign Ministry in Harare on 26 November, and wrote to the Zimbabwean Foreign Minister the same day, expressing the British Government's deep concern at threats to the independent media in Zimbabwe.

  We have since taken every opportunity to reiterate this concern. Others share our concerns. The European Union has made the issue central to its formal consultations

  127W
  with the Zimbabwe Government under the Cotonou Agreement. Freedom of the media is a key element of recently-passed United States Congressional legislation on Zimbabwe. And Commonwealth Ministers issued a strong statement of concern about the situation in Zimbabwe at their meeting in London on 20 December, including the pressures on the independent media in that country.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department had with the Home Office concerning the deportation of Gerald Mutekiwa(a) before his deportation and (b) after his deportation. [26621]

  Mr. Straw
  The Foreign Office provides the Home Office with regular political reporting on Zimbabwe. The Home Office leads on asylum policy. The Home Office did not discuss Mr. Mutekiwa's case with the Foreign Office before his deportation. Following allegations that Mr. Mutekiwa had been mistreated on his return to Zimbabwe, the Home Office asked the British High Commission in Harare to investigate the allegations. It is doing so.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received on the treatment of Gerald Mutekiwa by Zimbabwean security police after being deported from the United Kingdom. [26622]

  Mr. Straw
  I have received reports yet to be substantiated that Mr. Mutekiwa was mistreated on his return to Zimbabwe. The British High Commission is currently investigating.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions his Department is taking to ensure the security of persons deported from Britain to Zimbabwe. [26617]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Office are responsible for asylum policy. The Foreign Office, the British High Commission in Harare and the Home Office are in regular contact about the overall security situation in Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with British representatives in Zimbabwe concerning the security of persons deported to Zimbabwe from the United Kingdom. [26616]

  Mr. Straw
  We are in on-going contact with the British High Commission in Harare about the overall security situation in Zimbabwe and, as appropriate, about how this might relate to individuals.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last spoke to the President of Malawi concerning the situation in Zimbabwe. [26618]

  Mr. Straw
  I discussed the situation in Zimbabwe with President Muluzi on 9 January.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Zimbabwe about the medical condition of Mr. Fletcher Dulini-Neube MP. [26880]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  None.

  Nepal
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the importance of the United Kingdom helping to maintain stability in Nepal. [24745]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We believe that a stable Nepal is not only important to the United Kingdom, but also to the region and the greater international community. The UK will therefore look carefully at requests from Nepal to help maintain stability.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is in respect of supporting the Government of Nepal against Maoist terrorism. [24743]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We believe that the Nepalese Government have a duty to protect their citizens. The UK, which has a long history as a friend of Nepal, will look carefully at any requests for assistance from the Nepalese Government.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his assessment of the political situation in Nepal. [24744]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Nepal is currently under a state of emergency, which was declared by King Gyanendra on 26 November. Certain constitutional freedoms have been suspended.

  We supported Prime Minister Deuba's attempts to negotiate a peaceful solution to the Maoist insurgency, and we have condemned the Maoists' return to violence. The current situation is serious, and we are monitoring events carefully.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the effect on neighbouring states of political instability in Nepal. [24749]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Although serious, we do not believe the current situation in Nepal will have a significant destabilising impact on her neighbours, India and China.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of possible links between Maoist terrorists in Nepal and other terrorist organisations. [24746]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are aware that, through its membership of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) and the newly formed Co-ordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organisations of South Asia (CCOMPASA), the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has links with other Maoist organisations in the region and further afield. We do not have any indication that they have links other, non-Maoist, terrorist organisations.

  India-Pakistan Relations
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with members of the(a) Indian and (b) Pakistan Governments concerning the recent terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament. [25678]
  129W
  Mr. Straw
  I have been in regular contact with my Indian and Pakistani counterparts since the appalling attack against the Indian Parliament on 13 December. I continue to urge both sides to work to resolve the issues between them through dialogue.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many complaints have been reported in his Department under paragraph 11 of the Civil Service Code since 13 May 1999, and how many of them related to special advisers. [25337]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: The procedures for making complaints under the Civil Service Code or the Diplomatic Service Code are set out in Departmental Regulations. Staff are encouraged, in the first instance, to raise complaints made under paragraph 11 of the Civil Service Code with their line manager. If for any reason this is not felt to be possible, individuals may take their complaint to a member of a Selection Board. It is not possible to provide a comprehensive figure for the number of complaints made within this Department under paragraph 11 of the code as there is no requirement for managers to report to the centre details of complaints made under the Civil Service Code or Diplomatic Service Code which are resolved within the management line.

  Remuneration
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the number of individuals in his(a) Department, (b) related agencies and (c) related non-departmental public bodies whose annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeded (i) £100,000 and (ii) £200,000 in each of the last four years. [26316]

  Mr. Straw
  (a) The estimated number of individuals in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office whose annual remuneration is in excess of £100,000 is as follows:

  As at 1 April 1998: 9

  As at 1 April 1999: 11

  As at 1 April 2000: 12

  As at 1 April 2001: 15.

  (b) The estimated number of individuals in related agencies whose annual remuneration is in excess of £100,000 is as follows:

  As at 1 April 1998: 0

  As at 1 April 1999: 0

  As at 1 April 2000: 0

  As at 1 April 2001: 0.

  (c) The estimated number of individuals in related non-departmental public bodies whose annual remuneration is in excess of £100,000 is as follows:

  As at 1 April 1998: 0

  As at 1 April 1999: 0

  As at 1 April 2000: 0

  As at 1 April 2001: 1.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, related agencies and related non-departmental public bodies have no individuals whose annual remuneration exceeded £200,000 in each of the last four years.
  130W
  Annual remuneration includes basic salary and London allowances. It does not include pension benefits.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the hon. Member for West Chelmsford will be sent a reply to his letter of 3 September 2001 on his constituent Mrs. J. Chukwrah of Chelmsford. [26358]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I am extremely sorry that the hon. Member did not receive a reply to his letter of 3 September. This was the result of an administrative error. The case he raised is now under consideration and I will write to him about it as soon as possible.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the hon. Member for Spelthorne will receive replies to his letters to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate about his constituent Mrs. E. Couser dated 10 June, 2 July, 23 July, 8 August, 21 November and 21 December. [25929]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The correspondence to which the hon. Member refers was not forwarded to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Joint Entry Clearance Unit by the Home Office. Officials from JECU have contacted the hon. Member and I will reply to his letter as soon as possible.

  Departmental Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will commission and publish an independent report on the reasons for the level of sickness absence in his Department. [26971]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Cabinet Office already commissions and publishes an independent report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service". This report includes details of the causes of absenteeism. The report for 2000 will be published shortly. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is committed to reducing sickness absence, as set out in our service delivery agreement.

  Afghanistan
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what obstacles exist to the International Committee of the Red Cross having access to all prisoners being held within Afghanistan. [26876]

  Peter Hain
  Very few. As at 11 January 2002, ICRC delegates were visiting some 4,800 detainees in approximately 40 places of detention throughout Afghanistan. In recent days, the ICRC has had problems gaining access to detainees held at Bagram airport and difficulty in gaining access to a place of detention in Kabul. However, contacts are continuing between the ICRC and the authorities in an effort to resolve these outstanding concerns.

  Iraq
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what obstacles there are to supplying humanitarian aid to Iraq under the United Nations oil-for-food programme. [26878]
  131W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  As well as failing to spend around $3.5 billion set aside by the UN for humanitarian purchases under "oil for food", the Iraqi Central bank consistently holds up delivery of $1 billion worth of goods already approved by the UN. The UN Secretary General has repeatedly drawn attention to Iraq's refusal to implement crucial UN proposals, such as the introduction of a local cash component, which would play a critical role in the rehabilitation of vital sectors, including water and sanitation and health. In his latest report on "oil for food" (November 2001), the Secretary General criticised the Government of Iraq for also obstructing the implementation of the programme in northern Iraq, by refusing to grant visas for UN personnel and clearance for essential supplies, including demining equipment, for the Iraqi people.

  Colombia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he received from the Colombian Government to his representations about the situation in Barrancabermeja and Magdalena Medio. [27163]

  Mr. MacShane
  During my visit to Barrancabermeja in October last year, I learned that Government security forces had greatly enhanced their presence, including, for a brief period, putting members of the special forces on the streets to restore order. They have also enhanced their intelligence-gathering capability in the town. These measures resulted in the capture of an alleged senior paramilitary commander, Fremio Sanchez Carreno. The security forces have captured other prominent paramilitaries in recent months.

  I remain concerned about the violence still being perpetrated by the illegal armed groups in Magdalena Medio and elsewhere. We shall continue to raise our concern about human rights, and urge the Colombian Government to take additional appropriate measures to protect vulnerable groups, in particular trade unionists and human rights defenders.

  Cambodia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Cambodian Government about the expulsion of Senator Chhang Song, Senator Phay Siphan and Senator Pou Savath, from the Cambodian Senate. [26879]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We understand that the decision to expel the senators from the Cambodian Senate resulted from an internal dispute in the Cambodian People's Party. It was therefore not appropriate to make representations to the Cambodian Government. However, our ambassador in Phnom Penh regularly raises with the Cambodian authorities the need for reform of the Cambodian legislature and legal system.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to make an announcement concerning the granting of British Citizenship to residents of St. Helena; and if he will make a statement. [26768]
  132W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The British Overseas Territories Bill granting British citizenship to the residents of St. Helena and the other Overseas Territories is currently going through the parliamentary process. Following Royal Assent a Commencement Order will be made by the Secretary of State when he is satisfied that practical arrangements for implementation of the Bill are in place.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 855W, on agendas for meeting of the EU Council of Ministers, for how many (a) council meetings and (b) Justice and Home Affairs Council meetings in the last three months the provisional agenda was received by his Department 14 days or more before the beginning of the meeting; for how many of those meetings in each case there were subsequent changes to the agenda involving (i) items for discussion and (ii) A points; and how long before each of the last two Justice and Home Affairs Council meetings a final, definitive list of A points was received by his Department. [27150]

  Peter Hain
  The Council's rules of procedure require provisional agendas to be drawn up by the Presidency and sent to other members of the Council and the Commission at least 14 days before the beginning of each meeting of the Council of Ministers. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is responsible for the General Affairs Council; we do not keep records of the number of days before each meeting that agendas have been received or amended; nor of how many Council's agendas have subsequently been changed.

  There were Justice and Home Affairs Councils on 16 October, 16 November and 6–7 December, and a joint JHA/ECOFIN Council on 16 October. For three of these four Councils the B part of the agenda was issued 14 days or more before the Council, the exception being the JHA Council on 16 October. In each case where part B of the agenda was issued more than 14 days before a JHA Council or the JHA/ECOFIN Council, it was subsequently amended. For the three Councils concerned, the final agenda was available four days before the Council in one case and the day before the Council in the other two. On two occasions, the agenda was amended four times.

  In no case was an A point list issued 14 days in advance of a JHA Council. There were no A points at the JHA and JHA/ECOFIN Councils on 16 October. For the 16 November JHA Council, the first A point list was received the day before the Council and for the 6–7 December JHA Council the first A point list was received on 4 December.

  For the last two JHA Councils, the final definitive list of A points was issued by the Presidency the day before the Council in question.

  Surjit Kaur Athwal
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 9 January 2001,Official Report, column 504W what actions he has taken during 2001, and plans to take

  133W
  during 2002, in response to the disappearance of Surjit Kaur Athwal, a British citizen, in India in December 1998. [27185]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We continue to offer Surjit Athwal's family any assistance they may require in the search for Surjit. We have expressed our concerns about Mrs. Athwal's disappearance to the Indian authorities on numerous occasions at a high level. It is for the Indian authorities to investigate Mrs. Athwal's disappearance. We will continue to press the authorities to pursue their search.

  Pacific Islands
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department's Ministers last officially visited Pacific Islands; and which ones. [R] [27154]

  Mr. MacShane
  My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), visited the Pacific twice in 2000. He visited Papua New Guinea in June, and attended the annual Post-Forum Dialogue Meeting of the Pacific Islands Forum in Kiribati in October that year. While at the forum he had meetings with the Prime Ministers of Australia, New Zealand and Tonga, the President of Kiribati, the Foreign Ministers of Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands and with the Heads of the European Commission and French delegations. I plan to visit Pacific Islands later this year.

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Government facilities will be made available in the course of visits by Her Majesty the Queen during her Golden Jubilee year to Commonwealth countries and overseas territories. [R] [26860]

  Mr. Straw
  During her Golden Jubilee year, Her Majesty the Queen plans to visit Jamaica from 18–20 February, New Zealand from 22–27 February, Australia from 27 February to 3 March, and Canada from 4–15 October. She will also attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Coolum from 2–3 March.

  The facilities made available to, and the associated costs of, these Realm visits are primarily the responsibility of the countries concerned. The UK Government will provide some logistical and financial support in London and the countries visited.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support he has given to the celebrations of Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee in Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [R] [26899]

  Mr. Straw
  The Governor, in consultation with the Government of Gibraltar, is looking at a number of ways in which Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee might

  Table 1: Development debts cancelled since 1 April 1997 (by financial year)

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Principal

  interest

  Principal

  interest

  Principal

  interest

  Principal

  interest

  Botswana

  739,634

  —

  326,503

  —

  118,403

  —

  23,578

  —

  Egypt

  962,400

  12,547

  617,868

  2,097

  406,400

  —

  406,400

  —

  Ethiopia

  153,210

  —

  85,132

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  134W
  suitable be marked in Gibraltar. These include a Birthday Parade and Trooping of the Colour, a gun salute and a tree planting ceremony.

  Nuclear Security
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 2001,Official Report, column 468W, what assessment he has made of the analysis of the risks posed to Sellafield from terrorist intervention as set out by the authors of the European Parliament's scientific and technological options assessment programme study to which he refers. [23215]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. In my reply of 10 December 2001, Official Report, column 666W, I made it clear that the chairman of the STOA panel took note of the Wise-Paris study and decided to publish it as a first contribution to the scientific debate on the possible toxic effects from the nuclear processing plants in Sellafield and Cap de la Hague. The study did not look into possible risks that may be posed from terrorists. Stringent security and safety precautions are taken at all UK civil nuclear sites and are kept under regular review.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Debt Cancellation
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether she will list the developing country debts which have been cancelled since May 1997, broken down by country and by year of cancellation; and if she will make a statement. [26691]

  Clare Short
  Since 1978, the UK has cancelled its aid loans to all the poorest countries worth some £1.2 billion. Table 1 lists, by country and year, all scheduled aid payments that have been waived since April 1997. Payments are written off as they become due. The position of the loan with Belize is under annual review. They have failed to qualify for debt relief under the Commonwealth Debt Initiative and are being asked to recommence payments. The Antigua and Barbuda loans were waived for a specified period only to help with the resettlement of Montserrat citizens following the volcanic eruptions.

  The remaining debts are owed to the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD). For some developing countries, payments are being written off through the Paris Club for Official Bilateral Creditors. For countries qualifying for debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative, much of their Paris Club debt is written off. In December 1999, the UK Government announced that we would provide 100 per cent. debt relief on all ECGD debt for qualifying HIPC countries to free up more resources for poverty reduction. Table 2 sets out, by country and year, all developing countries debts to ECGD that have been written off since May 1997.
  135W

  Table 1: Development debts cancelled since 1 April 1997 (by financial year)

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Principal

  interest

  Principal

  interest

  Principal

  interest

  Principal

  interest

  Gambia

  112,000

  —

  54,700

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ghana

  2,364,462

  11,243

  2,364,462

  7,782

  2,364,461

  4,320

  1,736,551

  —

  Ivory Coast

  216,999

  55,490

  216,861

  52,224

  215,705

  45,030

  215,705

  39,872

  Kenya

  204,617

  2,502

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Liberia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  81,558

  696

  —

  —

  Malawi

  671,400

  —

  435,800

  —

  168,000

  —

  132,000

  —

  Mauritius

  191,850

  —

  383,700

  22,803

  174,091

  22,308

  45,600

  14,214

  Mozambique

  1,250,600

  —

  1,250,600

  —

  1,250,600

  —

  1,250,600

  —

  Senegal

  56,000

  7,406

  56,000

  6,287

  56,000

  4,166

  56,000

  4,046

  Sierra Leone

  73,200

  —

  16,558

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sudan

  342,000

  —

  289,972

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Zambia

  2,605,500

  369,240

  2,577,565

  318,253

  2,549,200

  267,269

  2,549,200

  216,285

  Antigua and Barbuda

  535,710

  —

  357,140

  —

  357,140

  —

  —

  —

  Barbados

  38,700

  —

  38,700

  9,906

  38,700

  7,584

  38,700

  5,262

  Belize

  —

  —

  1,145,924

  —

  1,458,448

  —

  —

  —

  Bolivia

  81,556

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dominica

  270,500

  —

  541,000

  —

  541,000

  —

  541,000

  —

  Grenada

  1,257,200

  —

  625,200

  —

  625,200

  —

  371,796

  —

  Guyana

  826,200

  1,669,480

  1,765,943

  1,643,234

  3,011,990

  1,525,021

  3,452,642

  1,364,724

  Honduras

  280,000

  —

  280,000

  —

  373,333

  —

  373,333

  —

  Jamaica

  —

  —

  5,372,077

  1,923,011

  3,862,234

  1,653,682

  3,060,712

  1,452,483

  Nicaragua

  36,200

  —

  5,506

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Peru

  204,600

  136,049

  194,149

  150,873

  168,439

  145,552

  146,630

  140,780

  St. Kitts and Nevis

  —

  —

  —

  —

  287,900

  —

  —

  —

  St. Lucia

  —

  —

  333,400

  —

  333,400

  —

  333,400

  —

  TCI

  82,564

  18,565

  165,128

  32,923

  165,128

  27,890

  165,128

  22,857

  Afghanistan

  33,340

  —

  33,340

  —

  29,170

  —

  25,000

  —

  Bangladesh

  559,285

  —

  433,400

  —

  292,451

  —

  —

  —

  India

  11,416,827

  —

  7,747,819

  —

  2,432,000

  —

  —

  —

  Indonesia

  871,024

  —

  620,224

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Jordan

  3,725,173

  386,614

  2,263,434

  333,785

  1,515,700

  280,957

  1,451,200

  228,129

  Laos

  2,670

  —

  2,670

  —

  1,275

  —

  —

  —

  Pakistan

  1,593,312

  —

  1,425,012

  —

  750,665

  —

  —

  —

  Solomon Islands

  —

  —

  2,544,120

  —

  277,800

  —

  277,800

  —

  Sri Lanka

  259,915

  —

  167,000

  —

  76,200

  —

  —

  —

  Tonga

  65,600

  —

  131,300

  —

  82,400

  —

  82,400

  —

  Western Somao

  9,400

  —

  6,591

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  32,093,648

  2,669,136

  34,874,798

  4,503,178

  24,064,991

  3,984,475

  16,735,375

  3,488,652

  Table 2: Developing country debts to ECGD written off since 1 May 1997

  £ million

  Amounts written off

  Country

  19971

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Bolivia

  0.000

  6.492

  0.000

  0.000

  12.305

  Bosnia

  0.000

  3.221

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  Cameroon

  4.741

  2.706

  3.151

  5.056

  9.168

  Central African Republic

  0.000

  0.156

  0.044

  0.028

  0.013

  Cote D'Ivoire

  1.142

  2.817

  1.166

  0.000

  0.000

  Egypt

  2.350

  0.980

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  Ethiopia

  0.000

  0.000

  0.288

  0.518

  0.228

  Guinea Republic

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.115

  0.519

  Guyana

  0.000

  0.000

  12.502

  0.000

  0.000

  Madagascar

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.187

  1.297

  Malawi

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.096

  Mauritania

  0.109

  0.054

  0.661

  0.526

  0.531

  Mozambique

  3.627

  5.386

  12.447

  0.000

  78.541

  Niger

  0.213

  0.313

  0.338

  0.715

  1.229

  Senegal

  0.000

  1.529

  0.000

  0.015

  0.051

  Tanzania

  1.977

  4.617

  5.570

  18.144

  15.121

  Togo

  0.484

  0.288

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  Uganda

  0.000

  8.684

  0.000

  5.958

  0.000

  Zambia

  0.000

  0.000

  20.740

  16.871

  15.938

  Total

  14.643

  37.243

  56.907

  48.133

  135.037

  1 From 1 May 1997

  Note:

  This table includes 100 per cent. debt relief for those countries which have reached completion point under the HIPC Debt initiative.

  Development Assistance
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her estimate is of overseas aid expenditure per capita in developing countries in each year since 1990; and if she will make a statement. [26694]

  Clare Short
  Official development assistance (ODA) per capita for all donors combined is given in the table. This shows a decline from US$14.1 in 1990 to a low of US$10.4 per capita in 1997, followed by a rise to US$11.0 per capita in 1999, the latest year for which figures are available

  US$

  Per capita ODA

  1990

  14.1

  1991

  14.8

  1992

  14.4

  1993

  13.0

  1994

  13.6

  1995

  13.1

  1996

  12.3

  1997

  10.4

  1998

  10.8

  1999

  11.0

  Source:

  OECD-Development Assistance Committee statistics
  137W
  The table shows figures in current prices for each year shown. The drop in per capita. ODA is steeper if expressed in constant price terms.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of state for International Development whether it is her policy to raise overseas aid expenditure as a share of gross national product to the United Kingdom target of 0.7 to gross national product; by what date she expects to meet this target; and if she will make a statement. [26689]

  Clare Short
  The Government are committed to the target of raising official development assistance to 0.7 per cent. of Gross National Income. Between 1974 and 1979 the proportion increased from 0.40 per cent, to 0.51 per cent. From 1980 to 1996 the figure fell to 0.27 per cent. Since as a share of Gross. National Income to 0.32 per cent. and are committed to reaching 0.33 per cent by 2003–04. Progress after that will be decided in the current and subsequent spending rounds.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the secretary of State for International Development what her estimate is of the expenditure of her Department on overseas development as a percentage of United Kingdom gross national product in each year from 1996–97 to 2003–04; and if she will make a statement. [26688]

  Clare Short
  Official development assistance (ODA) is measured in calendar year. The UK ODA/GNI ratio for the calendar years from 1996 to 2000, the most recent for which data are available, is shown below.

  UK ODA/GNI ratio

  1996

  0.27

  1997

  0.26

  1998

  0.27

  1999

  0.24

  2000

  0.32

  We remain fully committed to the UN 0.7 per cent. ODA/GNI target. We have set out our plans for the years to 2003–04 and, as these show, official development assistance as a proportion of GNI will rise to 0.33 per cent. in 2003–04. Initial estimates of DFID expenditure for 2001 indicate that the ratio will remain around 0.32.

  GNI (Gross National Income) is the new name for GNP. The name has been changed to better reflect the information included within the figure.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Department on overseas development assistance in each of the poorest 20 countries in the world for each of the past five years; and if she will make a statement. [26690]

  Clare Short
  Total DFID bilateral expenditure in the poorest 20 countries in the world over the last five financial years is as follows:

  £000

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Benin

  30

  0

  88

  82

  37

  Burkina Faso

  204

  156

  305

  267

  234

  Burundi

  1,560

  1,602

  324

  912

  1,547

  Chad

  142

  153

  —

  —

  270

  Congo, Rep.

  107

  6,911

  552

  1,322

  3,096

  Eritrea

  1,210

  1,200

  868

  438

  2,385

  138W

  £000

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Ethiopia

  7,931

  7,357

  8,733

  6,969

  16,194

  Guinea-Bissau

  6

  76

  8

  —

  120

  Kenya

  26,428

  29,434

  33,143

  27,051

  51,923

  Madagascar

  399

  487

  410

  943

  561

  Malawi

  33,554

  25,693

  47,251

  46,687

  56,941

  Mali

  523

  697

  331

  205

  411

  Mozambique

  22,198

  21,943

  26,281

  43,893

  41,281

  Niger

  112

  151

  162

  177

  150

  Nigeria

  7,866

  9,345

  11,215

  14,596

  17,123

  Rwanda

  9,704

  6,198

  13,642

  14,394

  32,878

  Sierra Leone

  10,619

  3,133

  8,948

  29,914

  35,022

  Tanzania

  48,191

  42,196

  50,105

  64,323

  68,687

  Yemen, Rep.

  1,975

  1,049

  1,048

  1,488

  2,647

  Zambia

  17,399

  16,183

  14,807

  14,293

  55,934

  Total

  190,158

  173,864

  218,231

  267,954

  387,441

  Source:

  Statistics on International Development 1996–97 to 2000–01

  This increase in the amount of UK aid spent on the poorest countries is in line with the Government's policy, set out in the 1997 white paper on International Development, to refocus our efforts on the elimination of poverty. Poorest countries are defined as having the lowest GNI/capita in the most recent year for which data are available (1999).

  Outstanding Debts
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her estimate is of the outstanding debts owed to the United Kingdom Government by developing countries, broken down by each country; how the total figure has changed since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [26692]

  Clare Short
  The UK has written off all its aid loans to the poorest countries. At 1 April 1997, outstanding aid loans of £389,796,841 (principal £341,629,947; interest £48,166,894) owed by developing countries were included in DFID's accounts. By 31 March 2001, this figure had been reduced significantly to £201,835,945 (principal £192,833,981; interest £9,001,964). Table 1 shows, by country, the balance of outstanding aid loans at 1 April 1997 and at 31 March 2001. Bilateral agreements have been reached with all the countries shown in italic on waiving scheduled payments as they become due.

  Table 2 sets out, by country, the amount of principal Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) debt outstanding at 31 May 1997 and at 31 December 2001. The figures show a reduction in the residual balance from £1.746 billion to £1.355 billion respectively. Included in these figures are the debts owed by the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC), as shown in ECGD's accounts. However, under the Government's 100 per cent, bilateral debt relief policy, no further payments are required from these countries once they qualify for HIPC debt relief, and any amounts received are held in trust and, once they reach their HIPC Decision Point, are returned to the countries for poverty reduction.

  Table 1. Aid debt outstanding at 1 April 1997 and at 31 March 2001

  £

  Principal

  interest

  Balance at 1 April 1997

  Afghanistan

  132,700

  —

  Antigua and Barbuda

  2,758,448

  —

  139W

  Table 1: Aid debt outstanding at 1 April 1997 and at 31 March 2001

  £

  Principal

  interest

  Bangladesh

  1,285,136

  —

  Barbados

  213,470

  38,534

  Belize

  14,875,130

  —

  Bolivia

  11,658

  —

  Botswana

  1,219,906

  —

  Brazil

  2,329,338

  572,259

  Cameroon

  66,776

  —

  Cayman Islands

  303,158

  —

  Columbia

  439,985

  5,012

  Costa Rica

  1,891,912

  215,713

  Cote d'Ivoire

  2,549,746

  324,005

  Cyprus

  181,774

  —

  Dominica

  7,002,332

  —

  Ecuador

  9,643,482

  4,205,444

  Egypt

  4,943,629

  10,644

  Ethiopia

  238,341

  —

  Falkland Islands

  16,226

  —

  Gambia

  166,700

  —

  Ghana

  15,179,211

  128,503

  Gibraltar

  238,685

  555

  Grenada

  2,679,508

  —

  Guyana

  32,747,578

  10,923,653

  Honduras

  2,471,143

  —

  India

  21,596,646

  —

  Indonesia

  1,491,259

  —

  Jamaica

  44,391,246

  15,996,191

  Jordan

  28,491,054

  1,565,752

  Kenya

  216,226

  11,261

  Laos

  6,615

  —

  Liberia

  77,749

  696

  Malawi

  1,503,200

  —

  Malaysia

  3,911,559

  525,755

  Mauritius

  1,225,959

  126,605

  Mozambique

  5,910,104

  —

  Nicaragua

  439,906

  —

  Nigeria

  4,905,084

  24,425

  Pakistan

  3,616,377

  —

  Paraguay

  2,228,693

  —

  Peru

  5,533,790

  1,635,351

  Philippines

  3,696,288

  243,078

  Senegal

  412,330

  32,450

  Seychelles

  7,885,674

  794,690

  Sierra Leone

  89,438

  —

  Sri Lanka

  503,116

  —

  Solomon Islands

  2,400,300

  —

  St. Kitts

  3,022,870

  —

  St. Lucia

  3,166,300

  —

  St. Vincent

  3,684,000

  —

  Sudan

  631,972

  —

  Swaziland

  2,721,933

  —

  Tonga

  502,703

  —

  Tunisia

  26,661

  394

  Turkey

  29,462,755

  7,987,136

  TCI

  1,751,517

  296,566

  Western Samoa

  15,991

  —

  Zambia

  38,749,686

  1,678,732

  Zimbabwe

  13,605,329

  823,490

  341,629,947

  48,166,894

  Balance at 31 March 2001

  Afghanistan

  12,500

  —

  Antigua and Barbuda

  1,687,028

  —

  Bangladesh

  —

  —

  Barbados

  58,670

  3,555

  Belize

  10,499,785

  —

  Bolivia

  —

  —

  Botswana

  11,788

  —

  Brazil

  1,286,002

  215,658

  Cameroon

  —

  —

  Cayman Islands

  59,855

  —

  140W

  Table 1: Aid debt outstanding at 1 April 1997 and at 31 March 2001

  £

  Principal

  interest

  Columbia

  119,469

  —

  Costa Rica

  283,628

  29,910

  Cote d'Ivoire

  1,684,482

  149,142

  Cyprus

  100,174

  —

  Dominica

  4,706,732

  —

  Ecuador

  7,418,148

  —

  Egypt

  2,550,561

  —

  Ethiopia

  —

  —

  Falkland Islands

  —

  —

  Gambia

  —

  —

  Ghana

  6,071,474

  —

  Gibraltar

  —

  —

  Grenada

  432,113

  —

  Guyana

  23,690,803

  4,721,195

  Honduras

  1,164,476

  —

  India

  —

  —

  Indonesia

  —

  —

  Jamaica

  26,071,930

  —

  Jordan

  17,052,754

  —

  Kenya

  —

  7,975

  Laos

  —

  —

  Liberia

  —

  —

  Malawi

  96,000

  —

  Malaysia

  1,846,759

  114,004

  Mauritius

  202,712

  28,076

  Mozambique

  907,703

  —

  Nicaragua

  398,200

  —

  Nigeria

  4,905,084

  24,425

  Pakistan

  —

  —

  Paraguay

  1,290,293

  —

  Peru

  4,851,901

  —

  Philippines

  1,375,335

  122,570

  Senegal

  160,329

  —

  Seychelles

  7,885,673

  794,690

  Sierra Leone

  —

  —

  Sri Lanka

  —

  —

  Solomon Islands

  1,289,100

  —

  St. Kitts

  2,734,970

  —

  St. Lucia

  1,832,700

  —

  St. Vincent

  3,026,000

  —

  Sudan

  —

  —

  Swaziland

  371,600

  —

  Tonga

  75,403

  —

  Tunisia

  —

  —

  Turkey

  16,089,505

  2,420,778

  TCI

  1,091,005

  109,745

  Western Samoa

  —

  —

  Zambia

  28,210,917

  —

  Zimbabwe

  9,229,420

  260,241

  192,833,981

  9,001,964

  Table 2: ECGD debt outstanding at 31 May 1997 and at 31 December 2001

  £ million

  Residual balance

  Country

  31 May 1997

  31 December 2001

  Angola

  56.432

  56.432

  Benin

  2.968

  2.968

  Bolivia

  18.810

  0.000

  Bosnia

  4.935

  1.711

  Burkina Faso

  1.031

  1.031

  Cameroon

  94.161

  66.696

  Central African Republic

  0.615

  0.371

  Congo

  159.111

  159.111

  Cote d'Ivoire

  35.795

  30.445

  Croatia

  93.830

  74.894

  141W

  Table 2: ECGD debt outstanding at 31 May 1997 and at 31 December 2001

  £ million

  Residual balance

  Country

  31 May 1997

  31 December 2001

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  97.728

  90.051

  Egypt

  166.082

  145.390

  Ethiopia

  17.932

  12.031

  Guinea Republic

  4.643

  3.609

  Guyana

  47.192

  34.348

  Kenya

  54.853

  21.369

  Liberia

  7.276

  7.276

  Macedonia

  5.948

  4.628

  Madagascar

  29.774

  27.662

  Malawi

  0.767

  0.497

  Mali

  4.617

  4.617

  Mauritania

  8.611

  6.163

  Mozambique

  116.960

  16.731

  Nicaragua

  1.086

  1.086

  Niger

  12.073

  9.265

  Senegal

  3.302

  1.697

  Sierra Leone

  3.889

  3.889

  Somalia

  17.603

  17.603

  Sudan

  173.745

  173.745

  Tanzania

  161.431

  112.959

  Togo

  15.123

  14.264

  Uganda

  14.827

  0.000

  Vietnam

  10.421

  10.359

  Yemen

  9.624

  3.071

  Zambia

  293.565

  240.016

  Totals

  1,746.760

  1,355.985

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was the value of debt and interest repaid on UK Government development aid loans to heavily indebted poor countries each year since 1983. [25237]

  Clare Short
  The value of debt and interest repaid on aid loans to the UK by the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) since 1983 is £5.292 million. Details of the amounts repaid by these countries, by year, from 1 April 1983, are shown in the table.

  In July 1978, bilateral agreements to write off all outstanding balances on loans were reached with Kenya, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Tanzania. Since then, we have written off all UK aid loans to Ethiopia, Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Senegal, Uganda and Zambia. In addition, my Department has taken the unilateral decision to forgive outstanding aid loans to Liberia and Laos. These loans are being written off as they become due.

  Amounts repaid by HIPC countries

  £000

  Principal

  interest

  1983–84

  1,896

  424

  1984–85

  1,784

  387

  1985–86

  487

  163

  1986–87

  56

  20

  1987–88

  56

  19

  1988–89

  —

  —

  1989–90

  —

  —

  1990–91

  —

  —

  1991–92

  —

  —

  142W

  Amounts repaid by HIPC countries

  £000

  Principal

  interest

  1992–93

  —

  —

  1993–94

  —

  —

  1994–95

  —

  —

  1995–96

  —

  —

  1996–97

  —

  —

  1997–98

  —

  —

  1998–99

  —

  —

  1999–2000

  —

  —

  2000–01

  4,279

  1,013

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much UK Government development aid in the form of loans to Heavily Indebted Poor Countries was(a) forgiven and (b) converted to gift in each year since 1983. [25242]

  Clare Short
  Since 1978, the Government have cancelled aid loans to all the poorest countries, not just the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC). Since 1983, £142.714 million worth of aid loans, including interest accrued, has been forgiven for HIPC countries; details are set out, by year, in the table. In all cases, loans were converted to grants or "gifts".

  In July 1978, bilateral agreements to write off all outstanding balances on loans were reached with Kenya, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Tanzania. Since then, we have written off all UK aid loans to Ethiopia, Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Senegal, Uganda and Zambia. In addition, my Department has taken the unilateral decision to forgive outstanding aid loans to Liberia and Laos. These loans are being written off as they become due.

  Debt of HIPC countries forgiven

  £000

  Principal

  Interest

  Total

  1983–84

  —

  —

  —

  1984–85

  142

  —

  142

  1985–96

  1,881

  330

  2,211

  1986–87

  3,217

  412

  3,629

  1987–88

  3,021

  265

  3,286

  1988–89

  3,604

  235

  3,839

  1989–90

  3,504

  196

  3,700

  1990–91

  30,609

  534

  31,143

  1991–92

  10,205

  569

  10,774

  1992–93

  8,065

  393

  8,458

  1993–94

  7,879

  437

  8,316

  1994–95

  7,298

  434

  7,732

  1995–96

  7,366

  460

  7,826

  1996–97

  7,055

  417

  7,472

  1997–98

  9,598

  748

  10,346

  1998–99

  8,964

  1,975

  10,939

  1999–2000

  8,505

  3,211

  11,716

  2000–01

  8,061

  3,124

  11,185

  128,974

  13,740

  142,714

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was the value of UK development loans to Heavily Indebted Poor Countries outstanding(a) at 31 March 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [25236]
  143W
  Clare Short
  The UK has written off all its aid loans to all the poorest countries. At 31 March 1997, outstanding development loans of £112,868,216 (principal £99,745,306; interest £13,122,910) to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) were included in DFID's accounts. By 31 March 2001, this figure had been reduced to £68,224,071 (principal £62,852,664; interest £5,371,407). Payments are written off as they become due.

  Primary Education
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her estimate is of the percentage of children in primary schools in the largest 30 recipient countries for United Kingdom overseas aid in the latest year for which information is available; and if she will make a statement. [26685]

  Clare Short
  Net primary school enrolment ratios indicate the number of children of official primary school age (as defined by the national education system) who are enrolled in primary school as a percentage of the population of official primary school age. Male and female ratios for the top 30 recipient countries of UK bilateral aid in financial year 2000–01 are shown. Data are taken from UNICEF's "The State of the World's Children, 2001" and refer to the most recent year available during the period 1995–99.

  Net primary school enrolment ratios

  Percentage

  Recipient country

  Male

  Female

  India

  78

  64

  Uganda

  92

  83

  Ghana

  182

  172

  Bangladesh

  80

  83

  Tanzania

  56

  57

  Malawi

  2100

  2100

  Zambia

  85

  86

  Kenya

  292

  289

  Mozambique

  47

  40

  Sierra Leone

  1,259

  1,241

  Rwanda

  67

  68

  South Africa

  88

  86

  China

  99

  99

  Russian Federation

  293

  293

  States of Ex-Yugoslavia

  3100

  3100

  Montserrat

  4100

  4100

  Indonesia

  97

  93

  Nepal

  79

  60

  Nigeria

  38

  33

  Ethiopia

  43

  28

  Serbia and Montenegro

  269

  270

  Pakistan

  84

  60

  Guyana

  89

  84

  Zimbabwe

  87

  87

  St. Helena

  4100

  4100

  Iraq

  98

  88

  Ukraine

  1,287

  1,286

  West Bank Gaza

  n/a

  n/a

  Jamaica

  89

  87

  Bolivia

  295

  287

  1 Gross primary school enrolment ratio (The number of children enrolled in primary school, regardless of age, as a percentage of the population of official primary school age).

  2 Data refer to years other than those specified, differ from the standard definition or refers to only part of a country.

  3 Bosnia and Herzegovina only.

  4 Source: DFID.

  Sleeping Sickness
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what specific assistance she gives to help combat the disease known as sleeping sickness; and if she will make a statement. [27155]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on 9 January 2002,Official Report, column 838W.

  Sustainable Fisheries Livelihood Project (West Africa)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contribution her Department has made to the sustainable fisheries livelihood project in West Africa. [27597]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development (DFID) agreed in 1998 to provide funds for a programme to address poverty in artisanal fisheries communities in 25 countries in West Africa. The programme is being implemented by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in partnership with the countries of the region and DFID.

  The agreed financial contribution from my Department is £21.5 million to be disbursed over five years. To date, £5.5 million has been disbursed.

  DFID's contribution to the project is not restricted to funds. The project is one of the first to incorporate an explicit focus on the livelihoods of fisheries-dependent communities. DFID have provided a lead to the FAO and planners in the countries of the region in the development of more effective methods and strategies for enhancing the livelihoods of poor people. DFID-led thinking and practice are having a wide influence on the policies and practices of FAO and others, including the International Fund for Agricultural Development, who are being assisted by the project to apply the livelihoods approach to other national fisheries programmes in the region.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many meetings have taken place to discuss the sustainable fisheries livelihood project; and how much money has been spent on each meeting. [27595]

  Clare Short
  The sustainable livelihoods fisheries project is one of the first to adopt an explicit people-centred, livelihoods approach to fisheries-dependent communities. These communities are among the poorest in West Africa. As part of the project DFID is also seeking to influence FAO's own ways of working.

  Livelihoods approaches are participatory and communities are involved in decisions affecting their livelihoods. It is not possible to give an exact figure of the number of meetings held. They occur as part of the processes of design, appraisal, management, monitoring and review. They take place at local, national, regional and international levels. They vary in financial cost to the project from zero (when, for example, a local community meets to discuss its priorities and plans) to several thousands of pounds (when, for example, managers and national representatives come together each year to take strategic decisions). The meetings are held to address the objective of the project, which is the improvement of livelihoods in poor fisheries communities.
  145W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what activities have taken place as a result of the sustainable fisheries livelihood project in West Africa; and how they have benefited local communities. [27596]

  Clare Short
  A wide range of activities have taken place as a result of the project. At the level of policy, the project has prepared national strategies for poverty reduction in fisheries communities for Mali, Guinea and Guinea Bissau; has conducted analyses of the policies, institutions and processes which create and reinforce poverty in fisheries communities in Ghana and Senegal; and is developing general guidelines for reducing poverty in fisheries communities.

  In addition, the project is providing support to enhance livelihoods in fishing communities through numerous small projects. A table listing these projects has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Population Growth
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimates she has made of population growth in(a) developing countries and (b) low-income developing countries in each year since 1995; and if she will make a statement. [26687]

  Clare Short
  My Department does not make estimates of world population growth. We take careful account of the population statistics provided by the United Nations which indicate that world population grew from 5.7 billion in 1995 to 6.1 billion in 2001, and is estimated to grow to over 9 billion by 2050. It is also estimated that all of the projected growth will take place in developing countries, which by 2050 will account for over 85 per cent. of world population.

  The Government believe that people should be able to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children. One of the priorities of my Department therefore is to help ensure that contraception is available to all men and women in the developing world who want it. 57 per cent. of the world's couples are now using contraception compared with 9 per cent. 30 years ago. Another of our major priorities therefore is to try to ensure that the millennium development goals of universal primary education by 2015, and gender equality in primary and secondary education by 2005 are achieved. Where this choice exists girls are more likely to receive an education, and go on to have fewer, healthier children.

  Low Income Countries
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of bilateral country programme expenditure is directed to low income developing countries in the latest year for which information is available; if she will list the countries so defined as low income; and if she will make a statement. [26686]

  Clare Short
  In 2000–01, 76 per cent. of DFID' s bilateral country programmes went to low income countries, compared to 65 per cent. in 1997–98. Excluding humanitarian assistance these figures were 78 per cent. and 67 per cent. Under internationally agreed definitions, low income countries are those with a GNP/GNI per capita in 1998 of below $760. There are currently 146W
  63 countries defined as low income and these are listed in "Statistics on International Development" (SID), a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  We are committed to increasing further the concentration on low income countries. Our current public service agreement includes a target of 80 per cent. in 2002–03 for the share of the bilateral country programme, excluding humanitarian assistance, going to low income countries.

PRIME MINISTER

  Council of Europe/Western European Union
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will announce the full composition of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union. [28176]

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and Western European Union is as follows:Tony Lloyd Esq. MP (Leader)

  Full Representatives

  David Atkinson Esq. MP

  Malcolm Bruce Esq. MP

  Sir Sydney Chapman MP

  Tom Cox Esq. MP

  James Cran Esq. MP

  Terry Davis Esq. MP

  Bill Etherington Esq. MP

  Paul Flynn Esq. MP

  Lord Judd

  Baroness Knight of Collingtree DBE

  Jim Marshall Esq. MP

  Chris McCafferty MP

  Kevin McNamara Esq. MP

  Eddie O'Hara Esq. MP

  Lord Russell-Johnston

  John Wilkinson Esq. MP

  Jimmy Wray Esq. MP

  Substitute Members

  Janet Anderson MP

  Tony Banks Esq. MP

  Baroness Billingham

  Lord Burlison

  Ann Cryer MP

  Michael Hancock Esq. CBE MP

  Baroness Hooper

  Right hon. Lord Kilclooney

  Khalid Mahmood Esq. MP

  David Marshall Esq. MP

  Alan Meale Esq. MP

  Gordon Prentice Esq. MP

  Geraldine Smith MP

  Lord Tomlinson

  Dr. Rudi Vis MP

  Robert Walter Esq. MP.

  Honours
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 9 January 2002,Official Report, column 815W, whether a finding by the House of Lords Judicial Committee against an individual formerly awarded an honour, that the individual concerned was guilty of political corruption in the conduct of local government sufficient to lead to a substantial surcharge and disqualification from holding office, can amount to an offence which brings the honours system into disrepute sufficient to consider forfeiture of that honour; and if he will make a statement. [27655]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to my previous answer.

  Policy Unit
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many applicants there were for the post of transport adviser in the No. 10 Policy Unit; [27330]

  (2) if he will set out the procedure used in the appointment of Matthew Elson as transport adviser in the No. 10 Policy Unit. [27328]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to her on 14 January 2002,Official Report, column 90W.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the remit of the No. 10 Policy Unit on transport policy. [27329]

  The Prime Minister
  The Policy Directorate within No. 10 covers domestic policy, including transport.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Women's Football
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with(a) the Football Association and (b) Sport England on the funding and promotion of women's football. [27285]

  Mr. Caborn
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I, have specifically discussed the funding and promotion of women's football with the Football Association (FA) or Sport England. However, DCMS officials are working closely with the FA and the FA Women's Professional League Project Team to raise the profile of women's football in this country.

  National Stadium
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations she has received from those backing the bid for a national stadium located in Coventry; and if she will make a statement. [26891]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have received many written representations for and against
  148W
  potential locations for the national stadium, including Coventry, in recent months. The statement made by my right hon. Friend to the House on 19 December 2001, Official Report, columns 291–93, set out the Government's position on the national stadium.

  Football Supporters Trusts
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many football clubs have set up supporters trusts since July 2000; how many are planned; and how many supporters directors have been appointed. [27316]

  Mr. Caborn
  To date 43 supporters trusts have been set up, 14 are under active consideration and 16 supporters directors have been appointed.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  National Minimum Wage (Greenock and Inverclyde)
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of the national minimum wage on the income levels of people in the Greenock and Inverclyde constituency. [25425]

  Alan Johnson
  The national minimum wage has contributed to a significant increase in the wages of people on low pay. According to the New Earnings Survey (NES) 10 per cent. of employees in Inverclyde earned less than £195 per week in 2000 compared with less than £165 in 1998—an increase of around 18 per cent. By comparison, average gross weekly earnings in Great Britain increased by 9 per cent. over the same period from £384.50 to £419.70.

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what were the changes in the export price of renewable energy generators(a) since the implementation of NETA and (b) in each year since 1997. [25890]

  Mr. Wilson
  Ofgem's Report to DTI on the Review of the Initial Impact of NETA on Smaller Generators issued on 31 August 2001 indicated that export prices had reduced since the start of NETA as follows:

  for power from smaller generators generally, by 17 per cent.;

  for power from Hydro, by 14 per cent.;

  for power from wind, by 13 per cent.;

  for power from other renewables, by 7 per cent.

  The Department does not have information on changes in export prices of renewable energy generators for each year since 1997. In terms of prices for renewable energy exports the Department does not keep these figures which are usually a matter of commercial confidentiality. The Department does however provide guaranteed export prices to renewable exports which have received Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation contracts and the exact price paid to each export will be defined by the relevant contract. Average prices received by current projects for each NFFO Order are as follows.
  149W

  NFFO order

  Total capacity (MW)

  Average cost (p/kWh)

  3

  627

  4.35

  4

  843

  3.46

  5

  1,177

  2.71

  Mixed Oxide Fuel
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list(a) the number of industrial contracts secured by BNFL for the Sellafield MOX plant, together with their country of origin, (b) the value of these contracts and (c) the percentage of the Sellafield MOX plant reference case represented by these contracts. [25413]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: Contracts for the supply of MOX fuel are a commercial matter for BNFL and its customers.

  BNFL's MOX supply prospects were considered in detail by the independent consultants, AD Little, in their review of BNFL's economic case for operation of Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP). A public domain version of AD Little's report (from which commercially confidential information was excluded) was published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Health in July 2001 and is attached to the decision document on MOX justification published on 3 October 2001.

  It can be noted that in a press release of 3 October 2001 BNFL stated that,
  "SMP already has contracted/reserved business for the 40 per cent, "break even" sales and ADL [AD Little] stated that they have evidence of customer commitment for 99 per cent, of the SMP reference business case".

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the production of mixed oxide fuel began at the Sellafield MOX plant. [25407]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: BNFL began the first stage of active plutonium commissioning of the Sellafield MOX plant on 21 December 2001.

  Miners' Compensation
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the number of Miners' Health Compensation Scheme claims for respiratory diseases settled in full in(a) Wales and (b) the rest of the United Kingdom. [26869]

  Mr. Wilson
  IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, have registered 33,661 claims in respect of respiratory disease in Wales. Taken together with Scotland and England, the total number of claims for respiratory disease is 173,824.

  Progress in Wales comparatively has been good. To date, the Department has settled 2,358 claims and paid 11,272 interim payments in Wales worth £63.6 million. In total across the UK, 14,780 claims have been settled in full and 43,904 interim payments have been made, totalling £241 million.
  150W
  Nationally, during November, nearly 7,000 offers worth £47.7 million were made, under both schemes, with a further 5,385 offers worth £42 million in December.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if extra staff and resources will be appointed to accelerate the processing of Miners' Health Compensation Scheme claims in Wales. [26873]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department and its contractors continuously monitor the level of resources spread geographically across the Scheme as a whole. In Wales, it was decided between the Department and the Claimants' Solicitors that an office would be opened to process Welsh claims. The office was up and running in a very short time frame and opened on 2 April 2001. The number of staff at this office has increased from 11 to 70 by the end of 2001 and will be increased by a further 20 staff by March this year.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average duration was between assessment and a full and final settlement for former miners with regard to(a) vibration white finger and (b) respiratory diseases in (i) Wales, (ii) the rest of the United Kingdom and (iii) the Cynon Valley in the last 12 months. [26875]

  Mr. Wilson
  In respect of vibration white finger (VWF) the average duration between medical assessment and date of offer is as follows:

  Duration between medical assessment and offer date

  Region

  Duration

  (i) Wales

  5 months, 4 days

  (ii) United Kingdom

  6 months, 5 days

  (iii) Cynon Valley

  6 months, 15 days

  With regards to respiratory disease, the average time between medical assessment and date of offer is as follows:

  Duration between medical assessment and offer date

  Region

  Duration

  (i) Wales

  6 months

  (ii) United Kingdom

  5 months, 14 days

  (iii) Cynon Valley

  6 months, 16 days

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are being taken to speed up the processing of miners' compensation claims in the Cynon Valley. [26874]

  Mr. Wilson
  With regards to vibration white finger, there are 1,847 claims registered in the constituency of Cynon Valley. To date, 809 individual payments have been made, totalling £5.0 million.

  In relation to respiratory disease, 3,238 claims have been initiated in the above constituency. 1,140 individual payments have been made worth £5.4 million.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave her to question No. 26873, above, regarding measures to speed up the process in Wales.

  Contracts (Tanzania)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) defence and (b) non-defence contracts have been placed by UK companies with the Tanzanian Government since 1997. [25954]

  Mr. Wilson
  No records are kept of non-defence contracts placed by UK companies with the Tanzanian Government. Defence contracts are a matter for the Ministry of Defence.

  Public-Private Partnerships
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the public-private partnerships that have started in Greater London in the last five years. [25903]

  Alan Johnson
  My Department has one PPP project that has started in the last five years in the Greater London area—the redevelopment of the National Physical Laboratory at Teddington. Details of projects sponsored by other Departments, public bodies and local authorities are not held by my Department.

  BNFL
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the proposed relationship between BNFL and the Liabilities Management Authority. [26787]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: The proposed relationship between BNFL and the Liabilities Management Authority was outlined in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement to the House on 28 November 2001, Official Report, column 990. The White Paper next spring will contain further details.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she was first informed that BNFL was insolvent. [25943]

  Mr. Wilson
  BNFL first informed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 28 November 2001 that it had a deficit of net assets for accounting purposes.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 5 December 2001,Official Report, column 302W, what was the net increase in BNFL's liabilities resulting from the acquisition of Magnox Electric. [25925]

  Mr. Wilson
  The report and accounts of BNFL for the year ended 31 March 1998 stated that the group's nuclear liabilities increased by £7,956 million due to the acquisition of Magnox Electric plc.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what profit figures have been published by BNFL Inc. in the US since 1990. [25946]

  Mr. Wilson
  None. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 20 November 2001,Official Report, columns 163–64W.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial penalties have been imposed by the US Department of Energy on BNFL Inc. owing to its failure to meet contractual commitments at the Hanford River Protection project. [25945]
  152W
  Mr. Wilson
  None.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the Liabilities Management Authority will permit foreign companies to bid and run operations at the Sellafield site once BNFL's initial contract has expired. [25941]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Liabilities Management Authority will place contracts in accordance with national, EU and international requirements relating to public procurement and with a view to ensuring that public sector civil nuclear liabilities are managed as safely, efficiently and cost effectively as possible. Any contractor responsible for operating Sellafield will have to satisfy security and other regulatory requirements relevant to the site.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made of the security implications of an overseas company operating the Sellafield site. [25940]

  Mr. Wilson
  Any company responsible for operating the Sellafield or other licensed nuclear site would have to satisfy relevant security and other regulatory requirements. An assessment of the suitability of any company would be made at the time.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans there are for Sellafield employees to receive severance payments from BNFL if the company loses the contract to manage the site and employees transfer to a different contractor company. [25935]

  Mr. Wilson
  Any transfer of BNFL employees to another employer would be carried out in accordance with TUPE requirements.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 655W, on BNFL, what was the cost of the advice on BNFL's liabilities provided by (a) CSFB, (b) HSBC, (c) Slaughter and May, (d) Arthur Andersen, (e) Deloitte and Touche, (f) Lane, Clarke and Peacock and (g) Mercers. [25923]

  Mr. Wilson
  Since the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 13 July 1999, payments made to this Department's external advisers are as follows:

  £

  Adviser

  Amount

  CSFB

  6,041,000

  HSBC

  777,000

  Slaughter and May

  869,000

  Arthur Andersen

  18,641,000

  Deloitte and Touche

  1,620,500

  Lane, Clark and Peacock

  138,500

  Mercers

  170,000

  Total

  18,257,000

  1 These costs shared approximately 50/50 with BNFL

  These amounts cover a wide range of advice, eg strategy and shareholder issues, acquisitions and disposals and the valuation and handling of nuclear liabilities.

  It is not practicable to identify separately the costs of the above work in relation to liabilities alone.
  153W
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements will be made for employees at Sellafield to maintain their pension plans if the Liabilities Management Authority does not renew BNFL's contract to manage the site and its employees transfer to a different contractor company. [25936]

  Mr. Wilson
  Any transfer of BNFL employees to another employer would be carried out in accordance with TUPE requirements and on the basis that pension arrangements would be no less favourable.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of(a) the total cost at present day prices and (b) the cost, on the same basis, to each taxpayer of dismantling all nuclear power installations and making safe all nuclear material that are currently the responsibility of British Nuclear Fuels. [26435]

  Mr. Wilson
  BNFL's annual report and accounts for the year ended 31 March 2001 estimated the group's total discounted gross nuclear liabilities to be £16.1 billion (of which £5.4 billion was recoverable from customers under commercial agreements). In her statement of 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 993, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that, in the light of a new strategy for processing its intermediate level waste, which its board had endorsed, BNFL estimated it needed an additional £1.9 billion to provide for its share of the discounted liabilities.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement regarding the safety record and future plans for privatisation of British Nuclear Fuels. [25252]

  Mr. Wilson
  BNFL publishes annually an Environment, Health and Safety Report, which sets out the company's performance in these areas for the year. A copy is in the Library of the House.

  There are no plans for the privatisation of BNFL. However, in her statement to the House on 28 November 2001, Official Report, column 990, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made clear that HMG will reconsider the scope for the introduction of a PPP into BNFL in 2004–05, in the light of the overall performance of BNFL's businesses, advice from the Liabilities Management Authority, and the views of the industry regulators.

  Nuclear Licence
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will review the procedures for the issue of a nuclear licence by the Regulator, with particular reference to defining the area within the site licence. [26788]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: The procedures by which HSE defines the area in which it enforces the licensing provisions of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 (as amended) are a matter for the HSE and the Health and Safety Commission. There are no plans to change those procedures.

  Insolvency
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the effectiveness of the insolvency laws with particular reference to the enhanced protection of creditors from directors. [26793]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: The Insolvency Act 1986 contains provisions providing effective protection for creditors against misconduct on the part of company directors. The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 also enables us to provide effective protection from the activities of irresponsible, incompetent or rogue directors of companies that have become insolvent. Since April 2001 it has been possible to achieve disqualification by accepting undertakings as well as by court proceedings, and in the last two years over 3,000 directors have been disqualified for period of between two and 15 years on account of unfitted conduct.

  Liabilities Management Authority
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the timetable for the setting up of the Liabilities Management Authority. [26786]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry explained in her statement to the House on 28 November 2001, a Bill to set up the Liabilities Management Authority (LMA) will be brought forward at the earliest opportunity. This means that the LMA will not be established before the second half of 2003 at the earliest.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints have been reported in her Department under paragraph 11 of the Civil Service Code since 13 May 1999; and how many of them related to special advisers. [25333]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: Three complaints have been reported in the Department of Trade and Industry under paragraph 11 of the Civil Service Code since 13 May 1999; none relate to special advisers.

  Trade Union Recognition (SMEs)
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Government are doing to ensure trade union negotiation rights are given to employees in small and medium-sized enterprises. [27184]

  Alan Johnson
  Unions have been awarded recognition under the statutory recognition procedure at a number of small and medium-sized businesses. Later this year, we will review the statutory recognition scheme, including its application to small employers, as part of our broader review of the Employment Relations Act 1999.

  Coal
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to subsidise the UK coal industry beyond July 2002. [10377]
  155W
  Mr. Wilson
  The Government currently have no plans to extend the current coal subsidy scheme, or to introduce a new scheme, beyond July 2002. However we are working to ensure that the new EU coal state aid regime from July this year gives us the flexibility to devise suitable schemes to aid the industry if that is ever appropriate. Once the new EU regime is in place, we will of course consider on its own merits any proposals for Government support that complies with the new rules.

  We will also ensure that the new regime retains provisions to prevent subsidised coal from undercutting international prices, so that the UK coal industry cannot be disadvantaged with respect to its competitors in member states which may decide to pay continued aid.

  Parental Leave
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the costs to small businesses of women taking statutory maternity leave. [26051]

  Alan Johnson
  For most small firms, the probability of an employee taking maternity leave in any given year is low. For example, survey evidence suggests that only about a tenth of workplaces with 10 or fewer employees have anyone going on maternity leave in any given year.

  Small businesses can recover 100 per cent. of the statutory maternity pay they pay out plus an additional amount to compensate for any associated employers' national insurance contributions they may have paid. Some small businesses, however, may choose to offer higher levels of maternity pay and longer periods of leave as a matter of good practice. Small businesses will also face costs in covering for the absent employee. The cost to any particular business will depend on the wage paid to the pregnant employee and how the business decides to cover for the absent employee.

  The Government have published a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) on the simplification of maternity leave which examines the likely costs of the changes to maternity leave which will be introduced in 2003. The RIA estimates that the total annual costs to small businesses of the increase in length of ordinary and additional maternity leave will be £23 million£43.5 million.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received relating to the impact of the new maternity and paternity arrangements on women employed within small businesses. [26053]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government's proposals to improve maternity leave and pay and introduce paid paternity leave have been the subject of extensive public consultation. These measures were put forward in the Green Paper "Work and Parents: Competitiveness and Choice" (published December 2000) to which we received over 600 formal responses. Further responses were received following the publication of framework documents in May 2001 outlining the operation of the schemes. During the public consultation period we received responses from individual employers of all sizes, employer representative groups including those specifically representing small employers, parents, and employee representative groups.
  156W
  There was strong support from employers and employees for the proposals to simplify maternity rights and introduce paid paternity leave. The Government Response on simplification of maternity leave, paternity leave and adoption leave which was published on 8 November 2001, sets out the decisions the Government—informed by the consultation process—has taken. Copies of all responses are available for consultation on request in the DTI Library.

  Employment Tribunals
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her definition is of a weak employment tribunal case; and what evidence she has considered on(a) the incidence of such cases in the system and (b) the incidence of cases being settled very close to a hearing. [26437]

  Alan Johnson
  The information is as follows:

  (a) It is not possible to collect statistical data on the strength of individual cases. Any assessment of the merits of an individual case is necessarily subjective.

  A working definition was used for the Regulatory Impact Assessment accompanying the Employment Bill based on the advice given to applicants, namely that a weak case was one where applicants had been advised by a solicitor or non-legal adviser that they would lose the case if it went to a hearing.

  Data on the advice given to applicants are available from the 1998 Survey of Employment Tribunal Applications. This suggests that there were between 2 and 4 per cent. of applications where the case either went to a hearing, was withdrawn within two weeks of the hearing date, or dismissed or disposed of in some other way and where the applicant was advised that they would lose the case at hearing (either by a solicitor or by a non-legal organisation such as a Citizens Advice Bureaus or a trade union). A range is given because not all applicants sought advice and, in some cases, conflicting advice was given by different sources. Applying these percentages to the 2000–01 level of applications would imply between 2,600 and 5,200 such cases.

  This measure is based on cases where the applicant was advised they would lose the case at a hearing. In some of these cases, the tribunal may have upheld the application. On the other hand, these estimates do not include cases where there was a weak defence.

  (b) Information on settlements does not identify cases which settle "close to the hearing date". Three quarters of cases settle or withdraw before the hearing, and ACAS conciliation leads to settlement in 38 per cent. of cases.

  Sub-sea Cable
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will publish the consultancy report on the feasibility of a sub-sea cable on the western seaboard of the British mainland. [26009]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: The report is expected shortly and we propose to publish it soon after it has been received. Decisions about further action will be taken in the light of the report's conclusions.

  Primate Research Centre
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the support her Department is giving to the creation of a new primate research centre in Cambridge shire. [25439]

  Ms Hewitt
  The new Centre for Behavioral Neuroscience will use primates to study behavioral neuroscience, with potential benefits for understanding and treating human disease such as Parkinson's, stroke, and vCJD. However, it is not a centre for primate research as such. All research using animals must satisfy the strict regulations administered by the Home Office.

  The construction of the new centre will be funded principally by the Wellcome Trust as part of the Joint Infrastructure Fund, with a smaller contribution from the Higher Education Funding Council for England. My Department is not giving any financial support to its creation. The Minister for Science and Innovation wrote to confirm the national importance the DTI attached to the project, making clear that decisions on the centre's site were for the University of Cambridge and planning authorities. I am placing a copy of his letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Renewables Obligation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from businesses concerning the administration costs of the Renewables Obligation; and if she will make a statement. [25629]

  Mr. Wilson
  We have not received any representations specifically on the administration costs of the Renewables Obligation. We have however received views on the cost to the consumers, domestic and industrial. We are expecting that the additional cost to the consumer will on average be, 4.4 per cent. in 2010–11 over 1999 actual levels. The economic impact of the Renewables Obligation has been looked at in depth and we are proposing to phase it in gradually. The gradual implementation of this initiative has been planned to avoid major price hikes and to set an upper limit to the cost to both the industrial and the domestic consumer.

  Electricity Supply
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her assessment is of the impact of NETA on the stability and continuity of electricity supply in the UK. [26602]

  Mr. Wilson
  In general, UK capacity margins in electricity are currently healthy and in recent years there has been a significant amount of new build, mainly with Combined Cycle Gas Turbines. The new electricity trading arrangements (NETA) has encouraged the development of electricity trading markets. They will provide signals to the market in the future as to when new capacity is required and ensure a stable and continuous supply of electricity.

  Generators
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she will take to support 158W
  environmentally friendly small generators following the introduction of NETA; and if she plans to take this action before the next Budget. [26614]

  Mr. Wilson
  The new Renewables Obligation, to come into effect this year, together with exemption of renewables from the climate change Levy and continuing support under the non-fossil fuel obligation, will create a long-term market incentive for renewables expected to be worth over £1 billion per year by 2010.

  This will be underpinned by direct Government funding for renewables worth over £260 million between 2001 and 2004 including an extensive capital grants programme for the early development of offshore wind and energy crops, the initial stage of a major photovoltaics demonstration programme and a boost for research and development.

  In addition, on 1 November 2001 we published a consultation document in response to Ofgem's reports on NETA and its impact on smaller generators, including renewables and combined heat and power (CHP). Consultation closed on 1 December and follow-up work to analyse responses and take appropriate action is now under way. On 20 December I announced the formation of a working group to look at obstacles to consolidation under NETA, and to report to DTI by 31 January 2002. The Government will be publishing a response to their consultation shortly.

  In addition, DEFRA are planning to issue their CHP Strategy shortly and that this will seek views on the measures needed to support the development of CHP. The Government also announced in their pre-Budget report that they will consider the environmental case for providing more favourable treatment for CHP within the climate change levy.

  British Coal Producers
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she plans to extend the present financial arrangements to British coal producers beyond July; and if she will make a statement; [27262]

  (2) if she will provide coal subsidies up to December to allow British coal producers to respond constructively to the forthcoming energy review; and if she will make a statement. [27261]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government currently have no plans to extend the current coal subsidy scheme, or to introduce a new scheme, beyond July 2002. The existing scheme has achieved what it set out to do, as eligible pits have been helped significantly to survive the very difficult price and structural threats they faced in 1999–2001.

  We are working to ensure that the new EU coal state aid regime from July this year gives us the flexibility to devise suitable schemes to aid the industry if that is ever appropriate. Once the new EU regime is in place, we will of course consider on its own merits any proposal for Government support that complies with the new rules.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) of 22 November 2001,Official Report, column 396W, if she will place a copy of

  159W
  the interim report by the working group looking at consolidation services in the Library; and if she will make a statement. [26627]

  Mr. Wilson
  The interim report of the Consolidation Working Group was published on Ofgem's website on 10 January 2002, at www.ofgem.gov.uk. I will also be placing copies in the Libraries of the House.

  Mail Deliveries
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of first class mail was delivered the next day in the last three month period for which figures are available. [26569]

  Mr. Alexander
  This is an operational matter for the company subject to the regulatory powers and duties of the Postal Services Commission in respect of service standards.

  I am advised by the company that 90.7 per cent. of first class mail was delivered the next day in the period July to September 2001.

  Oldbury Power Station
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place in the Library a copy of the evidence submitted to the 1998 Periodic Safety Review of Oldbury Power Station. [25318]

  Mr. Wilson
  No. The DTI does not hold the evidence submitted to HSE by the operator for the Review. This is subject to S 28 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and can be released only for the purpose of HSE's functions (to secure the health, safety and welfare of persons from risks arising out of work activities) or with BNFL's specific consent.

  Acquired Rights Directive
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 669W, on the acquired rights directive, by what means individuals who have lost out can claim redress. [27011]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: Anyone who believes that they have suffered loss due to the previous Government's partial non-implementation of the Acquired Rights Directive must show that they were in an undertaking affected by a relevant transfer which, but for the deficiencies in implementation, would have been within the scope of the TUPE Regulations, and that they suffered loss as a result. At present, a number of claims have been brought in the courts, but without the cause and amount of the claimed losses having been established. If anyone believes that they have a claim, then legal advice should be sought either directly or through the person's trade union.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her policy to break down the figures for injuries caused by fireworks by type of firework. [26667]
  160W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: The annual data analysis currently details the types of fireworks involved in accidents as reported by patients who attend Accident and Emergency Departments.

  Corus
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of the regeneration aid for English areas affected by redundancies in the steel industry announced in May 2001 has been spent; and if she will make a statement. [25960]

  Ms Hewitt
  The majority of the £48 million package of regeneration measures for areas affected by the closures announced by Corus in May 2001 consisted of major infrastructure projects funded by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Projects of this kind are necessarily slow-moving, and little money is spent in the early stages. Progress on the projects is as follows:Durham University Stockton Campus (budget £19.4 million)—discussions are continuing with Environment Agency and Highways Agency on the impact of the development. Site reclamation work will commence once this is concluded. No significant expenditure to date.
  Phase 2 of the Middlehaven project (budget £16 million)—Detailed design work is now underway. A new junction with the A66 will be built during March 2002, with work on the site following this in spring 2002. No significant expenditure to date.
  New Tees crossing feasibility study (budget £250,000)—£118,520 committed to be spent in financial year 2001–02, the remainder in early 2002–03.
  Light Rapid Transit system feasibility study (budget £250,000)—£93,525 committed to be spent in financial year 2001–02, the remainder in early 2002–03.
  A66 Longnewton Junction improvements (budget £4.7 million)—the project is included in the Highways Agency budget and work programme. The Agency expects to have identified a detailed work programme in the next two months.
  Broadband communications in Teesside and North Lincolnshire (budget £500,000 in each)—proposals from Regional Development Agencies are under consideration by DTI as part of the £30 million fund for the roll-out of broadband communications across the UK. Programme approval is expected in the next month.
  Enterprise Grants in Scunthorpe (budget of up to £500,000)—expenditure is dependent on applications from companies wishing to expand. No expenditure has yet been made.

  The remainder of the package announced on 3 May consisted of an extension of the Job Transition Service to the areas affected by the closures, and is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of those eligible for compensation payments as a result of the redundancies declared by Corns in May 2001 have now received them. [25961]

  Ms Hewitt
  Between 23 October 2001 when payments began and 22 January 2002, a total of 5,528 single lump sum payments of £2,480 will have been made to individuals who lost their jobs with Corns as the result of the company's announcement of 1 February 2001.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list payments of regeneration aid that have been made to areas affected by Corus steel closures since January 2001. [25959]
  161W
  Ms Hewitt
  Payments of regeneration aid are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. For details of expenditure on the package of measures announced as a result of the Corus closures on 5 May 2001, I refer the hon. Member to my reply today to question No. 25960.

  North Sea Oil
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on North Sea oil and how long it is estimated the reserves will last; what percentage of the UK's oil requirement comes from the North Sea; and how many jobs in Scotland depend on the North Sea oil industry. [26610]

  Mr. Wilson
  North Sea oil has been a success story for the UK and the Government are determined, in partnership with industry through PILOT, to ensure its continued success. Detailed estimates of oil reserves on the UK Continental Shelf are given in the Brown Book (Development of UK Oil and Gas Resources 2001). The extent to which these reserves might be produced depends on a number of factors, including prices and costs relative to other oil producing areas. It is therefore difficult to make accurate predictions, but if all the discovered oil reserves given in the Brown Book were to be developed they represent some 11 years of production at rates in 2000. If in addition, estimates of as yet undiscovered reserves are also considered, UK oil reserves represent between 13 and 29 years production, although the upper estimate is unlikely. In practice, production levels will fall and reserves will last longer. Indeed, a PILOT target is to produce 3 Mboed (million barrels of oil equivalent per day) in 2010 against about 4.5 Mboed in 2000.

  About 70 per cent. of UK oil production is exported and different grades of oil imported, so that UK crude accounted for some 46 per cent. of refinery throughput in 2000.

  UKOOA, the offshore operators association, have estimated that some 118,800 jobs in Scotland depend directly and indirectly on the oil industry.

  Economic Regeneration
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many organisations in the SEEDA region dealt with economic regeneration in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01; and what was the annual cost to public funds of each organisation, [26290]

  Alan Johnson
  Many organisations, both in the public and the private sector, contribute to economic regeneration. These bodies do not always specify what part of their budget is intended for regeneration, and where they do so there is no common definition of what is covered. Other previously existing organisations such as English Partnership and the Commission for New Towns covered a much wider area than the SEEDA boundaries, making it difficult at this late stage to disaggregate figures for the SEEDA area. For all these reasons it is not possible to provide figures in the form requested.
  162W
  While numerous partnership and organisations are currently involved in economic regeneration at a local level within the region, SEEDA is the main region-wide organisation which actively promotes economic regeneration in the south-east.

  Its budget for 1999–2000 was £63,586,000 and for 2000–01 was £74,901,000. Strictly speaking not all of this expenditure would be classed as "economic regeneration" as SEEDA's work among other things also involves skills, rural and community regeneration and social inclusion, however, all SEEDA's activities underpin economic regeneration within the south-east region.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes have occurred in each of the last 10 years in(a) the numbers employed in the manufacturing industry and (b) the percentage of British GDP represented by manufacturing industry. [26034]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Paul Flynn, dated 15 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the (a) the numbers employed in the manufacturing industry and (b) the percentage of British GDP represented by manufacturing industry in the past ten years. I am replying in his absence. (26034).
  The table below shows the number of employee jobs in manufacturing for 1992 to 2001.

  UK employee jobs in manufacturing (seasonally adjusted)

  Thousand

  June

  Employee jobs

  1992

  4,146

  1993

  3,960

  1994

  3,975

  1995

  4,076

  1996

  4,121

  1997

  4,185

  1998

  4,204

  1999

  4,068

  2000

  3,965

  2001

  3,837

  These estimates are based on the results of regular sample surveys of employers which count the number of employee jobs. The data are published in Statbase on the National Statistics website under series identifier YEJL.

  The contribution of manufacturing industry to the United Kingdom whole economy gross value added over the most recent 10 years for which data are available is shown below. The difference between GVA at basic prices and GDP is the addition of taxes on products and the deduction of subsidies on products.

  Current price gross value added at basic prices (current prices)

  Manufacturing (£ million)

  Whole economy (£ million)

  Manufacturing as percentage of whole economy

  1991

  111,337

  523,137

  21.3

  1992

  115,891

  546,434

  21.2

  1993

  120,989

  575,461

  21.0

  1994

  130,767

  608,740

  21.5

  1995

  139,789

  639,908

  21.8

  163W

  Current price gross value added at basic prices (current prices)

  Manufacturing (£ million)

  Whole economy (£ million)

  Manufacturing as percentage of whole economy

  1996

  146,079

  679,620

  21.5

  1997

  152,305

  720,692

  21.1

  1998

  153,272

  761,318

  20.1

  1999

  152,653

  795,025

  19.2

  2000

  155,531

  831,053

  18.7

SCOTLAND

  Energy Review
  Anne Picking
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on Scotland Office involvement in the performance and innovation unit energy review. [25075]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I represent the Scotland Office on the PIU Energy Review Advisory Group. Over the past months, I have met with a wide variety of individuals and organisations with an interest in energy issues in Scotland to discuss their views on the matters covered by the review.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland are benefiting from the recent uprating of the national minimum wage. [25076]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Some 135,000 people across Scotland have benefited from increased rates of pay as a result of the uprating on 1 October 2001.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to ensure the enforcement of the national minimum wage in Scotland. [25094]

  Mr. Foulkes
  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. Since April 1999 the two teams have completed nearly 1,500 investigations in Scotland, recovering over £500,000 in wage arrears. The Government have also run national publicity campaigns to raise awareness and the Inland Revenue recently held information seminars on its work for Scottish MPs.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland are benefiting from the working families tax credit. [25079]

  Mr. Foulkes
  At August 2001, 119,063 families in Scotland were receiving the working families tax credit. This includes 1,893 families in the Greenock and Inverclyde constituency.

  Disability Rights Commission
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action she is taking to make the work of the Disability Rights Commission more widely known in Scotland. [25080]
  164W
  Mr. Foulkes
  Last June I launched the DRC's survey on awareness of disability in Scotland and more recently took part in the Commission's countrywide roadshow to help promote their work. I assisted also in the launch of the DRC Scotland's first Annual Review, and held a seminar for MPs on the work of the DRC. Next month I am planning to host a reception to celebrate and publicise the work of the Commission.

  MSP Numbers
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent progress she has made with her consultation on MSP numbers. [25081]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The consultation paper on the size of the Scottish Parliament was issued on 18 December 2001. Responses are required by 29 March 2002. The issue affects everyone in Scotland and all concerned have a full opportunity to have their say.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps she is taking to encourage participation by the general public in Scotland in the review of MSP numbers. [27141]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Copies of the consultation document have been issued to a wide range of organisations and individuals representing civic Scotland. The document is also available on the Scotland Office website. The issue is one which affects everyone in Scotland, and I would welcome their views.

  European Football Championships
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with Scottish Ministers concerning Scotland's application to hold the European Football Championships in 2008. [25082]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with Scottish Ministers about a wide range of issues. A decision about whether formally to support a bid for the European Football Championships in 2008 is a matter in the first instance for the Scottish Executive.

  Drugs
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent successes have been achieved through efforts in Scotland to confiscate drugs and the proceeds of drug sales. [25083]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Since its establishment in June 2000, the Scottish Drugs Enforcement Agency, in partnership with other enforcement bodies, has seized controlled drugs worth over £25 million.

  Since 1 April 2001, 24 confiscation orders relating to the proceeds of drug trafficking have been secured in Scottish courts. The value of these orders totalled £370,000.

  European Union (Participation)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with Scottish Ministers regarding Scottish participation in EU institutions. [25084]
  165W
  Mrs. Liddell
  Both the Minister of State and I have regular meetings with Scottish Ministers to discuss those reserved policy areas that affect Scotland.

  Government policy on these matters is set out in the Memorandum of Understanding, and the concordats on International Relations and Co-ordination of European Policy Issues, agreed between the Government and the devolved Administrations.

  Child Poverty
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the number of children living in poverty in Scotland in each year since 1997. [25085]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We are making good progress on child poverty but much remains to be done. Detailed information can be found in "Opportunity for All", and in the Scottish Executive's annual Social Justice Report, "A Scotland where everyone Matters".

  Trade Unions
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she next plans to meet representatives from the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss trade union legislation. [25086]

  Jim Sheridan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she next plans to meet representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss legislation affecting trade unions; and what will be discussed. [25093]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular contact with representatives of the STUC to discuss a wide range of issues. The next such occasion is on 30 January when the STUC is meeting Scottish Members and others in Dover House to discuss a wide range of issues including trade union legislation. I hope my hon. Friends will attend.

  Rural Economy
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs concerning the rural economy in Scotland. [25087]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend and I discuss with a wide range of colleagues, including the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, matters concerning rural Scotland.

  National Air Traffic Services
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met representatives of NATS; and what issues were discussed. [25088]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I will be meeting senior management from NATS tomorrow.

  It is my intention to discuss matters relating to the development of the new Scottish centre at Prestwick.

  Laeken Convention
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Prime Minister about the convention established at the Laeken 166W
  EU Council; and if there will be participants from the Scottish Parliament in the UK delegation to the convention. [25089]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Convention on the Future of Europe will begin its work in March. Consultations will, of course, be held in the usual way on who the parliamentary representatives will be.

  Rural Enterprises
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans she has to encourage rural enterprises; and if she will make a statement. [25091]

  Mr. Foulkes
  There has been close and effective collaboration between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive to deal with the foot and mouth outbreak and its aftermath. Support for rural enterprises in Scotland is primarily the responsibility of the Scottish Executive.

  Pensions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations she has received concerning pensions payable in Scotland. [25092]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We receive a wide range of representations on a number of issues. I met with the GMB Retired Members Group on Friday 7 December 2001.

  Employment
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on employment trends in Scotland since September 2001. [25078]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Latest figures show that employment in Scotland stands at 2.382 million, at around its highest level since 1960. The number of people in work from August to October 2001 fell by 9,000 over the quarter but was up by 3,000 on the same period a year earlier.

  Dover House
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of staff based at Dover House are not directly employed by the Scotland Office; and by whom they are employed. [27424]

  Mrs. Liddell
  There are currently 35 Scotland Office staff in Dover House. Thirty-one staff are on loan to the Scotland Office from the Scottish Executive; one member of staff is on secondment from the House of Lords and there are three temporary staff. There are also 10 staff employed by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, who are currently located in Dover House on a temporary basis; and five staff employed by Scottish Development International.

  West Coast Mainline
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she has met representatives of Railtrack since 5 October to discuss the upgrading of the West Coast mainline. [27031]
  167W
  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 3 December 2001,Official Report, column 92W.

  Friends of Scotland
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Friends of Scotland she plans to recruit; and how many individuals have expressed interest in the scheme. [27423]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Many individuals in Scotland and abroad have expressed an interest in promoting a message of a modern and dynamic Scotland. My aim is to enable the largest possible number of Scotland's friends around the world to promote this message to Scotland's benefit.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Advocate-General, pursuant to her answer of 4 December 2001,Official Report, column 153, on the then Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, if she has passed on the concerns of the hon. Member for Linlithgow to her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. [25041]

  The Advocate-General
  Following my answer of 4 December, I received from my hon. Friend the letter from Douglas Connell dated 30 November. Mr. Connell's letter was forwarded to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary who has now replied directly to my hon Friend, on 13 December.

  Human Reproductive Cloning Act
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Advocate-General what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive concerning the passage of the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001. [25042]

  The Advocate-General
  The Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001 is the responsibility of the Department of Health. There was appropriate consultation between UK Government officials, including lawyers in my Office, and the Scottish Executive before it was enacted.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Standing Committees
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to the Modernisation Committee to improve the effectiveness of Standing Committees in scrutinising Bills. [25064]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My right hon. Friend has already put forward an extensive programme of reform. Proposals for better pre-legislative scrutiny should provide more material for Standing Committees to use. However, I am sure the Modernisation Committee would be interested in any proposals to improve the effectiveness of Standing Committees.

  Euro
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Council to ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what provision has been made in the accounting procedures of the House for the use of the euro; and if he will make a statement. [25065]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The accounting procedures used by the House follow those generally used in central Government Departments, and are based upon Treasury guidance. The accounting systems of the House (in common with most Modern systems) have multi-currency capabilities. The House accounts for all transactions in sterling.

  Pre-Legislative Scrutiny
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement on his plans for pre-legislative scrutiny of bills. [25066]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on 4 December 2001,Official Report, column 165W.

  Oath of Allegiance
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to reform the Parliamentary Oath. [25067]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).

  Electronic Voting
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement on his proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons about the future use of electronic methods of voting. [25068]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Used appropriately, electronic voting could have advantages for Members by reducing the time spent on divisions rather than debate. The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons may wish to consider my right hon. Friend's proposals.

  Question Time
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement on his proposals to reform question time. [25069]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Procedure Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into parliamentary questions. We look forward to their recommendations.

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, when the Commission agreed to pay the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for four days a week; when the Commission first understood the average days worked was five days a week; and when, why and how it decided to offer the next term at three days a week. [25148]
  169W
  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: The Commissioner for Standards was initially offered the post on the basis of three days a week. The Commission agreed to increase the salary to one based on employment for four days, but this was done in response to representations made by Mrs. Filkin and was not based on any re-assessment of her likely workload. The Commission was told by the Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges on 10 December 2001 that the Commissioner for Standards was in fact working for about five days a week. As for the decision to advertise the next term as likely to be for three days a week, I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 23 November 2001, Official Report, column 484W, and 28 November 2001. Official Report, column 871W.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what policy the Commission has adopted in relation to the correction of information concerning the recent letter from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. [25533]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: If the hon. Member is able to be more precise about the events he has in mind, I will endeavour to reply to his question.

  House Facilities
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals he plans to make to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons for improving the facilities for families in the House. [25060]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Responsibility for improving facilities for Members in the House rests with the Accommodation Committee.

  However, I understand that some work has already been carried out in improving the facilities in the Families Room and the Refreshment Department. An experimental play scheme last summer adjournment was successful and we hope to repeat it. If any Member has further proposals, I would be happy to consider how best to take them forward.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Rural Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will review policy on the closure of rural magistrates courts; and what assessment he has made of the findings of the Auld report on this subject. [25048]

  Mr. Wills
  No. The Government's policy is that decisions concerning the number, location and future of magistrates courts are for magistrates courts committees to determine, in consultation with its local paying authority.

  In answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, we will consider this carefully, taking account of responses to Sir Robin Auld's Review Report. The assessment will be made after the period for public comment closes on 31 January.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement as to the role of magistrates under the proposals in the report of Lord Justice Auld. [25050]

  Mr. Wills
  Sir Robin Auld recommends retaining magistrates in their present summary jurisdiction and recommends a new role for magistrates alongside professional Judges in a new intermediate District Division. The Government welcome views on these proposals. The period for public comment runs until the end of January.

  CAFCASS
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, when she last met the Chairman of CAFCASS to discuss its progress. [25051]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I met the Chairman of CAFCASS yesterday to discuss the progress of the organisation.

  Courthouses (PFI)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made in building new court houses by means of the private finance initiative. [25052]

  Mr. Wills
  The Court Service is currently supporting 12 local authority and three Court Service PFI schemes. Of these, four contracts have been signed and new courthouses have opened in Kidderminster, Hereford, Hull, Beverley and Bridlington. This is the start of a steady steam of new and refurbished court buildings being delivered that will provide a better and more efficient service to court users in Modern user friendly and secure surroundings.

  Charges Against Property
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary', Lord Chancellor's Department if he will review the process of recording a charge against property. [25053]

  Mr. Wills
  The Land Registration Bill now before Parliament and rules to be made under it will Modernise and simplify the law relating to charges (including charges created by electronic means) over registered land in England and Wales. The Government are also considering the recommendation made in the report of the Company Law Review Steering Group published in July last year that the Law Commission should be asked to examine the system for the registration of company charges and security and "quasi-security" generally over property other than land.

  Public Guardianship Office
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what customer-friendly policies the Public Guardianship Office has developed since its creation. [25055]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Since the PGO was created on 1 April 2001 several significant customer-friendly policies have been developed and are progressing well. These
  171W
  include the launch of a new website with downloadable forms, an extension to the opening hours of the Customer Contact Centre, the introduction of a text phone, and the establishment of a system of regularly surveying our customers' views. The PGO has also introduced the following initiatives:

  Receivers open days
  This is a new concept for the PGO. Open days are held across the country to enable receivers, and their clients, to meet PGO staff. PGO staff have visited receivers and clients in Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol, Newcastle and Leeds. During the open Days staff meet with approximately 100 receivers and clients on each day, to share with them the activities planned by the PGO and to answer any questions they may have. Crucially, clients also get to meet their caseworkers and to resolve any outstanding issues. Stalls are set up to provide additional and specialist information about a range of topics, including investments and accounts. The open days have been a huge success and several more are planned for the first quarter of 2002, including one in Cardiff.

  Receivers network
  The receivers network, set up and facilitated by the PGO, provides receivers with the opportunity to share experiences with each other. The network allows new receivers to call experienced, volunteer receivers requesting advice and information, or perhaps for an opportunity to share experiences with someone who understands the issues they are facing.

  Plain-English literature (booklets)
  A distribution campaign for four new user friendly booklets will begin during the week commencing 14 January. The booklets are called "Receivers Handbook" "Enduring Power of Attorney", "Making an Application" and "Public Guardianship Office Charter Standards". Draft copies of the booklets were sent to members of the consultative forum and the receivers support panel for their comments. Feedback from these individuals was taken on board and the amended booklets were then sent to the Plain English Campaign, who accredited each booklet with the Crystal Mark.

  Team-working
  This major initiative in the PGO is just getting under way as staff relocate to new premises in Archway, North London. Previously in the PGO, staff have worked in an insular and unsupported environment, with caseworkers taking sole responsibility for their own case load. Recently the PGO ran a team-working pilot, where a team of staff were given responsibility for providing customer service for a pool of cases. Team leaders have been recruited and trained. Although it will take a while for team-working to be rolled-out across the client services area it is expected that our clients will benefit from an improved continuous service from staff, who will work within an open, shared and supportive team culture.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what target she has set for the Public Guardianship Office to respond to letters from hon. Members. [27111]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Public Guardianship Office has a Key Performance Measure which applies to letters from hon. Members as well as from the general public. It currently requires 85 per cent. of letters to be responded to within 15 days of receipt. In the period 1 April to 30 November 2001 this target was exceeded and 91.9 per cent. of letters received a response before the target date. However, it is very unfortunate that the hon. Member's letter of 14 November was answered outside of this target, for which the PGO offers it sincere apologies.
  172W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Chief Executive of the Public Guardianship Office intends to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Aylesbury of 14 November 2001 about his constituent Mr. A. B. Clarke. [27112]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been informed that the Acting Chief Executive replied to the letter on 11 January 2002. I take this opportunity to apologise, on behalf of the Public Guardianship Office, to the hon. Member for the unfortunate delay in responding to his letter. The PGO is currently re-evaluating the way it deals with complaints, including letters from MPs, and plans to introduce a new, tighter and more effective handling system by April 2002.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment she has made of whether the Public Guardianship Office is continuing to meet the standards of responsiveness to inquiries from members of the public implied by its Chartermark. [27110]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Public Guardianship Office does not yet have the Chartermark. It does have a key performance measure that requires 85 per cent. of letters to be responded to within 15 days of receipt. In the period 1 April to 30 November 2001 this target was exceeded and 91.9 per cent. of letters received a response before the target date. However, it is very unfortunate indeed that a recent letter from the hon. Member was dealt with outside the target, for which the organisation offers its sincere apologies. A response has now been given. The PGO is currently re-evaluating the way it deals with complaints, including letters from hon. Members, and plans to introduce a new, tighter and more effective handling system by April 2002. The PGO is also introducing and rolling out team working throughout the Client Service area, with the aim of improving the service it offers to customers.

  Judicial Appointments (Ethnic Diversity)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on plans to promote ethnic diversity on the Bench. [25056]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor appoints to judicial office exclusively on merit. The number of people from ethnic minorities holding judicial office substantially reflects the number of ethnic minority practitioners in the legal profession with the appropriate period of experience, which is usually not less than 20 years.

  The Lord Chancellor has already introduced a number of initiatives to encourage greater numbers to apply for judicial office and to secure equality of opportunity in the appointments process. For example, he has made information about the appointments procedures widely available, particularly through his website and the publication of the Judicial Appointments Annual Report; he applies the procedures flexibly in relation to age and sitting arrangements; he has introduced a work shadowing scheme which has proved to be very successful; he has reviewed the detailed criteria for appointment against which assessments of suitability are made; he is piloting a scheme to encourage applications from those who may think that their career progress to date understates their

  173W
  judicial potential; and has appointed a Commissioner for Judicial Appointments to audit and make recommendations about the appointments procedures and handle complaints.

  Preparatory work for a pilot assessment centre is under way with a view to running the pilot later this year. A video about the appointments process will be produced soon. These efforts will continue and be developed with a view to increasing the numbers from ethnic minorities who apply for and are appointed to judicial office.

  Auld Report
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will respond to Lord Justice Auld's recommendations. [25057]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government propose to set out their conclusions on the recommendations of Sir Robin Auld's review of the criminal courts in a White Paper to be published in spring 2002.

  Census Website
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will publish the tender specification prepared by the Public Record Office for contracting process for the design and build of the website for the 1901 Census online; and if she will make a statement. [26804]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The PRO placed a notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC), seeking expressions of interest, on 6 November 1998.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the website for the 1901 Census will next be available for normal public access. [26802]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The online service for the 1901 Census is available at the Family Records Centre in Islington, at the Kew site of the Public Record Office, and at a number of local public library and archive services. The website was temporarily closed to general internet access on 7 January 2002 so that enhancements could be introduced. General internet access will be re-introduced gradually as these enhancements are achieved.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultations took place between QinetiQ and professional genealogists in the process of designing and building the website for the 1901 Census. [26806]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In order to take full account of user views in the development of the 1901 Census website, the Public Record Office set up an Advisory Panel, which comprised professional genealogists and representatives of the main user groups, as well as staff from QinetiQ Ltd. The panel provided valuable feedback both on the pilot project relating to the 1891 Census for the county of Norfolk, which ran from May to the end of July 2001, and in the run-up to the launch of the 1901 online service.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultations took place between the Public Record Office and professional 174W
  genealogists in the preparation of the tender specification for the design and build of the website for the 1901 Census. [26805]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Public Record Office consulted on a regular basis regular basis with professional genealogists and other family history user groups as it prepared the tender specification. The final specification incorporated suggestions from these groups.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations the Public Record Office received on the proposal for and construction of the website for the 1901 Census. [26807]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Public Record Office consulted widely about, and received many comments on, the proposal for the 1901 Census online service. An Advisory Panel, comprising all the main user groups, met on 10 occasions and provided valuable feedback on the online pilot project relating to the 1891 Census for the County of Norfolk, concerning which over 2,000 responses were received. Many of these suggestions were incorporated into the final design for the 1901 Census online service. PRO staff also attended numerous family history fairs in the UK to seek the views of family historians.

  Pleas
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many cases referred by magistrates to the Crown court for sentencing the defendant had pleaded(a) guilty and (b) not guilty in the latest year for which figures are available. [26151]

  Mr. Wills
  In 2000, the latest year for which figures are available, the Crown court disposed of 28,713 cases referred from magistrates courts for sentencing. Figures are not available on how the defendant had pleaded in these cases. However information collected in the magistrates courts Time Intervals Survey shows that 87 per cent. of defendants committed to the Crown court for sentencing in 2000 had pleaded guilty and 13 per cent. had pleaded not guilty.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans she has to review the procedures for the application of legal aid with particular reference to the costs and benefits of a likely prosecution in order to avoid the possibility of any later withdrawal of a certificate. [27017]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We have no plans to review the cost benefit criteria for public funding in civil cases, to which I understand the question refers. Funding is available subject to satisfying the financial conditions for funding and a funding assessment under the funding code. The funding assessment (or merits test) that has to be passed before funding can be granted already includes an assessment of the case's cost-benefit ratio. That is the applicant's own case; the merits of his or her opponent's case cannot be taken into account. However, it is inevitable that cost-benefit will change in some cases as matters develop, and an applicant's case needs to satisfy the funding assessment at all stages for funding to be retained. It would be impossible to devise a test that
  175W
  prevented funding being lost during the life of a case if merits deteriorated to a point where it was no longer justified.

  Trespass
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will institute a review of the law on landowners' rights relating to trespassers. [26011]

  Mr. Wills
  There are no current plans to review the law relating to landowners' rights relating to trespassers.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit and Pension Payments
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many individuals in receipt of state benefits or state retirement pensions have had their benefits or pensions withheld as a result of them being in hospital in each of the last four years. [26809]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the status is of the targets for reducing the consumption of class A drugs, as set out in the 10-year plan for tackling drugs misuse; what plans he has to change the targets; and if he will make a statement; [27647]

  (2) what progress has been made in achieving the targets for reducing the consumption of class A drugs, as set out in the 10-year plan for tackling drugs misuse; and if he will make a statement. [27645]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend, the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) on 10 January 2002,Official Report, column 1019W.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what policy changes he plans to ensure that the 10 years anti-drug strategy meets its five and 10 year targets. [26033]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I refer my hon. Member to the reply I gave on 10 January 2002,Official Report, column 1019W.

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for the period between the commencement of the home detention curfew scheme and 31 December 2001 inclusive,(a) the number of prisoners released on the scheme, (b) the number of prisoners convicted of each offence who were released on the scheme, with a breakdown of the offences committed, including offences committed by prisoners normally classified under the categories (i) other homicide and attempted homicide, (ii) other violence against the person,
  176W
  (iii) drug offences, (iv) assaults and (v) other offences, including a breakdown of the prisoners normally classified in the sub-category of other offences called other offences, (c) the average sentence (A) received and (B) served, and the average period spent on the scheme, in respect of each offence, (d) the number of prisoners released on the scheme, with a breakdown of the offences committed, who (1) breached the conditions of the curfew, (2) disappeared and were recaptured, (3) disappeared and remain unlawfully at large and (4) had their licences revoked with reasons, (e) the specific offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme while on the scheme, including offences committed, by prisoners who committed more than one offence and (f) the specific offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme who committed a further offence while on the scheme that was similar in character to that for which they were originally convicted, including offences committed by prisoners who committed more than one offence; and if he will make a statement. [27649]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  TETRA Masts
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what evaluations were made by his Department before permitting the National Radiological Protection Board to erect TETRA masts for the emergency services; [14622]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the risks to the emergency services of erecting TETRA masts; and if he will make a statement; [14618]

  (3) what evaluations were made by his Department before permitting the National Radiological Protection Board to erect TETRA masts for the emergency services; [14619]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the number of TETRA masts to be erected in (a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales. [14620]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 14 November 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 19 November 2001, Official Report, column 93W.

  Data Protection
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is reviewing the draft PIU report into delivering electronic Government in the context of his consideration of entitlement cards and the threats posed by terrorism; when he expects to publish the report; and if he will make a statement. [17195]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Performance Innovation Unit (PIU) report "e.Gov-Electronic Government Services for the 21st Century" was published in September 2000 by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister before the Government began their consideration of a universal entitlement card scheme.

  The hon. Gentleman may have meant to refer to the PIU study into Privacy and Data Sharing in his question. The results of this study are being considered and will be published in due course. In their consideration of an entitlement card scheme, my officials are working closely with the PIU and the Office of the E-Envoy.
  177W
  The Government do not consider that an entitlement card scheme would have a significant effect in combating terrorism in the United Kingdom.

  Extraditions
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people the Government sought to be extradited to face trial in the UK from(a) other EU countries and (b) non-EU countries in each of the last 10 years broken down by categories of offence; and how many requests were (i) accepted, (ii) refused and (iii) withdrawn. [26150]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: Reliable statistics covering the last 10 years are not available. The information since 1997 is as follows:

  Requests made1

  Outcomes2,3

  EUI

  non-EU

  Granted

  Refused

  Withdrawn

  1997

  17

  31

  30(13)

  4(2)

  14(5)

  1998

  43

  20

  38(19)

  3(1)

  14(7)

  1999

  39

  10

  36(9)

  2(0)

  20(10)

  2000

  50

  20

  31(7)

  1(0)

  10(4)

  2001

  57

  25

  52(17)

  6(2)

  17(2)

  Notes:

  1. The figures do not include requests made to Ireland which are governed by the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 and are not collected centrally.

  2. Outcomes in any given year do not necessarily correspond to the number of requests made.

  3. Non-EU figures shown in brackets

  The following table indicates for the same five year period into which broad categories of offence requests made fell.

  Year3

  Offence1,2

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Drugs

  11(7)

  19(4)

  14

  17(2)

  13(2)

  Murder

  —

  2

  4

  9

  11(4)

  Manslaughter

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Terrorism

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (3)

  Rape

  (1)

  (3)

  4(3)

  3(2)

  4(1)

  Violence against the person

  5(3)

  3

  1(2)

  2(1)

  4

  Indecent assault

  5(3)

  4(1)

  (1)

  5(2)

  6(2)

  Firearms/explosives possession

  2(1)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Theft/robbery

  6(2)

  14(7)

  12(2)

  12(1)

  17(2)

  Fraud/deception

  6(3)

  4

  14(1)

  12(5)

  15(8)

  Kidnap/false imprisonment

  1

  1

  1

  2(1)

  2

  Offence

  Child abduction

  —

  3

  —

  (5)

  3(1)

  Tax/VAT evasion

  1

  3

  2

  7

  6(2)

  Forgery/counterfeiting

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Arson

  —

  —

  (1)

  1

  —

  Official Secrets Act

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Money laundering

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Blackmail

  (1)

  —

  —

  (1)

  —

  Pornography

  (1)

  2(1)

  —

  1

  1

  Affray

  —

  (1)

  —

  —

  —

  Arranging bogus marriages

  —

  (1)

  —

  —

  —

  Death by reckless driving

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Drunk on aircraft

  —

  —

  (1)

  —

  —

  Perverting course of justice

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. Offences are defined broadly, and include conspiracies or attempts to commit offences.

  2. The figures do not perfectly match the number of requests in the preceding table some fugitives are sought for more than one offence.

  3. Non-EU figures shown in brackets.

  Murder
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what information he has on the present(a) murder rate per 1,000 of the population and (b) attempted murder rate for (i) Manchester and (ii) the UK; [25772]

  (2) what information he has on the clear-up rate for (a) murder and (b) attempted murder for (i) Manchester and (ii) the UK. [25773]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: Figures for the murder and attempted murder rate per 1,000 of the population for Greater Manchester and England and Wales for year ending March 2001 are:

  (a) (i) Homicides (murder, manslaughter and infanticide) for Greater Manchester is.022; (ii) homicides for England and Wales is.016.

  (b) (i) Attempted murder rate for Greater Manchester is.031;(ii) attempted murder rate for England and Wales is.013.

  Figures for the clear-up rates for murder and attempted murder for Greater Manchester and England and Wales for year ending March 2001 are:

  (a) (i) Detection rate for homicide in Greater Manchester is 91 per cent.; (ii) detection rate for homicide in England and Wales is 90 per cent.

  (b) (i) detection rate for attempted murder in Greater Manchester is 72 per cent; (ii) detection rate for attempted murder in England and Wales is 81 per cent.

  Information for Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for their respective Ministers.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the latest date for which figures are available, how many asylum seekers have been dispersed since the introduction of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; and how many asylum seekers receiving support from the NASS under section 95 of the Act, and living in London and the south-east, have had dispersal directions cancelled on medical grounds. [24363]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: The information is not available in the form requested.

  Information recorded by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) shows that as at the end of September 2001, the number of asylum seekers (including dependants) supported in NASS accommodation was 32,8901,2

  1 Figure rounded to the nearest 10.
  2 Cases which have had their support terminated are excluded from this figure.

  Information is not available on the numbers of asylum seekers who have had dispersal directions cancelled on medical grounds.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 December 2001, (15273), when he expects to conclude the final list of categories of data to be stored on the micro-chip on the asylum seeker identification card. [25278]

  Angela Eagle
  The list of data initially contained within the micro-chip of the Application Registration Card will be finalised shortly before production
  179W
  commences which is expected to be at the end of January 2002. However, it will remain subject to review and change.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 479W, if it is his intention that an asylum seeker who has been accommodated in a reception centre or accommodation centre immediately prior to being recognised as a refugee or being granted exceptional leave to remain, will have to establish a local connection when making an application for housing assistance from a local authority under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996. [26767]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  Housing applicants who have been accommodated in a reception centre or accommodation centre and who have been granted either refugee status or exceptional leave to remain would be treated on the same basis as all other applicants.

  Under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, local housing authorities must consider all applications for housing or housing assistance where they have reason to believe the applicant is, or may be, homeless or threatened with homelessness. They may also take account of whether or not applicants have a local connection with the district of another local housing authority, if they wish.

  Where an applicant is eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need, the authority dealing with the application must accept responsibility for any duty owed, if the applicant has a local connection with the authority's district or does not have any local connection with any district in England, Wales and Scotland. If such an applicant does not have a local connection with the authority's district but does have one with another district, the authority may seek to refer the applicant to the authority in the other district.

  Visas
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that the hon. Members' hotline is kept up to date with the latest information on those seeking visa applications. [26782]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: The MPs hotline staff answer a large range of queries from hon. Members regarding those wishing to remain in the United Kingdom. The MPs hotline staff seek to ensure that all information provided to hon. Members is up to date. None the less, we are looking at improvements in process and equipment to ensure that the service provided is as rapid and accurate as possible.

  Naturalisation Applications
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications were made for naturalisation; and what was the(a) average and (b) upper decile time taken to determine applications, in each year since 1997. [25999]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: Information on naturalisation applications received and on the upper decile time to determine applications is not available.
  180W
  Statistics on the total number of applications for British citizenship received, 1997 to 2000, are given in the table. Data for 2001 will be published in the Home Office statistical bulletin "Persons Granted British Citizenship, 2001" in the summer this year.

  Information on the average waiting time for citizenship are not routinely published. The most recent published information relates to March 2001, when the average waiting time was 11.6 months.

  One of the Government's Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets is to reduce the average time taken to grant citizenship (naturalisations and registrations) to six months by the end of 2001–02. It is expected that performance on this target will be reported on in due course.

  Applications for British citizenship received in the United Kingdom, 1997–2000

  Number of persons

  Applications received

  1997

  66,000

  1998

  68,030

  1999

  67,400

  2000

  163,700

  1 Provisional

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of 12 October, 16 November, 12 December 2001 and 9 January 2002, relating to her constituent, Ms Audrey Stanley of Cheshunt. [26777]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Rooker replied to the hon. Member on 10 January 2002.

  Sex Offenders
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to her statement of 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 7, on sex offenders, for what reason she has concluded that it is not in the interests of child protection to make people's names and addresses widely accessible in the community; and if she will make a statement. [25515]

  Beverley Hughes
  The police already have and use the power to disclose information to members of the public about sex offenders in the community where, in their judgment, it is necessary to do so to prevent a crime from being committed. We believe, in common with the public protection agencies, that making information about sex offenders widely available would hinder child protection rather than helping it. Offenders subject to the requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 would be less likely to comply with those requirements if they knew their details would be publicly available, and might be driven into hiding due to fear of vigilante action. Sex offenders in this situation would not then be subject to the inhibiting controls of the public protection agencies and, for example, would be less likely to undertake treatment due to a fear of being identified. As a result, they would pose a greater risk to children.
  181W
  This conclusion is borne out by the experience following the News of the World's sex offender campaigns in 1998 and 2000. The Association of Chief Officers of Probation provided anecdotal evidence about the effects of those campaigns, including that a number of high risk sex offenders lost contact with the public protection agencies; many others who were previously participating in treatment programmes stopped doing so for fear of being identified; a number of serious assaults on people who were mistaken for sex offenders took place; and the families, who in some cases had been the victims of sex offenders, were also assaulted and abused by members of the public. All these factors are deeply regrettable but perhaps the most regrettable potential consequence of community notification is that children will be placed at greater risk from sex offenders who are not complying with the requirements of the Sex Offenders Act.

  The National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) has also recently published a report on the community notification system in the United States (Megan's Law). That report concludes:
  "There is very little evidence to substantiate claims that community notification enhances child safety".

  Trial in Absentia
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the offences for which trial in absentia is permitted in the United Kingdom. [26603]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  There is no list of offences; an accused can plead guilty in writing to a magistrates court if the offence is liable for a sentence of less than three months' imprisonment.

  A magistrate may proceed with a hearing if the accused fails to appear, or if (s)he is satisfied that there is no good reason for their absence.

  As a general rule, the accused is required to be present during Crown Court trials. There are, however, exceptional circumstances when the accused's presence

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates courts and offenders convicted at all courts for offences relating to animal cruelty, England and Wales 1999–2000

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Legislation

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Protection of Animals Act, 1911 (as amended)

  1,167

  968

  1,202

  862

  1,154

  926

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Sec. 8

  7

  7

  1

  0

  4

  4

  Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Protection of Animals (Cruelty to Dogs) Act, 1933

  61

  48

  33

  25

  31

  27

  Protection of Animals Act, 1934

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Docking and Nicking of Horses Act, 1949

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Pet Animals Act, 1951

  9

  6

  10

  6

  23

  18

  Cockfighting Act, 1952

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1954

  21

  21

  39

  30

  29

  26

  Animal Health Act, 1981, Secs. 40-42, 46 and 49 and Orders made under Secs. 8, 9, 37, 38, 39 and 43

  53

  43

  98

  78

  73

  62

  Slaughterhouses Act, 1974

  12

  8

  4

  4

  5

  5

  Abandonment of Animals Act, 1960, Sec. 1

  52

  41

  47

  41

  62

  54

  Offences against other enactments

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Animals (Cruel Poisons) Act, 1962

  0

  0

  2

  2

  5

  5

  Animal Boarding Establishments Act, 1963

  4

  3

  10

  9

  5

  5

  Riding Establishments Acts, 1964 and 1970

  10

  7

  8

  6

  5

  4

  Slaughter of Poultry Act, 1967

  0

  0

  2

  2

  3

  3

  Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1967, Secs. 1, 2 and 6

  13

  11

  18

  17

  16

  12

  182W
  may be dispensed with. Such decisions are at the judge's discretion, and include situations such as misbehaviour by the accused or his/her voluntary absence.

  Child Protection
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are registered on the Sex Offenders List that have been found guilty of child abuse. [26609]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Until March 2001, data on the number of registered sex offenders were collated biannually on a national basis from the police national computer. However, this arrangement was overtaken by guidance issued by the Home Office in respect of the statutory provisions in section 67 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. The guidance requires information about the number of registered sex offenders in each police area to be published. This will take place from April 2002 and local systems are being put in place to deliver it. A collated report on the national situation should be available during the summer. However, until these systems are in place such information could be obtained only by a specific research exercise.

  There is, in any case, no specific offence of child abuse as many sexual offences are capable of being committed against either adults or children. Indeed some sex offences against children are committed by children. The statistical information which will be required of Chief Officers of Police and Probation in relation to their work on Multi-Agency Public Protection Panels (MAPPPs) is one of the areas which are currently being developed.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions for animal cruelty there were in each year since 1990. [24904]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Information taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database showing the number of prosecutions and convictions for offences relating to animal cruelty during the period 1990–2000 is given in the table.
  183W

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates courts and offenders convicted at all courts for offences relating to animal cruelty, England and Wales 1999–2000

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Legislation

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Badgers Act 1973 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 Sec. 26 and Badgers Act 1991 Sec. 1)

  42

  26

  24

  17

  50

  28

  Protection of Badgers Act, 1992 (except Sec. 13)

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Sec. 9

  6

  6

  4

  2

  6

  5

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Sec. 11

  4

  3

  4

  4

  3

  3

  Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Breeding of Dogs Acts 1973 and 1991

  11

  10

  11

  9

  23

  18

  Diseases of Animals Act

  123

  123

  169

  136

  128

  105

  Wild Birds Protection Acts

  81

  112

  109

  87

  92

  61

  Total

  1,678

  1,445

  1,796

  1,338

  1,719

  1,372

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Legislation

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Protection of Animals Act, 1911 (as amended)

  1,084

  861

  908

  731

  927

  754

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Sec. 8

  3

  2

  0

  0

  3

  3

  Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Protection of Animals (Cruelty to Dogs) Act, 1933

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Protection of Animals Act, 1934

  9

  8

  4

  3

  2

  2

  Docking and Nicking of Horses Act, 1949

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Pet Animals Act, 1951

  9

  8

  13

  12

  7

  6

  Cockfighting Act, 1952

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1954

  39

  33

  33

  27

  18

  17

  Animal Health Act, 1981, Sees. 40–42, 46 and 49 and Orders made under Sees. 8, 9, 37, 38, 39 and 43

  42

  34

  37

  26

  49

  42

  Slaughterhouses Act, 1974

  1

  1

  3

  3

  —

  —

  Abandonment of Animals Act, 1960, Sec. 1

  53

  38

  21

  16

  18

  13

  Offences against other enactments

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Animals (Cruel Poisons) Act, 1962

  7

  5

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Animal Boarding Establishments Act, 1963

  4

  3

  0

  0

  5

  3

  Riding Establishments Acts, 1964 and 1970

  3

  2

  0

  0

  5

  3

  Slaughter of Poultry Act, 1967

  2

  2

  4

  3

  5

  2

  Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1967, Sees. 1, 2 and 6

  35

  34

  32

  21

  18

  13

  Badgers Act 1973 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 Sec. 26 and Badgers Act 1991 Sec. 1)

  48

  22

  39

  27

  41

  27

  Protection of Badgers Act, 1992 (except Sec. 13)

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Sec. 9

  15

  5

  7

  4

  0

  0

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Sec. 11

  0

  0

  3

  3

  6

  6

  Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Breeding of Dogs Acts 1973 and 1991

  5

  3

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Diseases of Animals Act

  67

  48

  56

  48

  48

  43

  Wild Birds Protection Acts

  117

  75

  119

  94

  126

  93

  Total

  1,545

  1,185

  1,282

  1,021

  1,279

  1,028

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Legislation

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Protection of Animals Act, 1911 (as amended)

  967

  764

  1,051

  867

  1,107

  889

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Sec. 8

  2

  1

  8

  8

  2

  2

  Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Protection of Animals (Cruelty to Dogs) Act, 1933

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Protection of Animals Act, 1934

  3

  2

  6

  4

  4

  4

  Docking and Nicking of Horses Act, 1949

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Pet Animals Act, 1951

  5

  5

  4

  4

  7

  6

  Cockfighting Act, 1952

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1954

  18

  16

  34

  30

  23

  20

  Animal Health Act, 1981, Sees. 40–42, 46 and 49 and Orders made under Sees. 8, 9, 37, 38, 39 and 43

  58

  43

  76

  68

  87

  73

  Slaughterhouses Act, 1974

  1

  1

  0

  0

  3

  3

  Abandonment of Animals Act, 1960, Sec. 1

  25

  19

  26

  21

  36

  26

  Offences against other enactments

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Animals (Cruel Poisons) Act, 1962

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Animal Boarding Establishments Act, 1963

  4

  4

  2

  2

  7

  7

  184W 185W

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Legislation

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Riding Establishments Acts, 1964 and 1970

  6

  4

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Slaughter of Poultry Act. 1967

  5

  5

  6

  3

  18

  15

  Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1967, Secs. 1, 2 and 6

  23

  16

  10

  9

  5

  5

  Badgers Act 1973 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 Sec. 26 and Badgers Act 1991Sec. 1)

  31

  19

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Protection of Badgers Act, 1992 (except Sec. 13)

  1—

  1—

  44

  25

  19

  4

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Sec. 9

  6

  3

  5

  3

  0

  0

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Sec. 11

  1

  1

  2

  0

  3

  3

  Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996

  1—

  1—

  7

  3

  8

  7

  Breeding of Dogs Acts 1973 and 1991

  4

  4

  5

  4

  5

  4

  Diseases of Animals Act

  52

  43

  97

  81

  103

  80

  Wild Birds Protection Acts

  203

  184

  84

  63

  68

  42

  Total

  1,414

  1,134

  1,469

  1,196

  1,507

  1,191

  1999

  20002

  Legislation

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Protection of Animals Act, 1911 (as amended)

  1,050

  828

  1,074

  861

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Sec. 8

  1

  1

  6

  4

  Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Protection of Animals (Cruelty to Dogs) Act, 1933

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Protection of Animals Act, 1934

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Docking and Nicking of Horses Act, 1949

  2

  0

  2

  2

  Pet Animals Act, 1951

  10

  9

  19

  14

  Cockfighting Act, 1952

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1954

  25

  21

  24

  15

  Animal Health Act, 1981, Secs. 40–42, 46 and 49 and Orders made under Secs. 8, 9, 37, 38, 39 and 43

  56

  51

  31

  23

  Slaughterhouses Act, 1974

  4

  4

  0

  0

  Abandonment of Animals Act, 1960, Sec. 1

  17

  12

  26

  13

  Offences against other enactments

  0

  0

  4

  0

  Animals (Cruel Poisons) Act, 1962

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Animal Boarding Establishments Act, 1963

  8

  6

  11

  4

  Riding Establishments Acts, 1964 and 1970

  0

  0

  3

  2

  Slaughter of Poultry Act, 1967

  8

  7

  0

  0

  Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1967. Secs. 1, 2 and 6

  15

  11

  16

  10

  Badgers Act 1973 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 Sec. 26 and Badgers Act 1991 Sec. 1)

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Protection of Badgers Act, 1992 (except Sec. 13)

  30

  10

  21

  4

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Sec. 9

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Sec. 11

  4

  3

  0

  0

  Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996

  0

  0

  5

  4

  Breeding of Dogs Acts 1973 and 1991

  5

  4

  3

  2

  Diseases of Animals Act

  72

  53

  26

  22

  Wild Birds Protection Acts

  157

  118

  96

  80

  Total

  1,467

  1,138

  1,368

  1,061

  1 Not available

  2 Staffordshire police force were only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates' courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data these data are not robust at a detailed level and have been excluded from this table.

  Criminal Justice and Police Act
  Jim Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been initiated under section 46 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. [25105]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Home Office Court Proceedings Database began separately identifying prosecutions completed for this offence from 1 January of this year. Such information will become available, after the publication of court proceedings statistics for 2002, in the autumn of next year.

  Bachir Aouni
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the money defrauded from Barclays Bank by Bachir Aouni and his associates has been traced; and if he will make a statement. [25178]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The tracing of property suspected to be the proceeds of crime is a matter for the police.

  Traffic Offences
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many traffic offences were
  187W
  committed by drivers under the age of 16 in each of the last 20 years. [25019]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Data prior to 1990 are not

  Findings of guilt at all courts for traffic offences1 committed by offenders aged 10-15 years and offence group England and Wales 1990–2000

  Number of offences

  Offence group

  Offence type1

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Age 10–15

  1

  Causing death or bodily harm

  4

  —2

  20

  4

  8

  4

  4

  7

  6

  6

  3

  2

  Dangerous driving

  208

  —2

  226

  111

  111

  150

  116

  105

  130

  138

  173

  3

  Driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs

  65

  —2

  41

  42

  59

  89

  135

  128

  114

  120

  129

  4

  Careless driving

  219

  —2

  131

  102

  117

  129

  123

  109

  135

  146

  202

  5

  Accident offences

  180

  —2

  105

  121

  133

  126

  111

  118

  123

  144

  189

  16

  Speed limit offences

  15

  —2

  20

  6

  2

  9

  5

  10

  8

  12

  12

  17

  Motorway offences (other than speeding)

  0

  —2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  18

  Neglect of traffic directions

  75

  —2

  52

  55

  44

  71

  86

  56

  69

  80

  97

  19

  Neglect of pedestrian rights

  40

  —2

  20

  18

  35

  36

  30

  20

  22

  29

  25

  20

  Obstruction, waiting and parking offences

  5

  —2

  1

  3

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  2

  3

  24

  Offences peculiar to motor cycles

  443

  —2

  256

  279

  398

  448

  408

  410

  422

  397

  452

  25

  Miscellaneous motoring offences

  110

  —2

  85

  111

  111

  157

  95

  92

  105

  120

  89

  Total traffic offences

  1,364

  —2

  958

  853

  1,020

  1,221

  1,115

  1,058

  1,138

  1,194

  1,374

  As a percentage of total offences committed by persons all ages

  0.25

  —2

  0.18

  0.20

  0.25

  0.30

  0.27

  0.27

  0.27

  0.29

  0.36

  1 The list of offence types group those offences most likely to have involved a traffic offence. They exclude offences committed by pedal cyclists.

  2 Not available.

  Note:

  Data taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database.

  Taxis
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents there were in which taxi drivers and minicab drivers were successfully prosecuted for(a) causing death by dangerous driving and (b) driving without due care and attention in each of the last 10 years. [25119]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Information held centrally on the Home Office Court Proceedings Database does not identify the occupation of a defendant. For some offences the occupation can be inferred from the offence description but this is not the case for causing death by dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention.

  Child Trafficking
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the extent of the slave trade in children in the United Kingdom. [25199]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  There are currently no reliable data about trafficking in people either nationally or internationally. The clandestine nature of the offence means that it is difficult to measure the extent to which the United Kingdom receives children trafficked for sexual and labour exploitation. However, there is no evidence to indicate that there is large-scale trafficking of children to the United Kingdom.

  The United Kingdom is one of the strongest supporters of the International Labour Organisation's (ILO) Convention on the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour. In recognition of the seriousness of the offence of trafficking children on an international scale, we are working across Government,
  188W
  available for the age group required. The table gives information on offences most likely to have involved a traffic offence.

  and with a variety of organisations, to encourage ratification and implementation of the convention world-wide.

  Air Weapons
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average age of individuals convicted of offences involving air weapons in the last year; [25140]

  (2) how many individuals were convicted of offences involving the misuse of air weapons in the last year in (a) Wales, (b) England, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland. [25141]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The available information for England and Wales is in terms of convictions for offences involving air weapons as defined under the Fireams Acts, as opposed to all offences where air weapons were used. The table, derived from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, gives the number of persons convicted in 2000 and their average ages for those offences identified by the database.

  Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
  189W

  Persons convicted of offences1 under the Firearms Acts connected with air weapons—England and Wales 2000

  England2

  Wales

  Offence

  Persons convicted

  Average age

  Persons convicted

  Average age

  Possessing air weapon or imitation air weapon at time of committing or being arrested for an offence specified in schedule 1 of the Act

  2

  15

  1

  13

  Possessing air weapon or imitation air weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence, or resist arrest etc.

  4

  16

  —

  —

  Possession of an air weapon or imitation air weapon with intent to cause fear of violence

  20

  17

  —

  —

  Possession of air weapons by persons previously convicted of crime

  30

  27

  6

  27

  Supplying air weapons to person denied them under section 21

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Carrying loaded air gun in public place etc.

  160

  21

  10

  24

  Trespassing with air weapon in a building

  3

  15

  —

  —

  Trespassing with air weapon on land

  17

  22

  1

  38

  Person under 17 acquiring air weapon

  3

  16

  —

  —

  Person under 14 having with him an air weapon or ammunition therefor

  15

  12

  1

  12

  Person under 17 having with him an air weapon in a public place

  47

  15

  5

  15

  Person under 14 making improper use of air weapon when under supervision

  1

  11

  —

  —

  Person supervising person under 14, permitting improper use of air weapon

  1

  25

  1

  39

  Selling or letting on hire an air weapon to person under 17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Supplying air weapon to person under 14

  2

  28

  —

  —

  Supplying air weapon to person drunk or insane

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Failure to hand over air weapon or ammunition on demand by constable

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  305

  20

  25

  23

  1 Data are given on a principal offence basis.

  2 Staffordshire police force were only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against at magistrates court for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust at a detailed level and have been excluded from this table.

  Source:

  Home Office Crime and Criminal Justice Unit

  Unlicensed Vehicles
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions were secured for the non-payment of road fund licence in the last year in(a) Wales, (b) England, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) Scotland. [25134]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Information taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database shows that in 2000 there were 21,580 convictions in Wales for offences under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, s29—failure to pay appropriate duty—and 278,641 convictions within England.

  Information relating to Northern Ireland and Scotland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and Scotland.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to re-examine the methods for the operation of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and in particular the restrictions placed upon those individuals who have previously had criminal convictions on receiving compensation. [27018]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  All aspects of the scheme were re-examined following a major public consultation launched in 1999, and a number of significant changes and improvements were brought into force with effect from 1 April 2001. There are no plans for further re-examination, though the general operation of the scheme is kept under continuing review.

  Previous convictions do not automatically or permanently preclude payment of compensation. In assessing applications, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and the complementary independent Appeals
  190W
  Panel take into account other relevant factors. Convictions spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 must be disregarded.

  Bogus Children's Charities
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms are in place between his Department and the Home Office to crack down on bogus children's charities. [24309]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: Responsibility for the investigation of organisations which claim falsely to be charities rests with the police. The Chief Charity Commissioner will write to the hon. Member with information on how the Charity Commission identifies and deals with possible abuse and maladministration in charities concerned with children. A copy of his letter will be placed in the Library.

  Immigration
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state against each category of appeal, and for the last full year for which records are kept,(a) the (i) target and (ii) actual time for dispatch of explanatory statements by entry clearance officers from notification by unsuccessful applicants of their notice of appeal, (b) the time such statements are held in the Home Office before being sent to the Immigration Appellate Authority and (c) for what reason figures are not published in the Home Office annual report; what proposals he has for reducing the delay; and if he will make a statement. [25349]

  Angela Eagle
  The target time for dispatch of explanatory statements from entry clearance posts to the Home Office is one month from receipt of the notice of
  191W
  appeal for non-settlement applications and three months for settlement applications. Information on the actual time for dispatch is not available.

  Information on the time such statements are with the Home Office is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  192W
  These figures were not published in the last Home Office report as they do not measure performance against a Public Service Agreement or Home Office target.

  The scope for reducing timescales will be kept under review as part of the substantial expansion in appeals capacity announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 29 October 2001.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Correspondence
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will answer the questions from the hon. Member for Maidenhead on the grant payment deed for(a) NGCL and (b) Renewco, Refs 22067, 22068 and 22069. [27332]

  Mr. Byers
  I have answered the hon. Member's questions today.

  London Underground
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will place in the Library the assumptions underlying the judgment about the amount of money that would be saved by the effect of the London Underground PPP on staff as opposed to the effect of the public sector alternative on staff; and if he will make a statement; [26037]

  (2) if he will place in the Library his assumptions underlying the judgment about the amount of money that would be saved by introducing private sector management skills through London Underground PPP as opposed to through the public sector alternative; and if he will make a statement; [26036]

  (3) if he will place in the Library the assumptions underlying the judgment about the amount of money that would be saved by large projects in the London Underground system being implemented through the proposed PPP as opposed to through the public sector alternative; and if he will make a statement. [26038]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 9 January 2002,Official Report, column 846W.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 498W, on London Underground, what steps are being taken to increase the capacity of the Jubilee line to 27 trains per hour. [26441]

  Mr. Spellar
  London Underground informs me that work is currently in hand to improve capacity. Under the planned public-private partnership, London Underground's intention is that responsibility for delivering the capacity it specifies, whether through improved signalling or other means, will be that of the private sector infrastructure company.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the 194W
  average number of carriages in each train on each line of the London Underground is. [27661]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is an operational matter for London Underground who have provided the information set out in the table which shows the number of carriages per train for each line on the Underground.

  Line

  Number of carriages per train

  Bakerloo

  7

  Central

  8

  Circle

  6

  District1

  6

  East London

  4

  Hammersmith and City

  6

  Jubilee

  6

  Metropolitan2

  8 or 4

  Northern

  6

  Piccadilly

  6

  Victoria

  8

  Waterloo and City

  4

  1 Two different types of train stock are used on the District line. The Edgware Road to Wimbledon service comprises "C" stock. All other services on the line make use of "D" stock. Both types of stock are used in six carriage train sets.

  2 All Metropolitan line trains comprise eight carriages, with the exception of the single four carriage train providing the shuttle service between Chesham and Chalfont and Latimer.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he intends to make compensation adjustments as a result of the abolition of council tax benefit subsidy penalty for Devon county council's settlement for 2002–03; [27309]

  (2) by what percentage the £1.4 million Devon county council will benefit from in 2002–03 will be reduced as a result of the abolition of council tax benefit subsidy penalty. [27310]

  Dr. Whitehead
  No adjustments will be made to any local authority's settlement figures for 2002–03 as a result of the abolition of the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme. Like other local authorities, Devon county council will no longer need to make, or include in its budget requirement, a contribution under the scheme for 2002–03 or future years. It will therefore benefit from the abolition of the scheme. The figure of £1.4 million is its contribution to benefit costs under the scheme in 2001–02.

  South-East Manchester Multi-Modal Study
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress he has made with the south-east Manchester Multi-Modal Study; and when he will announce his decision and the first tranche of funding. [27417]
  195W
  Mr. Spellar
  I am currently considering the report and the north-west regional assembly's recommendations and hope to make an announcement shortly.

  "Planning: Delivering A Fundamental Change"
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he plans parish councils to have a role under the proposals relating to planning in his paper, "Planning: delivering a fundamental change"; and if he will make a statement. [27503]

  Ms Keeble
  The consultation document "Planning: delivering a fundamental change" does not propose planning functions for parish or town councils. It envisages, however, that action plans drawn up as part of the proposed local development frameworks might include neighbourhood, village or parish plans drawn up with the involvement of the local community (paras 4.13–15 and 4.24).

  Starter Home Initiative
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the estimated number of new homes for nurses in south-east England which will be built under the Starter Home Initiative over the years 2001–02 to 2003–04. [26921]

  Ms Keeble
  Around 3,500 nurses and other essential health workers in London and the south-east will be helped to buy homes through the Starter Home Initiative allocations totalling £230 million which were announced on 6 September 2001. The arrangements for allocating Round 2 Starter Home Initiative funding of £20 million will be announced shortly.

  We expect the majority of key workers being helped through the Starter Home Initiative will purchase existing properties. A number of schemes will provide new build properties only, a number will target existing properties and a number of large schemes will target existing properties and also try to identify opportunities for new build.

  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will allow access to the Starter Home Initiative for key workers to teachers in further education colleges. [26012]

  Ms Keeble
  The subsidy we are providing to assist people into home ownership is limited and has to be targeted in ways that best help our communities. The Starter Home Initiative funding available for teachers is being targeted on teachers working in schools because this is where the most severe recruitment and retention problems in the profession are being experienced.

  Teachers in further education and other key workers will benefit from our wider housing policies to increase the supply of affordable homes, particularly in areas where demand is high. Investment in housing will rise to more than £4 billion by 2003–04 and we are consulting on radical proposals for the more effective delivery of affordable housing through the planning system which would help provide greater opportunities for key workers.

  Asset Management Plans
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the estimated cost is of the building(a) repair and (b) maintenance backlog contained within the Asset Management Plan of each local authority; and if he will make a statement. [25785]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Local authorities have submitted Asset Management Plans to Government as part of the first live round of the single capital pot during 2001. Each authority was asked to provide an estimate of its maintenance backlog for all assets—housing, education, transport, office accommodation etc. No distinction was made between repair and maintenance for this purpose.

  The response rate on the question of backlog was over 70 per cent. for counties, metropolitan districts and unitary councils, 57 per cent. for London boroughs and 24 per cent. for district councils. The average backlog for those authorities responding was used to produce an estimate for the whole population.

  The totals should be treated with caution as most authorities are not yet well advanced in asset management and we are not able to confirm that consistent and robust methods were used to assess the backlog.

  Average per council £ million

  Total estimate of backlog £ billion

  Counties

  139

  4.4

  Metropolitan districts

  251

  7.8

  Unitary councils

  96

  3.8

  London boroughs

  143

  4.7

  District councils

  19

  4.4

  Total

  25.1

  Transport Emissions
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions by how much and over what periods of time he expects emissions from the transport sector to fall as a result of the Government's 10-Year transport plan. [26526]

  Mr. Spellar
  The three tables set out the Government's forecasts of the reduction of CO2, NOx and PM10 emissions between 2000 and 2010 as the result of the actions set out in the Government's 10-Year Plan for Transport.

  Forecast 2010 CO2 emissions in Great Britain.

  (MtC)

  Total emissions

  Saving compared to 2000

  2000

  31.0

  —

  2010 without Plan

  31.7

  +0.7

  2010 with Plan

  30.1

  -0.9

  Forecast 2010 NOx emissions in England

  Total emissions (Kt)

  Percentage change on 2000

  2000

  501

  —

  2010 without Plan

  213

  -57.5

  2010 with Plan

  208

  -58.5

  197W

  Forecast 2010 PM10 emissions in England

  Total emissions (Kt)

  Percentage change on 2000

  2000

  20.3

  —

  2010 without Plan

  11.1

  -45.3

  2010 with Plan

  11.0

  -45.8

  Source:

  "Transport 2010: The Background Analysis", Figures 14 and 15. DETR, July 2000

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to bring up to the national average the standard spending assessment for the over 65s in Devon for the financial year 2002–03. [27308]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We announced the provisional 2002–03 local government finance settlement for consultation on 4 December 2001. It does not include any proposals to change the current standard spending assessment methodology for elderly social services. However, we have also announced that 2002–03 will be the last year to use this system. We intend to introduce a fairer, more intelligible formula-based approach for use in 2003–04.

  We are actively involving local government in our review of the system, and we will be consulting widely before taking final decisions on the best way forward.

  3 Marsham Street
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he has responsibility for the former Department of the Environment building at 3 Marsham street. [23369]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I presume that the hon. Member means 43 Marsham street, in which case the answer is yes.

  My Department holds a lease of the whole of Romney house which expires on 24 December 2003.

  Urban Regeneration
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what schemes targeting urban regeneration needs are managed by his Department; how much each scheme has available to invest; what issues each scheme aims to tackle; and how much has been spent annually since 1997(a) in the United Kingdom, (b) in Teesside, (c) in Redcar and Cleveland and Middlesbrough councils and (d) in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency. [25479]

  Ms Keeble
  The Department is collating the information and I will write to my hon. Friend when it is available. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Tolls
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the level of tolls are on major(a) bridges, (b) tunnels and (c) roads in the United Kingdom. [26067]
  198W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions only has policy responsibility for tolled undertakings in England. My hon. Friend should contact the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales for information about tolled undertakings within their jurisdiction.

  Following is a list of major tolled bridges and tunnels (there are currently no major tolled roads open in England) and the tolls charged for motorcars and large goods vehicles:

  £

  Undertaking

  Motorcar

  Large goods vehicle

  Dartford Crossings (each way)

  1.00

  2.90

  Humber Bridge (each way)

  2.40

  9.60 to 16.10

  Mersey Tunnels (each way)

  1.20

  2.40 to 4.80

  Severn Bridges (one way)

  4.40

  13.30

  Tamar Bridge (one way)

  1.00

  2.50 to 5.50

  Tyne Tunnel (each way)

  1.00

  1.20

  Transport Infrastructure
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of(a) public spending and (b) GDP will be taken up by investment in transport infrastructure in each of the next three years. [26297]

  Mr. Spellar
  The proportion of total public spending that will be taken up by public investment in transport infrastructure and rolling stock for the three-year period 2001–02 to 2003–04 will be 1.0 per cent., 1.2 per cent. and 1.6 per cent. respectively. A proportion for 2004–05 is not available, because a figure for total public expenditure for that year is not available.

  The proportion of GDP that will be taken up by total investment in transport infrastructure and rolling stock for the four-year period 2001–02 to 2004–05 will be 0.9 per cent., 1.0 per cent., 1.1 per cent. and 1.1 per cent. respectively.

  Road Crossings
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what legal requirements exist to require local authorities to provide fixed crossings on major roads close to schools. [26468]

  Ms Keeble
  There are no legal requirements compelling local highway authorities to provide pedestrian crossings. Local authorities have powers to provide crossings on their roads under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

  Automatic Train Protection
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the likely impact of the introduction of automatic train protection on the ability of the rail industry to manage other major projects at the same time; [26461]

  (2) if it remains his policy to require the rail industry to introduce ATP; and by what date. [26460]
  199W
  Mr. Spellar
  Under existing law, by the end of 2003 a train protection system should be in service wherever trains are operated. Where it is reasonably practicable to install it, this means automatic train protection (ATP). European Interoperability regulations will also require the European rail traffic management system (ERTMS), which includes ATP, to be fitted in certain circumstances. In addition, the Government have undertaken to bring measures arising from the public inquiry into train protection chaired jointly by Lord Cullen and Professor Uff within the 10-Year Plan for Transport.

  The Health and Safety Commission are preparing advice for the Government on a realistic timetable for extending automatic train protection coverage. This advice will take account of the industry's ability to manage other projects at the same time.

  Rail Industry
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions his Department has had with its counterpart in the Netherlands relating to competition in the rail industry. [26464]

  Mr. Spellar
  Officials in my Department and the Strategic Rail Authority are in regular contact with their Dutch counterparts on a number of issues.

  Rail Safety
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if it is his policy to enforce the transition to cup and cone train linkages by the end of 2003. [26309]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Railway Safety Regulations 1999 require Mark 1 passenger rolling stock to be modified by the end of 2002, and to be withdrawn from service by the

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Locomotive

  4

  2

  2

  3

  1

  Carriages

  6

  10

  12

  2

  7

  Track

  46

  36

  53

  39

  29

  Signalling apparatus

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Over-line equipment

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other structures

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Combined defects

  1

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Traction and Braking shocks

  1

  0

  7

  5

  5

  Total

  60

  49

  75

  50

  46

  Derailments specifically due to foreign objects are not separately classified. They are included in the figures as follows.

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Snow, landslides, floods, etc.

  1

  1

  3

  2

  5

  Animals on line

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Vandalism

  4

  1

  4

  2

  5

  Level crossing

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Total

  6

  2

  7

  6

  12

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact ambient temperature has on rail track failures. [26056]
  200W
  end of 2004. Enforcement of these regulations rests with the Health and Safety Executive. The Executive can grant exemptions from the requirements, but I understand that no application for exemption has yet been received.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what further measures he will put in place to control the quality of maintenance and repair of rail tracks and other track infrastructure. [26070]

  Mr. Spellar
  Railtrack has the legal duty to ensure that the infrastructure is properly maintained. This involves ensuring that work undertaken by its infrastructure contractors is of proper quality.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action he is taking to measure and control the quality of train wheel maintenance. [26069]

  Mr. Spellar
  Individual train companies are responsible under health and safety law for the maintenance and replacement of train wheels to ensure they remain safe. Railtrack, train operators, rolling stock suppliers and infrastructure maintainers are co-operating to implement measures aimed at improving the quality of the wheel-rail interaction.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of derailments have been caused by(a) track failures, (b) train wheel failures and (c) foreign items on the track, in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [26071]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Health and Safety Executive does not classify derailments in the form requested. Track failures and train wheel failures are both classified as track defects by Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate. The number of derailments due to different types of defects during the last five years is shown in the table.

  Mr. Spellar
  The assessment of impact ambient temperatures on rail track failures is a matter for Railtrack. They have undertaken considerable research to understand the relationship between temperature and the effect on
  201W
  track failure and have implemented necessary control measures.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of train weight on rail track failures; and if he plans to introduce new weight regulations. [26057]

  Mr. Spellar
  Controls on the routing of trains already take account of their weight and restrictions apply on certain routes. There are no proposals to introduce new train weight regulations.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to restrict train speed and weight to prevent track failures. [26074]

  Mr. Spellar
  Railtrack have information on traffic flows using their infrastructure and are responsible for ensuring the proper level of maintenance and replacement of the track in order to keep it in a safe condition.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many derailments have occurred in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [26075]

  Mr. Spellar
  The numbers of derailments reported to the Health and Safety Executive in the last five years are shown in the table.

  Total derailments

  1996–97

  119

  1997–98

  93

  1998–99

  117

  1999–2000

  89

  2000–01

  93

  Further information of derailments and other railway safety data can be found in the Chief Inspector of Railways annual reports on railway safety, copies of which are available in both House Libraries.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when(a) he and (b) his ministerial colleagues last met officials from the RMT. [26298]

  Mr. Spellar
  Ministers meet representatives of railway trade unions and other relevant organisations in the industry on a regular basis.

  Bus Fuel Rebate Scheme
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much was paid(a) in total and (b) to individual bus companies under the bus fuel rebate scheme in each of the last seven years. [26054]

  Ms Keeble
  Total expenditure on bus fuel duty rebate in Great Britain in each of the last seven years was as follows.
  202W

  £ million

  1994–95

  224

  1995–96

  229

  1996–97

  228

  1997–98

  227

  1998–99

  1271

  1999–2000

  2333

  2000–01

  3362

  1 England £222 million

  2 England £277 million

  3 England £301 million

  From 1998–99 onwards my Department has been responsible for funding rebate payments to bus operators only in England; the totals are shown above. The funding of rebate payments to operators in Scotland and Wales is now the responsibility of the Scottish Executive and National Assembly for Wales respectively, though my Department continues to administer those payments at their request.

  There are some 1,800 operators who receive the rebate. The amounts received by individual claimants are regarded as commercially confidential.

  Traffic Signs
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of the 1989 Guildford Demonstration Project research into traffic sign conspicuity. [26063]

  Ms Keeble
  The Guildford Direction Signs Demonstration Project trialled a series of measures aimed at improving the overall quality of direction signs and making them easier for drivers to follow. No formal report was published, but the lessons learned were incorporated into the new Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions which came into force in 1994. Guidance on the correct use and design of signs was published in 1994 in Local Transport Note 1/94 "The Design and Use of Directional Informatory Signs" and 2/94 "Directional and Informatory Signs Interim Design Notes". The latter was superseded in 1997 by Chapter 7 of the Traffic Signs Manual "The Design of Traffic Signs". All were published by the Stationery Office.

  London Buses
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) bus services and (b) night bus services in London were cancelled due to (i) breakdowns and (ii) lack of drivers, on a borough basis in each year since 1997. [26456]

  Ms Keeble
  This is a matter for Transport for London (TfL). However, TfL have provided the following information which may be helpful.

  Bus services in London are competitively tendered and run under contract to TfL by a number of private bus operating companies. Service losses are measured in terms of bus kilometres and used as one of the key performance indicators of service delivery.
  203W
  Performance since 1997£98 is shown in the table. It is not possible to give figures for kilometres not operated broken down by borough. Bus routes, by their nature, cross borough boundaries and very few routes run wholly within one borough.

  The two main categories of lost kilometres shown are:
  Staff—resulting from journeys cancelled owing to the lack of a driver and/or a conductor.
  Engineering—resulting from journeys cancelled or curtailed owing to the lack of a suitable vehicle or because of mechanical breakdown.

  Figures for 2001–02 are not yet available. However, TfL have indicated that between April to December 2001 there was a progressive drop in the amount of kilometres lost for staffing reasons. This performance measure continues to be significantly better than the level in the preceding 12 months, despite a higher number of scheduled kilometres.

  Percentage of scheduled kilometres lost due to:

  Financial year

  Staffing

  Engineering

  Scheduled kilometres (Million)

  1997–98

  0.8

  0.4

  348

  1998–99

  1.0

  0.5

  350

  1999–2000

  1.9

  0.5

  364

  000–01

  2.0

  0.6

  374

  20011

  1.2

  0.5

  289

  11 April to 28 December

  Night Bus Services

  In 2000–01 1 per cent. of scheduled kilometres were not operated by night buses. Of this, 0.8 per cent. was due to staffing and 0.2 per cent. due to mechanical reasons.

  Separate data for night bus services are not available for years before 2000–01.

  Planning Appeals (Listed Buildings)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make it his policy to refer planning appeals involving listed buildings to a panel of inspectors for determination when a single inspector has made a ruling contrary to the view of English Heritage; and if he will make a statement. [25967]

  Ms Keeble
  Listed building appeals involving Grade I and II* listed buildings are already decided by the Secretary of State rather than by planning inspectors. Other appeals involving listed buildings may also be recovered for decision by the Secretary of State at his discretion. Where appeals are determined by individual planning inspectors, however, I am satisfied that they are equipped to consider all relevant aspects of the case. It is for them to decide the weight that should be attached to the views of English Heritage and other consultees and to other material considerations in the light of all the circumstances of the particular case. We have no plans to change the current arrangements.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people are estimated to be homeless in the UK; and what proportion are aged(a) over 50 and (b) under 18. [26629]
  204W
  Ms Keeble
  The Department collects information about action by local authorities in England under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts. In the third quarter of 2001, 30,910 households were accepted by local authorities as being eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in a priority need category. The latest Statutory Homelessness Statistical Release, issued on 11 December 2001, presents these and other related figures up to the end of September 2001, and copies are available in the Library.

  An analysis by the age of the household head is not collected and so precise information about the proportion aged over 50 or under 18 is not available centrally. However, the priority need categories include those where one or more household members are considered vulnerable due to old age, typically, of pensionable age or youth, typically, a non-dependant aged 16–18. Estimates of cases where authorities regarded one of these categories to be the most crucial in determining priority need are given in the table.

  Homeless households accepted by local authorities in England by priority need category—July to September 2001

  Number

  As percentage of all acceptances

  Household member vulnerable due to:

  Old age

  1,110

  3.6

  Young person

  1,500

  3.8

  Note:

  Households containing vulnerable member(s) but accepted under another priority need category (such as with dependent children or with a pregnant woman) cannot be separately identified and are not included in these figures.

  Source:

  DTLR Statutory Homelessness: England Third Quarter 2001 Statistical Release

  For information about other parts of the United Kingdom, I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland.

  Electrically Powered Vehicles
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps the Government have taken to assist the introduction of electrically powered vehicles and other alternatives to the petrol fuelled motor vehicle. [25934]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government are encouraging the introduction of cleaner vehicles, such as those powered by electricity and gas, through targeted grants and fiscal incentives.

  The Energy Saving Trust's PowerShift programme, which is funded by my Department, provides grants towards the additional cost of vehicles running on electricity and gas. The programme started in 1996 and has proved very successful to date in helping to generate a significant increase in demand for alternative fuel vehicles, in particular for LPG cars. PowerShift has a total budget of £10 million for this financial year with £20 million over the next two years and is aiming to support the purchase and conversion of up to 35,000 cleaner fuel vehicles in this period.
  205W
  From 1 March 2001, vehicle excise duty for new cars has been graduated on the basis of CO2 emissions. Under the new scheme, gas-powered cars benefit from a modest discount and electric vehicles are exempt from the tax altogether. In addition, there is a low rate of duty on road gas fuels—around 6p per litre, compared with 45.82p per litre on petrol and diesel.

  Looking beyond existing clean vehicle options, the Government recently issued a discussion document entitled "Powering Future Vehicles" which sets out and has invited comment on the UK's draft strategy for supporting the shift to low carbon road transport. This paper sets out the UK strategy for promoting the development, introduction and take-up of fuel cell and other new technologies—and for ensuring that the UK automotive industry is fully engaged in the technology.

  Departmental Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will commission and publish an independent report on the reasons for the level of sickness absence in his Department. [26996]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Cabinet Office already commissions and publishes an independent annual report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service". This report includes details of the causes of absenteeism. The report for the year 2000 will be published shortly. We are committed to managing sickness absence effectively and are seeking to reduce the incidence within the Department.

  Newspaper Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what has been the expenditure of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title in each year since 1997. [26979]

  Dr. Whitehead
  For details of my Department's advertising spend since 1997 (covering DETR and DTLR) by media, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 9 November 2001 Official Report, column 453W.

  Each campaign may use national and regional media. For national, a mix of broadsheets and tabloids have been used frequently. For regional advertising, space has been taken in many prominent regional newspapers as well as hundreds of more local papers. The target audience/message to be conveyed influence our choice of media and details of advertising by title could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  For details of total expenditure by the Department's agencies and NDPBs, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverly Hughes) to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on 23 April 2001, Official Report, column 58W. A breakdown of agency/NDPB expenditure on newspaper advertising by title could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Central Railway
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the references to Central Railway in the documentation for the M1 multi-modal study reflect his policy on the proposal. [26733]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government are considering carefully Central Railway's proposals for a hybrid Bill as a means of authorising its scheme. We will take a view on the issues raised by proposals and respond to Central Railway in due course.

  Multi-modal studies are considering the contribution all modes of transport can make to solving transport problems around the country. The M1 (North South Movements in the East Midlands) Multi-Modal Study has yet to make any specific recommendations.

  Buses (Essex)
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much was paid under the rural bus subsidy grant to schemes affecting the county of Essex in(a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001. [26850]

  Ms Keeble
  The Rural Bus Subsidy Grant scheme was introduced in 1998–99. RBSG is paid direct to the local authority for the support of scheduled local bus services, it is for the local authority to decide which services to support using this funding. The grant payments for the county of Essex are given in the table:

  Grant (£)

  1998–99

  693,164

  1999–2000

  735,774

  2000–01

  795,231

  2001–02

  11,341,087

  1 Allocation

  Buses
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he will take to ensure that the proposed system of local authority funding for 2003–04 will be fair; and whether the new system will be fully implemented by 2003–04. [26908]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We are working with local government and other stakeholders to make the grant distribution system fairer and more intelligible. The changes will take effect from April 2003.

  Piracy
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to reduce the risk presented by piracy to UK-registered or owned shipping. [26701]

  Mr. Spellar
  The United Kingdom Government have taken positive steps to identify and deal with the problem of piracy against ships at sea.

  This includes readily available guidance to UK seafarers and shipowners on how to avoid or deal with acts of piracy. It has been made available on the internet to ensure a wide coverage.
  207W
  Concerted action by the international community is the key to addressing the problem. In the past few years the UK has supported and participated in counter piracy missions and seminars in "hotspot" areas sponsored by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). Last year, through the IMO, we prepared codes of practice for the investigation of piracy incidents and the registration of "phantom" (stolen) ships. These codes have now been issued as circulars to all IMO member states and adopted at the IMO General Assembly. We continue to raise the matter in other international fora, including the United Nations General Assembly, to highlight the issue and raised the topic at ministerial level in areas where the problem continues to be of concern. We also meet the maritime industry on a regular basis to discuss how best we can continue to deal with the issue and whether there are any new ways of tackling the problem. We are currently reviewing the use of technical aids to counter piracy and will issue further advice to the industry when this is completed.

  STCW 95 Standards
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many applications for dispensation from the requirement to validate certificates to STCW 95 standards have been granted by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. [26700]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), has granted no dispensations from the requirement to validate certificates to STCW 95 standards. No revalidation to STCW 95 will be given unless the necessary short courses have been completed.

  However, a lack of places on short training courses has meant that some officers have not been able to revalidate in time for the 1 February deadline. In December, with the support of industry and the officers' union NUMAST, the MCA issued an Advice Note that enables dispensations to be applied for up to 31 January 2002, with a maximum validity of up to 31 July 2002. These are issued under Article VIII of STCW 95, are ship specific, non-renewable and apply only to officers serving below the ranks of Master and Chief Engineer, enabling them to complete the necessary courses. The number of those applying for these dispensations will not be known until later in February.

  Maritime Security
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he plans to make to the International Maritime Organisation concerning the adequacy of existing shipping and port security measures. [26703]

  Mr. Spellar
  The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) will hold an additional, intercessional meeting from 11 to 15 February to review proposals for further maritime and port security measures. Based on its own work since September, the Government intend to make an active contribution to that review.

  Building Inspectors
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he 208W
  is taking to monitor the quality of the work of approved independent building inspectors following the introduction of statutory instrument 2532. [26745]

  Dr. Whitehead
  My Department cannot intervene in specific decisions taken by building control bodies, but we would carefully consider any complaints about the quality of the building control service provided by an inspector approved by the Secretary of State under Part II of the Building Act 1984.

  Any complaints about the quality of service provided by inspectors approved under Part II of the Act by the Construction Industry Council would be considered by that council. All inspectors approved under Part II of the Act must periodically apply to the Construction Industry Council for re-approval.

  In addition, my Department is participating in the work of the Building Control Performance Standards Advisory Group, which is drawing up proposals for performance indicators that will apply both to approved inspectors and to building control departments of local authorities.

  Air Travel Trust Fund
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to introduce legislation to provide powers to impose a levy to recoup the costs of the Air Travel Trust Fund set up in 1975. [27144]

  Mr. Spellar
  A draft Bill to secure the necessary powers to impose a levy will be introduced as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity arises.

  Disused Railway Lines
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to safeguard the trackbed of disused railway lines where lines could be re-opened; and if he will make a statement. [27166]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) has instituted a review process for disposals of former British Rail non-operational land which was not transferred to Railtrack at privatisation. The process involves a property advisory group, which includes representatives of the Rail Passengers Council, the Rail Freight Group and local authorities, advising the SRA on potential future use of sites for rail and other integrated transport uses. In this way sites with potential for future transport use are identified while surplus sites can be sold with proceeds re-invested by the SRA in support of its objectives. Where disused lines are in other ownership the local planning authority may restrict development which may prevent future re-opening.

  Motorcycles
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to allow motorcycles to use bus lanes. [26923]

  Ms Keeble
  Local authorities can make traffic regulation orders allowing motorcycles or other vehicles to use bus lanes. The Department's advice does not promote this but we are carrying out research to see
  209W
  whether this should be changed. The Secretary of State can permit motorcycle use of bus lanes on trunk roads and motorways if he considers it appropriate.

  Heathrow
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what plans he has for compensation for residents living under the flight path to Heathrow Airport; [26918]

  (2) what discussions he has had with BAA on raising airport taxes to pay for compensation to residents living under the Heathrow flight path. [26919]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have no such plans.

  Ministerial Travel (India)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what the financial implications were to his Department of his recent return from India earlier than he had planned; [25993]

  (2) what the cost was to public funds of the travel and accommodation involved in his planned meetings in India in January with Indian Government representatives. [25992]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: None.

  Number Plates
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the new regulations on Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) will be laid before Parliament. [27409]

  Mr. Spellar
  Amendments to the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 and the Road Vehicles (Lighting) Regulations 1979 are required. The legal process will commence following completion of technical discussions with the number plate industry in the next week or so.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether(a) car number plate manufacturers can produce plates with a national identifier in the UK in accordance with the DTLR press release of 28 December and (b) vehicle owners can use such plates in advance of the new regulations being promulgated. [27410]

  Mr. Spellar
  Negotiations are currently taking place with the number plate industry about specific designs in advance of an amendment to the regulations. In the meantime, manufacturers may produce number plates displaying the flags and national identifiers as announced on 28 December.

  Current regulations do not allow for the display of national flags on number plates. However, in the short period before the regulations are amended the police have been requested not to prosecute those who choose to display national flags and national identifiers on vehicle number plates.

  Speed Cameras
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many 210W
  automatic speeding cameras were in operation at the most recent date for which figures are available; and what the total was in each of the past 10 years. [27008]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: This information is not collected centrally. It is for local highway authorities, in conjunction with the police, to decide where speed cameras are deployed. Guidance on deployment is available to local authorities in Circular Roads 1–92.

  Railtrack
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will publish the grant payment deed for(a) NGCL and (b) Renewco; [22067]

  (2) if the grant payment deed for NGCL formed part of the paper presented to the court on 8 October for consideration of his Department's petition to place Railtrack plc into administration; [22068]

  (3) when the grant payment deed for NGCL was (a) drawn up and (b) passed to the Office for National Statistics. [22069]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The SRA prepared and negotiated a draft Deed of Payment of SRA grant for NGCL (ie Renewco) over the summer. A draft was sent to the ONS on 17 September. The draft was not relevant to the decision to take Railtrack into administration.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 494W, ref. 21483, on what date he expects a response to the application. [26562]

  Mr. Spellar
  A response to the Secretary of State's application is a matter for the European Commission.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will list the organisations with which he or his Department have held meetings to discuss the future structure of Railtrack since 7 October 2001; [26463]

  (2) if he will list the external organisations with which he and his Department held discussions about Railtrack between 1 July and 7 October 2001. [26462]

  Mr. Spellar
  Ministers and departmental officials have held meetings with a wide range of organisations about Railtrack since July 2001, including Railtrack and its advisers, the Office of the Rail Regulator (ORR), the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA), trade unions, the administrator, potential bidders and groups representing passengers, shareholders and transport interests more widely.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress made to date in bringing Railtrack out of administration. [26293]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the administrator. He shares the Government's objective that the process should be completed as quickly as possible.
  211W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 494W, ref 21483, if the amounts exceed the specific funding provisions encompassed in the commercial loan agreement. [26561]

  Mr. Spellar
  Yes.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assistance he has requested from the Railtrack administrator under section 8.1.3 of the commercial loan agreement. [26305]

  Mr. Spellar
  None.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the Railtrack administrator will be permitted to sell railway property assets to raise funding to repay the liabilities incurred under the commercial loan agreement. [26301]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Railtrack administrator is not permitted to sell Railtrack plc property assets to raise funding to repay the commercial loan agreement.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many relevant dates for repayment have been defined, as referred to in section 9.3 of the Railtrack commercial loan agreement. [26306]

  Mr. Spellar
  None.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 495W, Ref. 23211, for what purpose the funding is required. [26459]

  Mr. Spellar
  No funding has as yet been requested from this facility.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her latest estimate is of the overspend in relation to the individual learning accounts scheme; and what impact she expects this to have on her Department's budget in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [26477]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: At 31 December the overspend on individual learning accounts was £62.9 million. This takes account of the total budget available and expenditure in England over the two years 2000–01 and 2001–02. This includes both DfES budget allocations and money that has been recycled from TEC resources. The final overspend, which will not be known until later in 2002–03, will depend upon a number of factors, in particular: the full extent of claims outstanding and bookings for learning that had been
  212W
  confirmed by 23 November; the extent to which claims will be validated after investigation; and analysis by officials and the amount of money recouped from providers who have filed invalid claims for payment.

  The final overspend will be met from within the Department's existing resources. The majority of financial activity will have occurred in 2001–02, minimising the impact on the 2002–03 budget.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what investigations are taking place in relation to alleged fraud in the operation of the individual learning accounts scheme with particular reference to(a) the contractor Capita, (b) its contractors and (c) its employees. [26475]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: The Department's Special Investigation Unit has had 86 learning providers referred to it: four learning providers did not require investigation and 82 learning providers are in the process of being investigated. Of these, the police are already investigating 13 learning providers and the SIU is discussing a further 42 with the police. To date the police have made 39 arrests in connection with cases involving two registered learning providers. One individual has been charged.

  Investigations into the control and security arrangements that were in place in the ILA system continue and we have engaged consultants from Cap Gemini to support that process. We are working closely with Capita on this work.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if she will give the standard spending assessment per pupil for the primary and secondary sectors for(a) Cambridgeshire and (b) Suffolk in each year from 1990–91 to 2001–02, adjusted for inflation at current values; [27633]

  (2) if she will list the standard spending assessments per pupil for the primary and secondary sectors by local education authority for England and Wales in each year from 1990–91 to 2001–02, and projected for the financial year 2002–03, adjusted for inflation at current values. [27632]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested for England is contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries. Funding for schools in Wales is the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list for shire counties(a) the education service block standard spending assessment for each county divided by the total number of full-time equivalent pupils financed by that county, (b) the primary education service sub block SSA for each county, divided by the number of primary pupils financed by that county and (c) the secondary education service sub block SSA for each county divided by the number of secondary pupils financed by that county, in the financial year 2002–03. [27626]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is in the following table.
  213W

  Provisional education SSA per pupil for 2002–03

  LEA

  Primary per 5–10 pupil

  Secondary per 11–15 pupil

  Total education per 4–19 pupil1

  Bedfordshire

  2,663

  3,408

  3,074

  Buckinghamshire

  2,656

  3,411

  3,072

  Cambridgeshire

  2,533

  3,225

  2,859

  Cheshire

  2,469

  3,149

  2,826

  Cornwall

  2,594

  3,335

  3,000

  Cumbria

  2,581

  3,299

  2,965

  Derbyshire

  2,492

  3,197

  2,848

  Devon

  2,559

  3,290

  2,919

  Dorset

  2,494

  3,179

  2,851

  Durham

  2,628

  3,378

  3,039

  East Sussex

  2,713

  3,498

  3,116

  Essex

  2,710

  3,465

  3,094

  Gloucestershire

  2,497

  3,186

  2,847

  Hampshire

  2,582

  3,322

  2,901

  Hertfordshire

  2,750

  3,503

  3,169

  Kent

  2,708

  3,470

  3,105

  Lancashire

  2,589

  3,319

  2,962

  Leicestershire

  2,411

  3,094

  2,764

  Lincolnshire

  2,586

  3,311

  2,972

  Norfolk

  2,606

  3,325

  2,978

  North Yorkshire

  2,557

  3,244

  2,927

  Northamptonshire

  2,529

  3,232

  2,890

  Northumberland

  2,562

  3,288

  2,983

  Nottinghamshire

  2,506

  3,219

  2,913

  Oxfordshire

  2,671

  3,399

  3,057

  Shropshire

  2,534

  3,228

  2,875

  Somerset

  2,529

  3,245

  2,856

  Staffordshire

  2,451

  3,146

  2,827

  Suffolk

  2,526

  3,221

  2,907

  Surrey

  2,718

  3,466

  3,072

  Warwickshire

  2,489

  3,173

  2,832

  West Sussex

  2,638

  3,365

  3,007

  Wiltshire

  2,509

  3,220

  2,844

  Worcestershire

  2,472

  3,157

  2,817

  1 Total education SSA divided by total pupils aged 4 to 19 (includes 4-year-olds in PVI—private and voluntary institutions.

  Learning Disabilities (Exclusion Guidance)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance she gives to education authorities on the exclusion of over 25s with learning disabilities from activities and clubs on the basis of their age. [22306]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: Local education authorities fund Statutory Youth Services directly. Their core client group is 13 to 19, although historically services will operate within the age range of 11 to 25. Therefore, upon reaching the age of 25 and over the persons involved would transfer to an adult education group. The Department does not issue guidance to local education authorities on the detailed delivery of its services.

  Capital Assets
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's answer of 12 December 2001.Official Report, column 889W, on capital assets, if she will place in the Library information on the accounting treatment of the public private partnership projects relating to (a) Birmingham Schools refurbishment project, (b) Sheffield city council Group Schools Projects, (c) Imperial College, (d) Essex LEA New School, Loughton, (e) Kingston upon Hull Primary School and (f) Human Resources Partnership; and if she will make a statement. [24178]
  214W
  John Healey
  The following private finance initiative projects have all been assessed against the Accounting Standards Board financial reporting standard known as FRS5:

  Birmingham group schools;

  Sheffield city council group schools;

  Essex LEA—Loughton school;

  Kingston upon Hull primary school.

  All of these projects were considered by the financial advisers of the LEAs concerned to be 'off-balance sheet'. In each case, the district auditor for the authority confirmed that they had not seen any evidence that would conflict with that judgment.

  Imperial College is an independent body and the Secretary of State is not required to hold information on its commercial contracts or activities. The Employment Service human resource partnership project is a matter for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

  Voluntary Aided Schools
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if the proposed reduction in contribution by the governors of voluntary aided schools towards building costs is included in the broadly neutral reallocation of costs between governors, local education authorities and her Department; and if she will make a statement. [24266]

  John Healey
  As part of our reform of the funding of premises work at Voluntary Aided (VA) schools, we are proposing that the governing bodies of those schools would be liable for capital work to virtually all of the school premises, excluding playing fields. This would replace the current complex set of arrangements for dividing liability between governing bodies and local education authorities (LEAs). The proposed new arrangements would provide greater flexibility in the way in which capital funds can be used, and lead to a substantial streamlining of the related administrative and funding processes.

  Our estimate of the financial impact of the proposed changes takes account of the average initial and ongoing costs of providing and maintaining VA school buildings, and of how these costs would fall to the parties involved. Our estimates have demonstrated that most of the proposed increase in the standard rate of grant support—from 85 per cent. to 90 per cent.—would be required to meet the additional premises liabilities which would transfer from LEAs to VA school governing bodies.

  Implementation of the reforms is subject to approval under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. Further information on the proposals, including our overall assessment of cost neutrality, is provided in the Department's Statement which accompanied the proposed draft Regulatory Reform Order. Copies of the relevant documents are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will place in the Library a copy of the responses received to "Responsibilities for Premises Work at Voluntary Aided Schools"; and if she will provide a list of respondents. [25538]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: A copy of the Department's statement, together with the proposed draft Regulatory Reform Order, has been placed in the Library. The statement contains, at Annexe A, a list of who

  215W
  was consulted, and indicates those who responded. The statement also contains, at Annexe B, details of the responses to the consultation.

  Sure Start
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) parents and (b) children have had contact with Sure Start in Battersea since its inception. [24410]

  Yvette Cooper
  Since Sure Start Battersea was approved in October 2000 it has been in contact with approximately 190 different children under four between October 2000 and November 2001. The programme is likely to have been in contact with many of these children many times over this period.

  No information is available on the number of parents seen.

  Schools Access Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which schools in the Buckingham constituency have benefited from the Schools Access Initiative; and how much each school was awarded. [24864]

  John Healey
  The Schools Access Initiative provides resources to make mainstream schools accessible to pupils with disabilities and special educational needs. Over the three year period 2001–02 to 2003–04 we are investing £220 million in the Schools Access Initiative. This is crucial to the Government's commitment to improving educational standards for all children and working towards a more inclusive approach for children with disabilities and special educational needs.

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Isles of Scilly

  13.3

  13.4

  10.6

  11.5

  11.1

  8.8

  10.0

  Former Avon

  7.3

  7.3

  7.3

  7.1

  7.0

  7.0

  7.2

  Former Cleveland

  8.8

  8.8

  8.8

  8.6

  8.5

  8.7

  8.7

  Former Humberside

  7.9

  7.9

  7.7

  7.6

  7.7

  8.0

  8.0

  Former North Yorkshire

  7.7

  7.8

  7.7

  7.6

  7.8

  8.0

  8.1

  Former Bedfordshire

  8.8

  8.6

  8.6

  8.5

  8.4

  8.4

  8.2

  Former Buckinghamshire

  7.9

  7.8

  7.5

  7.7

  7.6

  7.7

  7.8

  Former Derbyshire

  7.6

  7.6

  7.4

  7.2

  7.2

  7.3

  7.6

  Former Dorset

  6.3

  6.2

  6.6

  6.7

  6.8

  6.7

  6.9

  Former Durham

  7.9

  7.9

  7.7

  7.7

  7.8

  7.8

  7.8

  Former East Sussex

  6.6

  6.6

  6.5

  6.4

  6.3

  6.5

  6.6

  Former Hampshire

  7.1

  7.0

  7.0

  6.9

  7.0

  6.9

  6.9

  Former Leicestershire

  8.2

  8.1

  8.0

  7.9

  8.1

  8.0

  8.3

  Former Staffordshire

  7.4

  7.6

  7.6

  7.5

  7.7

  7.7

  7.8

  Former Wiltshire

  7.8

  7.6

  7.5

  7.4

  7.3

  7.2

  7.5

  Former Berkshire

  7.6

  7.5

  7.5

  7.5

  7.4

  7.5

  7.5

  Former Cambridgeshire

  7.8

  7.6

  7.3

  7.2

  7.2

  7.3

  7.3

  Former Cheshire

  8.0

  8.0

  8.0

  8.1

  8.1

  8.2

  8.2

  Former Devon

  6.9

  6.9

  7.0

  7.0

  7.0

  7.1

  7.2

  Former Essex

  7.4

  7.5

  7.6

  7.5

  7.7

  7.6

  7.8

  Former Hereford and Worcester

  7.5

  7.3

  7.3

  7.3

  7.3

  7.4

  7.5

  Former Kent

  7.9

  8.0

  8.1

  8.0

  7.9

  8.1

  8.1

  Former Lancashire

  8.0

  7.8

  7.7

  7.8

  7.9

  8.0

  7.9

  Former Nottinghamshire

  7.6

  7.4

  7.2

  7.3

  7.3

  7.5

  7.5

  Former Shropshire

  7.7

  7.6

  7.6

  7.5

  7.4

  7.5

  7.8

  Cornwall

  7.4

  7.3

  7.3

  7.2

  7.1

  7.3

  7.4

  Cumbria

  8.0

  7.9

  8.0

  8.0

  8.2

  8.4

  8.3

  Gloucestershire

  7.5

  7.5

  7.5

  7.6

  7.6

  7.7

  7.8

  Hertfordshire

  8.5

  8.5

  8.4

  8.2

  8.3

  8.2

  8.3

  Isle of Wight

  7.8

  7.7

  7.8

  7.7

  7.8

  7.9

  8.2

  Lincolnshire

  7.7

  7.9

  7.9

  7.8

  7.6

  7.6

  8.0

  Norfolk

  7.4

  7.3

  7.3

  7.3

  7.2

  7.1

  7.2

  Northamptonshire

  9.2

  8.8

  8.6

  8.3

  8.3

  8.5

  8.2

  216W
  The funding is allocated to local education authorities and it is for each authority to decide its priority schemes. At the end of each financial year, LEAs are required to report back to the Department the projects funded from the Schools Access Initiative. The table lists the schools in the Buckingham constituency that have received funding from the Schools Access Initiative.

  £

  School name

  Total project cost

  1996–97

  Page Hill First School

  3,296

  1997–98

  Page Hill First School

  7,042

  1998–99

  Page Hill First School

  4,260

  Royal Latin Grammar School

  10,000

  1999–2000

  Royal Latin Grammar School

  11,978

  Buckingham Middle School

  10,046

  Teacher Numbers
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and secondary teachers, and (b) school support staff there were per thousand of population in (i) Staffordshire (ii) other shire authorities in each year since 1995. [24933]

  Mr. Timms
  Full-time equivalent regular teachers in maintained primary and secondary schools in existing and former non-metropolitan local authorities1, per thousand of population2, in January of each year, were as follows:
  217W

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Northumberland

  8.4

  8.2

  8.3

  8.0

  8.1

  8.0

  8.2

  Oxfordshire

  7.1

  6.7

  6.6

  6.5

  6.5

  6.9

  7.1

  Somerset

  7.3

  7.0

  6.9

  6.9

  6.6

  6.9

  7.3

  Suffolk

  7.9

  7.8

  7.8

  7.8

  7.9

  7.8

  7.9

  Surrey

  6.1

  6.5

  6.5

  6.4

  6.3

  6.5

  6.4

  Warwickshire

  7.8

  7.5

  7.3

  7.4

  7.5

  7.6

  7.8

  West Sussex

  7.0

  7.0

  6.9

  7.0

  7.0

  7.0

  7.0

  England

  7.8

  7.7

  7.7

  7.6

  7.7

  7.7

  7.8

  1 To give consistent time series, data for new authorities created by local government re-organisation in 1996, 1997 and 1998 have been added together to produce data for the former authority areas.

  2 Estimated population data provided by the Office for National Statistics.

  Full-time equivalent non-teaching staff1 in maintained primary and secondary schools in existing and former

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Isles of Scilly

  2.7

  3.2

  2.9

  3.2

  2.9

  3.2

  4.5

  Former Avon

  2.0

  2.1

  2.3

  2.3

  2.4

  2.5

  2.8

  Former Cleveland

  1.8

  2.1

  2.2

  2.2

  2.4

  2.6

  3.4

  Former Humberside

  2.1

  2.3

  2.4

  2.5

  2.8

  3.0

  3.7

  Former North Yorkshire

  1.6

  1.7

  1.8

  1.9

  2.0

  2.2

  2.6

  Former Bedfordshire

  2.6

  2.6

  2.7

  2.9

  3.1

  3.4

  4.0

  Former Buckinghamshire

  2.3

  2.3

  2.4

  2.6

  2.6

  2.7

  3.1

  Former Derbyshire

  2.0

  2.1

  2.1

  2.3

  2.4

  2.6

  3.1

  Former Dorset

  1.6

  1.8

  1.9

  2.1

  2.4

  2.7

  3.2

  Former Durham

  1.5

  1.6

  1.6

  1.8

  1.9

  2.1

  2.3

  Former East Sussex

  1.7

  2.0

  2.1

  2.2

  2.4

  2.6

  3.0

  Former Hampshire

  2.7

  2.8

  2.9

  2.9

  3.0

  3.1

  3.4

  Former Leicestershire

  2.3

  2.4

  2.5

  2.7

  2.9

  3.1

  3.6

  Former Staffordshire

  1.9

  2.0

  2.1

  2.3

  2.5

  2.7

  3.1

  Former Wiltshire

  2.2

  2.3

  2.5

  2.5

  2.6

  2.8

  3.2

  Former Berkshire

  2.1

  2.2

  2.4

  2.5

  2.7

  2.9

  3.4

  Former Cambridgeshire

  2.9

  2.9

  3.1

  3.2

  3.2

  3.4

  3.8

  Former Cheshire

  1.8

  1.9

  2.0

  2.1

  2.2

  2.3

  2.7

  Former Devon

  2.1

  2.2

  2.2

  2.5

  2.7

  2.9

  3.4

  Former Essex

  2.3

  2.5

  2.7

  2.8

  3.0

  3.2

  3.7

  Former Hereford and Worcester

  1.5

  1.7

  1.8

  2.0

  2.1

  2.4

  2.6

  Former Kent

  2.3

  2.6

  2.8

  2.8

  3.0

  3.3

  3.7

  Former Lancashire

  1.7

  1.8

  2.0

  2.2

  2.3

  2.6

  3.0

  Former Nottinghamshire

  2.0

  2.0

  2.1

  2.2

  2.4

  2.6

  3.1

  Former Shropshire

  2.0

  2.2

  2.3

  2.4

  2.6

  2.8

  3.2

  Cornwall

  2.7

  3.0

  3.1

  3.3

  3.4

  3.7

  3.9

  Cumbria

  1.9

  1.9

  2.1

  2.2

  2.3

  2.5

  2.8

  Gloucestershire

  1.8

  1.8

  1.9

  2.0

  2.2

  2.3

  2.7

  Hertfordshire

  2.3

  2.5

  2.6

  2.7

  2.8

  3.0

  3.3

  Isle of Wight

  2.6

  2.8

  2.9

  3.3

  3.8

  4.1

  5.1

  Lincolnshire

  2.0

  2.3

  2.4

  2.5

  2.5

  2.6

  3.1

  Norfolk

  1.8

  2.0

  2.2

  2.4

  2.5

  2.7

  3.3

  Northamptonshire

  2.3

  2.6

  2.7

  2.9

  3.0

  3.5

  4.1

  Northumberland

  1.7

  1.8

  1.9

  2.0

  2.1

  2.5

  2.9

  Oxfordshire

  2.4

  2.4

  2.4

  2.5

  2.5

  2.8

  3.1

  Somerset

  2.7

  2.9

  3.0

  3.1

  3.2

  3.3

  3.7

  Suffolk

  1.9

  1.9

  2.0

  2.2

  2.3

  2.5

  2.8

  Surrey

  1.9

  2.1

  2.3

  2.4

  2.4

  2.5

  2.8

  Warwickshire

  2.1

  2.1

  2.2

  2.3

  2.5

  2.8

  3.2

  West Sussex

  2.2

  2.3

  2.4

  2.6

  2.7

  2.8

  3.1

  England

  2.1

  2.2

  2.4

  2.5

  2.6

  2.8

  3.3

  1 Non-teaching staff includes teaching assistants, administrative staff, technicians and other education support staff.

  2 To give consistent time series, data for new authorities created by local government re-organisation in 1996, 1997 and 1998 have been added together to produce data for the former authorities areas.

  3 Estimated population data provided by the Office for National Statistics.

  218W
  non-metropolitan local authorities2, per thousand of population3, in January of each year, were as follows:

  Children and Young Persons Unit
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people work in the Children and Young Persons Unit in her Department. [25969]

  Mr. Denham
  78 people currently work in the Children and Young People's Unit. That total includes full and part-time staff, people working on short-term secondments to the unit and people working jointly to the Children and Young People's Unit and the Sure Start Unit. 65 people work in the Children and Young People's Unit in London and 13 work in the Government offices in the regions.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the budget is for the Children and Young Persons Unit in her Department. [25970]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) on 4 December 2001,Official Report, column 254W.

  Correspondence
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she expects to reply to the hon. Member for Colchester's letter to her of 26 November 2001 concerning St. George's Infant School, Colchester. [25963]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills replied to the hon. Member's letter of 26 November 2001 on 11 January 2002.

  Teacher Vacancies (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there are in local education authority schools in Worcestershire. [26405]

  Mr. Timms
  There were eight vacancies for full-time teachers in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools in Worcestershire in January 2001. The annual census for 2002 will be carried out on 17 January, though it will be some time before all the information obtained is ready for publication.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many teachers in Somerset local education authority have passed the threshold for performance-related pay in round 1 of assessment; [26570]

  (2) how many teachers in (a) England and Wales and (b) Somerset local education authority have applied to pass the threshold for performance-related pay in round 1 of assessment. [26571]

  Mr. Timms
  About 200,000 teachers in English local authorities—including nearly 2,000 in Somerset—applied for the threshold assessment in the first (2000) round. The proportion of teachers in Somerset assessed as meeting the standards, at about 97 per cent., is in line with the national average.

  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate is of the number of high performing(a) classroom teachers, (b) advanced skills
  220W
  teachers and (c) leadership group members who will be awarded additional points on the upper pay scale in 2002–03 in (i) England and Wales and (ii) Somerset local education authority. [26572]

  Mr. Timms
  The number of performance points awarded to teachers and members of the leadership group will be determined by the governing bodies of individual schools. My Department will be making a special grant worth £250 million over the next two financial years available for performance points. But the purpose of this grant will be to encourage schools to award such points, not to fund a particular number of awards. Funding for teachers' pay in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Assistant Heads
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many assistant heads there were in(a) England and Wales and (b) Somerset local education authority in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02. [26575]

  Mr. Timms
  In January 2001 local authorities reported 6,960 full-time assistant heads in the maintained schools sector in England, and 20 in Somerset. More assistant heads may have been appointed after the survey date.

  The information was not collected before January 2001 and is not yet available for January 2002.

  Information for Wales is the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales.

  Teacher Assaults (Hillingdon)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers within the Hillingdon local education authority were assaulted by(a) pupils and parents (b) in each of the last four years. [26857]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department does not hold this data. We have also been informed that Hillingdon local education authority does not hold this information centrally.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools within the Hillingdon local education authority had 30 or more pupils in a class in(a) September 2001 and (b) January 2002. [26925]

  Mr. Timms
  The September class size count in 2001 showed there were 23 schools within the Hillingdon local education authority that had 30 pupils in infant classes with one teacher and one school that had 31 or more pupils in infant classes with one teacher. This data collection only gathers information on infant classes.

  For January 2001 there were 48 primary schools within the Hillingdon local education authority that had 30 pupils in a class and 35 primary schools that had 31 or more pupils in a class. The corresponding figures for secondary schools are 14 schools with 30 pupils in a class and 10 schools with 31 or more pupils in a class.

  Data on class sizes for all age groups will be collected by the Annual Schools' Census on 17 January 2002, and will be available in the spring.
  221W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many primary school children in England and Wales are being taught in classes of over 35. [23412]

  John Healey
  The number of pupils in maintained primary schools in classes of over 35 taught by one teacher as at January 2001 was 93,950 (2.3 per cent.) of all pupils. This compares with 165,672 pupils (4.1 per cent.) in 1998. Average class sizes have fallen from 27.7 in 1998 to 26.7 by January 2001.

  As a result of our infant class size pledge, only 8,000 infant pupils (0.5 per cent.) were in classes of 31 or more in September 2001 compared with 485,000 (22 per cent.) in January 1998.

  For information on class sizes for schools in Wales, I refer the hon. Member to the National Assembly for Wales.

  Departmental Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will commission and publish an independent report on the reasons for the level of sickness absence in her Department. [26975]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Cabinet Office already commissions and publishes an independent annual report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service". This report includes details of the causes of absenteeism. The report for the year 2000 will be published shortly.

  The DfES is committed to reducing sickness absence in line with the targets agreed across Whitehall.

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the education maintenance allowance evaluation will be published. [26930]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We published the first evaluation report in March 2001. This looked at the positive effect of EMAs on levels of participation in post-16 education in the first year of the scheme.

  We expect to publish reports on the second year of the scheme in the near future, including studies of the effect of EMA on drop out rates and further analysis of the effect on participation.

  Secondary Education
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the role of local government in delivering better quality secondary education. [25927]

  Mr. Timms
  Our White Paper, "Schools—Achieving Success" made clear that local education authorities are key partners in delivering our aims to transform secondary education and raise standards throughout the schools system.

  LEAs have a central role to play in providing local leadership and strategic planning, and in the critically important tasks of supporting school improvement, challenging under-achievement and tackling school failure. In addition, it is important that they secure
  222W
  cost-effective services for schools that allow them to concentrate on delivering improved standards and that they are free to innovate.

  Secondary School Places
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assessment she has made of the adequacy of secondary school places in Kent; [27170]

  (2) what plans she has to provide more secondary school places for the children of Aylesham. [27171]

  Mr. Timms
  Local education authorities (LEAs) have a duty to ensure that there are sufficient school places for their area. The Government believe that decisions concerning the supply of school places are best taken locally by the main partners in the provision of education who have knowledge of local needs. Each year LEAs must publish a school organisation plan setting out how they plan to deal with any surplus or deficit of places over a five year rolling period.

  Where an LEA can demonstrate overall growth in the need for school places, it may apply to my Department for capital funding.

  Specialist Colleges
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the specialisms that specialist colleges will cover following the March 2002 round of funding; if the Government have a target number for(a) each of the specialisms and (b) each round of applications in future years; and what plans she has to increase the funding available for specialist colleges following the increase in the number of specialisms. [27492]

  Mr. Timms
  The March 2002 specialist school competition will cover all eight specialisms: business and enterprise, engineering, science, mathematics and computing, arts, languages, technology, and sport. As part of the Government's Sports Strategy there is a published target of 200 sports colleges by September 2004 but there are no target numbers for other specialisms. Our target is to have at least 830 specialist schools by September 2002, at least 1,000 by September 2003 and at least 1,500 by September 2005. The level of funding available for the specialist schools programme will take account of the Government's commitment to expand the number of specialist schools.

TREASURY

  Public Corporations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for the end of each year from 1990 to 2000 totals for public corporations which were at the end of 2000 classified as within the public sector for tangible assets, financial assets and financial liabilities, breaking down figures for financial assets and liabilities between claims on or liabilities to central Government and other claims or liabilities. [26274]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Treasury does not hold balance sheet information on individual public corporations. Such information can be found in the annual reports and accounts of the public corporations. "The
  223W
  National Asset Register", Cm 5221, has information on the assets, but not liabilities, of individual public corporations as at end March 2000.

  Tables 3.2.9 and 10.4 of "United Kingdom National Accounts", "The Blue Book", 2001 edition, and table 1.1D of "Financial Statistics", published by the Office for National Statistics, give balance sheet information for public corporations classified as such in each year shown in the tables.

  Public Employee Salaries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the earnings are of those public employees on top salaries as defined by the relevant pay review body. [26311]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The regular annual reports of the Review Body on Senior Salaries (SSRB) cover senior military officers, the judiciary and the senior civil service. Their current rates of pay, or pay ranges, are those recommended by the SSRB last year. Details of their recommendations are given in their 46th Report (Cm 4995) published on 9 February 2001. The main pay rates, produced by applying those recommendations, are as follows.

  Minima

  Maxima

  Senior military Officers

  Four star—Range 8

  130,000

  152,517

  Four star—Range 7

  107,305

  129,468

  Four star—Range 6

  95,000

  119,128

  Three star—Range 5

  79,500

  99,276

  Three star—Range 4

  77,625

  88,902

  Two star—Range 3

  69,605

  84,376

  Two star—Range 2

  68,610

  81,134

  Judiciary

  Group 1

  —

  171,375

  Group 1.1

  —

  163,213

  Group 2

  —

  157,699

  Group 3

  —

  149,897

  Group 4

  —

  132,603

  Group 5

  —

  107,346

  Group 6.1

  —

  99,420

  Group 6.2

  —

  95,666

  Group 7 (London)

  —

  83,767

  Group 7 (outside London)

  —

  79,767

  Senior civil service

  Permanent Secretaries

  104,292

  179,022

  Pay band 9

  92,696

  131,276

  Pay band 8

  84,811

  123,856

  Pay band 7

  77,635

  116,904

  Pay band 6

  70,905

  110,428

  Pay band 5

  64,768

  104,292

  Pay band 4

  59,088

  98,494

  Pay band 3

  53,534

  87,598

  Pay band 2

  48,552

  77,869

  Pay band 1

  44,038

  69,178

  From time to time, the SSRB also makes recommendations on other senior salaries that may be referred to them, including parliamentary pay and allowances (Cm 4997, 16 March 2001), the Greater London Authority (Cm 4547, 3 February 2000) and MEPs and the devolved Administrations (Cm 4188 and 4246, 31 March 1999) but these groups are not part of their regular annual process.

  EU Budget Contribution
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the latest figures are for the United Kingdom contribution to the European budget in each year since 1973 at current prices. [26107]

  Ruth Kelly
  Details of the United Kingdom's net contributions to the EC budget for the period 1973–74 to 1999–2000 can be obtained from various departmental reports of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments or, prior to 1992, Government Expenditure Plans. The net contribution figure for 2000–01 can be found at footnote 2 to Table B13 of the November 2001 pre-Budget report (Cm 5318).

  Personal Savings
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the level of personal savings. [26118]

  Ruth Kelly
  In recent years the stock of households' financial assets has been at record levels in relation to disposable income.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by Department the capital expenditure under the Private Finance Initiative in each of the last four years and his estimate for the next four years(a) in real terms and (b) in cash. [26101]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Detailed figures setting out estimates of capital investment by the private sector in support of PFI deals (both signed and those at preferred bidder) have been published annually in the Financial Statement and Budget report.

  Public Expenditure
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 328W, on public expenditure, what assessment he has made of the reasons for the change between the projections for (a) Adjustments for Public Corporations and (b) Adjustments for expenditure financed by receipts for 2001–02 in Table 15 of the pre-Budget report 2001 and the projections made in Table B20 of the pre-Budget report 2000; and if he will make a statement. [26915]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Changes to the projections for these items, between the pre-Budget report 2001 and the pre-Budget report 2000, are partly due to a re-estimation of the size of these items in light of new outturn information and partly due to revisions to their definitions mirroring changes to various public sector national accounts aggregates made in the 2001 UK National Accounts Blue Book published on 25 September 2001. The largest of these changes is described in the footnotes to table B13 of the pre-Budget report 2001.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom the amount of public money spent per capita in each of the last four years. [27932]
  225W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Information on identifiable public expenditure per head by country and region is given in Tables 8.2b to 8.6b, 8.10 and 8.12 of "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2001–02" (Cm 5101) published in April 2001.

  EU Budget
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the EU budget is spent on(a) agriculture support, (b) the Social Fund and (c) the Regional Fund. [26106]

  Ruth Kelly
  The latest published outturn figures for total payments made from the General Budget of the European Communities relate to 2000. However, these do not include a breakdown of structural spending by instrument.

  In the financial year 2000 agricultural expenditure (EAGGF Guarantee section) amounted to 40.4 billion euro and constituted approximately 48.4 per cent. of total payments.

  In 2000 approximately 27.6 billion euro, or 33.1 per cent. of total payments, was spent on Category 2 (structural operations) which includes both the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund.

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to amend legislation in relation to the offence of insider dealing. [26270]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 introduced a new civil market abuse regime to complement existing insider dealing and other criminal legislation. The Government have no further plans to amend the legislation in this area, although some adjustment of the UK legislation may be necessary when and if the proposed European Market Abuse Directive is agreed.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation relating to insider trading. [27444]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government are committed to ensuring that UK financial markets are, and are seen to be, a safe and fair environment in which to trade. Insider dealing is a criminal offence under the Criminal Justice Act 1993. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which came into force on 1 December last year, introduced a new civil market abuse regime to complement existing insider dealing and other criminal legislation. Under the new provisions, the FSA can impose financial penalties on, and publicly censure, those who abuse markets, including through misuse of information. The FSA can also now investigate and prosecute insider dealing offences under the Criminal Justice Act 1993.

  Reputational Externalities
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place his Department's internal guidance on the calculation of reputational externalities in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [27602]
  226W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  As I said in my letter of 11 December 2001 to the hon. Member, whether and how reputational externalities need to be taken into account varies according to the specific circumstances of each case. Treasury officials have discussions with counterparts on a variety of evaluation issues, as appropriate.

  Fuel Duty
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if it is his policy to use the level of fuel duty as an environmental policy tool; [26420]

  (2) what his policy is towards the option of seeking a derogation under article 8.4 of the Mineral Oil Directive (92/81/EC) to allow a lower rate of duty to be applied to a given quantity of bio-transport fuel; [26442]

  (3) what his policy is towards duty derogation under the Pilot Plant scheme to encourage the use of bio-fuels; [26443]

  (4) if it is his policy to impose a fuel escalator if crude oil prices trade at a level sharply below that pertaining at the time of the 2000 and 2001 Budgets. [26527]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is our policy to review all taxes annually as part of the Budget process. In making his judgment, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor considers all relevant economic, social and environmental factors.

  We have already announced that, under the Green Fuel Challenge, we will be seeking a derogation under Article 8(4) of the mineral oils structures directive to enable us to introduce a reduced rate of duty for biodiesel later this year; and, subject to European agreement, we will be providing a duty exemption for a pilot project involving biogas.

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax returns the Inland Revenue(a) issued and (b) processed in tax years (i) 1972–73, (ii) 1980–81, (iii) 1990–91 and (iv) 2000–01. [26947]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue issued 9,469,404 ITSA returns in the year 2000–01 for the return years 1996–97 to 1999–2000.

  The Inland Revenue processed 9,354,047 ITSA returns in the year 2000–01 for the returns years 1996–97 to 1999–2000. The number processed will include returns received in the previous year but not processed by the year end.

  No details are held for the years 1972–73, 1980–81 or 1990–91.

  Mortgage Administration Charges
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce measures to prevent mortgage providers levying an administration charge every time a customer switches their building insurance to an alternative provider. [27260]

  Ruth Kelly
  Buildings insurance is essential. Without it, it may not be possible for a borrower to pay for repairs. This would affect the value of the property, and consequently the lender's investment. It is not
  227W
  unreasonable for the lender to check that the new policy has the equivalent provisions as the old one, and to make a small charge for this purpose.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the total costs of the(a) construction, (b) equipping and (c) finishing of the new building for the Scottish Parliament will be paid for by (i) the UK Government and (ii) the Scottish Executive. [27153]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The costs of the Scottish Parliament building are a devolved matter and are funded from within the Scottish Executive's budget.

  Capital Appraisal
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 13 December 2001,Official Report, column 1003W, on capital appraisal, for what reason the Treasury considered that the project appraisal and capital approval system needed to be reviewed; and if he will make a statement. [26909]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The rationale was set out in the answer referred to.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the advertising campaigns commissioned by HM Treasury since May 1997, showing for each(a) its objectives, (b) its beginning and end dates, (c) the media used, (d) the criteria adopted to judge its effectiveness, (e) the extent to which effectiveness criteria were met, (f) any agency involvement and (g) its cost. [26006]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: With regards to advertising campaigns by HM Treasury, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), on 2 April 2001, Official Report, columns 49–50W, and the reply given to the then hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) on 18 May 2000, Official Report, column 1256W by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.

  Child Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) of 31 October 2001,Official Report, column 743W, how many families in each region are eligible for the children's tax credit. [24223]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that around five million families will benefit from the children's tax credit. The breakdown requested is as follows.

  Estimated number of families benefiting from the children's tax credit

  Thousand

  Country/region of England

  Number of families

  North East

  225

  North West

  625

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  450

  East Midlands

  400

  228W

  Estimated number of families benefiting from the children's tax credit

  Thousand

  Country/region of England

  Number of families

  West Midlands

  450

  East of England

  450

  London

  475

  South East

  675

  South West

  475

  Wales

  250

  Scotland

  400

  Northern Ireland

  125

  United Kingdom

  5,000

  Notes:

  1. The regions of England are Government Office regions.

  2. Based on projecting forward to 2001–02 Family Expenditure Survey data for 1995–96 to 1997–98.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of those(a) dealt with by way of penalty and (b) prosecuted as a result of Inland Revenue investigation into working families tax credit and disabled persons tax credit fraud had previously been (i) dealt with by way of a penalty or caution and (ii) prosecuted as a result of benefit fraud. [25024]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Up until 31 December 2001, of those people dealt with by way of penalty following investigations into their working families or disabled person's tax credit applications, 34 already had a previous penalty or caution. Of the 28 prosecutions heard up to that date in relation to false applications for working families tax credit, 17 had other benefit offences heard concurrently. We do not have figures to show whether any of those people mentioned had any previous prosecutions for benefit fraud.

  Contingent Liabilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list contingent liabilities accepted by the Government since 1 May 1997. [26131]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund supplementary statements list, on an annual basis, reportable contingent and actual liabilities which have been taken on by Departments during the financial year and which are outstanding from previous years. They are also noted in departmental estimates and appropriation accounts.

  Contingent liabilities may be classified as 'reportable' under rules set out in chapter 26 of "Government Accounting". Under these rules, Departments are required to report contingent liabilities only when they are statutory or, in the case of non statutory liabilities are not incurred in the normal course of departmental business and they are over £100,000.

  Information on contingent liabilities is not collected in the way requested and could be done so only at disproportionate cost.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the performance of the Financial Services Authority. [26117]
  229W
  Ruth Kelly
  The process by which the FSA is accountable for its performance, to Ministers, Parliament and the wider public, was set out in a letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Sir Howard Davies, Chairman of FSA, in December 2001. A key element of the framework is that the FSA will report on its performance against its statutory objectives in its annual report, which the Treasury will submit to Parliament.

  A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library of the House and was attached to a press notice, issued on 13 December 2001, which is accessible from the Treasury website.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families are(a) eligible for and (b) in receipt of help with child care costs through the working families tax credit. [25978]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The numbers of families receiving the child care tax credit within working families tax credit (WFTC) are shown in the WFTC Quarterly Enquiries, copies of which are in the Library.

  It is not known how many families are eligible for the child care tax credit.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost of the working families tax credit was for each financial year to date; and what the projected cost is for(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03, (c) 2003–04 and (d) 2004–05. [28061]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The figures for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are shown at Appendix 1 of the Inland Revenue annual report for the year ending 31 March 2001, a copy of which is in the Library. Projections to 2003–04 made at the time of the pre-Budget report of expenditure on the working families' and disabled person's tax credits are shown in Table B15 of the document.

  Tax Units
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax units paying a marginal tax rate of 40 per cent. have children; and how many tax units have children. [26282]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated from household survey data that there are about 7.5 million families with dependent children (including those aged up to 18 and in full-time further education), and that about 1 million of these contain at least one adult who pays income tax at the higher rate.

  Public Sector Current Balance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the cyclically adjusted public sector current balance in cash terms for(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03, 2003–04, (d) 2004–05 and (e) 2005–06. [26104]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Projections for the cyclically-adjusted current budget are published as a percentage of GDP. The latest projections are set out in table B2 on page 165 of the 2001 pre-Budget report.

  Tax Receipts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax receipts are anticipated from the clearing banks for the year 2001–02. [26219]

  Ruth Kelly
  Forecasts of tax receipts are not available in any more details than that published in Budget and pre-Budget reports.

  Scottish Provident Institution
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 802W, to the hon. Member for Colchester (ref. 24558), on the Scottish Provident Institution, what action he has taken in respect of representations he has received about the Scottish Provident Institution and the performance of the FSA in dealing with matters raised by Scottish Provident Action for Membership. [27176]

  Ruth Kelly
  I understand that Scottish Provident Action for Membership has been in contact with the Financial Services Authority. This is primarily a matter for the company and relevant former policyholders.

  Stability and Growth Pact
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the stability and growth pact on the conduct of the United Kingdom's fiscal policy. [27001]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's fiscal policy objectives and fiscal rules are set out in the 2001 pre-Budget report. The pre-Budget report contains projections of the public finances which show that the Government remain on track to meet both their fiscal rules over the cycle, including in the cautious case. The projections are consistent with a prudent interpretation of the stability and growth pact which takes into account the economic cycle, sustainability and the important role of public investment (as specified in Article 104 of the EU treaty).

  Public Works Loan Board
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes have been made in the last three years to the quotas for lending to local authorities by the Public Works Loan Board. [27000]

  Ruth Kelly
  The total quota entitlements for lending to local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales were £4.962 billion in 1998–99, £4.361 billion in 1999–2000 and £5.256 billion in 2000–01. The rules governing the quota entitlement set by the Public Works Loan Board remained unchanged in each of the three years.

  Financial Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of gross domestic product of(a) the United Kingdom and (b) each region was accounted for by financial services in each of the last four years. [27442]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  231W
  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. John Bercow, dated 17 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on the proportion of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) accounted for by financial services for the United Kingdom and for the regions and countries. I am replying in his absence. (27442)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) publishes estimates of Gross Value Added (GVA) at basic prices (previously referred to as GDP) with an industrial breakdown for the 12 regions and countries of the United Kingdom. GVA at basic prices differs from GDP only in that it does not account for taxes or subsidies on products. For estimating proportions GVA and GDP can be treated synonymously.
  These data were published as an ONS News Release on 27 February 2001 and in the March 2001 edition of Economic Trends, consistent with the United Kingdom National Accounts "The Blue Book" 2000. These publications are available in the House of Commons Library and on the web at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/regionalaccounts.

  Mr. Gus O'Donnell
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the presentation and slides produced by Mr. Gus O'Donnell for a seminar with economics undergraduates and students on 30 November 2001; and if he will make a statement. [26556]

  Ruth Kelly
  The slides have been placed in the House of Commons Library. They were available on the university of Nottingham website following a similar talk given by Mr. O'Donnell at that university on 3 December.

  European Central Bank
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what proposals he has made to reform the European central bank in order to(a) improve policy-making transparency and (b) improve the definition of the inflation target; and if he will make a statement; [26547]

  (2) what steps he is taking to secure increased transparency and accountability in the decision-making process of the European central bank; [27464]

  Ruth Kelly
  As the Chancellor said to the House of Lords Select Committee in January 1999,"the issues of transparency in decision making, which we dealt with in our reform of the Bank of England and the symmetry of the inflation target, which have proved to be central to the success of the United Kingdom's new monetary framework, will also be issues for future debate in Europe".

  Charities (Scotland)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to respond to recommendation 9 of the McFadden report on a regulatory regime for charities in Scotland. [27142]

  Ruth Kelly
  We are currently examining issues relating to the partnership in service delivery between the voluntary and public sectors, and how barriers to this partnership might be overcome.

  Euro
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff at the Bank of England are involved in working on the preliminary technical work for joining the euro; and if he will make a statement. [26697]
  232W
  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury is in regular contact with the Bank of England on a whole range of issues, including aspects of the preliminary and technical work. But it is clear that the assessment will be a Government assessment, and the work will be undertaken by the Treasury.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there will be a political judgment involved in the decision as to whether or not Britain should join the euro; and if he will make a statement. [26550]

  Ruth Kelly
  As the Chancellor stated in October 1997, the determining factor underpinning any Government decision on membership of the single currency is the national economic interest and whether the economic case for joining is clear and unambiguous.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government's decision to join the euro will be affected by(a) the level of the pound against the euro and (b) the degree of progress on harmonisation in Europe; and if he will make a statement. [26554]

  Ruth Kelly
  The determining factor underpinning any Government decision on membership of the single currency is the national economic interest and whether the economic case for joining is clean and unambiguous. The five economic tests will define whether a clear and unambiguous case can be made.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reforms to the(a) fiscal policy rules and (b) operational arrangements for monetary policy, in relation to members of the Single European Currency, are being sought by the Government before Britain will join the euro; and if he will make a statement. [26553]

  Ruth Kelly
  The determining factor underpinning any Government decision on membership of the single currency is the national economic interest and whether the economic case for joining is clear and unambiguous.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his policy to seek a devaluation of the pound sterling against the euro before Britain joins the single European currency; and if he will make a statement. [26555]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Financial Secretary, on 3 July 2001,Official Report, column 125W.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what budget allocation has been made by his Department for(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03 for carrying out the preliminary technical work for evaluating the five economic tests for membership of the euro; and if he will make a statement. [26544]

  Ruth Kelly
  No separate budget allocation has been made for this work for either year. The resources needed will be found from the budgets of the several Treasury management units which will contribute to the preliminary and technical work.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the(a) officials, (b) special advisers and (c) Ministers of his Department who are involved in the preliminary technical work for joining the euro; and if he will make a statement; [26549]
  233W
  (2) how many officials of HM Treasury were involved in the preliminary technical preparations for joining the euro at (a) 1 January 2001, (b) 1 June 2001, (c) 1 December 2001 and (d) the latest date for which data are available; and if he will make a statement. [26551]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to him on 25 October 2001,Official Report, column 373W.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is(a) his estimate of the date on which the Treasury will complete its evaluation of whether the five economic tests for joining the euro have been met and (b) the latest date by which their evaluation is due to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [26552]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 2 July,Official Report, column 67W.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the five economic tests for membership of the euro will have to be met clearly and unambiguously if Britain is to join the euro; and if he will make a statement. [26548]

  Ruth Kelly
  The determining factor underpinning any Government decision on membership of the single currency is the national economic interest and whether the economic case for joining is clear and unambiguous. The five economic tests will define whether a clear and unambiguous case can be made.

  Landfill Tax Credit Scheme
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Treasury will commence consultation on the proposed changes to the landfill tax credit scheme; and if he will make a statement. [27665]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) will shortly be issuing a consultation document on the shape of any replacement scheme and how any transition arrangements could be managed to ensure that worthwhile projects continue to receive funding.

  Euro Preparations Committee
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who are the members of the cross-party HM Treasury Euro-Preparations Committee; how many times the Committee has met in the last four years; on which dates meetings are scheduled during 2002; and if he will make a statement. [26540]

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will place in the Library copies of the minutes of the meetings of the cross-party Euro-Preparations Committee; [27488]

  (2) if he will list those members of the House who serve on the Euro Preparations Committee. [27462]

  Ruth Kelly
  All parliamentary parties are invited to send representatives to attend the Cross Party Group on Euro Preparations. The group was reconvened after the last general election, and has met twice since then, the last occasion being 5 December 2001. The Committee plans to meet regularly throughout 2002. Minutes of the meetings are available to those that attend the group.

  Eurozone
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what forecasts have been produced by his Department of eurozone short-term interest rates over the period 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [26541]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury does not publish any interest rate forecasts. Further detail on Treasury economic forecasts can be found in the pre-Budget and Budget reports.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of(a) fiscal policy co-ordination in the eurozone and (b) monetary/fiscal policy co-ordination in the eurozone; and if he will make a statement. [26696]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor's June 2001 Mansion House speech set out the Government's thinking on how economic policies aimed at achieving stability and economic reform can create a more competitive and prosperous Europe.

  VAT
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to extend to(a) charities and (b) voluntary organisations, the provisions of section 33 of the VAT Act 1994 on the recovery of import tax. [26537]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have no plans to extend the section 33 refund scheme in this way.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the total annual amount of irrecoverable VAT paid by charities. [26538]

  Mr. Boateng
  No estimate has been made.

  Tax Exemptions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer in each of the last four years of granting tax exemptions to the income, profits and gains of Government, foreign states and integral bodies of foreign Governments arising in the United Kingdom. [26110]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The table details the approximate amounts refunded during the last four years to states or organisations granted sovereign immunity from taxation. Precise details are not held of other income (such as interest) which is relieved from tax at source, or of capital gains. Some of these items would in any case be exempted and payable without deduction of tax under the terms of a double taxation convention, or the UK tax legislation, as those apply to any non resident.

  £ million

  Tax year

  Total payments

  1997–98

  121

  1998–99

  63

  1999–2000

  16

  2000–01

  8

  2001–021

  2

  1 To 31 December 2001

  Notes:

  1. The amounts shown include payments of tax credits attaching to dividends payable on shares in UK companies, and tax deducted from interest.
  235W
  2. The legislation enabling payment of dividend tax credits to exempt bodies was repealed with effect from 6 April 1999. The amounts shown as refunded in subsequent years comprise tax credits attributable to periods prior to 6 April 1999, and tax deducted from interest.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the gain to the Exchequer in each of the last four years of the exemptions granted by overseas Governments to the income, profits and gains of the United Kingdom Government and United Kingdom Government bodies arising within the jurisdiction of those overseas Governments. [26111]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The average gain to the UK Exchequer from exemptions granted by overseas Governments to income arising on the UK reserves invested abroad, is estimated as approximately £250 million for each of the last four years.

  Tax Refunds
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax was refunded to states or organisations granted sovereign immunity in each year since 1990. [26272]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The table details the approximate amounts refunded to states or organisations granted sovereign immunity from taxation.

  £ million

  Tax year

  Total paid

  1990–91

  138

  1991–92

  164

  1992–93

  116

  1993–94

  117

  1994–95

  99

  1995–96

  120

  1996–97

  89

  1997–98

  121

  1998–99

  63

  1999–2000

  16

  2000–01

  8

  2001–021

  2

  1 To 31 December 2001

  Notes:

  1. The amounts shown include payments of tax credits attaching to dividends payable on shares in UK companies, and tax deducted from interest.

  2. The figures for years to 1993–94 inclusive are inflated by some refunds (to international organisations) that did not depend upon sovereign immunity. This element has been removed from the amounts shown for 1994–95 onwards.

  3. The legislation enabling payment of dividend tax credit to exempt bodies was repealed with effect from 6 April 1999. The amounts shown as refunded in subsequent years comprise tax credits attributable to periods prior to 6 April 1999 and tax deducted from interest.

  Incomes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was(a) the total unearned and (b) the total earned income of the top (i) one per cent., (ii) five per cent., (iii) 10 per cent., (iv) 20 per cent., (v) 25 per cent., (vi) 50 per cent., (vii) 70 per cent. and (viii) all taxpayers in each of the last five years. [26259]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The total amount of earned and investment income for the groups of taxpayers requested are in the table.
  236W

  £ million

  Group of taxpayers by range of total income

  Earned income

  Investment income

  Total income

  1997–98

  Top 1 per cent.

  38

  10

  47

  Top 5 per cent.

  87

  15

  102

  Top 10 per cent.

  127

  19

  146

  Top 20 per cent.

  191

  22

  213

  Top 25 per cent.

  218

  23

  240

  Top 50 per cent.

  320

  27

  347

  Top 70 per cent.

  376

  30

  405

  All taxpayers

  425

  35

  461

  1998–99

  Top 1 per cent.

  44

  10

  54

  Top 5 per cent.

  99

  16

  115

  Top 10 per cent.

  143

  19

  162

  Top 20 per cent.

  211

  24

  234

  Top 25 per cent.

  239

  25

  264

  Top 50 per cent.

  346

  33

  378

  Top 70 per cent.

  405

  36

  441

  All taxpayers

  458

  40

  498

  1999–2000

  Top 1 per cent.

  47

  10

  58

  Top 5 per cent.

  107

  16

  123

  Top 10 per cent.

  154

  20

  174

  Top 20 per cent.

  226

  24

  250

  Top 25 per cent.

  256

  26

  282

  Top 50 per cent.

  370

  32

  402

  Top 70 per cent.

  431

  36

  467

  All taxpayers

  487

  40

  527

  2000–01

  Top 1 per cent.

  54

  10

  64

  Top 5 per cent.

  117

  15

  133

  Top 10 per cent.

  167

  19

  186

  Top 20 per cent.

  242

  24

  266

  Top 25 per cent.

  274

  25

  299

  Top 50 per cent.

  392

  32

  424

  Top 70 per cent.

  456

  36

  492

  All taxpayers

  513

  40

  553

  2001–02

  Top 1 per cent.

  56

  10

  66

  Top 5 per cent.

  121

  16

  137

  Top 10 per cent.

  173

  19

  192

  Top 20 per cent.

  251

  24

  275

  Top 25 per cent.

  284

  25

  309

  Top 50 per cent.

  407

  32

  439

  Top 70 per cent.

  474

  36

  510

  All taxpayers.

  534

  39

  574

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which accountancy firms have provided paid services to(a) his Department and (b) agencies for which he is responsible in each of the last four years. [27441]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Duty Free Goods
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the yield to the Exchequer in the next three years resulting from the system of duty free goods. [27489]
  237W
  Mr. Boateng
  No revenue is received from the sale of duty free goods.

  VAT (Church Repairs)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has made to the European Commission on the issue of reducing VAT on repairs to historic churches; and if he will make a statement. [28081]

  Mr. Boateng
  The European Commission has indicated that it will consider a reduced rate of VAT for listed places of worship in their general review of the reduced rates in 2003.

  The Chancellor announced in Budget 2001 the introduction of a UK-wide grant scheme to help congregations with the VAT cost of the repair and maintenance of listed buildings that are used as places of worship. The effect of the grant is to reduce the VAT cost on eligible repairs from 17.5 to 5 per cent.

  This grant scheme, known as the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, was launched on 4 December.

  Registrar's Department
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the role of the Registrar's Department and on progress in reviewing options for its future. [27924]

  Ruth Kelly
  It is not clear to which Registrar's Department the hon. Gentleman's question relates. If he would clarify the point, I will endeavour to provide him with the information he seeks.

  Standing Committee
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions the Standing Committee set up by the Memorandum of Understanding between the Treasury, the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority has met; and if he will publish the minutes of the meetings. [27918]

  Ruth Kelly
  The committee meets roughly monthly. Much of its work is confidential, and discussions are often subject to statutory protections of information under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

  Inland Revenue Services (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on the future provision of Inland Revenue services in rural areas. [27920]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I am aware of no such recent representations relating to the provision of services in rural areas.

  Hypothecation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the merits and demerits of hypothecation. [28023]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 6 December 2001,Official Report, column 526W.

  Customs and Excise Forecasts
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the reasons underlying the growth in the level of manual adjustments made by HM Customs and Excise to their modelled forecasts for receipts over the years from 1995–96 to the present. [26412]

  Mr. Boateng
  Officials in HM Customs and Excise make manual adjustments to forecasts produced by economic models in consultation with officials from HM Treasury. The purpose of these adjustments is to provide more accurate forecasts of revenue receipts. This is conventional practice and such adjustments are made so as to capture events or trends that are not explicitly modelled, eg one-off events, such as the millennium celebrations; changes to the scope of the tax; changing tastes or new products.

  The models for alcohol and petrol and diesel were re-estimated by Professor Marcus Chambers in 1999 (published as Government Economic Service Working Paper, Number 138). For most items the manual adjustments have been considerably reduced as a result.

  Rail Infrastructure Company
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his Department's involvement in the proposed structure of the successor company to Railtrack. [27891]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Treasury Ministers and officials have been kept informed of DTLR's work on this subject.

  Departmental Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will commission and publish an independent report on the reasons for the level of sickness absence in his Department. [26997]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Cabinet Office already commissions and publishes an independent annual report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service". This report includes details of the causes of absenteeism. The report for the year 2000 will be published shortly.

  Pension Tax Codes
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis the Inland Revenue indexed the amount of state pension included in pension tax codes between 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [26797]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: The Inland Revenue does not routinely index the amount of state pension when it issues tax codes to pensioners before the start of the tax year. It bases the tax code on information provided to it by the Department for Work and Pensions (the Department of Social Security before June 2001) for individuals receiving the state pension, which takes into account the increase in the state pension that comes into effect in the new tax year. If for any reason the information is not provided by DWP, the estimated amount of state pension already included in the tax code is increased by reference to the appropriate percentage increase in state pensions as announced in the pre-Budget report.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer further to his answer of 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 32W, on Capital Gains Tax, what estimates for the Capital Gains Tax yield in (a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04 are used to derive the estimates for tax revenues contained in the pre-Budget report of November 2001; and if he will make a statement. [25784]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The available estimates of Capital Gains Tax receipts in years to 2002–03 are given in Table B11 of the November 2001 pre-Budget report and receipts mostly relate to accruals of the previous tax year. Estimates for later years are highly dependent on assumed growth in asset values.

  Rural Support Scheme
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his projection is for the funding required to match the modulated funds in the rural support scheme. [27029]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Expenditure on rural support match funding in Scotland is a devolved matter for the Scottish Executive within their devolved budget.

  Economic Stability Document
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to his answer of 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 197W, on the Economic Stability Document, how many copies of the volume "Reforming Britain's Economic and Financial Policy" (a) have been printed and (b) are planned to be printed over the next six months; and if he will make a statement. [25783]

  Ruth Kelly
  "Reforming Britain's Economic and Financial Policy" has been published commercially by Palgrave, the academic publishing division of Macmillan. The number of copies printed is a commercial decision for the publisher.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to exempt nuclear energy from the climate change levy. [25889]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The climate change levy is designed to encourage energy efficiency across the business and public sectors and to increase the use of sustainable forms of energy. The Government have no plans to exempt the nuclear power industry from the levy.

  NHS Charges
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax revenue is generated from charges in the national health service. [25297]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Prescription and other national health service patient charges are outside the scope of VAT. NHS charges are not directly chargeable to income or corporation tax but NHS practitioners will be taxable on their income and profits in the normal way. It is not possible to separate tax revenue on NHS charges from tax revenue on other income.

  Charitable Donations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals are making charitable donations; what the total amount given to charity is; and what the cost is to the Exchequer of tax relief thereon. [26253]

  Ruth Kelly
  Information on the full extent of charitable giving is not available from administrative sources. A study by the Charities Aid Foundation and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) estimated that about 30 million adults in Great Britain gave to charities in the year 2000. A survey by NCVO/NOP suggested that this was worth nearly £6 billion excluding legacies. There are also significant amounts of giving by companies. The cost to the Exchequer of donations under Deeds of Covenant, Gift Aid and Payroll Giving is estimated at £525 million for 2000–01.

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total sum(a) levied and (b) paid in fines for late submission of tax returns in each of the last four years. [26231]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The table shows the amounts for penalties raised by the Inland Revenue from late filing penalties on tax returns over the last four years and the total of fines paid, in each of those years. The Inland Revenue accounts for its receipts in accounts years running from November to October.

  Inland Revenue

  £

  Accounts year

  Penalties raised

  Penalties paid

  1997

  0

  0

  1998

  113,200,000

  18,085,069

  1999

  112,200,000

  29,360,479

  2000

  118,400,000

  32,960,556

  Total

  343,800,000

  80,406,104

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have been issued with personal tax returns by the Inland Revenue in each of the last five years. [26260]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of personal ITSA returns issued by the Inland Revenue in the last four years is as follows:

  Return years

  Issued to

  Number

  1996–97

  31 March 1998

  7,686,551

  1996–97 and 1997–98

  31 March 1999

  8,399,694

  1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99

  31 March 2000

  8,567,728

  1996–976, 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000

  31 March 2001

  8,560,419

  Figures for the current return years 2000–01 are not yet available.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were fined for late submission of their tax returns in each of the last four years; and what was the total of fines paid, including interest, in each of those years. [26337]
  241W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The table show the number of penalties raised by the Inland Revenue from late filing penalties on tax returns over the last four years and the total of penalties paid, in each of those years. There is no information available about the number of people fined. Interest on penalties cannot be distinguished separately so has not been included.

  The Inland Revenue accounts for its receipts in accounts years running from November to October

  £

  Accounts year

  Penalties raised

  Penalties paid

  1997

  0

  0

  1998

  1,132,000

  18,085,069

  1999

  1,122,000

  29,360,479

  2000

  1,184,000

  32,960,556

  Total

  3,438,000

  80,406,104

  Private Medical Insurance Tax Relief
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the cost of private medical insurance tax relief if(a) one million, (b) two million, (c) three million, (d) four million, (e) five million and (f) 10 million qualify for tax relief. [26265]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The cost of any income tax relief for private medical insurance would depend on a number of factors including the type of relief given, the exact requirements for qualification for the relief, as well as the numbers of individuals or policies qualifying. Consequently it is not possible to provide the estimates requested.

  Redundancy Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the tax reliefs available on redundancy payments. [26341]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Payments made to compensate an individual for being made redundant are exempt from income tax up to a limit of £30,000 and taxable beyond that.

  Advance Corporation Tax
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total advance corporation tax repayments made by the Inland Revenue were in the last financial year. [26287]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to him on 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 790W.

  Hypothecation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce(a) full ad (b) partial hypothecation of taxes. [26134]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 6 December 2001,Official Report, column 526W.

  Taxpayers (Traceability)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers there were for whom the ground for non-payment of tax in each of the last four years was that they were untraceable. [26236]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The tables show, for the years 1997 to 2000, the latest year available, the number of cases and amounts involved where tax was classed as irrecoverable because the taxpayer has become untraceable or has moved abroad.

  Table 1: Untraceable

  Income Tax

  Capital Gains Tax

  Year

  £

  Cases

  £

  Cases

  1997

  39,110,709.17

  39,906

  1,459,842.88

  194

  1998

  29,846,737.49

  23,265

  1,472,515.64

  144

  1999

  23,557,517.41

  16,364

  1,695,508.31

  99

  2000

  16,199,976.11

  12,365

  612,182.11

  61

  Table 2: Moved abroad

  Income Tax

  Capital Gains Tax

  Year

  £

  Cases

  £

  Cases

  1997

  7,663,933.70

  4,844

  580,057.07

  111

  1998

  7,398,148.66

  4,238

  1,690,326.69

  74

  1999

  6,012,605.04

  2,572

  351,713.29

  47

  2000

  7,269,203.50

  5,558

  1,103,379.09

  106

  Tax Write-offs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax was remitted or written off as irrecoverable in each of the last four years; and what was the number of taxpayers for whom the ground for non-payment was that they(a) had gone abroad or were untraceable, (b) were insolvent and (c) were suffering hardship. [26229]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The tables show, for the years 1997 to 2000, the latest year available, the number of cases and amounts involved where tax was classed as irrecoverable or was written off because the taxpayer was(a) untraceable or had moved abroad, (b) was insolvent, (c) was suffering hardship.

  Table a: Taxpayer untraceable or moved abroad

  Income Tax

  Capital Gains Tax

  Year

  £

  Cases

  £

  Cases

  1997

  46,774,642.87

  44,750

  2,039,899.95

  305

  1998

  37,244,886.15

  27,503

  3,162,842.33

  218

  1999

  29,570,122.45

  18,936

  2,047,221.60

  146

  2000

  23,469,179.61

  17,923

  1,715,561.20

  167

  Table b: Taxpayer insolvent

  Income Tax

  Capital Gains Tax

  Year

  £

  Cases

  £

  Cases

  1997

  306,630,972.66

  99,813

  10,352,690.11

  1,030

  1998

  402,816,473.26

  90,610

  17,393,163.47

  900

  1999

  358,843,664.48

  82,327

  10,764,638.35

  683

  2000

  266,949,276.47

  80,020

  2,449,982.29

  349

  243W

  Table c: Taxpayer suffering hardship

  Income Tax

  Capital Gains Tax

  Year

  £

  Cases

  £

  Cases

  1997

  2,084,183.53

  3,660

  0.00

  0

  1998

  2,327,543.69

  6,333

  71,494.40

  12

  1999

  2,190,979.15

  3,404

  2,492.40

  1

  2000

  2,927,225.17

  3,172

  4,930.00

  1

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the results were in terms of additional tax, duty, interest and penalties achieved in each of the last three years to 31 March 2001(a) by Inland Revenue large business offices (corporation tax) as a whole expressed in terms of recoveries from individual taxpayers banded (i) £0 to £1 million, (ii) £1 million to £10 million, (iii) £10 million to £50 million, (iv) £50 million to £100 million, and (v) £100 million and above, and (b) by each of the geographic offices of the large business office (corporation tax) expressed as a total for that geographic office. [26842]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Inland Revenue Large Business Office (corporation tax) records the adjustments made to corporation tax profits as a result of its work and the estimated tax effect of each adjustment. The tables give the requested analyses of tax effect of adjustments for 1999–2000 and 2000–01. Detailed analyses for 1998–99, and analyses of related interest charges or penalties, are not available. The geographic analysis allocates yield to the office currently dealing with the relevant case: because of transfers of cases between offices that may reflect work done in a different large business office location.

  Table (a)

  Number of adjustments

  Total yield (£ million)

  1999–2000

  £0 to £1 million

  4,483

  503

  £1 million to £10 million

  304

  784

  £10 million to £50 million

  26

  527

  £50 million to £100 million

  1

  59

  £100 million+

  0

  0

  2000–01

  £0 to £1 million

  4,038

  518

  £1 million to £10 million

  318

  861

  £10 million to £50 million

  13

  262

  £50 million to £100 million

  1

  100

  £100 million+

  2

  398

  Table (b)

  £ million

  Office

  1999–2000 yield

  2000–01 yield

  Bristol

  85

  163

  City A

  146

  160

  City B

  52

  58

  City C

  46

  60

  City D

  288

  174

  City E

  104

  352

  City F

  5

  8

  Edinburgh

  232

  126

  Glasgow

  72

  79

  Leeds

  70

  96

  244W

  Table (b)

  £ million

  Office

  1999–2000 yield

  2000–01 yield

  Liverpool

  57

  77

  Manchester

  195

  168

  Nottingham

  115

  179

  Peterborough

  97

  56

  West Midlands

  291

  368

  Cases no longer in the large business office

  17

  15

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of public expenditure per head of population in each of the constituent nations of the United Kingdom in each of the last four years. [27451]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Information on identifiable total managed public expenditure per head by country is given in Tables 8.2b to 8.6b of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2001–02 (Cm 5101) published in April 2001.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the expenditure of local authority capital receipts in each of the last four years has counted as public expenditure; and what is the total amount of such expenditure. [27450]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  All capital expenditure, net of all sales of capital assets, by local authorities counts as public expenditure as measured by Total Managed Expenditure (TME).

  Gross capital expenditure (before netting off sale receipts) by local authorities is shown in table 6.8 of "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2001–02, Cm5101". Receipts from the sale of capital assets are shown in table. 6.9.

  Further information on capital receipts in England was published in tables 6.5 and 6.7 of "Local Government Financial Statistics 2001."

  Value for Money
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will commission independent research into the progress of Departments in securing value for money. [27469]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The National Audit Office produce regular independent reports on value for money issues across Government.

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the cost to its budget since 1 May 1997 of fraud; and if he will make a statement. [27305]

  Ruth Kelly
  The cost to the Department's budget of fraud (excluding thefts) since 1 May 1997 is estimated at £18,030. Steps have been taken to learn lessons and to minimise the risk of reoccurrence.

  Education Maintenance Awards
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning funding for education maintenance awards as part of the comprehensive spending review. [27383]

  Dawn Primarolo
  To date, the Chancellor has received no such representations.

  Financial Services Regulation
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are engaged in financial services regulation. [27613]

  Ruth Kelly
  2,765 staff are engaged in the regulation of financial services in the UK, according to the FSA annual report 2000–01. This excludes support staff. This is an increase from 2,548 staff in 1999–2000.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are directly employed as regulators by the FSA. [27614]

  Ruth Kelly
  At 31 March 2001, the FSA had 2,119 employees, an increase from 1,961 on 31 March 2000. The average number over the year employed as regulators by the FSA was 2,041. These figures are quoted in the FSA annual report 2000–01.

  The annual report gives a breakdown of the average FSA employment over 2001:

  Number

  Supervision and Policy

  1,085

  Enforcement and Consumer Relations

  463

  Central Departments

  160

  Operations and Support

  273

  UKLA

  60

  Total

  2,041

  Pilot Projects
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what pilot projects have been undertaken in his Department since May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [27604]

  Ruth Kelly
  Pilot projects are undertaken in the Treasury when appropriate. A central record is not kept and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The population estimate for Kirklees from mid-1991 to mid-2000 including a percentage age distribution

  Percentage in each age range

  Mid-year

  Estimated number of residents (thousand)

  0 to 4

  5 to 14

  15 to 18

  19 to 25

  26 to 59

  60 and over

  1991

  381.5

  7.1

  13.1

  5.3

  11.1

  43.8

  19.6

  1992

  383.2

  7.1

  13.2

  5.0

  11.0

  44.2

  19.5

  1993

  385.8

  7.0

  13.4

  4.8

  10.7

  44.7

  19.4

  1994

  386.9

  7.0

  13.4

  4.8

  10.4

  45.1

  19.3

  1995

  387.7

  6.9

  13.4

  4.9

  10.0

  45.4

  19.3

  1996

  388.8

  6.8

  13.5

  5.1

  9.7

  45.7

  19.2

  1997

  389.5

  6.7

  13.6

  5.2

  9.4

  45.9

  19.2

  1998

  390.9

  6.7

  13.6

  5.1

  9.3

  46.1

  19.3

  1999

  392.3

  6.6

  13.6

  5.0

  9.3

  46.1

  19.3

  2000

  395.1

  6.6

  13.5

  5.0

  9.5

  46.1

  19.2

  Bank Notes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has on the effects of the rise in part-time employment on the level of demand for bank notes. [27443]

  Ruth Kelly
  There could be some effect on the demand for money from labour market developments, such as the rise in part-time employment, although the levels of economic activity and prices, nominal interest rates and the inflation rate are usually viewed as more important. Contributory factors to the growth in part-time employment are assessed in Box B1, Annex B of the Financial Stateral and Budget Reportof FSBR 2001.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, dated 4 December 2001 with regard to Patricia Andrews. [27318]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have done so.

  Population Statistics (Kirklees)
  Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the numbers of residents (1) in each parliamentary constituency wholly or partly within Kirklees metropolitan council area in each year since 1991 indicating the percentages in the age ranges(a) 0 to 4, (b) 5 to 14, (c) 15 to 18, (d) 19 to 25, (e) 26 to 59 and (f) over 60 years; [26243]

  (2) if he will estimate the numbers of residents in Kirklees metropolitan council area in each year since 1991, indicating the percentage in the age ranges (a) 0 to 4, (b) 5 to 14, (c) 15 to 18, (d) 19 to 25, (e) 26 to 59 and (f) over 60 years. [26242]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Ann Taylor, dated 15 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your parliamentary questions concerning the number of residents in Kirklees and its parliamentary constituencies. I am replying in his absence. (26243, 26242)
  The attached table gives population estimates for Kirklees Metropolitan council area, together with the percentage age distribution of the population.
  ONS does not produce population estimates on parliamentary constituency boundaries. The smallest area level for which we produce population estimates is for local authorities.

  Cost of Living Index
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an index for the cost of living for consumers based on the retail prices index but excluding indirect taxes for each of the last 10 years. [26251]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. John Bercow, dated 15 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking if he will give an index for the cost of living for consumers based on the Retail Prices Index but excluding indirect taxes for each of the last ten years. I am replying in his absence. (26251)
  I am unable to provide an index exactly answering these requirements due to the disproportionate cost involved. However, the ONS does publish a version of the Retail Prices Index, namely RPIY, that excludes both mortgage interest payments and indirect taxes. The annual average of RPIY for the years 1990 to 2000 is presented below together with the annual average of the 12-month percentage change. The annual average figure for 2001 will be available on Tuesday 15 January 2002 when the Retail Prices Index for December is published.

  RPIY (all items RPI excluding mortgage interest payments and indirect taxes)1: Annual averages 1999–2000

  Calendar year

  Index January 1987 = 100

  Change over 12 months (percentage)

  1990

  121.4

  7.3

  1991

  129.5

  6.7

  1992

  135.1

  4.3

  1993

  139.0

  2.9

  1994

  141.3

  1.7

  1995

  144.5

  2.3

  1996

  148.2

  2.6

  1997

  151.5

  2.2

  1998

  154.5

  2.0

  1999

  157.1

  1.7

  2000

  159.9

  1.8

  1 The taxes excluded are council tax, VAT, duties, vehicle excise duty, insurance tax and airport tax.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  These data, together with the indices for each individual month, are available on the ONS website www.statistics.gov.uk/rpi.

  VAT-Exempt Goods and Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate total expenditure in the latest year for which figures are available on(a) food, (b) fuel, (c) children's clothes and shoes, (d) books, newspapers and periodicals and (e) bus, tube and train fares. [26615]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. John Bercow, dated 15 January 2002:
  248W
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning household expenditure for the latest year for which figures are available. I am replying in his absence. (26615)
  Expenditure by households is published quarterly as part of the National Accounts in 'Consumer Trends', available on the ONS website at www.statistics.gov.uk/products/p242.asp. The year 2000 is the latest complete calendar year for which figures are available. The information on children's clothing and footwear is not separately available. An approximate allocation between adults' and children's goods may be made using more detailed information on average weekly expenditure published in "Family Spending 1999–2000", Table 7.1.

  Company Investment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total level of fixed investment was in each of the last five years by industrial and commercial companies in plant and machinery, dwellings, company cars, other vehicles, other new buildings and works purchase less sales of land and existing buildings and all fixed assets. [26261]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. John Bercow, dated 15 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question about the total level of fixed investment in each of the last five years. I am replying in his absence. (26261)
  Fixed capital formation for the private sector, public non-financial corporations and general government can be found in the "United Kingdom National Accounts: Blue Book", which was last published by ONS in 2001 [ISSN 0267–8691], under tables 9.2 and 9.4 (pages 261 and 262). These tables contain most of the asset information as requested in the question. Separate estimates for company cars are not available. These are included in the transport equipment figures.
  Further fixed capital formation data can be found in our business investment quarterly first release at the following website address:
  http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/binv1201.pdf
  Copies of the United Kingdom National Accounts: Blue Book is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Dependent Children
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the average income of women of working age with(a) no dependent children, (b) at least one dependent child under five years and (c) children aged five to 16 years. [26257]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  249W
  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. John Bercow, dated 15 January 2002:
  The national Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the average income of working-age women. I am replying in his absence. [26257]
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) provides estimates of the gross hourly earnings of female employees of working age (ie. those aged 16–59 years) by age of youngest dependent child. The latest available estimates are for summer (June to August) 2001. These are given in the table overleaf.

  Average gross hourly earnings of female employees of working age1 by age of youngest dependent child2; United Kingdom; summer (June to August) 2001; not seasonally adjusted

  £

  Average gross hourly earnings

  All female employees aged 16–59

  8.0

  With youngest dependent child aged:

  Under 5 years

  9.0

  5–16 years

  7.7

  17–18 years

  8.8

  With no dependent children

  7.9

  1 Women aged 16–59 years

  2 Children under 16 years of age, or those aged 16–18 years who are never married and in full-time education

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Personal Sector Deficit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the financial deficit of the personal sector was in each year since 1997 in (a) constant and (b) cash terms, (i) in total and (ii) per household. [26284]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. John Bercow, dated 15 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question about what the financial deficit of the personal sector was in each year since 1997 in (a) constant and (b) cash terms, (i) in total and (ii) per household. I am replying in his absence. (26284)
  The net lending/borrowing of the combined households and non-profit institutions serving households is available on the National Statistics website at http://www.statistics.gov.uk. The time series NSSZ is also available within table A41 of the release "United Kingdom Economic Accounts".
  Information on the number of households in Great Britain is also available within the publication "Housing Statistics 2001" and is found in table 4.14. Data for the United Kingdom is not available.
  Data for net lending/borrowing at constant prices are not available.

  Suicide Rates
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the death rate per 100,000 due to suicide and undetermined injury was in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [27402]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  250W
  Letter from John Kidgell to Dr. Liam Fox, dated 15 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your question concerning the death rate per 100,000 due to suicide and undetermined injury in each of the last five years for which figures are available. I am replying in his absence. (27402)

  The figures requested are given in the table below:

  Calendar year

  Death rate per 100,000 persons

  1996

  9.4

  1997

  9.5

  1998

  9.8

  1999

  9.8

  2000

  9.3

  Note:

  Suicide and undetermined injury is defined by ONS using the following codes from the International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision: E950-E959, E980-E989, excluding E988.8.

  Source:

  ONS

  Cancer Deaths
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the death rate per 100,000 among people under 65 due to cancer was in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what the death rates were in the age groups(a) 45–55 and (b) 55–65. [27401]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Dr. Liam Fox, dated 15 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your question concerning the death rate per 100,000 amongst people aged under 65 due to cancer in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what were the death rates in the age groups (a) 45–54 and (b) 55–64. I am replying in his absence. (27401)

  The answer is given in the table below:

  Death rate per 100,000 persons

  Ages

  Calendar year

  All ages under 65

  45–54

  55–64

  1996

  77.3

  137.6

  394.1

  1997

  74.8

  134.0

  378.9

  1998

  75.3

  134.2

  380.4

  1999

  73.9

  130.8

  369.5

  2000

  73.1

  128.7

  359.6

  Note:

  Cancer is defined by ONS using the following codes from the International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision: 140–208.

  Source

  ONS

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what mechanism recipients of the proposed child tax credit and working credit will be able to recover underpayments of tax credit which arise through an over-estimate by the claimant of his income in the current year. [26794]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: If an underpayment of tax credit should arise because of a difference between estimated and actual income for a

  251W
  tax year, it would be identified as part of the end of year process of finalising claims and paid out by the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in cases where assessment for tax credit purposes is based only on that part of the increase in current year income which exceeds a threshold, whether subsequent assessments will take account of that part of increased income below the threshold. [26798]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: Decisions on what regulations to propose under the provisions of Clause 7(3) of the Tax Credits Bill have not yet been taken. But if it were the case that part of a rise in income in the current tax year, by comparison with the previous year, were to be left out of account in assessing tax credits for the current year, the full amount of the income would be relevant in deciding tax credit entitlement in the following tax year.

  Tax Credits Bill
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the definition of a couple for purposes of the Tax Credits Bill is different from that used in the State Pension Credit Bill. [26796]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: The definition of couple used in the Tax Credits Bill follows that used in the Taxes Acts, including for the existing children's tax credit.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish draft versions of the regulations referred to in the Tax Credits Bill in advance of the scrutiny of that Bill in Committee. [26795]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: Draft regulations under the powers provided in the Tax Credits Bill will be made available as soon as possible.

  Union Fees
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the trade unions which have tax relief for their members' membership fees. [26792]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: Details of organisations, including trade unions, for which tax relief can be claimed on fees paid to them can be found in the Inland Revenue booklet List 3, copies of which can be found on the Inland Revenue website.

  Pensioner Taxation
  David Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment has been made of the number of pensioner couples whose tax allowances have been reduced by the abolition of married couples allowance resulting from them attaining the age of 60 or 65 years after 5 April 2000; [26890]

  (2) what assessment has been made of the number of pensioner couples in north-west Leicestershire whose tax allowances have been reduced by the abolition of married couples allowance resulting from them attaining the age of 60 or 65 years after 5 April 2000. [26889]
  252W
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: No taxpayer will have their tax allowances reduced as a result of reaching 60 or 65 after 5 April 2000. Most pensioner taxpayers will qualify for an increased personal allowance after reaching the age of 65.

  Drug Smuggling
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the level of drug smuggling from Jamaica to the United Kingdom in the last five years. [26530]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs seized 11 tonnes of cocaine destined for the UK during the financial year 2000–01 of which about 750 kilos arrived from Jamaica.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what form the results of the Comprehensive Spending Review will be published; and if he will make a statement. [26139]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It is anticipated that the conclusions of the 2002 Spending Review will be published in a Command Paper and accompanied by a statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as with those of the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review, and the 2000 Spending Review.

  VAT
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to synchronise the VAT rates between local education authorities and further education colleges in respect of further and sixth form education. [27382]

  Mr. Boateng
  VAT is not charged on education taught in LEA schools or in further education colleges.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much VAT was paid per average household on all goods and services, at current prices, in each of the last four years. [26226]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on VAT receipts as a percentage of household expenditure for the years 1991–92 to 2000–01 is contained within the Value Added Tax Factsheet September 2001 produced by Customs and Excise, a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  VAT (Digitised Products)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason VAT is applied to digitised books. [26446]

  Mr. Boateng
  Digitised books do not fall within the ordinary meaning of books and cannot be zero-rated for VAT.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what analysis he has made of the risk to future revenue from VAT as a result of the growth of trade in digitised products. [26447]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs and Excise have for several years have been working alongside business and the UK's partners in the EU and OECD to ensure that the tax
  253W
  system adapts to increased trade in digitised products, and to minimise any risks to the revenue. Customs' current assessment is that the potential risk is very small.

  VAT (Audiology Treatment)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change VAT on hearing aid audiologist treatment. [25971]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs and Excise are consulting businesses and bodies such as the Royal National Institute for the Deaf to assess whether recent legal rulings have implications for the VAT treatment of audiologist's services provided to a patient at the same time as a hearing aid.

  VAT (Charities)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his current estimate is of the revenue that would be forgone were he to treat charities in the same way as local authorities under section 33 of the VAT Act 1994. [26450]

  Mr. Boateng
  No such estimate has been made.

  VAT Misdeclarations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue the Exchequer has received in penalties arising from misdeclaration of value-added tax(a) in real terms and (b) as a percentage of the total tax value for VAT in each of the last four years. [26113]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is not possible to provide the information requested since no separate record is kept of payments of VAT misdeclaration penalties. Payments of all penalties as a percentage of total VAT receipts over the last four years, all expressed in real terms, were as shown in the table.

  Penalties receipts (£ million)

  Total VAT receipts1 (£ billion)

  Percentage

  2000–01

  13.5

  102.6

  0.13

  1999–2000

  12.0

  98.2

  0.12

  1998–99

  10.6

  93.7

  0.11

  1997–98

  10.4

  91.6

  0.11

  1 Does not include penalty receipts

  Manufacturing Productivity
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of manufacturing productivity in each of the last four years. [26146]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are implementing a comprehensive strategy for delivering stronger productivity growth in the UK. This addresses issues at the regional, national and international levels and involves stakeholders from across all sectors of the economy.

  E-commerce
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he as made of the present and future impact of e-commerce on the concept for tax purposes of corporate residence. [26449]
  254W
  Dawn Primarolo
  E-commerce of itself is unlikely to have significant short-term impact on the concept for tax purposes of corporate residence. However the UK tax authorities continue to be engaged in discussions at OECD, in consultation with the business community, on this and related e-commerce issues.

  Tax Planning (Revenue Losses)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the tax lost to the Inland Revenue in each of the last four years as a consequence of tax planning by accountancy firms. [26234]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Tax planning is a term commonly used to describe the organisation of financial affairs in an entirely lawful manner in order to minimise liability to tax. It is not really practicable to estimate the tax liabilities that would have arisen had accountants organised the affairs of their clients in a less efficient manner. Consequently, there can be no reliable measure of the tax lost to the Inland Revenue as a consequence of tax planning.

  Beer Duty
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumption he has made in his forecasts for the revenue from beer duty of the rate of duty pass-on by retailers to their customers. [26454]

  Mr. Boateng
  Appendix Al of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2000 details the assumption made regarding pass-on of excise duty by retailers to consumers. This assumption is unchanged.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of changes to the rate of beer duty on the volume of duty-paid imports from other EU countries. [26453]

  Mr. Boateng
  About 1 per cent, of all beer consumed in the UK has been legitimately bought duty-paid in another EU country. The impact of changes to the rate of beer duty on this volume appears to have been negligible.

  Beer Clearances
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what he attributes the fall in beer clearances over the last decade. [26413]

  Mr. Boateng
  Between 1990–2001 and 2000–01 beer clearances fell by 9 per cent, on the basis of alcohol content. The fall is likely to have resulted from numerous contributory factors which are not possible to attribute accurately.

  Green Technology Challenge
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he expects to receive the agreement of the EU Commission for his proposals to introduce further enhanced capital allowances under the Green Technology Challenge; [26421]

  (2) when he will publish details of the technologies which he proposes should be eligible for enhanced capital allowances under the Green Technology Challenge; [26451]
  255W
  (3) what level of first year enhanced capital allowances he plans to introduce under the Green Technology Challenge; [26431]

  (4) if it is his policy that the sum available for enhanced capital allowances under the Green Technology Challenge should be cash limited; [26432]

  (5) what representations he has made to the European Commission in respect of the Green Technology Challenge proposals listed in paragraph 7.23 of the pre-Budget report. [26419]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government propose to introduce enhanced capital allowances under the Green Technology Challenge during 2002–03. Work is continuing in order to identify specific technologies that are suitable candidates for inclusion in the scheme. Details of qualifying technologies will be announced in due course. Decisions on whether it is necessary to seek European Commission approval for the inclusion of specific technologies in the scheme will be taken once qualifying technologies have been identified.

  It is not currently proposed that the sum available for enhanced capital allowances under the Green Technology Challenge will be cash limited. The proposal is that all investments in eligible technologies will qualify for enhanced capital allowances. No decision has been made on the level of first year enhanced capital allowances to be introduced under the Green Technology Challenge.

  BP Ltd. v. EEC
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implications for Government policy of the decision of the European Court of Justice in the case of BP Ltd.v. EEC (27 September 2000, Ref. T-184/97). [26444]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government believe that their policies are consistent with the decision of the Court of First Instance of the European Court of Justice in the case of BP Ltd.v. EEC. The case, however, currently proceeds on appeal to the ECJ.

  Alcohol
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of drawback paid on alcohol in 2000–01. [26428]

  Mr. Boateng
  The level of drawback paid on alcohol in 2000–01 was £32,619,309.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue yield and impact on the retail prices index of revalorisation of excise duties at(a) the present rate of inflation and (b) the present rate of inflation less the mortgage component of inflation. [26252]

  Ruth Kelly
  The revenue yield from changes in excise duties is shown in Table 6 of "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" published by HM Treasury in November 2001. The impact on the retail prices index of revalorising 256W
  a particular excise good is contingent on a number of factors including the nature of the excise good in question, and its retail price at the time of any duty change.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many PAYE coding notices changes were made by the Inland Revenue in(a) 1970–71, (b) 1980–81, (c) 1990–91 and (d) 2000–01. [26949]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The total number of PAYE coding notices issued during the year 2000–01 was 31,056,370.

  Statistics for 1970–71, 1980–81 and 1990–91 are no longer available.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what studies the Inland Revenue has commissioned into reform of the administration of income tax since 1997; and if he will list their(a) names, (b) authors and (c) publication dates or expected publication dates; [26862]

  (2) what studies the Inland Revenue has commissioned into replacing the PAYE coding system with a non-cumulative, end-of-year reconciliation system (a) before 1997 and (b) since 1997; and if he will place copies in the Library; [26864]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue keeps all aspects of the administration of income tax including PAYE under continuous review. Internal reviews of the tax system or possible changes to it are published where it is appropriate to do so.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the proportion of income to be paid in tax by the top(a) 1 per cent., (b) 5 per cent. and (c) 10 per cent. and the bottom 50 per cent. of tax payers in 2001–02. [26212]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates for income tax as a percentage of total income for the quantile groups specified are in the table.

  Quantile group

  Tax liability as a percentage of total income 2001–02

  Top 1 per cent.

  34

  Top 5 per cent.

  30

  Top 10 per cent.

  27

  Bottom 50 per cent.

  8

  The estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the November 2001 pre-Budget report.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the number of people who would cease to pay income tax if the personal income tax allowance were raised to(a) £5,000, (b) £7,500 and (c) £10,000; and what his estimate is of the cost of raising the personal income tax allowance to (i) £5,000, (ii) £7,500 and (iii) £10,000. [26335]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of people who would cease to pay income tax in 2001–02 if the personal allowance were raised and the cost of raising the allowance are shown in the table.
  257W

  Personal allowance

  Number of people taken out of income tax (thousand)

  Cost of increasing the personal allowance (£ billion)

  £5,000

  600

  2.6

  £7,500

  3,700

  15.1

  £10,000

  6,800

  25.9

  The estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the pre-Budget report 2001.

  Tax Units
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what proportion of tax units will be paying more income tax and national insurance in real terms in 2001–02 than in 1996–97; and how many tax units will be paying a higher proportion of their gross income in tax and national insurance in 2001–02 than 1996–97. [26276]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It would be possible to provide a reliable answer only at disproportionate cost.

  Tax Evasion
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases of tax evasion in each of the last four years have led to a recovery of funds; and what proportion of the sums recovered in each case was(a) tax, (b) interest and (c) penalty. [26237]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue annual reports, available in the House of Commons Library, set out details, by regional office, of the total number of tax inquiries undertaken for each year.

  taxpayers

  Group of

  Pre-tax income (£ million)1

  Percentage of total

  Tax liability (£ million)1

  Percentage of total

  Top

  1 per cent

  64,000

  12

  21,900

  23

  5 per cent.

  133,000

  24

  39,600

  41

  10 per cent.

  186,000

  34

  49,700

  51

  Bottom

  70 per cent.

  224,000

  41

  24,100

  25

  5 per cent.

  7,000

  1

  70

  2—

  All

  553,000

  100

  97,000

  100

  1 Non-taxable income such as that from ISAs is not included as this information is not available on an individual basis.

  2 Negligible

  These estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the November 2001 pre-Budget report.

  Inland Revenue Rewards
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to section 32 of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890, if Commissioners have made use of this power since 1972 to reward their own officers involved in a case. [26843]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We are not aware of any cases in which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have used their power under section 32 of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890 to reward their own officers.
  258W
  Those reports also set out details for each year of the total additional tax, interest and penalties brought into charge as a result of work tackling non-compliance. Details of the number of cases that led to a recovery of funds and the proportion of those recoveries made up of tax, interest and penalties are not readily available and the costs of isolating that information would be disproportionate.

  Tax Avoidance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures have been taken in each of the last four years to counter tax avoidance; and how much has been saved in each of those years. [26332]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Measures to counter tax avoidance are a regular feature of legislation presented to Parliament in the Finance Bill. However, it is not feasible to measure the difference between the amount of tax paid to the Exchequer and the amount of tax that would have been paid had these measures not been in place. It is therefore not possible to assess with any degree of accuracy the amount of tax saved as a result of anti-avoidance measures.

  Incomes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) amount and (b) share of pre-tax income accrued to the (i) top 1 per cent., (ii) top 5 per cent., (iii) top 10 per cent., (iv) top 25 per cent., (v) bottom 70 per cent., (vi) bottom 5 per cent. and (vii) all taxpayers in 2000–01; and what the (A) amount and (B) share of tax liability was for each of these groups. [26256]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is in the table.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of families in Stoke-on-Trent who will benefit from the increase in children's tax credit in April 2002. [26933]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government announced in Budget 2001 that we would increase the children's tax credit to up to £20 a week for families in the year of a child's birth from April 2002. This is expected to benefit around half a million families, but no estimate is available of the number that will benefit in Stoke-on-Trent.

  Smuggling
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cars with their contents of tobacco
  259W
  and alcohol were confiscated by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in the last 12 months; and how many of these cars originated in the north-east. [26726]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs records of the numbers of vehicles seized do not disaggregate between the nature of the offences, the type of vehicle or the origin of the vehicle involved in each case.

  For the number of vehicles seized by Customs, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 30 October 2001, Official Report, column 625W.

  World AIDS Day Postcards
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many World AIDS Day postcards promoted by the World Development Movement and Jubilee Scotland were received by his Department in 2001. [R] [26907]

  Mr. Boateng
  746 World AIDS Day postcards promoted by the World Development Movement and Jubilee Scotland were received by HM Treasury in 2001.

  Aircraft Fuel
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to tax aircraft fuel. [26920]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government's taxation plans are announced in my right hon. Friend's annual Budget.

  Poverty Relief
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what conditions he has set to define the relief of poverty in respect of his 2015 targets arising from trade liberalisation as set out in his Ottawa speech. [26934]

  Mr. Boateng
  Full trade liberalisation could lift at least 300 million people out of poverty by 2015. Even diminishing protectionist tariffs in agriculture and in industrial goods and services by 50 per cent. would boost the world's yearly income by nearly 400 billion US dollars, a boost to growth of 1.4 per cent. Developing countries would gain 150 billion US dollars and a greater than average increase in GDP growth.

  That is why we strongly welcome the WTO agreement in Doha to launch a new trade round focused on development. And in the next phase we must take forward the agreements to open up trade in agriculture, build the capacity of developing countries to participate more effectively in the negotiations and open up greater access to medicines.

  On the other hand developing countries must pursue corruption-free policies for stability, for opening up trade and for creating a favourable environment for investment. In return, developed countries should be prepared to increase assistance to meet the 2015 UN millennium development goals agreed.

  Developed countries have the responsibility for ensuring that trade liberalisation is accompanied by social justice, creating conditions under which people in developing countries are enabled to benefit from expanding economic opportunities.
  260W
  Towards this end all developed countries should offer access to all but military products from the least developed countries and, by banning export credit guarantees for unproductive expenditure, discourage and diminish the diversion to arms expenditure of resources needed for education and health.

  Tax Relief (Residential Care)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give tax relief for those taxpayers who are paying the full cost of a spouse residing in a nursing home. [26910]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have no plans to introduce tax relief for those taxpayers who are paying the full cost of a spouse residing in a nursing home.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the working families tax credit on the income levels of the poorest working families in the Edinburgh North and Leith constituency. [27484]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The working families tax credit (WFTC) is a success in making work pay for families with children. At August 2001 WFTC was helping 1,270,000 families. This is 52 per cent. more families than were benefiting from family credit at its peak, and families were receiving on average around an extra £35 per week. In the Edinburgh, North and Leith constituency 1,216 families with children were benefiting from WFTC at August 2001.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people(a) are eligible for the working families tax credit and (b) claim the working families tax credit. [27761]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The numbers of recipients of working families tax credit (WFTC) are shown in the WFTC Quarterly Enquiries, copies of which are in the Library. No reliable estimate of the number of families eligible for WFTC in 2000–01 can be attempted until the Family Resources Survey for 2000–01 is analysed.

  Insurance (Reserving)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the tax system on reserving in the insurance business. [27440]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No such assessment has been made.

  Tax Competition
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the most recent(a) report and (b) other publication of the Code of Conduct Group on harmful tax competition. [27463]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained in the answer he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 770W, the ECOFIN Council received a written report from the Code of Conduct Group at its meeting on 4 December 2001.
  261W
  The Code of Conduct states that it is for ECOFIN to decide whether reports should be published. On 28 February 2000, the ECOFIN Council agreed to publish the Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) Report of 23 November 1999.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many domestic motor cars were seized by HM Customs and Excise during 2000; [27203]

  (2) how many domestic motor cars were seized by HM Customs and Excise as a consequence of seizures of (a) alcohol and (b) tobacco during 2000; [27204]

  (3) how many motor cars have been seized by HM Customs and Excise (a) in the United Kingdom, (b) which were registered in west Yorkshire, (c) which were registered in south Yorkshire and (d) which were registered in Barnsley in the last three years. [27202]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs records of the number of vehicles seized do not disaggregate between the nature of the offences, the type of vehicle or the origin of the vehicle in each case.

  For the number of vehicles seized by Customs in 2000–01, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 30 October 2001, Official Report, column 625W.

  For the number of vehicles seized by Customs in 1998–99 and 1999–2000, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on 8 January 2001, Official Report, column 794W.

  Lower Income Earners
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the proportion of the income of the bottom 10 per cent. of income earners in each of the last four years taken by(a) VAT and (b) other indirect tax. [27439]

  Mr. Boateng
  Precise information on income earners is not available. The closest information available is that published in "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income, 1999–2000", Economic Trends No. 569, April 2001.

  Landfill Tax Credit Scheme
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the potential impact of changes in the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [27600]

  Mr. Boateng
  An assessment of the impact of changes to the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme will be made as part of the current review of the scheme. A consultation document will be issued shortly.

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 805W, question 25025, on the aggregates levy, if he will specify the environmental benefits the imposition of the aggregates levy in Scotland will deliver. [27475]
  262W
  Mr. Boateng
  The aggregates levy will bring about environmental benefits by making the price of aggregates better reflect the environmental costs of their extraction (noise, dust, visual intrusion, loss of amenity and damage to biodiversity) and by encouraging the more efficient use of aggregate and the greater use of alternative recycled materials.

HEALTH

  Tilt Report
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have moved out of hospitals as a result of the implementation of the Tilt report. [22089]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]: Additional funding is being made available, as recommended in the Tilt report, to facilitate the movement, by 2004, of patients no longer needing high security care. The funding is being made available to aid the development of new services to help reduce delays in moving patients. A target for the number of patients to be moved, and the associated funding, has recently been agreed with each region.

  IT Systems
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the use of the international ICD coding standard for recording clinical details for all patient activity in other countries. [10262]

  Ms Blears
  There are approximately 41 countries that have planned or actually implemented the latest version of ICD which is ICD-10 for the coding of national mortality and morbidity statistics including the United States of America, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many episodes of clinical psychology treatment occurred in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1999–2000. [14109]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 November 2001]: During the period from 1996–97 to 1999–2000 the number of new episodes of care fell by nearly 5 per cent. from 197,000 to 188,000. However, the average duration of each episode rose. All information relating to new episodes of care for clinical psychology services for each year since 1988–89, including an explanation of the data, is contained in the statistical report "Clinical psychology summary information for 2000–01, England". A copy of the summary is in the Library and is available on the Department's website www.doh.gov.uk/public/KT240001.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many calls the London ambulance service received during the most recent 12 months for which figures are available; [24690]

  (2) how many hoax calls were made to the London ambulance service during the last year; [24698]

  (3) what proportion of calls made to the London ambulance service over the last year that were acted upon were deemed inappropriate calls; [24688]
  263W
  (4) what was the average time it took, for the latest year for which figures are available, for the London ambulance service to respond to calls; and what the equivalent figures were for the previous three years; [24629]

  (5) what was the average response time of the London ambulance service over the last year; [24689]

  (6) how many call outs were made to the London ambulance service in the latest year for which figures are available; [24630]

  (7) how many calls to the London ambulance service during the last year were screened, with a subsequent determination that the sending of an ambulance was not necessary. [24709]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: Information about the number of emergency calls and the number resulting in an emergency response arriving at the scene of the reported incident for the London ambulance national health service trust are contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin "Ambulance Services, England 2000/01". The bulletin also contains information about the response times to emergency calls. A copy of the bulletin is in the Library and available at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0115.htm.

  Information on the number of hoax calls made to the London Ambulance Service (LAS) is not collected centrally. However, the LAS classify a hoax call as one where, on arrival of an ambulance crew or first responder, there is no patient to be found at the scene. The LAS recorded 391 such calls between the beginning of January and the end of November 2001. This figure represents less than 0.5 per cent. of the total workload for that period.

  The LAS recognise that the majority of patients who dial 999 require some form of medical help or other assistance but also believe that, for many, their illness and injuries do not require an emergency ambulance to attend them. It is, however, extremely difficult to set a strict definition as to what constitutes an inappropriate call.

  The LAS launched on 17 December 2001 a public education campaign to reduce the more blatant inappropriate use of the service by patients who could make their own way to an accident and emergency department or, in some cases, do not require hospital treatment at all. The campaign also highlights the fact that people should not phone the LAS for advice and so clog up the 999 call-taking system, but should instead be phoning NHS Direct or seeking advice from their GP.

  Community Pharmacists
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the value of the fee paid to community pharmacists in December 1997; [24722]

  (2) what is the value of the fee paid to community pharmacists; and what was the value in December (a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000. [24707]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: Community pharmacies in England are paid a variety of fees and allowances, but the basic dispensing fee paid for
  264W
  the large majority of prescriptions is currently 87.4p. Comparable fee levels for prescriptions dispensed in December 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 are shown in the table.

  pence

  December

  Basic dispensing fee

  1997

  94.1

  1998

  94.1

  1999

  97.5

  2000

  97.5

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much community pharmacy contractors are receiving in dispensing fees; and what the equivalent figure was in May 1997. [24721]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: For September 2001 (the latest month for which figures are available) total remuneration paid to pharmacy contractors in England was £58.8 million. The equivalent figure for May 1997 was £52.9 million.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in England and Wales failed to get all or part of their prescriptions dispensed between 1 December 2000 and 1 December 2001. [24714]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: The information requested is not available for England. Responsibility for the national health service in Wales lies with the National Assembly for Wales.

  Orthodontist Services
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many orthodontists there were in England(a) at the latest available date and (b) in March 1997, broken down by each health authority area. [24712]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Hospital dental consultants within the orthodontics specialty by health authority1—at 30 September 2000

  Number

  1997

  2000

  England

  150

  160

  Avon HA

  10

  10

  Barking and Havering HA

  0

  0

  Barnet HA

  —

  0

  Barnsley HA

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire HA

  0

  0

  Berkshire HA

  0

  0

  Bexley and Greenwich HA

  —

  0

  Birmingham HA

  10

  10

  Bradford HA

  0

  0

  Brent and Harrow HA

  0

  —

  Bromley HA

  0

  —

  Buckinghamshire HA

  0

  0

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  —

  —

  Calderdale and Kirklees HA

  0

  0

  Cambridge HA

  0

  0

  Camden and Islington HA

  10

  10

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly HA

  0

  0

  County Durham HA

  —

  —

  Coventry HA

  0

  —

  265W

  Hospital dental consultants within the orthodontics specialty by health authority1—at 30 September 2000

  Number

  1997

  2000

  Croydon HA

  0

  0

  Doncaster HA

  0

  0

  Dorset HA

  0

  0

  Dudley HA

  0

  0

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow HA

  0

  0

  East and North Hertfordshire HA

  0

  —

  East Kent HA

  0

  0

  East Lancashire HA

  0

  0

  East London and The City HA

  0

  0

  East Riding HA

  0

  0

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove HA

  0

  0

  Enfield and Haringey HA

  0

  —

  Gateshead and South Tyneside HA

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire HA

  —

  —

  Herefordshire HA

  —

  0

  Hillingdon HA

  —

  0

  Isle of White HA

  —

  —

  Kingston and Richmond HA

  0

  0

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HA

  10

  20

  Leeds HA

  10

  0

  Leicestershire HA

  0

  0

  Lincolnshire HA

  0

  0

  Liverpool HA

  0

  0

  Manchester HA

  0

  0

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  0

  0

  Morecambe Bay HA

  0

  —

  Newcastle and North Tyneside HA

  —

  0

  Norfolk HA

  0

  0

  North and East Devon HA

  —

  0

  North and Mid Hampshire HA

  0

  0

  North Cheshire HA

  0

  0

  North Cumbria HA

  0

  0

  North Derbyshire HA

  0

  0

  North Essex HA

  0

  0

  North Nottinghamshire HA

  —

  —

  North Staffordshire HA

  0

  0

  North West Lancashire HA

  0

  —

  North Yorkshire HA

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire HA

  0

  0

  Nottingham HA

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire HA

  0

  0

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA

  0

  0

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA

  0

  0

  Rotherham HA

  0

  0

  Salford and Trafford HA

  0

  0

  Sefton HA

  0

  0

  Sheffield HA

  0

  0

  Shropshire HA

  0

  0

  Somerset HA

  0

  0

  South and West Devon HA

  0

  0

  South Cheshire HA

  0

  0

  South Derbyshire HA

  0

  0

  South Essex HA

  0

  0

  South Humber HA

  0

  0

  South Lancashire HA

  0

  —

  South Staffordshire HA

  0

  0

  Southampton and South West Hampshire HA

  0

  0

  St. Helens and Knowsley HA

  0

  0

  Stockport HA

  0

  0

  Suffolk HA

  0

  0

  Sunderland HA

  0

  0

  Tees HA

  0

  0

  Wakefield HA

  0

  0

  Walsall HA

  0

  0

  Warwickshire HA

  0

  0

  West Hertfordshire HA

  0

  0

  West Kent HA

  0

  0

  West Pennine HA

  0

  —

  West Surrey HA

  0

  0

  West Sussex HA

  0

  0

  266W

  Hospital dental consultants within the orthodontics specialty by health authority1—at 30 September 2000

  Number

  1997

  2000

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  0

  0

  Wiltshire HA

  0

  0

  Wirral HA

  0

  0

  Wolverhampton HA

  0

  0

  Worcestershire HA

  0

  0

  1 Where HAs are shown, staff holding appointments in more than one HA are included in each HA. The sum of HA totals therefore differs slightly from the England total and a direct comparison between England totals and HA totals is not advised.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. '—' denotes zero.

  3. '0' denotes less than five.

  Source:

  Department of Health 2000 medical and dental work force census.

  The information relates to hospital-based consultants within orthodontics.

  Data showing the number of principal dentists within the General Dental Service, who have submitted one hundred or more orthodontic claims in a year are in the following table.

  General Dental Service: Total number of orthodontists1—England

  Health authority

  1996–97

  2000–01

  Avon

  19

  29

  Barking and Havering

  6

  8

  Barnet

  8

  20

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  4

  3

  Berkshire

  18

  17

  Bexley and Greenwich

  8

  8

  Birmingham

  12

  17

  Bradford

  1

  3

  Brent and Harrow

  10

  5

  Bromley

  5

  7

  Buckinghamshire

  5

  10

  Bury and Rochdale

  8

  13

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  7

  8

  Cambridge and Huntingdon2

  9

  —

  Cambridge2

  —

  16

  Camden and Islington

  4

  7

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  4

  9

  County Durham

  3

  3

  Coventry

  2

  3

  Croydon

  9

  13

  Doncaster

  5

  8

  Dorset

  6

  8

  Dudley

  4

  10

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  8

  13

  East and North Hertfordshire

  10

  15

  East Kent

  9

  12

  East Lancashire

  8

  12

  East London and The City

  6

  13

  East Norfolk2

  16

  —

  East Riding

  6

  14

  East Surrey

  13

  14

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  12

  9

  Enfield and Haringey

  9

  10

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  3

  1

  Gloucestershire

  10

  17

  Herefordshire

  2

  3

  Hillingdon

  5

  7

  Isle of Wight

  3

  2

  Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster

  1

  8

  Kingston and Richmond

  8

  8

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  4

  7

  267W

  General Dental Service: Total number of orthodontists1—England

  Health authority

  1996–97

  2000–01

  Leeds

  6

  7

  Leicestershire

  13

  21

  Lincolnshire

  7

  10

  Liverpool

  7

  7

  Manchester

  6

  6

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  8

  11

  Morecambe Bay

  3

  3

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  4

  5

  Norfolk2

  —

  14

  North and East Devon

  9

  12

  North and Mid Hampshire

  7

  7

  North Cheshire

  3

  4

  North Cumbria

  3

  2

  North Derbyshire

  9

  15

  North Essex

  21

  25

  North Nottinghamshire

  8

  11

  North Staffordshire

  10

  7

  North West Anglia2

  3

  —

  North West Lancashire

  11

  8

  North Yorkshire

  17

  17

  Northamptonshire

  8

  12

  Northumberland

  3

  1

  Nottingham

  7

  9

  Oxfordshire

  6

  12

  Portsmouth and SE Hampshire

  7

  4

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  9

  10

  Rotherham

  2

  3

  Salford and Trafford

  12

  14

  Sandwell

  2

  6

  Sefton

  2

  2

  Sheffield

  12

  12

  Shropshire

  6

  7

  Solihull

  2

  3

  Somerset

  6

  8

  South and West Devon

  9

  10

  South Cheshire

  16

  16

  South Derbyshire

  7

  13

  South Essex

  10

  12

  South Humber

  3

  5

  South Lancashire

  6

  8

  South Staffordshire

  5

  6

  Southampton and SW Hampshire

  7

  8

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  2

  4

  Stockport

  5

  3

  Suffolk

  15

  20

  Sunderland

  2

  3

  Tees

  4

  5

  Wakefield

  3

  2

  Walsall

  2

  3

  Warwickshire

  2

  5

  West Hertfordshire

  9

  15

  West Kent

  12

  19

  West Pennine

  11

  10

  West Surrey

  13

  15

  West Sussex

  20

  26

  Wigan and Bolton

  16

  18

  Wiltshire

  9

  15

  Wirral

  5

  7

  Wolverhampton

  4

  6

  Worcestershire

  13

  12

  England3

  739

  951

  England4

  679

  869

  1 An orthodontist is defined as a principal densist who submitted 100 or more orthodontic claims in a year.

  2 In April 1999 Cambridge and huntingdon, East Norfolk and North West Anglia HAs combined to form two HAs; Cambridge HA and Norfolk HA.

  3 Dentists are counted for each health authority in which they practice.

  4 Dentists are counted only once.

  268W
  Dentists carrying out orthodontic treatment in the General Dental Service may also be carrying out orthodontic treatment for the Hospital Dental Service; therefore some dentists may have been included in both tables.

  West Sussex Health Authority
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what calculation he has made of the cost to West Sussex health authority's budget of his forecast for medical inflation in 2002–03. [24882]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the increase in the West Sussex health authority budget for 2002–03 as a result of likely (a) pay inflation, (b) medical inflation, (c) pension contributions and (d) national service framework compliance. [24662]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: For 2002–03 the West Sussex health authority has received an uplift of 9.58 per cent. in its recurrent unified allocation that is an additional £53.8 million. This is to cover both pay and non-pay inflation as well as achievement of access and National Service Framework target.

  The West Sussex health authority assesses the impact of pay awards to be £17 million consuming 3.3 per cent. of its 9.58 per cent. uplift.

  Medical inflation is not a recognised term as the effect of medical pay awards and price movements on medical and surgical supplies and drugs forms part of the overall inflation increase.

  There is no specific addition for pension contributions as there are no changes to the superannuation scheme contributions for 2002–03.

  The West Sussex health authority has received additional funding within its allocation to support the achievement of National Service Framework targets. The health authority will receive earmarked additional amounts for:

  £

  Cancer

  1,127,000

  Coronary heart disease

  890,000

  Mental health

  1,112,000

  In addition the health authority will receive earmarked additional amounts for:

  £

  Information management and technology

  823,000

  Building capacity

  6,302,000

  Primary care access

  1,238,000

  These six items alone total to:

  11,492,000

  NHS Recipe Book
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who was responsible for drawing up the nutritional quality standards for hospital food included in the official NHS recipe book. [24686]
  269W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: The national health service recipe book, issued in May 2001 as part of the better hospital food programme, requires hospitals to meet estimated average requirements for food energy, and reference nutrient intake for all other nutrients. These standards were set by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, now known as the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to enable patient feedback on the standard and quality of the food they are being served from the NHS recipe book. [24624]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: Hospitals currently undertake surveys to gain feedback from patients on the standard of their catering services. However, these surveys are designed and implemented locally, do not take a consistent form and do not allow for comparisons to be drawn.

  To address this, the better hospital food panel is developing a national patient catering survey. This will ask a range of questions which have been designed through detailed consultation with patients about the standards of service they expect and will complement the questions on catering which will be included in the national patient survey. It will be issued as part of a new "Catering in a modernised NHS" manual of advice and guidance which will be issued to the national health service in 2002.

  Drugs (Theft)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the theft of medical drugs from NHS hospitals and GP surgeries by patients and staff has cost the NHS since 1997. [24307]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: Only the total value and number of losses from national health service trusts, health authorities and primary care trusts, due to "Damage to property due to theft and fraud" is reported to the Department of Health. Information on the cost to the NHS of theft of medical drugs from NHS hospitals by patients and staff is not reported separately.

  No information is collected about theft from general practitioners.

  Injury Compensation Claims
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many, and at what cost, injury compensation claims were made against the NHS as a result of non-medical accidents by(a) patients and (b) staff in 2001. [24353]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: The National Health Service Litigation Authority offers an indemnity to national health service bodies against employer and public liability risks where the relevant incident occurred on or after 1 April 1999. The authority handles those claims which have a potential liability in excess of certain amounts (£10,000 for employers' liability and £3,000 for public liability). In the calendar year 2001 (data available to 6 December 2001) the authority was notified of 2,244 claims made by employees and 732 claims made by third parties (not all of whom will be patients). The total cost of these claims is not yet
  270W
  known as the majority have not yet been settled. The authority is however holding reserves of around £23 million for employers' liability and £6 million for public liability claims in respect of these claims.

  Better Hospital Food Panel
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those chefs involved in the better hospital food panel; what the next year's budget for the better hospital food panel will be; and what the remuneration package for the chairman of the better hospital food panel is. [24623]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: There are seven chefs currently involved in the better hospital food programme—Mr. John Benson-Smith, Mr. Michael Caines, Mr. Anton Edelman, Mr. Shaun Hill, Mr. Mark Hix, Mr. Eugene McCoy and Mr. Cyrus Todiwala. None of these are members of the better hospital food panel.

  Loyd Grossman, who is the chairman of the panel, has provided his services free of charge since he became involved in the programme in September 2000, and continues to do so. His involvement stems from a real desire to help the national health service modernise and improve its catering services. Likewise, no other members of the panel are remunerated for their involvement.

  The NHS Plan made available £38.5 million over four years to support the programme. The better hospital food panel has no discrete budget, any expenses connected with the panel's meetings and work are met from the better hospital food administrative budget.

  Ambulance Response Times
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average response time was in 2001 for the(a) London ambulance service and (b) Sussex ambulance service; and what the Government's target response times were. [24337]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: Information in the form requested is not collected centrally. Information for London Ambulance National Health Service Trust and Sussex Ambulance NHS Trust about the proportion of emergency calls resulting in an ambulance arriving at the scene of the reported incident within the Government's target response time is contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin "Ambulance Services, England 2000–01". A copy of the bulletin is in the Library and available at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0115.htm.

  Security Staff
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many security staff were recruited for hospital accident and emergency departments in each year since 1997. [24355]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: Security and safety of staff, patients and property in the national health service is of great importance to us.

  Guidance on effective management of security in accident and emergency departments was issued by the NHS Executive in 1997 and was an important aspect of the Government strategy when funding the upgrading of accident and emergency departments.
  271W
  Security is provided in trusts by "in-house" staff or by private security organisations.

  The method of provision and level of staffing is a matter for individual trusts dependant on the size of the hospital, the locality, staffing levels and the general configuration of the buildings.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many security staff by hospital(a) were recruited to and (b) left West Sussex hospitals accident and emergency departments in each year since 1997. [24356]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: The information requested is not available centrally.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many security staff were assaulted in hospital accident and emergency departments by patients in 2001. [24354]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: Information on the levels of violent incidents against individual staff group is not collected centrally, but may be held at a local level by national health service employers.

  The Department conducted a survey of national health service trusts in England in 1998–99. The survey found that, on average, seven violent incidents were recorded each month per 1,000 staff. This is equivalent to approximately 65,000 violent incidents against NHS trust staff each year. Details of the survey can be found in Health Service Circular 1999/229: "Managing Violence, Accidents and Sickness Absence in the NHS", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Figures for recorded violent incidents in 2000–01 are currently being analysed by the Department.

  Patient Complaints
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many formal complaints were made by patients about NHS services by activity area in each of the last five years; and how many complaints(a) were resolved within (i) four weeks and (ii) eight weeks and (b) remain unresolved. [24318]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: Data on national health service complaints are available in the Government Statistical Service report, "Handling Complaints: monitoring the NHS complaints procedures, England", copies of which are available in the Library. The data show only complaints resolved within or outside the target for local resolution of 20 working days.

  Hospital Cleaning Contracts
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given to local health authorities on the awarding of hospital cleaning contracts. [24357]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: Health authorities do not award cleaning contracts for hospitals. It is the responsibility of individual national health service trusts to award cleaning contracts based on the principles of achieving value for money which involves consideration of quality and satisfaction as well as cost.

  NHS Direct
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's public awareness strategy is for NHS Direct; and what plans he has to launch an awareness campaign over the winter. [24669]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: NHS Direct is an integral part of the Department's "Get the Right Treatment" campaign this winter, as it was last year, and the year before (when the campaign was called "Choose the Right Remedy"). NHS Direct is promoted as one of the range of health care options available to people, along with self-care, the pharmacist, the general practitioner surgery, accident and emergency and 999.

  National activity includes press advertising in television listings and women's weekly magazines, and media relations campaign targeting women's consumer and lifestyle media and a centrally produced A6 folded leaflet distributed through pharmacies and GP surgeries.

  A 'Get the Right Treatment' campaign toolkit has been distributed to all communications leads within the national health service, designed to help them support the national campaign at a local level.

  Emergency Ambulance Services
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to stop the misuse of ambulance emergency services by the general public for non-urgent treatment. [24670]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: A number of national health service ambulance trusts have undertaken work to educate their local population about appropriate use of emergency ambulance services.

  A fully crewed frontline ambulance will always be sent to life-threatening emergencies. However, ambulance services do not have to send an ambulance vehicle in response to 999 calls which do not require emergency care. Such calls will continue to receive a consistent and appropriate response based on national clinical standards.

  Traditional Medicines Directive
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is towards the traditional medicines directive. [24661]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: On the basis of preliminary drafts of the proposals, we would see a directive on traditional medicines as a potential opportunity to put in place a legally secure and appropriate regulatory regime for traditional herbal remedies of the kind currently sold as unlicensed herbal remedies under Section 12(2) of the Medicines Act 1968. A regime of this kind would give the public better assurances as to safety and quality as well as providing systematic information about the use of the product. Manufacturers would be able to make agreed minor claims based on traditional use. We understand that the commission will be bringing forward formal proposals shortly. We will wish to scrutinise carefully the detailed provisions of the proposals once they are available.

  Stoke Mandeville Hospital
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the National Patient Access Team into waiting list management at Stoke Mandeville hospital; [25503]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the district audit analysis of alleged waiting list irregularities at Stoke Mandeville hospital; [25501]

  (3) if he will place in the Library a copy of the district audit report into the management of waiting lists at Stoke Mandeville hospital. [25497]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: District audit carried out a thorough investigation, over several weeks, and interviewed 54 witnesses. The investigation was carried out by independent staff, with experience of the relevant issues. The Department considers the report adequate for the issues it was intended to address. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  No formal report was produced following the one day National Patient Access Team review so no report is available to be placed in the Library. The review team identified a number of weaknesses in waiting list management. As a result of this review, the district audit investigation referred to was carried out.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state, in respect of the patients at Stoke Mandeville hospital who were found in the district audit investigation to have been suspended irregularly from waiting lists, how many were patients(a) waiting for the second stage of a bilateral procedure, (b) who self-deferred having declined a reasonable treatment plan and (c) who were suspended without reason. [25498]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: The categorisation of suspensions by district audit did not include a specific number of patients waiting for a second stage of a bilateral procedure. These were included in the overall total of 35 patients who had inappropriately waited more than 18 months for treatment and who were categorised as system errors. No further analysis of these patients' cases was carried out, and such analysis would not be feasible without significant additional resources being diverted to the task.

  The categorisation of patients by district audit did not include a specific number of patients who self-deferred having declined a reasonable treatment plan. These were included in the overall total of 35 patients who had inappropriately waited more than 18 months for treatment and who were categorised as system errors.

  43 patients were found by district audit to have been suspended from waiting list inclusion without reason.

  Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the latest figures are for the Mid Essex hospital services NHS trust area for the(a) total number of people waiting for hospital treatment and (b) total number of people waiting less than (i) 18, (ii) 15, (iii) 12 and (iv) six months for hospital treatment. [26810]

  Mr. Hutton
  The total number of patients waiting at Mid Essex hospital services national health service trust at November 2001 is 8,787.
  274W
  The additional information requested is given in the table.

  Number of patients waiting more than 18 months, up to 18 months, up to 15 months, and up to 12 months for inpatient treatment at Mid Essex hospital services national health service trust

  November 2001

  Number waiting less than 18 months for inpatient treatment

  8,787

  Number waiting less than 15 months for inpatient treatment

  8,726

  Number waiting less than 12 months for inpatient treatment

  8,335

  Number waiting less than 6 months for inpatient treatment

  6,361

  Source:

  These data are nationally published data, taken from Regional Offices Data Systems.

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the cost to the NHS of falls as identified in standard 6 of the national service framework for older people. [26816]

  Jacqui Smith
  No detailed estimate of the full cost of falls to the national health service has been made. Hip fracture is the most common serious injury related to falls in older people and as such makes up a large proportion of NHS costs on falls. The national service framework for older people referred to estimated annual costs of hip fracture to the NHS of around £1.7 billion.

  Type II Diabetes
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive a response from the UK screening committee on their assessment of high-risk screening for type II diabetes. [27315]

  Jacqui Smith
  The United Kingdom National Screening Committee has decided that further research, which may require some complex studies, is needed to inform its advice. It will report to the Department in 2005.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Road Fuels
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is towards the possible adoption by the EU of lower sulphur control levels for road fuels. [26410]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government supported the political agreement reached at the December 2001 EU Environment Council on a Commission proposal to amend Directive 98/70/EC that sets a maximum limit for sulphur of 10 ppm (termed "sulphur-free" fuel) from 1 January 2009, this date being subject to review by the Commission with respect to diesel fuel. The reduction in sulphur will facilitate the optimisation of new engine technology for cars, which will substantially reduce fuel use and benefit motorists—and also reduce climate change and other environmental emissions, especially ultrafine particulate emissions.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the regional reports on the performance of the home energy efficiency scheme. [22891]

  Mr. Meacher
  The home energy efficiency scheme (HEES), now marketed as The Warm Front Team, is administered by two scheme managers, TXU Warm Front Ltd. (responsible for the Eastern, East Midlands and Yorkshire and the Humber) and Eaga Partnership Ltd. (responsible for the rest of England).

  Eaga Partnership provides information (under publications) on its website: www.eaga.co.uk. TXU Warm Front, www.txuwarmfront.co.uk, is currently constructing a website, which will include data on performance. DEFRA's website, www.defra.gov.uk (under energy efficiency), will shortly be updated to identify average waiting times, by area, for insulation and heating measures and general performance delivery information for HEES.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) HEES and (b) HEES Plus grants were paid out in each local authority area in each month since June 2000; and what targets were set for the number of grants to be paid out over the period in order to meet her Department's target of 800,000 grants received by 2004. [19374]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: The volume of information requested is such that I will write to the hon. Member separately, and place a copy of the letter and the data in the Library of the House.

  The home energy efficiency scheme has an overall target of improving 800,000 properties in the period 2000–04. Between June 2000 and March 2002, the scheme has a target of improving 400,000 properties.

  Portland Cement
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will name the domestic manufacturers of Portland cement who operate manufacturing plants accredited to ISO 14001; and what percentage of that industry they represent. [20514]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are four domestic manufacturers of Portland Cement: Blue Circle Cement UK; Castle Cement Ltd.; Rugby Cement; and Buxton Lime Industries Ltd. All are members of the British Cement Association and according to their records all the manufacturing plants of these companies are accredited to ISO 14001 representing 100 per cent. of the industry.

  Environmental Protection
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many prosecutions have been initiated(a) by and (b) against local authorities in England and Wales under section 79(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. [20609]

  Mr. Meacher
  Section 79(1) lists the statutory nuisances covered by the Environmental Protection Act 1990, although formally prosecution comes under section 80, and cases against local authorities under section 82.
  276W
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) collect statistics from a sample of local authorities. The latest figures published on 20 December 2001 show that for 2000–01 there were in the order of 238,000 complaints to local authorities resulting in the order of 440 prosecutions. These are broken down as shown in the table.

  Complaints

  Prosecutions

  Domestic

  169,810

  313

  Industrial

  11,475

  4

  Commercial/leisure

  34,745

  78

  Construction/demolition

  10,822

  39

  Vehicles

  5,172

  2

  Other machinery/equipment in streets

  6,501

  4

  The number of prosecutions against local authorities on grounds of statutory nuisance are not held centrally.

  Landfill Sites
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidelines exist to determine permitted distance between landfill sites and occupied private housing. [23691]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 requires a local planning authority to consult the Environment Agency before granting planning permission for development within 250 metres of land which is or has, at any time in the 30 years before the relevant planning application, been used for the deposit of refuse or waste. Guidance to the agency in Waste Management Paper 27 on Landfill Gas, published in 1991, contains guidelines on the proximity of new housing developments to landfill sites. These guidelines do not arise from European legislation and we have had no discussions with the European Commission about changes to the guidance.

  In addition, under section 42 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Environment Agency must take the steps needed to ensure that the activities authorised by a waste management licence do not cause environmental pollution, harm to human health or serious detriment to local amenities; and the conditions of a licence are complied with.

  Following implementation of the Landfill Directive, the Environment Agency will be required to exercise its functions under the directive in order to prevent, or reduce as far as possible, negative effects from the landfilling of waste on the environment and any resulting risk to human health during the whole life cycle of the site. The directive also requires local planning authorities to take into consideration the distance from the site boundary when considering the location of a new landfill site. This requirement has applied to all new landfill sites from 16 July 2001 but is not applied retrospectively to existing landfill sites.

  The Environment Agency can suspend, vary or revoke a waste management licence or, in future, the permit issued under the terms of the Landfill Directive, where it

  277W
  appears the continuation of activities would cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health or where the conditions of the permit or licence are breached.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her latest assessment is of progress towards targets for the reduction of waste in landfill sites. [23690]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have set a target to cut the amount of industrial and commercial waste going to landfill in England to 85 per cent. of that landfilled in 1998 by 2005. The statutory targets for reducing waste landfilled are set in the EU landfill directive. These are that by 2010 biodegradable municipal waste landfilled must be reduced to 75 per cent. of that produced in 1995, by 2013 to 50 per cent., and by 2020 to 35 per cent. The table provides estimates of the amounts of municipal waste landfilled in England and Wales based on the DEFRA annual survey of Municipal Waste Management.

  England and Wales

  Percentage (mtonnes)

  MW

  MW landfilled

  BMW landfilled/1995 BMW

  1995–96

  25.2

  —

  —

  1996–97

  26.0

  85

  87

  1997–98

  27.2

  85

  91

  1998–99

  27.9

  82

  91

  1999–2000

  29.3

  81

  94

  Note:

  Assumes proportion of MW which is biodegradable remains at 62.5 per cent.

  In 1999–2000, the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill was 94 per cent. of that produced in 1995–96. Although the percentage of municipal waste going to landfill is reducing, the tonnage is still rising because the amount of waste being produced continues to rise. Statutory targets to triple local authority recycling and composting of household waste by 2005–06 in England will help reduce landfilling, and tradable landfill permits issued to waste disposal authorities will require them to meet the directive's targets. We will bring forward primary legislation for the permits scheme as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  CFC Disposal
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her latest assessment is of the cost to be incurred by(a) private businesses, (b) local government and (c) the Exchequer of implementing the EU directive on CFC disposal. [23264]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on substances that deplete the ozone layer was undertaken in December 1998. It estimated that the total costs of compliance for business, charities and voluntary organisations would be £370 million. The report put that figure in context by stating that under the then current EC Regulation (3093/94), it was estimated that end-users would make investments totalling £4 billion spread over the next 10 to 15 years. The main effect of the new regulation would be to bring forward the timing of some of those investments.
  278W
  The RIA did not estimate compliance costs for the extraction of ozone-depleting substances from the insulating foam in domestic refrigeration equipment as the draft proposal did not make it mandatory. It was not until June 2001 that the European Commission gave EU member states its final interpretation of the regulation that did require the recovery of controlled substances in the insulating foam of domestic fridges and freezers. My Department recently announced a payment of £6 million to English local authorities to cover their costs of handling fridges and freezers until March 2002. We are urgently assessing the impacts of the regulation, including the costs, and will determine what further action is required beyond that.

  Recycled Plastic
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress she has made in creating a market for recycled plastic; and if she will make a statement. [23879]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) was created in January 2001 to create stable and efficient markets for recycled materials and products, and to help remove barriers to waste minimisation, re-use and recycling.

  Plastics are one of WRAP' s seven set targets to increase mixed plastics recycling by 20,000 tonnes for industrial products and raise awareness of the range and quality of recycled products available.

  On 5 December WRAP announced that they are funding a series of six regional workshops on plastics recycling to be delivered by the plastics recycling body, RECOUP. These seminars will focus on plastics collection and procurement, as well as providing a showcase for products.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the Environment Council held in Brussels on 12 to 13 December; what the Government's position was on each issue discussed, including their voting record; and if she will make a statement. [23887]

  Mr. Meacher
  I represented the UK at the Environment Council held in Brussels on 12 December 2001. This was the final Environment Council of the Belgian presidency. Council reached political agreement on two common positions, with the UK voting in favour of both. Council agreed conclusions on a wide-ranging set of topics: sustainable development, international environmental governance, a review of the pesticides authorisation directive (91/414 EC), a Commission Communication on the first phase of the European Climate Change Programme and a Communication on a strategy for dioxins, furans and PCBs. There was a policy debate on a proposed directive setting up an EU greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme.

  There were four items on the agenda under the heading of Climate Change. Council heard a report back on the successful outcome of the Seventh Conference of the Parties (COP7) in Marrakech, which took place between 29 October and 10 November. The importance of member states now pressing ahead with ratification of the Kyoto

  279W
  Protocol was stressed. Council also heard a presidency progress report on a decision to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Once the decision is agreed individual member states and the EU will be able to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the expectation being that they will do so before the World Summit on Sustainable Development in September 2002.

  Council conclusions were also agreed on the implementation of the first phase of the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP), a package of common and co-ordinated policies and measures to reduced greenhouse gas emissions that has been prepared in discussion with member states and stakeholders.

  During an orientation debate on a proposed EU greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme all member states expressed support for the establishment of such a scheme. Member states were split on whether the initial phase should have voluntary or mandatory participation. There was broad agreement, however, that credits should be allocated free of charge during the initial phase, and there was also broad support for starting with carbon dioxide alone, with a view to extending the scheme to other greenhouse gases in the future.

  Political agreement on a common position was agreed on a proposed directive to bring community rules into line with the second pillar of the Aarhus Convention dealing with public consultation in environmental decision-making. The Council endorsed European Parliament amendment aiming to improve information to the public about decisions taken, and to enhance the use of electronic media. The Commission wanted the proposal to apply to updating of all permits, including very minor changes. The common position will only apply in such cases likely to give rise to significant environmental effects. The Commission reserved its position to return to the issue at second reading.

  Council reached political agreement on a proposal to introduce sulphur-free (<10 ppm) petrol and diesel in every member state from 1 January 2005 alongside existing fuels. Council agreed that from 1 January 2009 the use of this fuel should be mandatory. The proposal will mean lower exhaust emissions and will facilitate improvements in fuel economy in the future. The UK achieved its key objective of ensuring that the agreement would not impose fuel quality restrictions on fuel (diesel) used by non-road mobile machines (NRMM's) in advance of a full Commission review of the costs and benefits of such a measure. Council agreed conclusions in response to the Commission's communication on a strategy for dioxins, furans and polychlorinated biphenyls. The strategy proposes a number of actions aimed at preventing the formation and release of these substances; further identification of sources; establishment of indicators; and faster, cheaper measurement methods. Council broadly welcomed the Commission's approach, and asked for it to consider a number of options, including the setting of limit values for emissions under the integrated pollution prevent and control directive, improved measurement methods, and possible instruments for the control of non-industrial sources of emissions.

  Council heard a brief presidency progress report on the proposed regulation on traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms. Some provisional agreement had been reached on parts of the text, although issues such as the scope, and the treatment of derived
  280W
  products, need further work. The UK supports the need for an effective traceability and labelling system to deliver reliable information and dependable consumer choice.

  Council Conclusions on the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS) clarified the role of Environment Council and its complementarity to other Council formations and the General Affairs Council's general co-ordinating role; offered views on the four priorities identified by the Gothenburg European Council and promoted the development of an external dimension to the EU SDS. Council asked the permanent representatives to report back on how to improve arrangements for co-ordinating work on sustainable development. On Global Environmental Governance, Council agreed Conclusions underlining the need to strengthen international environmental structures, as part of the preparations for, and follow up to, the World Summit on Sustainable Development. They referred to the need to strengthen the financial situation of the United Nations Environment Programme, including a call for countries to step up their efforts to contribute at the level of the UN assessed rate.

  Conclusions on the Commission's evaluation of the Pesticides Authorisation Directive (91/414 EC) broadly supported the Commission's approach. Council recognised that the review of existing active substances could not be completed within the current timetable of end of 2003. It therefore extended the period for the review to the end of 2008 but to only the end of 2005 for higher priority substances. Council also called on the Commission to cover a number of detailed issues in further work in this area including the proposed revision of the directive and a thematic strategy on pesticides.

  The Commission presented a proposal for the revision of directive 96/82 (Seveso II), and a proposal for the revision of recovery and recycling targets in the directive on packaging and packaging waste. The Commission also gave progress reports on proposed directives on an EU chemicals strategy, recycling of batteries and accumulators and air quality limits for heavy metals in ambient air. The UK drew members states' attention to the problems for air quality posed by rising background levels of ozone precursors, and asked the Commissioner to consider what action was necessary.

  Council also heard progress reports on a thematic strategy for the sustainable use of pesticides and on the revision of Regulation 2455/92 (trade in certain dangerous chemicals) which is necessary to enable the EC to become a Party to the Rotterdam Convention. There were also progress reports on the ratification of the Rotterdam Convention and the IMO Convention on TBT, and on Community implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The Commission also briefed Council on the progress of accession negotiations on the environment with the candidate countries.

  Over lunch Ministers held a discussion on Global Environmental Governance and the outcome of the recent WTO negotiations in Doha. Ministers agreed to press Heads of Government to attend the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, and to include a commitment to that effect in the Laeken European Council conclusions.

  Liquid Refrigerants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the cost per unit for the disposal of the liquid refrigerant in(a) refrigerators, (b) deep-freezers, (c) fridge-freezers and (d) air conditioning units. [24169]

  Mr. Meacher
  It is estimated that the disposal of liquid refrigerants, through high temperature incineration, costs approximately £1–2/kg. The cost will vary with the type of container and the size of the consignment. The volume of refrigerant is usually between 70–300 grams depending on the size of appliance, although large air conditioning units can contain rather more refrigerant. This would result in a cost of between seven and 60p per unit.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to ensure the separation of different types of refrigerant liquids extracted from waste appliances. [24167]

  Mr. Meacher
  Under EC Regulation No. 2037/2000 all CFCs removed from waste appliances must be destroyed. The effect of Articles 9 and 10 of the waste framework directive is to require the disposal or recovery of waste to be carried out under the terms of a permit issued by the Environment Agency. The conditions set by the agency in these permits control matters such as the separation of different types of liquid extracted from waste appliances.

  Waste Refrigeration Equipment
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funding options she is considering to assist local authorities in the storage and processing of waste refrigeration equipment. [24165]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department recently announced a payment of £6 million to English local authorities to cover their costs of handling fridges and freezers until March 2002. We shall urgently assess the impacts of the regulation and will determine what further action is required beyond that.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the capability of UK high temperature incinerator facilities to deal with the ozone depleting substances from refrigerators. [23952]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]: The UK's high temperature incinerator facilities have sufficient capacity to deal with all ozone depleting substances from waste refrigerators arising in the UK. In addition I understand that up to 8,000 fridges per week can be disposed of via high temperature incineration in the UK.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance she makes available on the safe disposal of commercial refrigerators containing CFCs under EC Regulation 2037/2000. [25726]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department issued guidance on the storage of all waste refrigeration equipment, including commercial refrigerators, prior to CFC extraction at the beginning of December 2001. Draft guidance on the 282W
  extraction of CFCs from fridges and freezers has also been issued and is now being finalised by the Environment Agency.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects plans for recycling plants for refrigerators to be finalised; and when she expects local authorities to be informed. [25713]

  Mr. Meacher
  I understand that a number of commercial companies are investing in plant in the UK and that some plant may be in operation from spring 2002. My Department will host a progress meeting between investors in recycling plant and representatives from local authorities shortly.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what precautions have been taken to ensure that there are alternative recycling routes for used commercial refrigerators and freezers. [25818]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has worked closely with the waste management industry and other stakeholders to identify a range of recycling and disposal routes for used commercial refrigerators and freezers. These include refurbishment of working units, disposal via high temperature incineration, export for recycling in other member states or storage in the UK pending treatment. Work is continuing on finalising standards for treatment centres which will inform investment decisions on new facilities.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) representations he has received from and (b) guidance has been issued to (i) retailers, (ii) pub owners, (iii) caterers, (iv) hoteliers, (v) restaurateurs and (vi) vending machine operators about the disposal of commercial refrigerators. [25720]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has received a number of such representations from retailers, pub owners, caterers, hoteliers and restauranteurs and vending machine operators, in particular through their trade associations, via stakeholder meetings, and letters and telephone calls.

  Guidance on the collection, storage and the safe disposal of commercial refrigerators has been disseminated via trade associations at meetings regarding the management of waste commercial refrigeration equipment. This guidance has also been published on my Department's website www.defra.gov.uk.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) whether there is an available mobile technology capable of removing CFCs from refrigerators and freezers; [25718]

  (2) what attempt there has been to import mobile technology capable of removing CFCs from refrigerators and freezers into the UK; and when such technology can be expected to be in operation. [25719]

  Mr. Meacher
  Mobile plant capable of removing CFCs from refrigerators and freezers is available from suppliers in Germany. I understand that a number of companies are intending to import this technology for use in the UK. Mobile plant is expected to be in operation from spring 2002.
  283W
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of whether(a) retailers, (b) pub owners, (c) caterers, (d) hoteliers, (e) restauranteurs and (f) vending machine operators will refrain from refurbishing existing commercial refrigeration systems until guidance is available for their safe disposal. [25721]

  Mr. Meacher
  There is no reason why commercial operators should refrain from refurbishing commercial refrigeration equipment. Waste refrigeration equipment may be disposed of via high temperature incineration, exported for recycling in other member states, or stored pending treatment in the UK. Guidance on the storage of waste refrigeration equipment, including commercial refrigerators was issued in early December 2001. Officials have met with representatives of the food and drink industry to discuss the disposal routes for commercial refrigeration equipment. Draft guidance on the extraction of CFCs from fridges and freezers has been issued and is now being finalised by the Environment Agency.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what estimate she has made of the final capacity of the plants capable of removing CFCs from fridges and freezers under EC Regulation 2037/2000; [25724]

  (2) how many plants will be needed to meet the United Kingdom's requirements for removing CFCs from refrigerators and freezers. [25717]

  Mr. Meacher
  The number of plants required to recycle waste fridges and freezers in the UK will depend on a number of factors including: the capacity of individual plant (technology used), and the scale of exports of fridges and freezers to other member states for treatment. Following discussions with industry it is anticipated that sufficient capacity for removing CFCs from fridges and freezers will be available to meet UK demand.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the distribution of funding to local authorities for the collection and storage of refrigerators; and what further amounts are expected to be required until recycling plants are in operation. [25714]

  Mr. Meacher
  £6 million has been added to the provisional local government finance settlement for 2002–03 for the costs of implementing the ozone depleting substances regulation relating to the period 1 January 2002 to 31 March 2002. This will be distributed to local authorities using Standard Spending Assessments (SSA). We are continuing to assess the impacts of the regulation and will determine what further action is required beyond that.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she expects that the first plants capable of removing CFCs from refrigerators and freezers under EC Regulation 2037/2000 will be open in the UK; [25725]

  (2) where the first plant capable of removing CFCs from refrigerators and freezers under EC Regulation 2037/2000 will be located; and what its capacity will be. [25723]
  284W
  Mr. Meacher
  It is expected that the first plant capable of removing CFCs from refrigerators and freezers may be in operation from spring 2002. In the meantime I understand that up to 8,000 refrigerators per week can be disposed of via high temperature incineration.

  Decisions regarding the location and capacity of plant are matters for companies investing in these facilities.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from the Environment Agency concerning the arrangements for the(a) storage and (b) disposal of fridges in advance of the development of purpose-built infrastructure in the UK. [25712]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department is working very closely with the Environment Agency on the development and finalisation of guidance on the storage and disposal of fridges and more generally on the implementation and enforcement of the ozone depleting substances regulations.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with local authorities concerning the allocation of resources to meet the costs of(a) domestic, (b) commercial and (c) industrial refrigerators and air conditioning units (i) disposal and (ii) recycling in the next financial year; and when sufficient local recycling plants for them are expected to be operational. [25716]

  Mr. Meacher
  Representatives of local authorities have attended a number of meetings regarding the disposal and recycling of refrigeration equipment. My officials are working closely with them to assess the impacts.

  Local authorities can charge businesses for the disposal and recycling of commercial and industrial refrigeration equipment or air conditioning units.

  Rural Work Force
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) farm workers, (b) ancillary workers and (c) other employees, by category, there were in rural areas by (i) constituency and (ii) local authority for each year since 1990. [24899]

  Mr. Morley
  Figures showing the number of farm workers by constituency and by local authority for 1990, 1995 and 2000 are being made available in the Library of the House. Figures are not readily available for the years in between. Employment figures in the non-agricultural sector are available from the Office for National Statistics. The ONS Local Area Database, which is also available in the House of Commons Library, can provide employment data for local authorities for the period 1994–1999. There are no employment figures for the non-agricultural sector by constituency.

  Domestic Gas
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average cost of fuel required to heat a home to a reasonable level of warmth is for properties that are(a) connected to the gas network and (b) not connected to the gas network. [25281]
  285W
  Mr. Meacher
  The table sets out the average heating and hot water costs for a typical semi-detached house. The data are derived using the BRE Domestic Energy Model with average fuel costs from SAP 2001 and is based on:

  Property with a floor area of 89 sq. metres.

  Home heated to a temperature of 21 degrees C in the main living area, whole house heated.

  Loft insulation installed.

  £ per year

  Heating and hot water cost for home

  Heating system

  With cavity wall insulation

  With uninsulated cavity walls

  With solid walls

  Connected to the mains gas network

  Using high-efficiency gas-fired central heating system

  200

  270

  310

  Not connected to the mains gas network

  Using an oil-fired central heating systems

  210

  290

  340

  Using an electric storage heating system

  495

  675

  785

  Fixed Penalty Litter Notices
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many fixed penalty litter notices were issued in each year since 1995. [25447]

  Mr. Meacher
  Details of the number of fixed penalty litter notices issued since 1997 in England and Wales are given in the table. Figures for 1995–96 and 2000–01 are not available.

  Penalties issued

  Penalties paid to local authorities

  Total of fines received by local authority and being forwarded to DEFRA (£)

  1997–98

  727

  660

  16,505.00

  1998–99

  4,778

  2,532

  63,240.00

  1999–2000

  2,970

  1,563

  39,075.00

  Micro-CHP
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's policies are for encouraging the use of micro-CHP; and if she will make a statement on their impact. [25622]

  Mr. Meacher
  Micro-CHP is a technology which offers great potential for energy efficiency improvements, and reduced energy costs for both homes and small businesses. This Department and the Department of Trade and Industry are carrying out work to investigate the benefits of, and possible barriers to, introducing micro-CHP, through the Government/Industry Distributed Generation Co-ordinating Group.

  As part of its fuel poverty strategy, the Government intend to invite micro-CHP manufacturers to take part in a £lO million large-scale pilot to test the suitability of the technology for fuel poor households. If successful, the intention is to include micro-CHP in the main fuel poverty programmes for those homes that are hard to heat with conventional heating systems.
  286W
  Standard heating pattern of two hours in the morning and seven hours in the evening during weekdays, and 16 hours/day at weekends.

  The actual costs incurred by householders can vary greatly according to the construction of the property, the age and type of heating systems and occupation patterns. A discussion of these varying costs for fuel poor households is provided at Annexe D of the consultation paper, "Fuel Poverty: The New HEES" published in May 1999.

  Bushmeat
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department has to tackle the trade in bushmeat(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) internationally. [25811]

  Mr. Morley
  In the UK our concern about the effects of the bushmeat trade on endangered species led in early 1999 to our drawing the issue to the attention of the UK's Tropical Forest Forum, encouraging it to establish a UK Bushmeat Working Group. The group, supported with funding from the Department, brings together all those in the UK with an interest (Government Departments, conservation NGOs, the timber trade and others) and ensures that information on actions and opportunities for addressing the bushmeat problem is pooled and disseminated as widely as possible. We shall continue to support this initiative.

  Internationally, many animals hunted and traded as bushmeat are listed in the appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Any international trade in these animals, their parts or derivatives is therefore either banned completely or controlled by means of a permitting system. Due to increasing international trade in bushmeat and its impact on listed species, the Department raised the issue within CITES in April 2000. We were successful in our proposal that a CITES Bushmeat Working Group be established, and the Department provided £55,000 towards this. To support the group's work we have commissioned research to analyse existing knowledge and expertise on the bushmeat trade in west and central Africa, highlight gaps in data and understanding, and make recommendations for further action. We intend presenting the results of this research to the next meeting of the working group. The CITES conference taking place in November 2002 will assess the group's progress and consider any further action required.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the extent of the trade of bushmeat into the United Kingdom. [25810]
  287W
  Mr. Morley
  Many animals hunted and traded as bushmeat are listed in the Appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Any international trade in these animals, their parts or derivatives is therefore either banned completely or controlled by means of a permitting system. Other animals which may be defined as bushmeat, such as small game animals, may be traded legally under Community rules. Since April last year 1,136 seizures of illegally imported animal products have been made of which 55 have been identified as bushmeat.

  British Waterways
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department has to transfer inland waterway and navigation management from the Environment Agency to British Waterways. [25380]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) on

  Local authority standards and performance data

  Household waste recycling (including composting)

  Authority

  1998–99 Recycling rate1,2

  1999–2000 Recycling rate1,3

  2003–04 BV standard2

  2005–06 BV standard2

  London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

  3

  3

  10

  18

  London Borough of Barnet

  9

  8

  18

  27

  London Borough of Bexley

  18

  18

  33

  36

  London Borough of Brent

  5

  6

  10

  18

  London Borough of Bromley

  7

  13

  14

  21

  London Borough of Camden

  11

  13

  22

  33

  London Borough of Croydon

  14

  13

  28

  36

  London Borough of Ealing

  10

  12

  20

  30

  London Borough of Enfield

  9

  9

  18

  27

  London Borough of Greenwich

  4

  4

  10

  18

  London Borough of Hackney

  2

  2

  10

  18

  London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

  8

  7

  16

  24

  London Borough of Haringey

  5

  5

  10

  18

  London Borough of Harrow

  8

  10

  16

  24

  London Borough of Havering

  9

  4n/a

  18

  27

  London Borough of Hillingdon

  7

  11

  14

  21

  London Borough of Hounslow

  14

  14

  28

  36

  London Borough of Islington

  3

  2

  10

  18

  London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  11

  13

  22

  33

  London Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames

  15

  18

  30

  36

  London Borough of Lambeth

  7

  8

  14

  21

  London Borough of Lewisham

  4

  4

  10

  18

  London Borough of Merton

  9

  11

  18

  27

  London Borough of Newham

  2

  3

  10

  18

  London Borough of Redbridge

  7

  8

  14

  21

  London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames

  14

  4n/a

  28

  36

  London Borough of Southwark

  3

  3

  10

  18

  London Borough of Sutton

  16

  5—

  33

  36

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  3

  3

  10

  18

  London Borough of Waltham Forest

  6

  9

  12

  18

  London Borough of Wandsworth

  8

  7

  16

  24

  North London Waste Authority

  6

  7

  12

  18

  East London Waste authority

  4

  3

  10

  18

  West London Waste Authority

  9

  9

  18

  27

  Western Riverside Waste Authority

  8

  12

  16

  24

  1 Household waste recycling (including composting) rates are based on data from the DEFRA Municipal Waste Management Survey.

  2 The best value statutory performance standards for 2003–04 and 2005–06 and baseline recycling/composting rates for 1989–99 were published in "Guidance in Municipal Waste Management Strategies" published by DETR in March 2001.

  3 Local authority recycling rates for 1999–2000 are provisional.

  4 N/a not available, authority did not respond to 1999–2000 Municipal Waste Management Survey.

  5 Estimates under review.

  288W
  20 November 2001, Official Report, column 193W, which explains why we decided that current responsibilities should continue.

  Recycled Waste
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information she has collated for each London borough on the proportion of waste that is recycled; and if she will provide information on the proportion of(a) glass, (b) wood, (c) cloth and (d) paper that is recycled. [25822]

  Mr. Meacher
  The latest data available (for 1999–2000) on the percentage of household waste recycled in each London borough, and in each of the four Joint Waste Disposal Authorities in London, are given in the table. This table also gives the statutory performance standards for the recycling and composting of household waste for each borough.

  Data for 2000–01 are currently being collated from local authorities. The Government do not hold this information broken down by material.

  Woodland
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of land in the UK is covered by woodland; what measures are in place to increase the planting of trees and woodland in the UK; and if she will make a statement on the use of sink holes to absorb carbon dioxide and reduce emissions. [26578]

  Mr. Morley
  Woodland cover in the UK stands at 11.5 per cent. We provide financial incentives to landowners to plant new woodland through the woodland grant scheme and the farm woodland premium scheme. These incentives and others, such as challenge funds, are targeted to meet our priorities and programmes for forestry.

  Increasing the areas of sustainably managed forest and agriculture often has environmental benefits in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The contributions that these will make to meeting our 12.5 per cent. emissions reduction commitment under the Kyoto protocol and to our domestic goal to reduce CO, emissions by 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010, are described in "Climate Change—the UK Programme" and in the "UK's Third National Communication" under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, published in November 2000 and 2001 respectively.

  Asbestos
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with EU officials about reclassification of asbestos cement as special waste; and how this relates to use of white asbestos as opposed to(a) blue and (b) brown asbestos. [25761]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 10 January 2002]: All types of asbestos waste, including asbestos cement, have been classified as special waste in Great Britain since 1996 and in Northern Ireland since 1998. However there have been recent changes to the hazardous waste list, including the addition of asbestos cement on to the list. These were discussed between EU officials and my officials. We recognise the dangers posed by asbestos cement waste if it is not properly managed and supported the decision to reclassify it as hazardous waste.

  England Rural Development Programme
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if appeals against a decision of a regional appraisal panel on an application for a processing and marketing grant under the England Rural Development Programme are considered by the panel making the original decision. [26418]

  Alun Michael
  No. The processing and marketing grant is a competitive and discretionary scheme administered regionally by DEFRA through the offices of the Rural Development Service (RDS). Appeals against non-selection for an award of grant are considered by the regional manager of another RDS region unconnected with the application.
  290W
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria are used to assess applications for processing and marketing grants under the England Rural Development Programme. [26417]

  Alun Michael
  Applications for the processing and marketing grant, rural enterprise scheme and vocational training scheme under the England Rural Development Programme are all subject to detailed technical assessment to determine the quality and value for money of the proposed project. The assessment covers: the need for the project; project objectives, performance indicators and milestones; sustainability (economic, environmental and social); relevance to key policy themes and national and regional priorities; financial viability; the requirement for public funds; the quality of plans for project management and delivery and the management of key risk and variables associated with the project. The size of the project determines the depth of the assessment.

  Fuel Poverty
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 13 December 2001,Official Report, columns 999–1000, on fuel poverty, which section of the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy confirms a commitment to end fuel poverty using a definition which excludes housing benefit and income support and mortgage interest; and if she will make a statement on how this relates to paragraph 4.6 of the strategy. [25771]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 10 January 2002]: The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy sets out the goal of the Government and the devolved Administrations to seek an end to the problem of fuel poverty with the first target being to seek an end to the blight of fuel poverty for vulnerable households by 2010.

  In the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy, the introduction to Chapter 4 (paragraphs 4.1 to 4.6) sets out the target for England and the definition to be used in England.

  The number of households in fuel poverty in England is displayed on the basis of the two main definitions as follows:
  a household is in fuel poverty if, in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime, it would be required to spend more than 10 per cent. of its income (including housing benefit or income support for mortgage interest (ISMI) on all household fuel use;
  a household is in fuel poverty if, in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime, it would be required to spend more than 10 per cent. of its income (excluding housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest (ISMI) on all household fuel use.

  Paragraph 9.4 sets out our intention to move to a single UK-wide definition of fuel poverty once the separate consultations have been completed in the devolved Administrations.

  Until then, the nature of our programmes means that it is likely that the targets will be met on both definitions as set out in paragraph 4.6 of the strategy.

  Foot and Mouth
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average cost of decontamination and cleansing of farms was following foot and mouth infections. [26026]
  291W
  Mr. Morley
  On premises where secondary cleansing and disinfection has been completed, the average cost per farm is about £39,000.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the change in animal welfare and costs arising from the closure of livestock markets as a result of the foot and mouth epidemic and their replacement by sales via other means. [26035]

  Mr. Morley
  Livestock markets were closed to prevent the spread of foot and mouth disease. Markets will be reopened as soon as the disease risk assessment allows. In the meantime, livestock producers have found other means of selling their stock and it will be for them and their organisations to decide on how they should best proceed when markets are again available. The costs and benefits of livestock markets is one of the issues we will be considering post-FMD and in the light of the inquiry reports.

  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much compensation was paid to farmers in Cumbria as a result of foot and mouth. [26048]

  Mr. Morley
  To date the total compensation paid to farmers in Cumbria, as a result of foot and mouth, is £421.8 million. This includes all compensation paid for animals slaughtered (including those slaughtered under the 3km cull) and for seized and destroyed items.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which date her Department will use to consider when exports and livestock markets may resume following the foot and mouth disease crisis; and if she will make a statement. [27624]

  Mr. Morley
  On 18 December, the Government announced changes to the livestock movement controls which we intend to introduce in February 2002 provided there is continued progress in eradicating FMD.

  From the start of these arrangements, cattle markets will be allowed to resume, but for sheep and pigs, slaughter markets only will be allowed initially. The question of whether to allow other sheep and pig markets will be kept under review in the light of veterinary and scientific advice.

  When markets do re-open, they will be subject to strict conditions to ensure that an appropriate level of biosecurity is maintained.

  Exports of meat from FMD-free counties in Great Britain to EU countries resumed towards the end of last year but at this stage it is not possible to give a firm date for the removal of all remaining FMD restrictions on intra-community trade. The EU Standing Veterinary Committee will meet on 15 January to consider further proposals to relax the export restrictions, imposed on animals and animal products of species susceptible to FMD, introduced to prevent the spread of the virus.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of blood tests taken from(a) sheep, (b) cattle and (c) other livestock during the foot and mouth outbreak tested positively for the FMD virus. [27025]
  292W
  Mr. Morley
  Information on blood tests taken by species is not available. However, of the 2,372 premises from which samples were taken, 56 per cent. returned positive results.

  Details of numbers of premises sampled, by county and by premises status, along with the numbers returning positive results, are available in the Library of the House.

  Note:
  A negative lab result does not mean that infection was absent. Each case is confirmed on the basis of a clinical diagnosis of foot and mouth disease by the vet on the farm, supported by convincing clinical evidence.

  Source:
  DEFRA Disease Control System database as at 4 December 2001. These figures may be subject to change while the data validation exercise is being carried out.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many appeals against valuations for FMD compensation were outstanding on 8 January. [27027]

  Mr. Morley
  On 8 January 2002 there were 1,293 unresolved cases as a result of owners appealing against the valuations of livestock compulsorily slaughtered as a result of foot and mouth disease. Of these, 150 are in Scotland.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the recommendations made by each of the working groups at the International Conference on Control and Prevention of Foot and Mouth Disease held in Brussels in December 2001; what plans she has to implement those recommendations in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [27656]

  Mr. Morley
  The Conference's working groups usefully highlighted some of the key areas the European Union needs to address and we will be working with our European partners in due course on a Commission proposal for a replacement European Council Directive concerning the prevention and control of foot and mouth disease. The outcome from the UK's own independent inquiries into the foot and mouth outbreak will also inform these deliberations.

  The conference identified the need to develop a broad range of disease control options, based on science and including emergency vaccination, to meet particular circumstances. It was agreed that flexibility in the choice of methods of controlling and eradicating the disease and improved communications are required and that there is an urgent need for tests to differentiate between infected and vaccinated animals. The conference also considered ways of preventing future outbreaks, including tightening import controls at the European border.

  Copies of the final conference report have been placed in the House of Commons and House of Lords Libraries. It can also be viewed on the DEFRA website www.defra.gov.uk/footandmouth.

  Farming
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what contribution
  293W
  farming made to English GDP in each of the years 1998 to 2001, after the deduction of all (a) subsidies and (b) foot and mouth costs. [26027]

  Mr. Morley
  The table shows the contribution after removing all subsidies that the agricultural industry made to English GDP in 1998, 1999 and 2000. Statistics on agriculture's contribution in 2001 will not be published until 31 January 2002. The Government are spending an additional £2.7 billion to tackle foot and mouth disease and its implications for the rural economy.

  Agriculture's contribution to English GDP after removing subsidies1

  Contribution (£ billion)

  Contribution as a percentage

  1998

  3.6

  0.56

  1999

  3.4

  0.51

  2000

  2.9

  0.41

  1 Subsidies paid directly to farmers and the cost to the exchequer of indirect support of market prices.

  Bird Populations
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the change in the number and percentage of British birds from 1990 to 2000 was. [26060]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's Quality of Life Counts indicator of wild birds uses an index of bird populations set at 100 for 1970. Actual population numbers are not calculated. The values of the index for 1990 and 2000 are presented in the table for all 105 bird species included. Further information on these statistics is published in the DEFRA News Release No. 303/01.

  Bird population index

  All birds

  1970

  100

  1990

  102

  2000

  107

  Agricultural Bureaucracy
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many full-time equivalent staff of her Department are engaged in the administration of area and headage payments; and how much time she estimates is required of people outside her Department. [26649]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: The number of full-time equivalent staff engaged in the administration of area and headage payments is 1,520. The amount of time required of people outside the Department engaged on this work is very limited and relates exclusively to contracted-out work on remote sensing.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many full-time equivalent staff of her Department are engaged in the administration of quotas; and how much time she estimates is required of people outside her Department. [26650]
  294W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: The number of full-time equivalent staff engaged in the administration of quotas is 100. There are no people engaged in quota work outside of the Department on its behalf.

  Agricultural Quotas
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what agricultural products are the subject of quotas; how many holdings are in possession of each quota; and what is the average size of each quota per holding in possession of that quota. [26651]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: Milk and sugar from sugar beet are the two agricultural products subject to quotas. At the end of the 2000–01 quota year there were some 33,000 holders of milk quota in the UK, with an average quota holding of about 429,000 litres. The UK has a quota for 1.14 million tonnes of sugar held by British Sugar, who draw up individual supply contracts with growers. In the marketing year 2001–02 around 8,300 sugar beet farmers are contracted to supply British Sugar with sugar beet.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many paper mills invested in combined heat and power plants in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2001–02 to date. [26126]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: The following number of paper mills invested in new CHP capacity between 1997–98 and 2000–01:

  Number

  1997–98

  0

  1998–99

  1

  1999–2000

  3

  2000–01

  2

  This information is taken from the Digest of UK Energy Statistics. Data for 2001–02 are not currently available.

  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions she has calculated will be saved by the United Kingdom paper industry investing in combined heat and power plants, and over what period, under the Government's targets for climate change. [26125]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: The latest figures in the DTI published Digest of UK Energy Statistics are for the year 2000 and show the paper industry (including publishing and printing) to be saving approximately 500,000 tonnes of carbon annually through its use of combined heat and power (CHP). In addition, our best estimate of the savings stimulated by the climate change agreements for the paper industry are 140,000 tonnes of carbon annually by 2010 from CHP.

  IACS Payments
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of IACS payments will have been made to farmers by 31 January. [26087]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: At 30 December 20001, 68 per cent. of AAPS applications had been passed for payment.

  The performance this year was initially affected by foot and mouth disease and more particularly lately by industrial action. The union suspended its industrial action on 11 January and the Rural Payments Agency, which is responsible for the administration of the scheme, is making every possible effort to ensure that as many payments as possible are made by 31 January.

  Livestock Markets
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when livestock markets in England and Wales will reopen. [26725]

  Mr. Morley
  On 18 December 2001, the Government announced changes to the livestock movement controls which we intend to introduce in February 2002 provided there is continued progress in eradicating foot and mouth disease.

  From the start of these arrangements, cattle markets will be allowed to resume, but for sheep and pigs, slaughter markets only will be allowed initially. The question of whether to allow other sheep and pig markets will be kept under review in the light of veterinary and scientific advice.

  When markets do reopen, they will be subject to strict construction and operating conditions to ensure that an appropriate level of biosecurity is maintained.

  Apples and Pears
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to protect United Kingdom crop fruit growers from the effects of EU proposals to amend the marketing standard for apples and pears. [26776]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: The EU marketing standard for apples and pears is currently under review, proposals having been made to bring variety lists up to date and to separate the standards for apples and pears. Last year the EU Commission also published an informal paper on the possible future amendment of the sizing requirements. Our horticultural marketing inspectorate has consulted widely on this matter with growers' representatives and other interested parties. We will ensure that the views expressed by all stakeholders are taken into consideration in any future discussions.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to answer the question tabled on 27 November 2001 by the right hon. Member for Fylde (ref 17652) on payments to farmers. [26779]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to him on 11 January 2002, Official Report, columns 1040–41W.

  Flood Prevention
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the impact of water companies ending agency working with local authorities and other external agencies for the purpose of flood prevention. [27006]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: I am aware of no significant impact of any such action. The primary responsibility for flood defence rests with the operating authorities, i.e. the Environment Agency, local authorities and, where they exist, internal drainage boards.

  Rural Affairs Forum
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those organisations that have been asked to participate in the Rural Affairs Forum, and give the names of the nominees. [27657]

  Alun Michael
  The organisations and names of the nominees asked to participate in the Rural Affairs Forum are as shown in the table.

  Organisations

  Name of nominees

  Chair

  Alun Michael

  Vice-Chair

  Elliot Morley

  Rural Advocate

  Ewen Cameron

  Association of National Park Authorities

  Martin Fitton

  Council for the Protection of Rural England

  Gregor Hutcheon

  National Trust

  Tony Burton

  Ramblers Association

  Nick Barrett

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  Phil Rothwell

  Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

  Peter Davies

  Country Land and Business Association

  Sir Edward Greenwell

  British Horse Society

  Kay Driver

  British Chambers of Commerce

  Viv Dodd

  National Farmers Union

  John Seymour

  Countryside Alliance

  Richard Burge

  Trades Union Congress

  Barry Leathwood

  Co-operative Union

  Pauline Green

  Action with Communities in Rural England

  Sylvia Brown

  Churches Together in England

  Canon Jeremy Martineau

  National Council for Voluntary Organisations

  Holly Yates

  National Federation of Women's Institutes

  Jill Cobley

  National Youth Agency

  Dave Phillips

  Age Concern England

  Gordon Lishman

  East of England Development Agency

  Marie Skinner

  Local Government Association

  Councillor Christine Reid

  National Association of Local Councils

  Councillor Brian Kerr

  English Nature

  David Arnold-Forster

  English Tourism Council

  Mary Lynch

  Environment Agency

  Andrew Dare

  Forestry Commission

  Paul Hill-Tout

  Housing Corporation

  Fiona Cruickshank

  Countryside Agency

  Richard Cameron

  297W
  The Secretary to the Forum will be Chris Dunabin.

  A representative of every Regional Forum will attend each meeting of the Rural Affairs Forum for England.

  Other Government Departments, agencies and non-departmental public bodies will have an interest in the work of the Forum and will be invited to attend individual meetings as necessary.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish(a) minutes from and (b) reports to the Rural Affairs Forum. [27313]

  Alun Michael
  We will be publishing the minutes from and reports to the Rural Affairs Forum on the DEFRA website www.defra.gov.uk.

  River Severn (Flooding Model)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the model on flooding on the River Severn being prepared by the Environment Agency. [27005]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: Operational responsibility for flood management measures rests with the local operating authorities, normally the Environment Agency (EA) and local councils, who decide which projects to promote and their timing.

  I understand that the EA's model for the Tidal River Severn downstream of Gloucester has been completed recently. It will be used to develop the Tidal Severn Strategy which the EA plan to publish in summer 2003. The Fluvial River Severn model is being used to develop the Fluvial Severn Strategy which the EA plan to publish in spring 2003.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

Biofuels
Lord Palmer: My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I must declare an interest as a farmer and a non-paid president of the British Association for Biofuels and Oils.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to encourage farmland not required for food production to be cultivated to produce environmentally friendly road transport fuels; and when they will equalise road fuel duty between bio-diesel, bio-ethanol and liquid petroleum gas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government recognise the potential of biofuels to deliver environmental benefits. The green fuel challenge was an initiative designed to stimulate industry to come forward with practical proposals for alternative fuels, including those that can he produced from crops, which offer environmental benefits over current conventional fuels. Following the challenge, a new reduced rate for bio-diesel was announced in recognition of the environmental benefits that it delivers.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In that the Government are committed to a low-carbon economy, will he give the House some evaluation of how the 40p per litre rebate on fossil LPG compares with that of 20p per litre for bio-diesel and nothing at all for bio-ethanol?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the issue is what those rebates can stimulate and deliver. As the noble Lord knows, a further assessment is being carried out of whether fiscal incentives or any other government support are appropriate for bio-ethanol. Some of that looks promising. We have a panel looking at the potential for non-food crops, which is focusing on bio-ethanol and bio-diesel. The exact fiscal details are being considered by the Chancellor as the Budget approaches.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that these developments could be to our national technological advantage? As well as adding to the contribution made by renewable sources of energy, bio-fuels could help the agricultural and rural economies.
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. It is important for environmental and agricultural policy to look at the uses of biofuels of all sorts. The policy commission on agriculture and the panel on alternative fuels, to which I have referred, are both considering that.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, have the Government decided on the extent to which crops should be devoted to energy purposes and, if so, whether the resultant processes should be used for road fuel or for electricity generation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the green fuel challenge has already promoted the further development of the non-food uses of crops for energy and for road fuels. No doubt the policy commission report on farming and food will also refer to that. The Government have already provided substantial sums of money to develop a market for biomass energy. It is not an either/or situation. There are different crops for different uses and there will be different fiscal regimes surrounding them.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I understand that bio-diesel performs identically to ordinary diesel, but contributes only half as much to CO2 build-up in the atmosphere. As it could also help to revitalise the farming industry if used as a rotational crop, does the Minister agree that it would be prudent to encourage our farmers to use God-given sunshine and rain to produce at least some of our road fuel and so help clean up the atmosphere?
Lord Whitty: In principle, yes, my Lords. The issues of how economically we can meet our environmental objectives are being addressed. However, a substantial amount of oilseed rape, for example, needs to be planted for use as bio-diesel before a significant impact can be made on the total diesel market. The use of agricultural hectarage and the economic cost have to be taken into account.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, will my noble friend be cautious about extending yet another direct subsidy to agriculture particularly in the post-Doha period when we have to reform agriculture and agricultural subsidies if we are to enlarge the European Union? Is he aware that the use of red diesel in agriculture involves a subsidy of 42.69p per litre? The 6,879 million litres used in the past year resulted in the Treasury forgoing approximately £3 billion of revenue. Most of that was a hidden subsidy to agriculture.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is a problem with the continued use of red diesel, but fuel is a substantial cost in the hard-hit agricultural sector. For the immediate period, I do not think that it is appropriate to increase the duty paid by farmers, although I agree that that is a long-term problem. The use of biofuels is of a different order. If red diesel is an environmental problem, the potential for biofuels is an environmental advantage. It will be helpful as an alternative crop for farmers and will contribute to meeting our Kyoto targets.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, have the Government considered providing assistance to people trying to get fuels such as liquid petroleum gas to fuel consumers, or to garages when they initially equip themselves to connect the supply with the users of such new fuels?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is already a significant advantage to the use of liquid petroleum gas, and grants are available to convert vehicles. The activities of the Energy Saving Trust and others have also helped to develop what is a growing infrastructure for liquid petroleum gas and compressed natural gas in garages. I agree that the infrastructure needs further development, but much of the government support for those fuels is already in place.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can crops used for biofuel be grown with less fertiliser than crops used for food, so that fewer nitrates and nitrites are put into the water supply?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the advantage of biofuel is more the reduced use of pesticides than of fertilisers. However, such crops certainly require less application of fertilisers overall, and therefore have that advantage as well.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the Minister consider reorientating priorities for alternative fuel? Is he aware that it would be far more pleasant to use crops to produce fuel rather than waste acres—square miles of land—to produce energy from wind power, which is wasteful, inefficient, very noisy and destructive of the countryside?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept that in certain circumstances and certain locations there are problems with wind power. Nevertheless, wind power—both offshore and, in the appropriate place, onshore—is a renewable source of energy that can contribute towards our environmental targets. The advantage of biofuels, if we can develop the market and the technology, is clearer because the technology uses existing agricultural space—its use for food having perhaps reduced—for purposes that could offset the use of fossil fuels. That is the advantage. As your Lordships may be aware, 100 years ago a very high proportion of cereal growth went to transport, mainly in the form of oats for horses.

Gurkhas: Employment in UK
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharplesasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following their decommissioning in Nepal, Gurkhas may take up employment in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I should like first to express the Government's—and I think I can say the House's—continued appreciation of the soldiers of the Gurkha Brigade. They serve this country with integrity, loyalty and supreme dedication.
Following discharge in Nepal, Gurkhas, like any other non-European Economic Area nationals, can apply for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom. For that to be approved they would have to demonstrate that they qualify for entry under the Immigration Rules. For those wanting to take employment, that would generally mean that an employer has obtained a work permit for them.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that I held a heavy goods vehicle licence for 45 years? Is he aware also that the freight industry is suffering from a severe shortage of drivers? Surely, would it not be better if the industry were able to employ ex-members of the Gurkha Brigade, who speak English and have driven on the left-hand side of the road, rather than Europeans, who often do not speak very good English and drive on the right?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I spent quite a bit of time reading up on the noble Baroness, if only to try to spot what her supplementary question might entail, but I certainly did not expect that question. As I said in my initial reply, the United Kingdom has a very successful work permit system. This year, it has enabled some 200,000 people with specialist knowledge to enter the country, which is almost double the number who entered last year. It is also an employer-operated system, although we are considering other systems to manage migration. Although I am sure that specialist, heavy goods vehicle drivers would qualify under the current scheme, it is, as I said, an employer-based scheme. It is for the employer to make an application.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I declare an interest as one who had the honour of serving in the Brigade of Gurkhas. I should like to press the Minister on the point. We owe an extraordinary debt of obligation to the men who have served in the brigade over the years which has by no means been discharged by the rather limited pay and pensions that we have paid them. I ask the Minister to treat this not as an ordinary work permit issue, but as a debt of obligation for the country as a whole.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am trying to give a targeted answer to the targeted Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharpies. The answer is in no way attempting to undermine or diminish the debt that we owe the Gurkhas. However, as the noble Lord will know better than I, the whole system is based on a tripartite agreement between the Nepalese Government, the Indian Government and the British Government. The system has worked extremely successfully over the years. From my own constituency experience of knowing people who served with the

967
Gurkhas, I understand the arguments on pay and pensions, but I shall not deal with the details of those issues now. There are both advantages and disadvantages to the system. As I said, the system is bound by a tripartite agreement between the three governments.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, even with that agreement, will the Minister confirm that—given the enormous service that they have performed for this country, to which he has rightly paid tribute—the Gurkhas will receive at least equal if not favourable treatment in relation to others entering the country or seeking permits to work here?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is absolutely the case. They will be treated in exactly the same way as other applicants. Depending on the nature of the work, some applicants will have better skills and qualifications than others. In her example, the noble Baroness pointed to two aspects in which there is a clear advantage to a particular employer. We have a very successful operation. I have been amazed at the relevant figures. We take on some 220 Gurkhas a year and there are some 20,000 applications each year for those places. They are much sought after, for reasons that we all understand.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister about the Fijians that we employ in the Army. About two years ago, we employed about 316 Fijians; maybe the figure is higher by now. When they are decommissioned, will they be able to take up normal employment in this country or will they have to obtain work permits?
Lord Rooker2: My Lords, all credit to the noble Lord; I have to say that I have not got a clue. I do not know the basis on which those Fijians are employed in the Army. As of about now, I am probably the expert on Gurkhas—just for a few minutes! I suspect that the arrangements for the Fijians will more or less mirror those for the Gurkhas. They will probably have to be discharged in Fiji, not in this country, and will be able to apply, like other people. But I do not know. Obviously, I shall find out and write to the noble Lord.

Government Bills: Human Rights Declaration
2.51 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, 21 days before the Second Reading of a Bill, Ministers could make available the substance of the reasoning on which they base their statement that the Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, it may be that the noble Lord was unaware when he tabled his Question that the Government have agreed that Explanatory Notes for all government Bills first introduced after 1st January 2002 will draw attention to the main convention issues that each Bill raises. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor announced that development in his reply to a Written Question from the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, on 18th December 2001. It can be found in the Official Report, at col. WA 43. The relevant guidance for those preparing government Bills has been amended accordingly. This is a positive development, which should further focus ministerial attention and enhance our debates on these matters.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. In our other embodiment, it is somewhat akin to a very satisfactory compromise statement made in open court. I am grateful to her. Does she agree that this framework of guidance, which we saw on 26th December and which was devised by her department, could or should disclose adequate reasoning in support of the certificate and could and should dispose of the situation that arose in relation to the representation of the people legislation at all three stages? There was a well-founded challenge to the rectitude of the certification but the Minister gave no answer at all. As a result, corrective measures have now to be taken, as explained in the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, of 10th January.
May I ask one question? Can we have in the Joint Committee on Human Rights, if possible, 21 days before the Second Reading of a Bill, draft Explanatory Notes so that we may give consideration to them?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that this is a very helpful development. As many noble Lords know, that development was in response to suggestions made to the then Home Secretary, my right honourable friend Jack Straw, and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Lester, in the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We thank them for that.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that Explanatory Notes are made available as soon as they are published. I cannot say that all Explanatory Notes will be available 21 days before Second Reading; they would or should normally be available the day after the Bill is first introduced and at least 14 days before Second Reading. We will use our best endeavours to produce them as quickly as possible but until a Bill is published it would be impossible to explain definitively the basis upon which that certificate would be granted. However, we shall do our very best.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, although it is obviously helpful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights to identify in the Explanatory Notes what the

969
Government think the issues are, would it not be much more helpful if the Government explained why, at the end of the day, their advisers found that there was no incompatibility?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord refers to the disclosure of the legal advice on which a Minister may base his decision. Noble Lords will know that successive governments have made it clear that it would be inappropriate to disclose such legal advice. This Government do not intend to depart from that practice, for good reasons with which the noble Lord will be more than familiar. This helpful change will help us with scrutiny and is much to be applauded. We think that this is as far as we need to go at this stage, although I reassure the noble Lord that we shall continue to scrutinise the issues to see how we can best assist.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we on these Benches welcome the change to which she referred? It should enable this place to do its job of legislative scrutiny more effectively. However, pursuing that logic a little further, is it not a cause for regret that the new administrative procedure was not applied to the Animal Health Bill, which had its Second Reading yesterday?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says about the Animal Health Bill. It is a matter of great celebration, as he rightly said, that this practice will be adhered to in future. We all rightly celebrate that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I briefly seek clarification. May I ask the noble Baroness whether she accepts that I am not seeking disclosure of legal advice for which public immunity from disclosure is properly available? I ask only for adequate disclosure of the substance of the reasoning.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I fully understand that that is what the noble Lord seeks. The current structure will enable the essence to be understood and proper debates to be had. The new method will be effective. Of course, if there are signs that it is insufficiently effective, we remain open to reexamining it.

Home Care Charges: Statutory Guidance
2.58 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What responses they have received to their statutory guidance to councils regarding charges for home care published in November 2001.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the department has received 13 responses. Most of them posed detailed questions on practical aspects of the guidance.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the present system of care charging for disabled people is absolutely chaotic? Some councils provide the services free but others charge up to £200 for exactly the same service. Can my noble friend tell us about the national guidance? It is admirable so far as it goes, but why should councils be allowed to evade some parts of it until 2003? What are the Government's plans for monitoring the rogue councils that neglect and ignore the guidance? What sanctions are being prepared with which to hit them when they are found to be neglecting charges?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that in the current situation charges are applied in a wide variety of ways throughout the country. The Audit Commission reported on the matter some time ago. It drew attention to wide discrepancies between local authorities and a lack of transparency. The statutory guidance will lead to a much clearer understanding among users and much greater consistency across the country.
On implementation, it is fair to point out to my noble friend that by this October, all users who receive income support and whose overall income equals or is less than basic defined levels plus 25 per cent should not be charged. Users who receive more than 10 hours of home care weekly should receive an assessment of their disability-related expenditure if disability benefits are taken into account. In addition, earnings should be disregarded by that date. The remainder of the statutory guidance should be implemented by April 2003.
So far as concerns monitoring the implementation of the guidance, I can assure my noble friend that it will be performance-managed. If we come across cases where local authorities do not implement the guidance satisfactorily, we can of course use the various mechanisms available to us to point that out to those local authorities.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, what is the Government's view of the Scottish Parliament's proposal for free personal care for the elderly? I understand that that was recommended by the commission of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, for the United Kingdom as a whole. Is it true, as reported today, that the Government are refusing to allow the Scottish Parliament to implement its proposal and denying it the use of some £23 million that would be saved by the abolition or suspension of constant attendance allowances?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. So far as concerns England, the Government considered very carefully the recommendations of the Royal Commission. At

971
the end of the day, it is a question of priorities. The Government decided that the resource that might have been spent on free personal care was better spent on such services as intermediate care. That will enable us to ensure that many thousands of people do not have to enter the care sector but can return to their own homes. We considered that, together with providing for free nursing care, the resource was much better spent on intermediate care.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, if disabled people's benefits entitlement is to be correctly calculated in the assessment of charges, will the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that councils are properly resourced in providing expert welfare benefits advice in this very complex area of benefits which social workers are not sufficiently trained to provide? Will he say what percentage of local authorities currently have trained welfare benefits advisers in post?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that in the development and implementation of the statutory guidance it is important that local authorities make available adequate and effective welfare advice to potential users of services for which charges are made. It is worth informing the House that the Torbay local authority, which is seen as being a good practice authority in this area, has shown that, through good welfare advice to local people, people can claim more benefits. In addition, that local authority probably raises more income through charges than many other local authorities. We very much wish all local authorities to follow that example to ensure that good quality advice is available. I am absolutely convinced that the effective implementation of the statutory guidance will lead to that.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, under the guidance, income from earnings is disregarded but income from pensions is not. As the Minister said, the guidance, as written, refers to income support and the minimum income guarantee, which the Government intend to replace with the pension credit. Can the Minister say how the guidance will be changed to reflect the Government's principle behind the pension credit that pensioners should not be penalised for having saved for their retirement?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my understanding is that we shall lay regulations before the House in due course. We are considering those matters at present.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, what is the present situation in relation to severely disabled people living in their own homes who cannot now receive help with bathing and washing because some councils do not provide that service?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I should be very concerned if appropriate services were not
972
available from local authorities. In relation to the performance management of social service authorities we are very concerned to see that effective services are available. I am sure that this is one aspect of overall performance management that will be undertaken by the Social Services Inspectorate.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, given the Government's excellent record on putting users centre-stage in the new arrangements for monitoring social care, can my noble friend tell us whether any plans have been made for monitoring the effect of the new charging arrangements on disabled people and their carers?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as part of our performance-management arrangements generally, we shall keep a very close eye on the way in which the statutory guidance is implemented. I can also say to my noble friend that, in introducing changes to their own charging regime, if they do make charges, each local authority will also be expected to consult users locally.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that last week when I raised the question of the difference between Scotland and England on the matter of payment for nursing care in nursing homes—in England the policy was for payment to be made but not so in Scotland—I was given the impression that there would be no interference and that Scotland could go its own way?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Scotland can, indeed, go its own way. It has made its own decision in relation to free personal care, as opposed to the decision in England. It seems to me that that is perfectly appropriate and follows the logic of devolution.

Homelessness Bill
3.6 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Duty of local housing authority to formulate a homelessness strategy]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert—
"() Any such review or homelessness strategy shall be included as an integral part of the wider housing strategy of each authority."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, perhaps I may say that everything in the Bill points to the fact that it is essentially about two things: the duties of local authorities in housing the priority homeless, the relevant categories being extended as a result of the Bill to those in the Housing Act 1996; and their allocations policies. If one reads the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, it becomes

973
abundantly clear that local authorities will have to consider the first aspect as an integrated policy of the second.
Indeed, the Minister agreed with me when I raised that point in Committee. He said that the,
"homelessness strategy will inevitably be an integral part of its wider housing policy".—[Official Report, 10/12/01; col. CWH7.]
That is as it should be. The homelessness strategy, if a local authority were so unwise as to try to implement it on its own, would simply be unworkable. Therefore, it must be part of a full housing strategy, aligned to the authority's allocation policy. While there may not be a statutory requirement for there to be a housing strategy, since this legislation adds to the provisions for both homeless people and the allocations policies, it would be nonsense for them not to be part and parcel of a whole.
If the Minister believed that it would make any difference to his willingness to accept what I consider to be quite an important amendment, I would change the wording from "housing strategy" to "housing policy" so that the amendment would read,
"as an integral part of the wider housing policy of each authority".
In Committee we rehearsed the extra burdens which will be borne by local authorities in terms of finding and securing accommodation for an increasing list of priority categories—in altering their housing allocation structures and providing both temporary and permanent housing. Guidance as to the desirability of integrating the two does not seem to be a strong enough answer to this difficult and somewhat delicate question. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, my views on this matter have not changed since we discussed it in Committee. I have some sympathy for the comments of the noble Baroness. However, given the history of tackling homelessness in this country, I believe that in the first instance we need to give these strategies a high priority. I can foresee a time when they will perhaps become involved in a wider strategy.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation of the amendment given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and for the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. Perhaps I may say in parenthesis that Committee stage was not held in the Moses Room but upstairs. From the Government's point of view we found that a useful and genuinely constructive process, as I hope did other noble Lords who participated. I hope that that constructiveness has been reflected in the amendments we have now tabled, which cover a number of areas and meet a number of the points made. Therefore, it is a process and technique which worked.
974
Amendment No. 1 would require local housing authorities to incorporate their homelessness strategy into their wider housing strategy or, if the proposed amendment to the amendment is adopted, their wider housing policy. We think that that would impose an inappropriate requirement on local housing authorities. There is no statutory requirement at present for authorities to have a housing strategy, although in practice it is necessary to have one under the housing investment programme framework. Therefore, it would be an inappropriate burden to impose a statutory requirement for an authority to make its statutory homelessness strategy part of its wider housing strategy. It would be asked to make the homelessness strategy part of a wider housing strategy when there is no obligation to have the wider housing strategy.
However, as I said in Committee, I agree that an authority's statutory homelessness strategy will be an integral part of its wider housing policies. Clear advice to local housing authorities on that matter will be given in guidance, which I am sure is the right approach. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, who has a distinguished career in local government, would not want over-prescription on the face of Bills. Discretion must be left to the local authorities to act sensibly. On the basis that we give an assurance that the matter will be dealt with in guidance, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I start by addressing the initial observations made by the Minister. I believe that we all found the Committee stage helpful. That does not mean to say that we shall go on to find the whole process helpful. The Committee stage was held in Committee Room 4, which we believe worked much better than using the Moses Room. I have informed the Chief Whip of that, and hope that that arrangement will be continued.
However, I shall probably not be any more helpful on Amendment No. 1. I note the Minister's comments about the housing strategy not being a requirement. That is one of the reasons why I tried to adopt his words in Committee when I tabled an amendment to my amendment, to make the strategy part of a wider housing policy. I remain extremely concerned that the homelessness review cannot be carried out satisfactorily unless it works within the whole gamut of the local authority's housing policies. If an authority does not have enough housing, it does not make sense to try to work in the priorities that are coming forward in the Bill if that is not within the policies that are already there or are being constructed. I believe that it would make sense to have the provision on the face of the Bill either within the wider housing policies or within the wider strategy. I sense that the Minister is not with me. However, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
3.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 156.

Division NO. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Jopling, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

Laird, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Liverpool, E.

Attlee, E.

Lucas, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Blaker, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Blatch, B.

L.

Boardman, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Bowness, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Burnham, L.

Montrose, D.

Byford, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Caithness, E.

Moynihan, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Noakes, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Northesk, E.

Cockfield, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Coe, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Colwyn, L.

Onslow, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Perry of Southwark, B.

Cuckney, L.

Plumb, L.

Dixon-Smith. L.

Rawlings, B.

Dundee, E.

Rees, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Elles, B.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Fookes, B.

Rogan, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Fowler, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Geddes, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Selborne, E.

Glentoran, L.

Sharples, B.

Hanham, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Stewartby, L.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Higgins, L.

Vinson. L.

Holderness, L.

Vivian, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Waddington, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Warnock, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Addington, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ahmed, L.

Burlison, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Alli, L.

Chelmsford, Bp.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Christopher, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Avebury, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Bach, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Barker, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Crawley, B.

Berkeley, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

David, B.

Best, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Billingham, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Blease, L.

Dearing, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Dholakia, L.

Borrie, L.

Donoughue, L.

Brightman, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Dubs, L.

Brookman, L.

Elder, L.

976

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Mitchell, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Morgan, L.

Falkland, V.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Newby, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Nicol, B.

Fearn, L.

Northbourne, L.

Filkin, L.

Northover, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Ouseley, L.

Gale, B.

Palmer, L.

Geraint, L.

Patel, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Paul, L.

Golding, B.

Pendry, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Goodhart, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Goudie, B.

Radice, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Razzall, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rea, L.

Greaves, L.

Redesdale, L.

Greenway, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Gregson, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Grenfell, L.

Richard, L.

Grocott, L.

Rooker, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Roper, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Sandberg, L.

Harrison L

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L

Serota, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hooson, L.

Sheldon, L

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Hoyle, L.

Simon, V.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Slim, V.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hunt of Kings Health, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath L.

Smith of Leigh. L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Stallard, L.

Hylton, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Strabolgi, L.

Jeger, B.

Strange, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Taverne, L.

Jones, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, J.

Jones, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Layard, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Levy, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Lipsey, L.

Turnberg, L.

Listowel, E.

Turner of Camden, B

Lockwood, B.

Uddin, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Varley, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Walmsley, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Weatherill, L

[Teller]

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Whitaker, B.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Wilkins, B.

Maddock, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 9, after "homelessness" insert ", including rough sleeping,"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 5. Amendment No. 3, standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, is also in this group.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 address the question of whether rough sleepers should be mentioned specifically on the face of the Bill rather than leaving

977
the assumption that anyone sleeping rough is without question deemed to be homeless. In Committee, the Minister drew my attention to Section 175 of the Housing Act 1996. He suggested that it included rough sleepers as being those who have no accommodation available for their occupation. We had some amusing descriptions of people who got on trains at Newcastle on their way to London but got off at Nottingham by mistake. Even though the Minister got his route slightly wrong, there is still an element of doubt about this category.
It is my contention that if a number of rough sleepers were properly investigated, it would be found that they do have homes from which they may have departed for a number of reasons—dispute within the family, lack of jobs or enthusiasm to find the streets of gold. But in reality, they will be found to have a very reasonable place to go. The fact of the matter is that even after the most tenacious efforts to get them to return, many choose to stay on the streets. That is not at all what anyone here wants.
As I understand it, the current thinking on the future of the Rough Sleepers' Unit is that it should join up with the new bed and breakfast unit. That may be helpful, but it would be better if each local authority was also responsible for identifying and helping those rough sleepers within its boundaries. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 3 which is in this group. The amendment concerns another group of people—older homeless people. I hope that today I shall get some commitment from the Minister with regard to guidance on this issue.
Little work has been done on the scale of homelessness among older people. Last year some research was commissioned by Bondway, St Mungo's and Thames Reach. That highlighted some of the problems facing single homeless and older homeless people. Many end up spending a long time in hostel accommodation. In the 50 to 59 year-old group, 32 per cent of the men and 26 per cent of the women had been resident in hostel accommodation for more than two years. In the 60-plus group the equivalent percentages were 60 per cent for men and 87 per cent for women. Even more worrying for women is that 59 per cent of women over 60 years old had been in hostels for more than 10 years. Therefore, we have a problem in that area.
The Government have recognised this problem, in particular when looking at the various problems experienced by people coming out of the Armed Forces. Better provision is made for them by the Armed Forces. However, older homeless people on the streets age much more quickly. They may suffer from bronchitis. They may have mobility problems or mental health problems. Some have problems with alcohol.
I talked in Committee about what I thought should be included in homelessness strategies. Local authorities must pay particular attention to that area
978
and to ensuring that the health, social care and voluntary agencies are involved. It is obvious that offering a little help at the right time can make a huge difference. Preventing or at least slowing mental decline that sometimes leads to older people being institutionalised or ending up on the streets is important.
In Committee, I spoke about the implementation of the Supporting People scheme in 2003. The Bill is an opportunity to establish new ground rules for multi-agency working; older homeless people are important in that regard. Local homelessness strategies must assess the real level of need and services required for the older homeless. I hope that when the Minister responds he can give me some comfort on the matter.
Much as many of us support what we hope will result from the Bill, there is a real problem with resources—not just in relation to older homeless people. We lack affordable homes for people and, especially with regard to older people, there is a lack of move-on accommodation or accommodation that specialises in their care. We need more small residential homes for old people. Many people over 50 with chronic alcohol and behavioural problems cannot manage independently. We need housing especially for them. Again, I hope that the Minister can reassure me that the Government are addressing that issue.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I should like to add a word to the exchange that took place between the Minister and my noble friend Lady Hanham during our debate on Amendment No. 1. I entirely concur with the Minister and my noble friend that holding the Committee debate upstairs worked well and was constructive. However, I hope that that will not be taken as meaning that we should take a whole series of Committee debates off the Floor of the House, because we in this House gain enormously from being able to take part in several different Committee debates, rather than, as in the House of Commons, being locked up in one Committee and unable to speak more widely.
I mention that only in case that exchange, which was most felicitous, had been misunderstood. I should also like to add a word based on experience in the City of Westminster in support of what my noble friend said in moving Amendment No. 2.
There was concern during the homelessness count a year or two ago that the numbers in Victoria Street had suddenly risen sharply. There was therefore an attempt to verify why that had happened and whether the figures were accurate. As chance had it, a count was taken at 10 p.m. and at 2 a.m., to see what movement there was in the figures during the particular night in May on which the count was held. It transpired that at 2 a.m. a number of people were present who those taking the count knew perfectly well had flats—who were in accommodation—but who had decided to come down to chat with their friends who were sleeping rough. The picture is therefore potentially blurred. The greater focus that we can bring to the facts the better.

979
In terms of historic continuity, between the period when the Savoy Palace belonged to John of Gaunt and the time when the Savoy became a luxury hotel, there were hostels for the homeless in the Strand on a fairly continuous basis—during the Tudor and Stuart periods. The fact that people still sleep in shop doorways in the Strand is an index of the extraordinary continuity that sometimes occurs in our affairs.
However, when we clear such an area that is notorious for rough sleeping—I mean notorious in the sense of attracting public attention—by an holistic method, such as was referred to in Committee upstairs and may have been referred to on Second Reading, displacement will occur. That is what had produced the sudden upsurge of numbers in Victoria Street—including, tragically, a murder in Strutton Ground that some of your Lordships may remember. Imposing an obligation on the local authority—in that case, Westminster City Council—to treat rough sleepers in its municipal area is therefore thoroughly desirable.
To reinforce what my noble friend said at the close of her speech, the Westminster branch of the Council of Churches has a sub-committee on homelessness with which I used frequently to meet when I was in the other place. It was clear from parish experience across Westminster that there were a fair number of rough sleepers whom it would be difficult to persuade not to sleep rough, because they had always followed that life. We should not take the focus off rough sleepers, whatever previous legislation says—I recognise what the Minister said in Committee. The last thing that we want is to slip back after the achievements that the Government can rightly claim from the initiatives that they set up under the homelessness czar.
Lord Fearn: My Lords, I also rise to support Amendment No. 2. On 15th November, when rough sleepers were counted, the figure totalled 532 for the whole of England, which I found hard to believe. It has since been proven wrong by many institutions that look after rough sleepers, such as the Simon Community. It said that there were many more rough sleepers but that that night there was a purge by police, when it is alleged that the police used a heavy hand and forced many people into hostels. Parties were also given on that night in cities, which brought in homeless people. That was, to say the least, rather strange.
In Sheffield, the count was one; in Birmingham, the count was two; in Liverpool, where a lot of people sleep rough, the count was not high, although I do not know exactly what it was. People sleep rough in my home town of Southport, but that did not figure in the count.
So I am concerned that people who sleep rough are not included in any kind of register or strategy by housing authorities. As a member of a local authority, I know that many slip through the net. How can the Minister ensure that rough sleepers are included among those who need accommodation?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, this group of amendments gives me the opportunity to welcome what the
980
Government have been doing to devote greater thought and energy to the question of rough sleepers and those who are homeless. However, estimates of their numbers nationally and in London may be too low. I question whether May is the best and most representative time of year at which to take a census. From my observations in and around Victoria Street, the number has not fallen, it has remained fairly steady during the past three or four years. In that connection, I should like to pay tribute to the excellent work done by the Passage Day and Nightshelter and the Cardinal Hume Centre—and, no doubt, by other voluntary organisations—in conjunction with Westminster City Council.
I imagine that the Minister is well seized of the point that it is not just a question of providing more houses or hostels but one of total care and rehabilitation of people who have fallen out of normal society.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I may turn first to Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 which address the position with regard to rough sleepers. I agree entirely with the policy aim enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke; we must maintain our focus on rough sleepers and not lose the ground gained by Louise Casey and the Rough Sleepers' Unit over the past few years of their operation. We believe that we have achieved that in the following way. Homelessness, as defined in Section 175 of the Housing Act 1996, includes rough sleepers. That is the advice we have received and which has been reaffirmed since this matter was raised in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham.
I believe that local housing authorities arid housing practitioners fully understand that any definition of homelessness must include rough sleeping. If there is any remaining doubt, first, the point has been asserted both in Committee and again on Report and, secondly, the draft code of guidance which has been sent to the noble Baroness, along with copies to all other interested noble Lords, states explicitly that authorities must take account of rough sleeping in their reviews and when devising strategies. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the policy aim is the same, and that it is simply a legal question as to how that policy is achieved.
I should like to deal with the wider points raised in our debate on the position of rough sleepers. I reiterate that rough sleepers must be included in local authority strategies. It is vital that that focus is maintained. The noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Fearn, referred to the issue of the rough sleeping count. Counts are not undertaken only in May; they are made regularly throughout the year. The most recent count was undertaken last November. The method used is to take a count of all those sleeping rough on one particular night. Everyone accepts that such a count provides a useful snapshot of the numbers involved. The methodology employed by the Rough Sleepers' Unit was developed by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in partnership with the voluntary sector. Despite occasional criticism, independent evaluations have shown consistently that

981
this method is the most effective one for evaluating the changing levels of those sleeping rough. It provides only one of the tools used to improve the effectiveness of our strategies to deal with rough sleepers.
The noble Lord, Lord Fearn, referred to a number of allegations that have been made. For example, he pointed out that there had been a police purge of rough sleepers in London. Inquiries were made by my department on this point, but there is absolutely no truth in the suggestion that there was such a police purge preceding a count. Although it has been suggested that there are inaccuracies, it is widely believed among those directly involved in the care of rough sleepers that the numbers have been dramatically reduced as a result of the work of the Rough Sleepers' Unit. It is extremely important that that point should be acknowledged. It is also important to note that allegations made in relation to the count are not stated as facts, as the noble Lord, Lord Fearn, put them in relation to the count made at the end of last year. Lastly, it is important to ensure that the gains achieved are consolidated so that the problem does not continue.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, as exemplified by the noble Lord, Lord Fearn, in the statistics he quoted, the most recent count was broken down by district. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could confirm that that will continue to be the case so that, for example, all the London boroughs will record their counts on one night. Of course I acknowledge that undertaking one count in May and one in November is a sensible compromise; counts are taken once in warm weather and once in cold.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I know that the count is broken down between cities; that is, counts are taken for Birmingham, Sheffield and so forth, as well as for London. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord with regard to the specifics of how the count for London is broken down.
I turn to Amendment No. 3, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. The amendment would require housing authorities specifically to assess the levels and likely future levels of homelessness among older people in their district. The noble Baroness was candid and told the House that this is a probing amendment seeking certain assurances from me. First, I should say that this is an important issue. Homelessness, or the threat of homelessness, among elderly people is a specific problem which needs to be addressed by local authorities. It is a particularly frightening prospect for people as they grow older.
I am pleased to say that the draft good practice guide on homelessness strategies, which I sent out to noble Lords under a covering letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, explicitly points out the need to provide specialist and preventive support services for older people, among other groups. It addresses certain specific needs and refers to the good practice guidance published by Help the Aged, Coming Home: a guide to good practice by projects helping older
982
homeless people, published in 1997. I hope that this meets the concerns of the noble Baroness and that she will not press her amendment.
I turn now to two specific issues. Supporting People is an important initiative which seeks to embrace the needs of elderly people, ensuring that they can stay in their homes, while supporting the needs of those elderly who do become homeless. The noble Baroness also referred to the problems caused by the lack of affordable housing. That is an important issue which is even more significant in parts of London and the South East, as well as in other areas. It is a matter which we keep constantly under review. In the light of those remarks, I hope that the noble Baroness will not move her amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I believe that my small amendment, which develops an argument we began at the previous stage of the Bill, has encouraged quite an interesting short debate on the question of rough sleepers. Perhaps my lack of experience of this House is beginning to lead me to the view that some of the worth of tabling amendments lies in putting on the record in Hansard the views of noble Lords with regard to certain aspects of an issue so that they can be referred to later.
The question of rough sleepers vexes us all, in particular the underlying reasons; namely, why are some people in that position and what will happen to them in the future? It is absolutely essential that an eye is constantly kept on the situation and that responsibility for addressing it is firmly pinned down. For as long as the Rough Sleepers' Unit still exists in one form or another—I acknowledge again today as I did in Committee the extremely valuable work undertaken by the unit—perhaps the amendment we are considering would not matter all that much. However, if there was any question that the Rough Sleepers' Unit would no longer continue its work, it would be fundamentally important to ensure that local authorities take up responsibility for looking after the homeless and rough sleepers.
Having listened to the Minister and to the debate, for which I thank all noble Lords who have taken part, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 12, after first "authority" insert "and its strategic partners, to include registered social landlords and housing co-operatives, landlords of houses in multiple occupation registered with the authority under the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52), members of landlords' forums"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. The amendments seek to provide amplification on the face of the Bill as regards with whom the local authority should consult in assessing the resources available from all sources in order to implement the housing review and the homelessness review; namely,

983
those from whom specific action may be required and those who should participate in the consultations before the review is adopted. I know that the Minister will argue that it is unnecessary as the bodies I have specified are already implicit in the legislation. However, if only some groups and organisations are mentioned on the face of the Bill, then it is anomalous not to mention them all.
Again, I am sure that the words used in the draft code of guidance will be mentioned. However, the interpretation of legislation is made easier if it is explicit and mandatory. That is what I seek to achieve with the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will treat me with some forbearance if I have a little to say about Clause 2 as well as about Amendment No. 4. Illness kept me away from your Lordships' House for most of last year and I was not able to take part in the earlier deliberations on this Bill, which I very warmly welcome.
Clause 2 spells out how a central purpose in the Bill is to be achieved. It imposes an obligation requiring local housing authorities to take a more strategic and multi-agency approach to the prevention of homelessness. All of us who have worked in the neediest areas of our cities know that we need all the allies that we can find. I hope that local housing authorities will make the most of the allies described in the clause and the amendment. The clause speaks of social services,
"other public authorities, voluntary organisations and other persons".
The amendment wants us to spell out on the face of the Bill what "other persons" should mean—all categories of landlord. I hope that landlords will be drawn into planning and partnership with local housing authorities, but I am not sure that they need to appear on the face of the Bill. "Other public authorities" could be spelt out, too, including, for example, health authorities, prisons and the probation service.
I want to say something about the contribution that voluntary bodies make to the prevention of homelessness. Last month, I was delighted to receive from Liverpool a report entitled Homelessness and the Diocese. It reports on a project that was launched after I retired. In partnership with the Church Army, the diocese appointed a homelessness officer. The project offers a great example of how voluntary bodies can act as bridges, bringing together different allies. Public grants to voluntary bodies give good value for money, drawing in a wide range of resources.
The homelessness officer in Liverpool, Ralph Upton, is a Church Army captain. He writes:
"There are no specifically Anglican projects in the diocese—all are partnerships with other Church or secular bodies".
They include ROC in St Helen's; the Salvation Army citadel joint project in Bootle; Adulam Homes; and, in the Roman Catholic archdiocese, Nugent Care and the Bond Scheme. Those projects build bridges across which unexpected volunteers can bring practical help to homeless people. When I went to be Bishop of
984
Liverpool, I learnt to cease to mock the Mothers' Union, a strong and useful body. I was delighted to read in the report that the diocesan Mothers' Union had provided over 700 toiletry packs every year for refugees, asylum seekers and other homeless people.
Other parts of the voluntary movement in the frontline of helping homeless people in Liverpool include the Whitechapel Project, Petrus and the Merseyside Accommodation Project, which I remember visiting. The Merseyside project works through the rather traditional, old-fashioned idea of having landladies who offer supported lodging to 16 to 18-year olds. It is very effective.
Ill health often marches hand in hand with homelessness. The homeless outreach team of the Liverpool Area Health Authority reports that half of the 223 people found sleeping rough in Liverpool at various times over two years were found to have mental health problems. In St Helen's and Knowsley, the director of public health welcomed the approach from the diocesan homelessness officer. He raised with her the issue of the gap in healthcare provision for the homeless people who attended the ROC centre in St Helen's. She said that they discussed the need for a GP to attend the centre on a sessional basis, along with a chiropodist, a dentist and a nurse practitioner. They also discussed whether a health visitor could come occasionally to give health education. She said that health action zone funding was identified and that some staff had put themselves forward enthusiastically to become involved.
The Government identified those leaving prison as a priority group. The Church Army captain to whom I referred came to his present post after years as a prison chaplain. He speaks of the high number of people who have been in care who are in prison and in the homeless community. He works in partnership with the chaplains and staff at Liverpool prison, Hindley young offenders institution and Ashworth hospital. The National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders tells us that prisoners released homeless are twice as likely to reoffend as those who have a home. Prisoners who have no family support are between twice and six times as likely to reoffend. The Government's Headstart scheme has made money available at Hindley, and three prison officers are now working full-time on the resettlement and rehabilitation of those young offenders.
Should all the categories of landlord appear in the Bill? I hope that local housing authorities will make serious attempts to draw them in. The strategic multi-agency approach should also mean that the National Asylum Service should be required to provide information to local housing authorities. My brief tells me that Liverpool City Council is almost powerless to help. Refugees and asylum seekers are hidden behind the confidentiality of private agreements between NAS and private landlords. Nobody is prepared to tell the city council where those people are, and some of them have been the victims of dreadful housing provision.

985
Whether we make the Bill work effectively will depend on the attitude of local housing authorities. The report Homelessness and the Diocese tells me that one council has been good to work with. It is open and readily shares information, and the head of its rough sleepers initiative is also manager of the two direct access hostels. She values church input and other voluntary input. The report says that working with another local authority has not been such a positive experience. Most contact has been on its terms, when its wants something, and it tends to withdraw behind confidentiality.
I hope that local housing authorities will welcome the Homelessness Bill and take on with a good heart their obligation to adopt a multi-agency approach to the prevention of homelessness.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I welcome the intervention of my noble friend Lord Sheppard of Liverpool. We missed him at Second Reading and at Committee stage. He has a huge amount to offer, because of his experience in Liverpool. I shall underline three points that my noble friend made. First, there is a need for alliances, if we are to make the Bill work; secondly, the attitude of local authorities will determine how effective the Bill is; and, thirdly, multi-agency working is vital to making the Bill work. All of us would agree about that, but other examples would include the probation service, voluntary organisations working with young people or with those suffering from mental health problems.
An authority's strategic approach to tackling homelessness will, of course, be effective only if it is exercised in co-operation with the organisations in the authority's area that provide services and assistance to homeless people. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that there will be clear guidance on the organisations with which authorities should engage in the carrying out of homelessness reviews and formulating strategies, but it would not help—indeed, it would be harmful—to prescribe some but not others.
We all agree that working in partnership is vital, that the attitude of local authorities will be central and that they should be encouraged to work with the people in their area who can be most effective as regards homelessness. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I, too, appreciate the intervention of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sheppard. He has great experience and it was good to hear his voice.
I am seeking to spell out on the face of the Bill not all of those who will be involved in homelessness but those who will be required to provide housing. It is inconceivable that the Housing Corporation, with its ability to provide housing accommodation, and local registered social landlords—and, indeed, landlords in the private sector who are already co-operating with local authorities—should not be statutorily required to help with this very major problem.
986
I sense that I shall not move the Minister. I well understand the wider implications of who should be involved, but I still believe that all of those housing bodies should be included on the face of the Bill. None the less, I sense that I shall not get any further and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Clause 3 [Homelessness strategies]:
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 5A:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert "including persons with accommodation consisting of a movable structure, vehicle or vessel designed or adapted for human habitation, but where those persons have no place where they are entitled or permitted both to place it and to reside in it"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to ensure that in local authority strategies for securing that sufficient accommodation is available for people in their district who are or may become homeless, attention is given specifically to the needs of gypsy families among others in the community.
As your Lordships may know, gypsies and Irish travellers are among the most extreme victims of social exclusion, suffering from lack of education, poor access to health and social services and severely limited job opportunities. They should benefit from the Race Relations (Amendment) Act, which imposes a duty on all public authorities to promote equality of opportunity, but, as far as I am aware, no steps have been taken by Ministers or local authorities to eliminate the huge disparities which exist between the gypsy community and the rest of the population. The lack of decent accommodation is at the root of the problem, as it has been ever since I first came to Parliament some 40 years ago.
There have been no studies on gypsies and homelessness, but all the travellers camping on unauthorised sites are homeless by the definition in Section 175 of the Housing Act 1996, to which reference has already been made. In comparison with the 532 rough sleepers indicated by my noble friend Lord Fearn, there were 2,608 families—not individuals—at the half-yearly count of gypsy caravans in January 2001.
Yet these people are not normally seen as homeless by the policy makers in the DTLR and its predecessors. The Green Paper did not mention gypsies and travellers at all, and the White Paper, Quality and Choice: A decent home for all, has one single paragraph on gypsies in all its 66 pages—and that refers simply to the £17 million refurbishment grant over a period of three years which has already been announced in the 2000 spending review.
The only other initiative mentioned was a research project to look at the availability and condition of sites, to be used as a means of assessing the need for new sites when it is finally published. As I understand it, this project is not likely to be ready in time to influence the 2002 spending review. Even if it

987
concluded that the additional provision of private sites will never match the demand—and hence that homelessness would persist indefinitely for gypsies—Ministers have no idea of how to make up the shortfall.
It would be very difficult to reinstate the duty placed on local authorities by the 1968 Act after this distance in time. No local authority will make provision for gypsies on a voluntary basis. In fact, those authorities which have sites, in many cases have already off-loaded them onto housing associations.
It would be possible, perhaps, to encourage registered social landlords to provide group housing for gypsies and Irish travellers. There is anecdotal evidence to show that if schemes of that nature were developed they would be very popular—as they are, indeed, in the Republic of Ireland and, more recently, in the north of Ireland. Group housing is the preferred solution for travellers in all parts of the island of Ireland and it is highly unlikely that preferences would be completely different in Britain.
Novas, a housing association which already manages some gypsy sites, has indicated that it may be willing to develop group housing schemes, and the Housing Corporation has said that it would fund them in principle. In a letter from the Housing Corporation, Mr Norman Perry, the chief executive, said that it would consider applications for funding but that,
"housing for travellers would have to be identified as a priority in the regional housing statement and local authority housing strategy in order to attract funding".
Of course individual local authorities are not going to provide accommodation for gypsies in isolation from their neighbours because they would expect to become thereby more attractive to homeless travelling people from elsewhere in the region, and thus incur more rather than less unauthorised camping. If the Government really want to solve this problem, they will have to provide some incentive for local authorities within each region to determine jointly what has to be done. A major weakness of the clause is that authorities are not required to consult with neighbouring districts, as I imagine would be desirable more generally than on the needs of gypsies in particular.
The noble and learned Lord said on Second Reading that,
"if we produce a Bill that puts a duty on local authorities to produce their own homelessness strategies, then it is incumbent on central government to set out with some degree of precision what they intend to do in this area".—[Official Report, 12/11/01; col. 408.]
Presumably they will go into some detail on how they intend to assist—for example, the 13 districts in Kent to harmonise their strategies for dealing with homelessness as it affects gypsies.
Ideally there should be a plan for each of the regions, involving the government offices for the regions, whose purposes include the promotion of coherent regional approaches to social cohesion. This would fit in with the objectives of the Reaching Out action plan published by the Government, which states that government offices have a valuable regional perspective to bring to policy making, using the huge
988
experience and expertise at regional and local level. The local housing authorities, and counties as well, have a great deal of knowledge of operating gypsy sites, but none of them can solve this problem by themselves.
Where would the money come from? The European Regional Development Fund would be a possible source, while in Britain money ought to be available from the New Deal for communities, which has already allocated no less than £10 billion over the next 10 years. That money is earmarked for neighbourhood renewal, but the Deputy Prime Minister said, when the fund was launched in September 1998, that the Government were,
"committed to tackling the problems facing our most deprived communities".
As I have already said, the gypsy community is perhaps the most deprived of all. The fact that gypsies are not concentrated into particular neighbourhoods ought not to deny them access to that money.
In his wind-up speech on Second Reading, the Minister also said that the code of guidance dealing with homelessness would be sent out early this year. Can he give the House a sneak preview and tell your Lordships how authorities are to be advised to deal with the situation that arises from the case of Clarke v. Secretary of State [for the Environment, Transport and the Regions] and Another, which was heard in the Queen's Bench Division on 9th October last year? In that case it was found that taking into account the fact that a gypsy had refused an offer of conventional housing was contrary to Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That was a planning case, of course, but it would have to read across into homelessness.
If a gypsy becomes homeless and does not want to go into fixed housing, then, as I read the case, the authority would have to be able to offer him a pitch on a caravan site. That could be rather awkward, considering the national shortage of pitches. Hitherto, authorities would have been able to offer a homeless gypsy family bed and breakfast accommodation, knowing that it would almost certainly be refused. Now, they might have an obligation to provide space for a caravan, even though such a duty does not appear to fall within the scope of "housing functions under this Part" in Section 206 of the 1996 Act.
I hope that the Minister will confirm, first, that a strategy for homelessness has to cover the traveller families on unauthorised sites, as in Section 175(2) of the 1996 Act.
Secondly, I hope that he will confirm that local authorities, where gypsies reside or to which they resort, must explicitly declare how they are going to resolve any shortage of accommodation which is shown to exist by the fact of unauthorised sites in their area. That is a totally different question from the management of unauthorised encampments to which the Government have given a lot of attention.
Thirdly, and assuming that the answers to the first two questions are positive, I hope that the Government will undertake that their national

989
strategy will enable local authorities to link up with their neighbours so that the patterns of new accommodation to be provided by gypsies themselves—and by, I hope, registered social landlords if they can be enlisted in the way I have described—match the demonstrated need and will eliminate gypsy homelessness. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this amendment seeks to make clear that homelessness strategies should include a strategy not only for securing that sufficient accommodation is available for people in the district who are, or may become, homeless, but also for people who, broadly speaking, have some type of mobile accommodation available, but do not have anywhere available to site it and live in it.
I am very sympathetic to the purpose of the amendment. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that people who find themselves in such circumstances—that is, they have a mobile home but nowhere to place it—are already included in the definition of statutory homelessness which is to be found in Part 7 of the 1996 Act. Indeed, as the noble Lord knows, he has borrowed the relevant part of that definition, which is to be found in Section 175(2)(b), in order to construct his amendment. So the answer to his first question is a clear "yes". The definition of homelessness would include such people as I have defined earlier in these remarks.
Since the reference to people who are, or who may become homeless in Clause 3 of the Bill, must mean people who are or may become homeless as defined in statute, all those who fall within the definition of homeless in Sections 175 to 177 of the 1996 Act, also fall within the definition of people who are homeless within Clause 3. So the strategy must, as appropriate, deal with that category of homelessness.
The Government believe that it is right that homelessness strategies and reviews, which must consider all forms of statutory homelessness, as I have just said, should be conducted by local housing authorities. The guidance to authorities which will accompany the Bill will spell out clearly those groups to whom the authority owes a homelessness duty and how provision for these groups will need to be considered in the process of formulating its homelessness strategy.
It is vital that local authorities should have effective strategies for managing gypsy and traveller issues. Such strategies have to be driven at the local level and involve communities. The local agencies—in particular, local authorities and the police—have a vital lead role to play. They are best placed to bring both the settled and traveller communities together in developing effective strategies.
The noble Lord asked a second question about travellers on unauthorised sites. He asked whether that meant that the homelessness strategy for that district has to deal with that specific problem. I do not believe that I can answer that question categorically yes or no.
990
It will depend on the circumstances in each case. But as I have made clear, gypsies and travellers in the circumstances identified can be homeless within the meaning of Clause 3. All categories of homeless people have to be addressed in the local authority strategy.
The noble Lord then widened the horizon of the debate and said that we should go beyond simply local authorities and talk about a strategy which might be sub-regional or regional because one cannot look at this matter by reference to individual local authorities. Of course, we have no objections to local authorities co-operating across a wider area to consider provision for gypsies and travellers. Indeed, we believe that it is a sensible way to ensure that their accommodation and wider needs are met. However, it is also important that these issues are considered at local level as sites need local acceptance to be sustainable.
The noble Lord referred to work that has been done in looking at the issue. We have researchers working at present to investigate, among other matters, the availability, quality and management of gypsy sites; site provision, both in terms of what actually exists and what the demands are for all kinds, and other housing provision and how those demands can be met.
The aim of the research, which is due to report this summer, which, as the noble Lord said, would be after the date of the spending review report, is to give a much clearer picture of the situation on the ground and the likely need for sites in the future. We would wish to evaluate this research and consider how it should inform our future policy on these issues.
I believe that I have gone quite some way in giving reassurance to the noble Lord. I share his concerns. Work has been done to address the issue on a broader basis than simply local authority by local authority. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. I shall write to the noble Lord about government offices for the regions. I shall also write to him about the Clarke case because I am not in a position to say what guidance, if any, was given in relation to that matter.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I had a very helpful reply from the noble and learned Lord. He confirmed, as I hoped he would, that gypsies are covered by the strategy. He said that, where there are unauthorised sites in the area of a district or housing authority, the needs of the gypsies on those sites would have to be taken into consideration in formulating the strategy. The noble and learned Lord did not go quite as far as I had hoped in confirming that any gypsy on an unauthorised site was homeless by definition because he had no legal right to station his caravan on that particular land, whether he be on the side of the road or on land without the permission of the owner.
The definition in Section 175 of the 1996 Act would imply that any person not on a legally authorised site was in fact homeless. But that is a matter which I dare say local authorities will consider on an individual basis because there are some sites which in the past have been described as "tolerated". That is where a

991
local authority has not taken any enforcement action. I suppose that the implication of the Minister's answer is that where a site is tolerated, the people living on it would not be treated as falling with the category of homeless. However, recently the Government have abandoned the use of the word "toleration" because they said that there was confusion with the police when deciding whether to take enforcement action on such sites for alleged criminal activities. The use of the word "tolerance" as regards planning enforcement was confused with the use of the word in relation to criminal offences that might be committed on the site. Therefore, that word is no longer in the vocabulary and nothing was used to replace it to describe sites against which local authorities do not intend to take enforcement action. Such sites may be the home of a gypsy or a number of gypsies, over a period of many years and without disturbance.
I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord for endorsement of the idea that these problems cannot be solved by local housing authorities themselves and that they will need the help of the regions. When he writes to me I hope that he includes the government offices for the regions, because they are the logical organisations through which policy can be implemented over a wider region and money can be found to provide extra accommodation where that proves to be necessary.
I very much look forward to the national strategy which the Government intend to announce shortly. Unless one has a complete idea of the shortages that exist whether as regards rough sleepers, as we discussed a few minutes ago, or in this case the number of places required to accommodate all the gypsies living in the country, one cannot make plans within those totals as to what should be done within each of the regions and local authorities. The concerted action of government, regions and local authorities will be needed in order to solve this problem. I hope that the Government have the political will to see that all the districts have the means of carrying into effect the strategies that they put together, and that they will have the full support of Ministers in doing so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Provision of accommodation for persons not in priority need who are not homeless intentionally]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 2, at end insert "provided that the authority are satisfied that the exercise of this discretion shall not significantly reduce their opportunities to offer accommodation to such persons as are mentioned in section 167(2)(c), (d) and (e) of the 1996 Act (allocation in accordance with allocation scheme) as amended"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 5 extends to local authorities a discretion to provide accommodation for those who are homeless but who are not in priority need and who are not considered to be intentionally homeless. These will tend to be single people, for whom very little can be done at present, and couples who are not vulnerable and do not have
992
children. To some extent these are the people who have been left to fend for themselves even if a local authority had accommodation in the past.
My concerns relate to the number of priority categories that are being developed under the terms of the Bill. Although it may be clear that there are some areas where the impact of extra discretion In terms of responsibilities may not matter, there are areas of the country where any further extension of the power to assist will become completely meaningless, as accommodation is simply not available. I refer to London and to some metropolitan areas; indeed, some rural areas may be in the same position.
The extension in terms of those who may be considered for help will mean that the needs of those delineated in Section 167(2), amended and increased by Clause 15(3) of this Bill, may realistically have to be prioritised if there is any possibility of their being offered accommodation at any stage.
My amendment would provide local authorities with a means of attempting to ensure a balance of allocation within their allocation policies, and would give authorities some discretion as regards the implementation of their policies. I am sure that guidance will be issued on this matter. However, it brings into sharp focus the difficulties which some of the more beleaguered authorities will have in implementing this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, perhaps I may add to my comments in Grand Committee. The amendment concerns a discretionary power. Therefore, it is not necessary. There are areas of the country where the demand on housing is much lower, which enables better use to be made of the housing. For that reason, although I understand the noble Baroness's comments, I do not believe that such an amendment is needed to enable local authorities to do what she requires.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, effectively encapsulates in three sentences the objection to the amendment. I shall go slightly further and say that it would restrict a discretion on the face of the Bill when the kinds of decisions that have to be made are ones that one very much wants to leave to local authorities.
The noble Baroness's concern is that those who have been accepted as statutorily homeless should not be given undue priority over others in housing need who seek local authority housing—particularly so in the case of homeless people who do not have a priority need for housing. That is her basic complaint.
As I explained in Grand Committee, Clause 5(1) does not affect the preference or priority which must be given to applicants under an authority's allocation scheme. An authority might in theory exercise the discretionary power to use non-secure tenancies to accommodate unintentionally homeless applicants who are not in priority need, to the detriment of needy households who had applied through the authority's allocation scheme. But would it happen in practice?

993
That is the point the noble Baroness is making. I do not believe that it would—not least because it is in the interests of authorities to build stable communities.
Proposed new Section 192(3) needs to be read with Section 159(1) and (2) and with Section 167(1) and (8) of the Housing Act 1996. These make clear that the grant of a secure or introductory tenancy or a nomination to an RSL tenancy can only be done through a formal allocation under Part 6 and in accordance with the authority's allocation scheme. So proposed new Section 192(3) is not an easy or alternative route to a secure tenancy or RSL nomination which bypasses Part 6.
Authorities recognise the legitimate claims of those on their waiting lists to a fair chance of being offered accommodation. Many on the waiting list may be housed in unsatisfactory circumstances and may have been waiting for some time, particularly in areas of high demand. Others may have a pressing need to move on medical or welfare grounds or for the avoidance of hardship to themselves or to others. I cannot envisage that, in practice, any local housing authority would put the claims of homeless people whom they recognise as being "not in priority need" ahead of needy groups applying for accommodation through the allocation scheme.
Local authorities must act reasonably and are publicly accountable. We do no favours to local government in specifying every last matter that it must consider. Too often, we preach the principles of local accountability while tying the hands of local authorities. I am glad to see noble Lords on the Benches behind the noble Baroness nodding in agreement. I believe that this is an area where local authorities are unlikely to get it wrong and consider that the amendment would be an unnecessary fetter and complication to the Bill—which I know the noble Baroness would wish to avoid. I therefore invite her to listen to reason, to listen to those on the Benches behind her who have great experience of local government, and who would regard it as unwise of her to press this matter to a vote.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am fascinated by the Minister's reply. I do not seek to fetter anyone with this amendment. All I am doing is giving authorities greater discretion. The words of the amendment are:
"provided that the authority are satisfied that the exercise of this discretion shall not significantly reduce their opportunities to offer accommodation".
It widens the scope of local authorities and enables them to shift what is in Section 167 an important group of people for whom priority allocation is required.
However, the Minister has exercised his usual charm in putting forward arguments against the amendment. Even if he does accuse me of all sorts of strange things in regard to local authorities, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 4, leave out "(5)" and insert "(8) (as inserted by paragraph 11 of Schedule 1)"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 30, 32 and 33.
These amendments have been brought forward in response to concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, in Grand Committee, when her comments received widespread support from other noble Lords. The concerns centred on the fact that not all local housing authorities deliver a good service when discharging their duties to provide advice and assistance to homeless applicants who have been found not to have a priority need for accommodation or to be intentionally homeless or threatened with homelessness.
The Government share the noble Baroness's view that it is extremely important that local housing authorities provide a good service and ensure that they meet their statutory obligations under the homelessness legislation. However, I am mindful that much of her concern arises because of the perception that some authorities are not doing what they are already required to do by statute.
The Bill already provides for the existing duties to provide advice and assistance to be strengthened, but Amendments Nos. 30, 32 and 33 will take this further. They will require an assessment of the applicant's housing needs to be made before any advice and assistance is provided—with an unspecified but clear inference that the assessment must be taken into account in the advice and assistance proffered. The amendments will also require that the advice and assistance given must include information about the type of accommodation that would be appropriate for the applicant. That, in turn, must include information about the likely availability of accommodation within the local authority area and where the applicant should go, and to whom he or she should apply in order best to locate it.
Amendment No. 9 is minor and consequential to the amendment—and also to Amendment No. 34, to which I shall speak later as it concerns Clause 15.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 insert new subsections (6), (7) and (8) in Section 195 of the Housing Act 1996. One effect is to displace what would have been new subsection (6) of Section 195, as inserted by Clause 5(2) of the Bill, and require it to be renumbered as new subsection (8) of Section 195. Amendment No. 9 gives effect to this renumbering.
The Government feel very strongly that there must be increased emphasis on the provision of good quality, properly tailored and timely advice for those experiencing, or facing, homelessness. The amendments that I have introduced will help to focus local housing authority minds on what must be done. Clearly, placing statutory duties on authorities may not always be sufficient to ensure that good quality and consistent results are delivered on the ground. We shall reinforce our message through clear statutory

995
guidance—both on the advice and assistance duties, and on putting together the local homelessness strategy—and through the national homelessness strategy.
I commend Amendments Nos. 9, 30, 32 and 33 to the House. In the light of my introductory remarks on these amendments, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, will not feel the need to move her Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"PROVISION OF ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE
() A local authority, in providing (or securing the provision of) advice and assistance under sections 190(2)(b) and (3), 192(2) and 195(5) of the 1996 Act, shall ensure that—

(a) an assessment of an applicant's housing and related needs is carried out, and that the results of that assessment are taken into account in the provision of advice and assistance;

(b) appropriate and timely information is provided about the availability of accommodation in the area; and

(c) information and advice is provided about the applicant's right to a review of a decision under section 202 of the 1996 Act (right to request review of decision)."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying that these Benches warmly welcome the amendments put forward by the Government. They do meet the concerns that we raised in Grand Committee. I should point out that other people supported such amendments; and, indeed, many people gave me support throughout the Committee stage. I have in mind the National Housing Federation, of which I declare once again I am a vice-president, as well as groups such as Shelter and Crisis.
However, perhaps I may press the Minister on one point. I should stress that I do not intend to speak to Amendment No. 10, or to move it. Can the noble and learned Lord indicate how he intends to monitor local authority performance in the area? For example, will it be a matter for the Housing Inspectorate to consider? I ask that question because it is the key to the whole initiative being a success. Having said that, I shall certainly not move Amendment No. 10.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I warmly welcome the amendments put forward by the Government. They are exactly what one would have desired. As this is the first occasion upon which I have had the opportunity to speak this afternoon, perhaps I may mention the general enthusiasm of those agencies working with young homeless people. I have in mind the work of the Rough Sleepers' Unit and its great achievements over the past three years. There is a history here of difficulty that was outlined in Shelter's report Singles Barred. In the past, assessments have been inconsistent between different local authorities; for example, in one metropolitan authority, a 17 year-old man was forced to leave his home due to family breakdown. He was properly assessed by that
996
authority and suitable accommodation was arranged for him in a shared house. However, the same man had a different reception from another London authority. On that occasion, he was simply told that, without identification and a letter providing proof that he was homeless, there was nothing that that authority could do for him.
The homeless persons' units have been the Cinderella of local authorities. The Bill will bring them into the spotlight and that, in turn, will improve the service provided, thus preventing people from becoming unnecessarily homeless. I shall give noble Lords an example of another problem experienced by a London charity. Young people were being told by local authority homeless persons' units to go to certain places. However, on arrival, and after having travelled all the way across London, they would find that some of those places were closed. They had been given out-of-date information, and those young people with so many other difficulties were faced with a further problem. Moreover, because of the changes introduced under the new Rough Sleepers' Unit, many hostels that were previously open to emergency cases—that is, direct access hostels—have now become "referral only" hostels. Again, local authorities were referring young people to them despite the fact that their doors were closed.
As I said, I warmly welcome the government amendments. Because of the failures in the past, I wish only to add my support for the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, regarding the importance of monitoring this area. The Minister was good enough to make it very clear in Grand Committee that he, or his successor, would be keeping a very firm eye on performance in the area. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord would be good enough to reiterate that commitment at this stage of the proceedings. I also wonder whether he would be good enough to say what role the Housing Inspectorate might have in the continuance of that monitoring process.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for indicating that she will not be moving Amendment No. 10. As regards monitoring, I can tell the noble Baroness that, as announced before Christmas, a homelessness directorate will be established within the DTLR. Its purpose will be to streamline and co-ordinate all the work carried out on homelessness by central government. In relation to delivering results in the area of homelessness, we recognise that the people in the front line will be those working in the local authority.
The homelessness directorate must have a sufficient relationship with local authorities to enable it to know what is going on in the area, and establish whether or not the measures taken are effective. The provision of advice and assistance pursuant to the terms of this amendment and the wider duties are important matters for the homelessness directorate to consider. Separately from that, noble Lords will know the various means by which local government performance can be monitored. The relevant

997
inspectorates, some of which cover homelessness and housing, will also need to consider the level of performance in the relevant local authority.
Finally, one of the effects of the Bill is that a homelessness strategy must be published. Plainly, such a strategy will have to set out how, for example, the provision of this expanded duty would be delivered. Therefore, there are three methods by which monitoring can take place. I repeat: this is an important aspect of dealing with homelessness. It is one that we would expect to see delivered.
On Question, Amendment No. 9 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Events which cause the duty to cease]:
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 40, at end insert ",and states that the offer shall remain available for such period as the authority may determine is reasonable in all the circumstances"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a fairly simple amendment to Clause 7. Its purpose is to provide for local authorities to give homeless applicants a reasonable period of time in which to accept or refuse a final offer of accommodation.
We discussed the issue in Grand Committee. I know that the Government agree in principle with the thinking behind my amendment. However, the Minister argued at that time (at col. CWH 31 of the Official Report) that local authorities were already under a general duty to act reasonably in allowing applicants time to decide whether or not to accept an offer. However, we know that local authorities frequently do not act reasonably in this area. There is evidence that homeless applicants are often given as little as 24 hours, sometimes even less, to decide whether to accept an offer of accommodation. Such a short period of time places those applicants under considerable pressure to accept an offer. I believe that it undermines the intentions set out in the housing Green Paper as regards providing homeless people with a greater choice over the housing in which they wish to live.
Although strong guidance in this respect would be welcome, we continue to believe that current performance in the area and the lack of regard that authorities often have for the guidance mean that a stronger statutory duty is required. My amendment would achieve that aim without interfering with the local authority's discretion by simply specifying that a "reasonable" period of time must be allowed to consider a final offer. The concept of "reasonableness" is used extensively in the Bill, and elsewhere in the Housing Act 1996. I dealt with that aspect of the matter in more detail in Grand Committee, so I shall not repeat my arguments today.
It is worth noting that the Conservatives tabled similar amendments in another place that would have given applicants a minimum period of four days in which to decide whether to accept a final offer of
998
accommodation. There are a number of factors that may impact on the ability of an applicant to make a quick decision. Applicants may be working in a different area; they may have children and care commitments; and they often have problems as regards visiting another area if it is different from the area in which their children attend school. People who are homeless find life pretty difficult anyway. Expecting a quick decision is unfair on many vulnerable people.
One in three of those accepted as homeless and in priority need are single people without children who are considered vulnerable. The remaining acceptances are families with children or families including someone who is pregnant. We are talking about very vulnerable people.
The pressure that homeless households are under is compounded by the many other disadvantages that they face when they apply for social housing. Homeless households are likely to get many fewer offers of accommodation and they get less choice over the area in which they live. The previous department—the DETR—produced figures showing that since 1991 there has been a sharp increase in the proportion of authorities operating a policy of one offer only. By 2000, that figure had increased to 75 per cent. We are talking about vulnerable people in real situations.
I believe that I have demonstrated the need for further action. I hope that the Minister can respond positively. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I was not going to intervene on the amendment, but I have been moved to do so by the recollection of my time as a housing chairman. I found that it was important not to allow too much time for a decision. There will always be more priorities in London than housing accommodation available. If somebody sits on an offer for four, five or six weeks and is allowed any amount of time, they may prevent somebody else making a decision and getting a property that they want. The question is how the word "reasonable" is interpreted. I have heard an almost infinite number of debates in this Chamber on that subject. There is a real problem with people having too long to make a decision and others being put in jeopardy as a result.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I cannot help pointing out that, once again, the noble Baroness is trying to fetter the discretion of local authorities. Surely responsible local authorities are capable of deciding what is reasonable. The word is very common in statute. I am sure that they would not have any difficulty and that they would not allow those offered housing to take so many weeks to respond that they deprived others of the accommodation.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, says that sometimes the period is too short and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, says that sometimes it is too long. Plainly, the period needed will differ from circumstance to circumstance. A reasonable time will have to be given.

999
That is the current position and no amendment is required to say that. There is already an implicit legal duty to ensure that applicants have a reasonable time to consider a final offer of accommodation under Part 6 of the 1996 Act. That includes allowing a reasonable period for final offers to be considered. That duty of reasonableness can be discharged only if account is taken of the applicant's particular circumstances and the wider considerations.
I agree that it is important that authorities should act reasonably, particularly when making final offers of accommodation, as they have the potential to bring the homelessness duty to an end, whether accepted or refused. To place the requirement to act reasonably for final offers on the face of the legislation is superfluous and might even lead to the incorrect assumption that a reasonable period need not be offered in respect of any other offer. I am happy to reiterate the commitment that I gave in Grand Committee that a clear reminder will be given to authorities in statutory guidance—to which they must by law have regard—that they must allow a reasonable period for final offers to be considered. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, expressed concern that local housing authorities should not be able to bring the main homelessness duty to an end with a qualifying offer of an assured short-hold tenancy with a private landlord until it was absolutely clear that the applicant had understood the written statement that explains that he has no obligation to accept the offer and that if he accepts it the homelessness duty will end. In emphasising the importance of real understanding, she had the support of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. Amendment No. 13 would provide that the applicant must acknowledge that he has either read or had read to him the statement.
We thought about the issue and decided that the critical point in what the noble Baroness said—the point that had the support of other noble Lords—was that the applicant must confirm that he or she has understood the statement. That may involve him reading the statement himself or having it read to him by someone else, but it might also include, for example, translating the statement into another language or explaining to the applicant, step by step, the effect of his acceptance of an offer.
I suggest that the solution is that it is unnecessary to refer on the face of the Bill to the means by which an applicant has come to understand the content of the statement. All that is needed is that the central requirement that he has understood it is specified. Our Amendment No. 12 would achieve that and would simplify the existing provision in the Bill. It would have the additional benefit of emphasising the key requirement that the applicant has understood the statement. I therefore commend Amendment No. 12 to the House. It is intended to deal with the point that gained widespread support around the Committee. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will not move Amendment No. 13 when the time comes.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I shall certainly not move Amendment No. 13. I am grateful to him for accepting that there was room for improvement in the sense and sensitivity of that aspect. I am glad that he has accepted this small but important change.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments. We pursued the issue in Grand Committee. I am pleased with what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 25, leave out "read and"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, because Amendment No. 12 has been agreed, Amendment No. 13 is pre-empted and therefore cannot be called.
Clause 9 [Abolition of duty under section 197]:
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—
"SECTION 202: REVIEWS
After section 202 of the 1996 Act (right to request review of decision) there is inserted—
"202A SECTION 202: REVIEWS
(1) This section applies where an applicant has the right to request a review of a decision by an authority or authorities under section 202.
(2) If the applicant is dissatisfied with a decision by the authority—

(a) not to exercise their power to continue to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation pending a review under section 188;

(b) in a case where the authority have secured that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation under section 190(2)(a), to cease to secure that accommodation is so available before the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 has expired (or, if sooner, the day on which an appeal is brought by the applicant);

(c) not to exercise their power to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation pending a review, under section 200(5); or

(d) to exercise their power under either section 188 or 200(5) for a limited time ending before the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 has expired (or, if sooner, the day on which an appeal is brought by the applicant) or, in either case, to cease exercising their power before that time,

he may appeal to the county court against the decision.
(3) An appeal under this section may not be brought after the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 has expired (or, if sooner, after the date on which an appeal is brought).

1001
(4) On an appeal under this section, the court—

(a) may order the authority to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation until the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 has expired (or such earlier time as the court may specify); and

(b) shall confirm or quash the decision appealed against,

and in considering whether to confirm or quash the decision the court shall apply the principles applied by the High Court on an application for judicial review.
(5) If the court quashes the decision it may order the authority to exercise any of the powers mentioned in subsection (2) in the applicant's case for such period as may be specified in the order.
(6) An order under subsection (5)—

(a) may only be made if the court is satisfied that failure to exercise the power in accordance with the order would substantially prejudice the applicant's ability to pursue the review against the authority's decision in his case;

(b) may not specify any period ending after the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 of the Act has expired.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is another amendment that we discussed at some length in Grand Committee. Although the Minister has been very helpful in correspondence and has tabled amendments that cover some of our concerns, I regret that this was not one of them, so I shall pursue the issue once again.
We believe that Amendment No. 15 would increase access to justice by providing homeless applicants with a right to appeal to the county court against the decision of a local housing authority not to accommodate him or her during the review of that decision. Currently such appeals are heard in the High Court.
The Government have accepted that, at the subsequent stage at which an applicant can appeal the review decision on a point of law, the equivalent power to order an authority to provide accommodation should lie with the county court. An amendment has been included in the Bill to achieve that objective, and Amendment No. 15 mirrors that amendment.
When we discussed the issue in Grand Committee, the Minister had four main arguments against the new clause. The first was that it would interfere with local authorities' discretion. He said, secondly, that there is no filtering process in the county courts, so that there would be an influx of unmeritorious applications and applicants would be encouraged to bring vexatious cases. He argued, thirdly, that cases should be brought only in exceptional circumstances, and that judicial review in the High Court is therefore the appropriate legal remedy. He said, fourthly, that giving the same power to the county court at the subsequent appeal stage makes administrative sense, although it seems that the same logic does not apply at the review stage.
When I was a Member of the other place and we were considering the Housing Act 1996, Labour Members pressed much more wide-ranging amendments on the issue than I am proposing in Amendment No. 15. I suspect that I supported them in those amendments. I am therefore somewhat disappointed that the Government are not continuing the line that they thought was right in 1996.
1002
I shall deal with the Minister's four objections, the first of which was on local authority discretion. We believe that the amendment does nothing to increase the presumption that local authorities should provide accommodation. It leaves existing relevant statutory powers precisely as they are; it would merely transfer the route of appeal, if an authority refuses to provide accommodation, from one court to another. We also do not believe that it would lead to a large number of unmeritorious cases. The argument that doing this would interfere with local authority discretion therefore simply does not stand up.
The Minister dealt, secondly, with the need for a filtering process, which is perhaps the most important point. He argued in Grand Committee that judicial review procedure provides a filtering process that is not present in the county court. Currently, when a decision not to accommodate during a review is challenged, an application is made to the High Court for permission to apply for judicial review and for an injunction to accommodate pending the outcome of that review. If the court is satisfied that there is a case to answer, permission and an injunction will be granted, and the full judicial review hearing will be listed. At that point, the overwhelming majority of authorities will reverse their original decision and agree to provide accommodation after all. I am grateful to Shelter for informing me that its legal team is not aware of any examples in which the foregoing has not been the case.
Although it is right to say that procedures differ in that there is no formal permission stage in the county court, the most important point is that, in practice, the principles that would be applied by the court in deciding the case would be exactly the same. Those were set out in the Court of Appeal's judgment in R v London Borough of Richmond. They also represent a stringent test in deciding whether accommodation should be provided. It is difficult to see how the new clause would provide an incentive to bring unmeritorious cases as it does absolutely nothing to encourage people to think that they would be successful. Therefore, in practice, we do not believe that the new clause would lead to many more cases.
The Minister's third point in Grand Committee was that challenges should be brought only in exceptional circumstances and that the appropriate legal remedy is in the High Court. I agree that applications should be made only when there is a strong case. However, the Government's argument seems to be that the power to require an authority to provide accommodation should remain in the High Court in order to keep the number of applications down. We believe that judicial review is a remote and inappropriate remedy for homeless people, and that current arrangements prevent them from exercising their legal rights effectively when they have a strong case. I think that that point is particularly important. Despite guidance, local authorities rarely provide accommodation during the review process, even when the applicant has a strong case.

1003
The Minister's fourth point was on simplifying administration. He argued that giving the parallel provision to order an authority to accommodate an applicant at the subsequent appeal stage would simplify the process as the appeal itself is already held in the county court. We believe that similar arguments can be applied in relation to the review process.
I have spoken to the amendment at some length, and I spoke to it in Grand Committee. I believe that the Minister understands our objective in the matter. We have also tried to answer the points that he made in Committee. I therefore hope that, today, I shall receive a slightly better response from him on this rather complicated amendment. However, it has to be technical because of the very nature of the issues that it addresses.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, it might be helpful if I were to give an example of the matters just dealt with by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, as there seems to be some concern about them.
A man approached Shelter for assistance. He was 17 and had been living with his father, with whom he had had a very difficult relationship. His father had made him leave their home several times in the past. On this occasion, the young man was on licence from prison and had to be resident at an address to avoid being returned to prison. The authority accepted that he was homeless but said that he did not have a priority need. That was despite guidance stating that
"the Secretary of State would generally expect to find homeless … 16 and 17 year olds to be vulnerable and hence in priority need for accommodation".
A review of the authority's decision was requested, but the authority refused to provide accommodation pending a review. Shelter brought judicial review proceedings to require the authority to provide accommodation during the review. The authority subsequently issued its review decision, stating that it had re-examined the situation and found that the client was, in fact, owed a full housing duty.
I hope that I have given the example at the appropriate stage of our proceedings. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, it is a very complex matter, and I am afraid that I may have misunderstood the particular provision.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was right on target. It demonstrated, did it not, that judicial review provided an adequate remedy in that example?
I shall try to be brief in dealing with the point made very clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. I am afraid, however, that we still disagree on it.
An applicant who is dissatisfied with the housing authority's decision on his homelessness case has the right to request the authority to review the decision. If dissatisfied with the authority's decision on review, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law.
Under current provisions, applicants who wish to challenge an authority's decision not to continue to accommodate pending either a review by the authority
1004
or an appeal to the county court must seek judicial review of that decision in the High Court. The example given by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is relevant to that point. The provision provides an avenue of redress for applicants in the event that an authority does not make a proper decision; for example, by failing to give due consideration to all the circumstances, or perhaps failing to consider them at all. It is appropriate that the authority should have discretion whether to continue to accommodate applicants once it has completed its detailed enquiries and satisfied itself of the facts of the case.
Amendment No. 15 would give the county court a power to intervene in decisions by a housing authority not to continue to accommodate a homeless applicant pending a review. However, applying to the courts to overturn an authority's decision should be a matter of last resort and should only be considered when it is clear that the authority has not made a proper decision. I believe that the principle of judicial review by the High Court remains valid where applicants wish to challenge an authority's decision not to continue to accommodate pending a review by the authority of the homelessness decision—that is, at the first procedural stage.
The Government are concerned to ensure that local authority discretion in these matters is not completely undermined. That is my reason for resisting the move to give the county court the power to intervene in the decision by an authority not to continue to accommodate at the review stage.
The Government believe that if the power to intervene in local authority decisions not to continue to accommodate an applicant pending a review were moved from the High Court to the county court, that would have various consequences. First, the county court would be duty bound to consider every application that was made to it. Secondly, there must be a strong likelihood that the court would be minded to require the authority to continue to accommodate in just about every case until the court had the opportunity properly to consider the application. Having done that, the court is very unlikely to want to take any action that would result, directly or indirectly, in the applicant becoming homeless.
I was not sure but I thought that the noble Baroness said that applications for injunctions pending the hearing of judicial review invariably led to the injunction being granted once leave had been given. If that experience were taken to the county court, where there is no filter, could not the same possibly occur? In effect, one would in practice take away discretion from the local authority.
5 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, perhaps I was not being very clear. If I remember rightly, my argument was that there comes a point at which the local

1005
authority gives in, as it were, and therefore does not need to carry on. That is why the situation probably would not arise.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, if one gives the county court the right to intervene in the decision about whether one should house someone pending a review, and the invariable practice of the court became that it would always intervene to secure continuing accommodation pending a review, discretion about whether or not to continue to house pending the review would, in effect, be taken from the local authority and given to the court. That would mean that although there was a category of people whom the local authority thought should not be housed, accommodation would nevertheless need to be provided for them. What impact would that have on those with needs that were greater than those of the people whom the local authority had just assessed as not being sufficient to justify continuing housing?
The third consequence would be that the net effect would be an incentive for every homeless applicant who received a decision against his interests to ask for a review by the authority and apply to the court for an order requiring the authority to continue to accommodate him until the review was completed, thus completely undermining the local authority's discretion to decide whether to exercise its power.
Local authorities have an immediate duty to secure accommodation for new applicants where there is reason to believe that they are homeless and in priority need, until the authority has had a chance to look into the circumstances and to satisfy itself whether there is indeed homelessness, whether that homelessness was caused by the applicant and whether there is priority need.
It is right that authorities have that immediate duty and that applicants should have the right to ask the authority to review any decision that goes against their interests—for example, that they do not have priority need or that they became homeless intentionally. However, it is important that authorities themselves should have the discretion to decide whether there is good reason to continue to accommodate applicants during a review and that that discretionary power is not undermined by the possibility of intervention by the courts on a routine basis.
I earnestly ask the noble Baroness to consider what we have said. Our approach is not the result of penny-pinching but because we think that it is the right approach. I therefore urge her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Minister once again for a very full answer. He will be aware that the Housing Law Practitioners Association strongly supported the approach, as did Shelter. People would not take such cases forward unless they had a very good case because they would not get legal aid or funding. Part of what the Minister said would not
1006
happen. However, I thank him for making even clearer his reasons for disagreeing with me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Application of Part 6 of 1996 Act to existing tenants]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Abolition of duty to maintain housing register]:
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 17:
Leave out Clause 13.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for pausing for a moment. I thought that I should have a nice little rest while the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, moved Amendment No. 16. In relation to housing, it always seems to be my role to move amendments quickly one after the other.
The amendment involves a matter that we raised in Grand Committee. Significant concerns have been expressed about the Bill's provisions relating to unacceptable behaviour, which makes someone unsuitable to be a tenant. In Grand Committee, the Minister made a strong statement and set out how he expected local authorities to implement the provisions. He also highlighted several factors that must be considered by an authority, and that will be incorporated into guidance. We welcome that statement and the correspondence I have had with him on some of those matters.
We have already raised the relevant issue today. Given the poor record of some local authorities in following guidance, the application of the provisions is likely to be the subject of legal challenge when the legislation is enacted. It is important that there is no doubt about the Government's intentions. I hope that the Minister will state that he will oversee the wording of the guidance and closely monitor practice, including any legal proceedings that are brought under the provisions to ensure that the intentions that he has set out are met.
Our concerns about unacceptable behaviour are that the unacceptable behaviour test could go much wider than anti-social behaviour and would allow local authorities to apply it to a wide range of other situations, particularly where rent arrears are concerned. The Bill will give authorities the discretion not to house tenants in circumstances other than those involving anti-social behaviour. That is extremely common under current legislation.
Local authorities routinely apply for possession orders when they are not entitled to them. In 2000, 150,000 possession actions were taken by social landlords, the vast majority of which were for rent arrears. If such a landlord takes proceedings as far as the court, it is presumably satisfied that it is entitled to a possession order. However, of those 150,000 cases, only 65 per cent resulted in any order being made, of which only 18 per cent resulted in an outright order. In more than 80 per cent of cases where social landlords presumably assumed that they were entitled to a possession order, the court ruled that they were not.

1007
It is important that housing and support needs are taken into account at this stage. People with problematic histories, such as rough sleepers and exoffenders—we have already discussed them today—many of whom have been evicted from previous tenancies, may fall foul of the unacceptable behaviour provisions. Resettlement work and the policy on homelessness more widely could be undermined. I refer to the work of the Rough Sleepers' Unit in that regard.
It is also important to consider the way in which the provisions will be interpreted and applied at the local level. I hope that the Minister will give as firm a statement as he gave in Grand Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Baroness was clear about her concerns in Grand Committee and was clear again today. It may well be appropriate for me to reiterate the assurances that I gave in Grand Committee.
I therefore restate that the Bill as drafted would not allow an authority to decide to treat someone as ineligible for an allocation simply by assessing his behaviour and not considering any other factors. Proposed new Section 160A(7) will give authorities a power to decide to treat individual applicants as ineligible for an allocation of housing. It will apply only where a person—either the applicant or a member of his household—is guilty of unacceptable behaviour that is serious enough to make him unsuitable to be a tenant of the authority and, in the circumstances at the time of the application, unsuitable to be a tenant by reason of that behaviour.
Where an authority receives an application and has reason to believe that either the applicant or a member of his household has been guilty of behaviour that may make him unsuitable to be a tenant, there are a number of steps which the authority must follow.
First, it must satisfy itself that behaviour has occurred which falls within the definition of "unacceptable behaviour"; in other words, the applicant or a member of his household must have behaved in a manner that would, if the applicant were a secure tenant, entitle the authority to a possession order under Section 84 of the Housing Act in relation to certain grounds. The grounds are those in Part I of Schedule 2, except ground 8. They are fault grounds and include behaviour such as conduct that is likely to cause nuisance or annoyance and use of the premises for immoral or illegal purposes.
In considering whether a possession order would be granted in the circumstances of a particular case, the authority will have to consider whether, having established the grounds, the court would consider that it was reasonable to grant a possession order. In case law it has been established that, when the court is deliberating, "reasonable" means having regard to the interests of the public and the interests of the parties. Therefore, in deciding whether it would be entitled to an order, the authority would need to consider those interests, including all the circumstances of the applicant and his household. That is stage one.
1008
Under stage two, having concluded that it would he entitled to an order, an authority will need to satisfy itself that the behaviour is serious enough to make the person unsuitable to be a tenant of the authority. For example, it will need to be satisfied that, if a possession order is granted, it will not be suspended by the court.
Thirdly, the authority will need to satisfy itself that in the circumstances at the time of the application the applicant was unsuitable to be a tenant by reason of the behaviour in question.
Those three criteria provide a fairly stiff test. Only if it is satisfied in all three aspects may the authority consider exercising its discretion to decide that the applicant is to be treated as ineligible for an allocation. In reaching a decision on whether or not to treat the applicant as ineligible, the authority will have to act reasonably. That means that it will need to consider all the relevant matters before it. They will include all the circumstances relevant to the applicant, including health, dependants and other factors. In practice, the matters before the authority will include the information provided on the application form.
Therefore, it is important to bear in mind that it would be impossible for an authority to take a view cm whether it would be entitled to a possession order without considering fully all the factors that a court would take into account in determining whether or not it was reasonable to grant an order. Then, in reaching a decision as to whether or not to exercise its discretion and treat someone as ineligible, the authority must consider all the relevant factors.
I believe it is important that housing authorities are clear about the implications of these important provisions. Accordingly, I undertake to ensure that these matters are included in the statutory guidance, for which I shall take personal responsibility, and that they will be issued to accompany the Bill. I also agree that it is right that the application of this measure is monitored. The type of factors to which I referred in answer to an earlier question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, will inform the way that that monitoring takes place.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is the best way to ensure that authorities act reasonably and consider all the circumstances of a case before deciding to treat an applicant as ineligible for housing. I hope that in the light of that, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he tell me whether there is a database of cases where the courts have granted possession on grounds similar to those which are being considered by the local authorities lo which local authorities can refer in deciding these matters? He said that they would have to consider whether the court would have granted a possession order if it had had such facts before it. If a local authority can refer to such a database and can see that in a certain set of circumstances the court has or has not granted a possession order, that will obviously be very useful

1009
However, if there is no such database, and with the enormous variety of circumstances that might apply not to the applicant but to any single member of his household, how will the authority judge whether the courts would have granted possession in those circumstances?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as in all issues relating to how a court will react, a large number of cases will have been decided by the courts. Not all those cases will be reported or accessible on a database. There are a large number of databases which refer one to decided cases in court, including those concerning housing, but they are not comprehensive. I know from my own experience that all county court decisions—that will be the relevant court—or Appeal Court decisions are not reported. However, databases exist to provide some assistance in relation to this matter. The more access there is to the widest possible range of decided cases, the better.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive response to my amendment. In view of the assurances that he has given me and his oversight of practice in this area, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Applications for housing accommodation]:
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 10, line 7, at end insert "and shall be entered in a register complying with the requirements of Schedule (Housing Applications Register) to this Act".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 18, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 37, which contains a proposed new schedule. It is a matter to which I return following the Grand Committee. The abolition of the requirement to keep a housing register is something of a false dawn. As I said previously, few will mourn the passing of a register amounting to some 8,000 to 10,000 applications. However, there will still be an administrative need for a record to be kept of those applying for consideration under the allocation scheme.
While I recognise that there are varying degrees of pressure on housing across the country, it seems somewhat lax not to have any indication within the Bill that the freedom of release from the formal housing register brings with it requirements to record applications which are made and their outcome, even if that is only to say that there is no entitlement, no priority or no realistic possibility of housing in a defined period.
Monitoring and auditing of the housing position across the country will become infinitely more unreliable than it is already if there is no requirement to maintain administrative probity. My schedule in Amendment No. 37, of which I was quite proud—that
1010
is the reason why it has appeared again—gives the outline of how I consider the matter should he implemented. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Bill seeks to encourage authorities to move away from fixed registers and to consider more flexible ways of operating their allocation schemes which will enable them to offer more choice to those who seek a social housing tenancy. Amendments Nos. 18 and 37 would require the opening of a register of applications for allocation of accommodation; that is, they seek to lay down specific requirements as to how authorities keep records of the operation of their allocation scheme.
I understand the concern of the noble Baroness that all authorities should keep good records in order that they may be held accountable for their allocation decisions. In fact, it is inconceivable that any authority wanting to protect itself from a maladministration charge would not keep records of what happened in the course of an application made to it. Therefore, some form of list or register of applicants and decisions taken with regard to their applications is likely to be retained. However, I do not believe that it is right to prescribe in legislation the format of that record.
The Bill builds in safeguards to ensure that all applicants, including existing tenants who apply for a transfer, have their applications considered properly. It also ensures that applicants can obtain the necessary information that will allow them to assess how long they may have to wait for an allocation.
The Bill provides a sensible framework which gives individual authorities flexibility to construct their allocation scheme as they think best while providing safeguards that will ensure that reasonable preference is given to the categories of applicants most in housing need. It is for individual authorities to decide how best to conduct the detailed administration of their allocations.
In effect, the Bill specifies the ends that we wish to achieve through local authorities. But we want local authorities to be imaginative in doing so—to give advice and information and to develop choice-based letting systems—rather than simply being passive in the way that some authorities have been in the past, with waiting lists being constructed but with little happening thereafter. I do not believe that we need to tell them the means of fulfilling those goals; it would be potentially negative were we to do so. Therefore, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As he intimated, and as we both know from the past, there are authorities and authorities. Some have better procedures than others and some adopt better practices than others. It was in seeking to ensure that the best practices were adopted that I sought to have the matter put on the face of the Bill. I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1011
Clause 15 [Allocation Schemes]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 10, line 19, after "accommodation" insert "(including temporary accommodation) which may be available within the authority's district or within another authority's district"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 19, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 24. Amendment No. 19 addresses one of the most serious issues, particularly in London: the availability of decent temporary accommodation. There is rightly a move towards reducing the numbers of people in bed and breakfast accommodation and the amount of time they spend there. But in order to provide for all those who present themselves as homeless, it is a fact that many will continue to be placed in conditions which are less than satisfactory.
There may be options for applicants to be placed outside the authority in question if there is accommodation available in a particular authority. That position should be made clear. The homeless are as entitled as anyone else to know the true position and what options may be available. In Committee the Minister drew my attention to the fact that this clause came under Part 6 of the 1996 Act. I accept that that is the case. However, as Clause 15(2)(a) relates to people who are homeless within Part 7, it seems to me that it is relevant to refer to temporary accommodation for that aspect alone.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are designed to follow one upon the other and to draw on to the face of the Bill all those who, as a result of the changes being made, will be entitled to priority consideration for housing. They would amend Section 189 of the Housing Act 1996. No one to whom I have spoken is, in general, against any of the principles of what is being proposed. However, there is great anxiety about the implications of the extra priority categories. In reality, in places such as London, housing authorities are in dire straits coping with the priorities in the 1996 Act. The Bill extends those priority categories. It is my view that they should all be in one place rather than scattered through the two pieces of legislation. Priorities will have to be prioritised. As I said in Committee, decisions will have to be made as to who is more vulnerable than the vulnerable. There needs to be recognition that that is the position. This is the best way I can think of doing that.
Amendment No. 24 returns to the concerns I expressed in Committee about the need for housing authorities to be able to balance their housing allocations to take account of the make-up of the community in any part of their area of responsibility. It helps no one, least of all those concerned, if too many vulnerable people are placed in one estate or statutory housing area without a balance of those who can help and support them. There have been too many incidents of sink estates in the past to allow that to happen again. Local authorities are well aware of that.
In general, I expect that what I seek in tabling the amendment happens in well-managed authorities. However, in view of the greater emphasis being placed on the young and the vulnerable, as well as those
1012
already categorised, it must be allowable for such a consideration as outlined in my amendment to be taken into account. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 21 and 24, which were either moved or spoken to in this group.
Amendment No. 19 deals with local housing authority schemes for the allocation of accommodation. It would require authorities to include in their allocation schemes a statement on offering applicants accommodation, not only within the authority's own boundaries but in other areas also. The noble Baroness indicated in Committee that she tabled the amendment because in some high demand areas even temporary accommodation may not be available in the authority's own area and, she says, applicants should be made aware of that.
I do not believe that it is necessary to place such a requirement on the face of the Bill. Shortage of affordable housing is a problem localised to some parts of the country, one of which the Government are well aware and are investing to alleviate. However, as it is localised, the desirability of an authority indicating the likelihood of an application being successful is, I believe, a matter for guidance rather than legislation.
Part 6 of the 1996 Act is concerned, with long-term allocations of secure, introductory or assured tenancies. Therefore, the reference to temporary accommodation could be said not to be in the right place. The provisions of the 1996 Act for allocations relate to the selection of tenants of an authority's own stock and nominations to tenancies of accommodation held by other housing providers, whether other authorities or RSLs. An authority's policy on offering people a choice of housing implicitly includes its policies in relation to its own accommodation and its arrangements with other authorities. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment No. 19.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 would insert additional categories of housing applicants who must be given reasonable preference in the allocation of housing accommodation under Part 6 of the 1996 Act. Put simply, the additional categories covered by the amendments are unnecessary because they are already covered by the existing categories in the Bill.
Amendment No. 20 would insert four new categories, which exactly match the categories of homeless applicants who have a priority need for accommodation under the homelessness legislation. Those comprise Section 189(1)(a) to (d) of the 1996 Act. All homeless applicants who fall within one or more of those categories and who are homeless or threatened with homelessness will be owed a duty under various sections of the 1996 Act. Clause 15(3) of the Bill specifically requires that housing applicants who are owed such duties must be given reasonable preference in the allocation of housing accommodation by virtue of new Section 167(2B). The point made by the noble Baroness is already covered.

1013
Amendment No. 21 would insert five new categories of homeless people who must be given reasonable preference for an allocation. Four of those are already covered in Clause 15 of the Bill by new Section 167(2)(a), which provides that anyone who is homeless within the meaning of Part 7 of the 1996 Act must be given reasonable preference for an allocation. "Homelessness within the meaning of Part 7" means statutorily homeless as defined by Sections 175 to 177 of the 1996 Act. Broadly speaking, those sections provide that a person is homeless if he or she does not have accommodation which is legally and physically available to him or her and his family, and which it would be reasonable for them to continue to occupy. That will include rough sleepers and all others who do not have a home, for whatever reason.
The fact that someone is homeless within the meaning of Part 7 of the 1996 Act does not necessarily mean that he or she will be owed a substantive homelessness duty. That would require them to have become homeless unintentionally and to fall within a priority need group. There may be some misunderstanding about the effect of new Section 167(2)(a). Its application is not limited to people who are owed a main homelessness duty; it extends to anyone who is homeless, whatever the reason for the homelessness.
I said that four of the categories proposed by Amendment No. 21 are already covered by new Section 167(2)(a). The fifth and last category proposed by the amendment is not so embraced because it does not address people who are homeless. It deals with existing secure or introductory tenants of a local authority who are seeking a transfer. Applicants in this position cannot expect to be given reasonable preference unless they fall within new Section 167(2)(c), (d) or (e). These categories would apply if they were living in insanitary, overcrowded or otherwise unsatisfactory conditions, or if they needed to move because of medical or welfare reasons or to avoid hardship to themselves or others. I hope that I have persuaded the noble Baroness that Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are unnecessary.
Amendment No. 24 allows an authority to suspend the new provisions inserted into Section 167 of the Housing Act 1996 by subsection (3) of Clause 15. Most of those provisions confer a discretion on the local housing authority when framing its statutory housing allocation schemes. This is the case with new Section 167(2A) to (2E). Nothing would be gained by allowing authorities to suspend those provisions when the extent to which they use them is anyway at their discretion. Furthermore, some of these provisions are particularly helpful in meeting some of the concerns of the noble Baroness.
New Section 167(2), like its predecessor, requires allocation schemes to be framed in order to give reasonable preference in allocating housing to those who, in general terms, have the most pressing needs. This is a duty but the preference required to be given is one which is "reasonable" in all the circumstances. In determining priority between applicants who fall
1014
into a "reasonable preference" category, an authority may specify factors it will take into account—such as an applicant's financial resources or behaviour. They also allow authorities to ensure that local circumstances—for example, on a particular estate—can be reflected in allocation schemes.
Under new Section 167(2E)(b), authorities would be able to allocate particular housing accommodation to persons of a particular description in accordance with schemes known as "local lettings schemes". These could include key worker schemes where it might help attract modestly paid but essential staff to high-cost areas. In another area, such a scheme might he used to lower the child to adult ratio on an estate with a high child density. Or the scheme might be operated to provide housing for those who do not usually receive high priority on an authority's register—for example, young single people.
It is up to the authority, in consultation with its partners, to draw up a scheme which meets local housing needs and which supports the development of sustainable communities. The provisions of the Bill provide the foundations for this work and, within the statutory framework, wide discretion is given to authorities and schemes can be adapted to reflect local circumstances.
It is important to keep local letting schemes under review, and to monitor their impact on those who are not part of any local lettings schemes. Of course, local lettings schemes should not override the reasonable preference categories across an authority's stock when taken as a whole.
Taken together, the provisions of Clause 15(3) provide a robust framework for authorities. They will ensure that, in general, authorities allocate their housing to those in greatest need. But they will also provide flexibility to adapt schemes to local circumstances. In that way, looked at as a whole, the Bill, as drafted, meets the principal purposes behind the amendment. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue Amendment No. 24.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, before my noble friend responds to the Minister, perhaps I may say a few words. I have waited to hear the Minister's response to my noble friend's amendments because I was conscious that we were going over ground covered in Grand Committee. I wanted to see whether any new arguments were to be adduced.
I have sympathy with the Government's attitude on the central point of not introducing unnecessary complication and leaving a degree of freedom to local authorities. The Minister implied that applicants fully understood the situation. Therefore, it did not need to be spelled out in writing or in terms of how local authorities responded to them in the way suggested by my noble friend.
I do not want to go back over ground that I introduced during the Grand Committee. However, I indicated that in London there is a major series of

1015
transfers between local authorities whereby one local authority will move its applicants into another one, while simultaneously the other local authority may be moving its applicants into the original one. I shall not go over all that ground, except to say that the Member of Parliament on the receiving end has to cope with the exportee's views. He can express a whole series of views about the local authority which suddenly exported him. The Member of Parliament is, by definition, ignorant of the practices of the other local authority and does not know whether his new constituent is trying it on or is genuinely ignorant about the circumstances in which the local authority finds itself.
As I say, my sympathy is with the Government. I am not in favour of complicating the issue. However, the Minister should not imagine that every applicant is fully aware of the circumstances. In that respect, my noble friend's suggestion would have illuminated his ignorance.
On the other hand, with regard to what my noble friend said about other categories, an analogy springs to mind from long in the past. It is not wholly irrelevant to this place. There was a discussion about whether an archdeacon whose father was a Peer was the venerable but honourable or the venerable and honourable or the honourable and venerable. The judging of these priorities will be a matter for local authorities when reaching a decision on the applicant in question.
That said, I agree that it is probably better to allow the local authority to make up its own mind how it exercises those preferences and those priorities, provided that it has a policy which can be communicated to applicants so that they can understand what is happening. I am perfectly content for the matter to be left to the local authority, but the local authority needs to have a policy.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. It probably covered more or less the same ground as previously, except for Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 where I was seeking to put on to the face of the Bill the categories of people affected. I accept more or less what the Minister has said. I can see the difficulties and perhaps the lack of necessity for these amendments.
I felt more stroppy about Amendment No. 24 until I heard what the Minister said. I wanted it to be absolutely clear within the scope of this legislation that the local authority has the right to adjust the make-up of its housing estates. I am very anxious about sink estates. I am very anxious about far too many people with priority needs being, perhaps, lumped together. I hope that people will not misunderstand what I mean by that. That is always the effect of having vulnerable people all together who cannot support each other. I think I have the Minister's assurance that the Bill will state that it will be the local authority's responsibility and that it will have the right to adjust its lettings to ensure that that does not happen. If I understood the Minister correctly in that, I shall not press Amendment No. 24. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 19.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1016
[Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.]
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 11, line 1, after "any" insert "deliberate, wilful, or negligent"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the group of amendments deal with housing allocations. Amendment No. 22 deals with a tenant's suitability. I shall speak to that amendment later. However, I turn briefly to the other amendments in the group. Amendments Nos. 23, 26 and 27 are about information and review. The Government have tabled Amendments Nos. 25 and 28, which cover the matter, and put their name to Amendment No. 26. I warmly welcome the Government's amendments and their action. When we raised the matter in Committee, the intention was for the onus to be on local authorities where unacceptable behaviour was found, and the amendments achieve that.
I return to Amendment No. 22. The draft guidance that I have seen on the matter is rather weak. A pre-consultative draft relating to the clause circulated in October 2001 states only:
"housing authorities can take into account the applicant's behaviour (or that of a household member) in relation to suitability as tenants. This can include serious or wilful rent arrears, deliberate unacceptable behaviour or deliberately creating unsatisfactory living conditions in pursuit of a quicker route to rehousing".
I am grateful to Shelter for providing evidence of how the policy and practice of some local authorities and registered social landlords currently means that people in housing need are denied access to social housing.
I emphasise that the amendment is designed to promote consistency and to ensure that the Government's policy intentions are met. In paragraphs 9.15 and 9.16 of the Green Paper, the Government clearly set out their policy intentions in the allocation of social housing. They state:
"Any decisions to suspend applications would need to take account of the circumstances of the household in order to safeguard vulnerable groups such as those with mental or behavioural problems, or the children of the Families concerned. We would expect suspensions to be exceptional and that other ways of managing problems or risk may be more appropriate in many cases".
But the key sentence is:
"Meeting housing need remains the priority for lettings and transfer".
I raised that matter in Committee.
Under the Bill as drafted, local authorities could reduce priority because of rent arrears or for other reasons. That is common under current arrangements. In reality, in many parts of the country, a decision to reduce an applicant's priority effectively means that he or she will not be housed. Current practice shows all too clearly how important it is to get the legislative framework right in that area. Despite strong guidance to the contrary, it is common under current legislation for local authorities either to suspend or exclude people with rent arrears or other debts. Those arrears are sometimes trivial and, in many cases, caused by the failure of the local authority to administer housing benefit payments.

1017
Research for the previous Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions found that more than one in 10 authorities and registered social landlords that responded to a survey took account of council tax arrears when considering rehousing eligibility. That was despite the fact that draft guidance says that authorities should not take account of such factors. There is much other similar evidence. I therefore hope that the Minister will make it clear that housing need should be the main factor in deciding the priority of an application. I hope that he will emphasise the sort of behaviour that should not lead to an applicant being given a lesser priority—especially rent arrears caused by housing benefit problems and council tax arrears. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this returns us to an issue that the noble Baroness raised in Committee. Amendment No. 22 would ensure that an authority could take account only of deliberate, wilful or negligent behaviour that affected the applicant's suitability to be a tenant when determining the priority and preference to be given to an applicant who falls within the categories of applicant who must be given reasonable preference.
The provision in the Bill as drafted would allow authorities to take account of both good and bad behaviour which might have been demonstrated by individual applicants. Bad behaviour might include unacceptable behaviour which was not serious enough to make the applicant unsuitable to be a tenant, but was nevertheless a factor to be taken into account in assessing the level of priority deserved relative to other applicants.
For instance—this addresses the issue raised by the noble Baroness—let us consider an applicant who has a history of persistent but minor rent arrears not caused by any problems with housing benefit and another applicant, perhaps an existing tenant applying for a transfer, who has demonstrated that he is a model tenant. All other factors being equal, the authority may understandably decide that the latter deserves a degree more priority than the former.
The issue of what relative priority individual applications should receive for an allocation is a matter for the authority to decide, in accordance with the principles of its published scheme, where the basis for determining priority will have to be set out. It is right that the authority should have discretion to decide whether, and how, applicants' behaviour should be taken into account. The amendment would in effect reduce that discretion on behaviour to those aspects of behaviour that fall within the rubric, "deliberate, wilful or negligent". I should remind noble Lords that applicants will have the right under Clause 15(4) to obtain information about the facts on which the authority has taken its decision, and to request a review of that decision. For the reasons I have given, I ask the noble Baroness not to pursue her amendment.
1018
As it is in the same group, perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 25. I have already spoken at some length about the provisions in Clause 13 that allow an authority to decide to treat an applicant as ineligible for an allocation because it is satisfied that he is guilty of unacceptable behaviour serious enough to make him unsuitable to be a tenant of the authority. Where an authority is satisfied that an applicant is unsuitable to be a tenant of the authority, it may decide to treat him as ineligible, or it may instead decide to consider his or her application but not to give any preference for an allocation.
As the Bill stands, the authority must notify the applicant of a decision to treat him or her as ineligible, and of the grounds for the decision. As regards a decision not to give preference, applicants have the right to ask to be informed, but the authority is not required to notify them unless requested to do so.
In Committee, the noble Baroness pressed for an amendment that would have required authorities to notify applicants about such decisions. Unfortunately, because of its construction it would also have required authorities to notify applicants about routine decisions taken about the facts of their application.
At the time, I said that I thought that the right balance was to leave it to local authorities to decide who to tell and when. I have, however, reflected on what the noble Baroness said. I can see the force of the argument that in areas where pressure on housing is high, a decision not to give preference could, as she said today, have the same practical effect as a decision to treat as ineligible. That is to say, as she put it, it could remove any realistic opportunity of the applicant being allocated accommodation. Moreover, the additional requirement—to notify—should not add significantly to authorities' workload, as I expect that, overall, only a small proportion of applicants will receive such decisions. I understand that the local authority associations support the proposal.
I therefore think that authorities should be required to notify the applicant when they decide not to give any preference because of unacceptable behaviour. Amendments Nos. 25 and 28, in conjunction with Amendment No. 26, will achieve that effect, and I invite noble Lords to support them.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his long response. I am slightly disappointed as regards his comments on Amendment No. 22. I had hoped that he would reiterate the point I made that housing need should be an important part of deciding priority. I had hoped that he would also reiterate the point—as I believe he did in Grand Committee, although I cannot remember exactly—that people in arrears due to problems with housing benefit should not be penalised through this part of the legislation. As regards the Minister's other comments, I am grateful to him for taking on board the other points that we raised in this area in Grand Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1019
[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 11, line 37, at end insert—
"(aa) is notified in writing of any decision that he is a person to whom subsection (2C) applies and the grounds for it;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 11, line 40, leave out from "case" to end of line 41.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 11, line 46, after "paragraph" insert "(aa) or"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 14, line 1, at end insert—
"7A In section 188(3) (interim duty to accommodate in case of apparent priority need), for "continue to secure" there is substituted "secure"."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said she was grateful to the Housing Law Practitioners Association for drawing her attention to gaps in the existing provisions which give the local authority the power to accommodate certain applicants pending a review by the authority of its homelessness decision and pending an appeal to the county court on a point of law. I, in turn, am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing my attention to these points.
The policy which underlies the current provisions is that, pending a review or an appeal to the county court, the authority should have the power to accommodate those applicants who have a priority need for accommodation; that is, those who are most vulnerable. I think that is the right policy and it accords with the central thrust of the legislation, that only this group are owed the main homelessness duty to secure accommodation.
An assessment of the current provisions, however, reveals two main gaps in the achievement of that policy. The first applies in respect of those applicants who have a priority need but are considered by the authority to have become homeless, or threatened with homelessness, intentionally and who, for whatever reason, were not provided with accommodation under the Section 188 interim duty pending inquiries. This will include, for example, priority need applicants who were threatened with homelessness pending the inquiries (and so did not need to be provided with accommodation). Where the authority finds that they became threatened with homelessness intentionally, the applicant may request a review of that decision and may become homeless during the course of the review. However, at present the authority has no power to accommodate in such circumstances.
1020
The second "gap" applies more broadly to applicants pursuing an appeal to the county court. Current provisions (namely Section 204 of the 1996 Act) leave some doubt as to whether there is a power to accommodate applicants if the authority has not already exercised its power to accommodate pen ding the review.
Amendment No.34 will close the first gap and provide authorities with a specific power to assist those applicants whom the authority has decided have priority need but have become threatened with homelessness intentionally. The power will allow the authority to take steps to prevent homelessness or, if the applicant becomes homeless, to secure accommodation, pending a review of the homelessness decision.
Amendment No. 36 amends Section 204 of the 1996 Act and makes clear that, pending an appeal to the county court, the authority has a power to accommodate the same categories of applicant as it has a power to accommodate pending a review. This includes a specific reference to the new power provided by Amendment No. 34. Amendment No. 36 also makes clear that the power to accommodate an applicant pending an appeal to the county court applies whether or not the power to accommodate pending a review had been exercised.
Amendments Nos. 29 and 35 amend Sections 188(3) and 200(5) respectively. These are the current provisions which give authorities the power to continue to secure accommodation for certain applicants pending a review. The concept of being able to continue to secure accommodation limits the scope of power and is unduly restrictive. Amendments Nos. 29 and 35 therefore change this to a free-standing power to secure accommodation. As regards the change to Section 188(3), this will clarify in particular that, pending a review, authorities have the power to accommodate applicants who have priority need but have been found to be intentionally homeless. Under Section 190(2)(a), such applicants must be secured accommodation for such period as will give them a reasonable opportunity to find accommodation themselves but this duty may end before a review of the homelessness decision has been completed. There is currently some uncertainty whether authorities have a power to accommodate this category of applicant during the period after the Section 190(2)(a) duty has ended and until the review is completed. This is because there is no explicit provision giving a power to continue to accommodate under Section 190 and it is questionable whether the power to continue to accommodate under Section 188 should apply in a case where the applicant is being accommodated under Section 190.
I apologise for the complexity of the explanation, but it reflects the complexity of the provisions. It may explain why there are gaps in the current provisions and why it required a combination of the Housing Law Practitioners Association and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to draw our attention to the situation. However, we have worked hard on trying to fill the gaps.

1021
In Committee I said that there was a need to consult with the local authority representative bodies before making any amendments. This has been done and I understand that they are content with the thrust of these proposals. I hope that noble Lords will agree that these amendments close the current gaps and achieve the right policy. I commend Amendments Nos. 29, 34, 35 and 36 to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, if my noble friend Lady Hamwee were present I am sure that she would thank the Minister for his comments on behalf of herself and the Housing Law Practitioners Association. It is a complicated area. I wish to make two comments about Amendments Nos. 34 and 36. I hope that I express them correctly as I am not a lawyer by training.
Amendment No. 34 provides a power to secure temporary accommodation pending a review of a decision that a person has become threatened with homelessness intentionally. The amendment refers to paragraph (b) of subsection (5) of Section 195 of the relevant Act. If the reference to paragraph (b) were omitted and the amendment read:
"If the authority decide that they owe the applicant the duty under subsection (5)",
I am told that the amendment would also cover decisions of no priority need.
The Government have evidently accepted the need for the temporary accommodation power where there has been a finding of intentional homelessness. It is not clear why they do not see the same need where the decision concerns priority need.
As regards Amendment No. 36, there is a view that it does not quite plug the gaps in Section 204(4) which concerns temporary accommodation pending appeal. That section currently provides that where the authority is under a duty under Sections 188, 190 and 200 to secure accommodation for the applicant's occupation, it may continue to secure that accommodation, if available, pending an appeal. With Amendment No. 36, the section would read:
"Where the authority were under a duty under Section 188, 190 or 200 to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation, or had the power under Section 195(6) to do so, they may secure that accommodation is so available".
I have been told that the reference to Section 195(6) should be a reference to Section 195(8), which is inserted by Amendment No. 34.
There is a view that the formulation is unnecessarily complicated by the reference back to earlier duties or powers. It could be simpler if it said simply that the authority may secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation. That would bring it into line with the new wording of Section 188(3), as inserted by Amendment No. 29, and would be compatible with Clause 11 of the Bill. That would forestall arguments about whether one of the earlier duties existed. It would also allow for discretion if the authority accepts that it owes a duty on the day of the
1022
application, so that the duty under Section 188 does not arise, and the appeal concerns the suitability of the accommodation offered.
I am advised that that will help with the interpretation of this rather complicated section. It will probably be difficult for the Minister to respond in any detail at this stage, but we may be able to return to the matter at Third Reading. The Minister might have to read all that in Hansard, although, as a trained lawyer, he will perhaps manage it better than I did.
6 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is traditional to say that I am grateful for the response. For this, one would need a wet towel and every section of the Bill in front of one. It was a clear exposition, but the matter needs some thought. I suggest that we proceed with the amendment, but on the basis that we will consider the proposals made by the noble Baroness and that, if there is scope for improving the draft, we will return to it. We should, however, make the amendments now.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 14, line 4, at end insert—
"8A At the end of section 190 there is inserted—
"(4) The applicant's housing needs shall be assessed before advice and assistance is provided under subsection (2)(b) or (3).
(5) The advice and assistance provided under subsection (2)(b) or (3) must include information about the likely availability in the authority's district of types of accommodation appropriate to the applicant's housing needs (including, in particular, the location and sources of such types of accommodation).""
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Massey of Darwen Baroness Massey of Darwen moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 14, line 4, at end insert—
"In section 190 (duties to persons becoming homeless intentionally), after subsection (3) there is inserted—
"(4) In any case where the local housing authority are advised by a social services authority that a child who is in need within the meaning of section 17(10) of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) resides with an applicant to whom they have secured that accommodation is available under subsection (2) above, they shall—

(a) continue to secure that accommodation is available for the occupation of the applicant and any such child for so long as the social services authority advise them that accommodation is required to enable the social services authority to provide services to such a child to promote or safeguard the child's welfare; or

(b) provide such assistance to the social services authority as shall enable the applicant to secure that accommodation becomes available from some other person.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is the same amendment as I introduced in Committee. My intention is simply to keep the issue of the separation of parents and children by homelessness on the agenda. I am aware that the Minister and his officials

1023
are also concerned about the issue and are working to find ways of sorting it out. In Grand Committee, the Minister said:
"We were in the process of investigating whether there had been any change in practice in the way that local authorities provide assistance for families with children who are homeless. We regard it as a very important matter and we need to get to the bottom of what is going on".—[Official Report, 10/12/01; col. CWH 69.]
Meanwhile, more evidence is emerging from local authorities and from Shelter that there is separation of children and parents. I still believe that the issue of intentional and unintentional homelessness is confused and is not the hub of the matter.
I understand the difficulties caused by the interpretation of the Children Act 1989, which emphasises the needs of children above all considerations when offering council services but runs into difficulty on this issue. The result is that local authorities appear to have no power, let alone duty, to provide accommodation for children with their parents if no other accommodation is available. For example, there is no duty owed to parents who have been found intentionally homeless, although actual parenting is not in question. The result is that the only power that can he exercised to provide accommodation involves separating the child from the parents
I realise that the Children Act cannot be our concern here, although its implications can. I also know that there are moves to amend the Act. Nevertheless, I hope that, in this Bill, a clause can be inserted to offer protection to parents and children who are made homeless. I look forward to clarification from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, in Grand Committee, I supported the noble Baroness on this issue. There have been various reports in the press, so I hope that the Minister can update us. If there is a possibility that we could use this Bill to deal with the situation, I hope that that will be considered at Third Reading.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, my concern was that the loophole that has been discovered is being used as a threat to families to drive them out of local authority offices. That concern has been expressed by charities. Children are rarely taken into care, but overworked housing departments are using that loophole as an excuse to push families away. The families then disappear from sight, and there is a great fear that they will simply go into inadequate and inappropriate accommodation.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Massey for indicating that Amendment No. 31 is a probing amendment, giving me an opportunity to update the House on where we are. It is an important issue, about which great concern has been expressed. The concern is that if a local authority says that it may take a child into care, the family will simply disappear, rather than have the child taken into care.
1024
The issue of accommodation for children in need and their families—covered by Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, which provision was the subject of the recently decided cases referred to in Committee—is important and will be considered in another place in the context of the Adoption and Children Bill. That will address the central issue of concern, namely the power of social services to provide accommodation under Section 17.
There is also the separate question of ensuring that there is good co-operation between the housing and social services departments in meeting the needs of such families. In Committee, said that I had met several social services directors to discuss the situation and their approach to meeting the needs of such families. I was heartened by what they said. They all have arrangements in place to ensure that the social services departments work with the housing authority—or housing department, in the case of unitary authorities—to find an appropriate solution for the whole family, when dealing with families with children who have made themselves intentionally homeless.
In Committee, I also said that I had asked my officials to work closely with their counterparts at the Department of Health to see how we could ensure that such a sensible and co-ordinated approach would be adopted more widely. We are now agreed on that policy. Housing authorities will be required to notify the social services authorities as soon as it becomes clear that they are dealing with a homeless family with children who will not be owed the ma in homelessness duty, either because they have intentionally made themselves homeless or they are not eligible for housing assistance. Where the social services department requests the housing authority to assist it to discharge its functions under Part III of the Children Act 1989 in meeting the needs of the child, the housing authority will be required to co-operate. We are also considering ways of ensuring that housing and social services departments in unitary authorities work together on such cases.
Implementing the policy will require amendments to the Homelessness Bill. I had hoped to be in a position to table amendments today, but unfortunately I am not, as they are still at the development stage. However, I intend to table amendments at the earliest opportunity and undertake to do so before Third Reading.
In support of the policy, my department and the Department of Health will issue joint guidance to housing and social services departments about cooperative working. As I said in Committee, I do not think that the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, is the right way in which to tackle the problem. However, she has not necessarily put that line forward and has, rightly, been concerned about the issue and wishes to ensure that it is properly discussed. We will return to the matter at Third Reading.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I simply wanted to raise again the issue of homelessness of

1025
parents and children. I am reassured by what the Minister said, and I know that he will work to find a suitable way of dealing with the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 14, line 7, at end insert—
"9A After subsection (3) of section 192 (as inserted by section 5(1) above) there is inserted—
"(4) The applicant's housing needs shall be assessed before advice and assistance is provided under subsection (2).
(5) The advice and assistance provided under subsection (2) must include information about the likely availability in the authority's district of types of accommodation appropriate to the applicant's housing needs (including, in particular, the location and sources of such types of accommodation).""
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 33 to 36:
Page 14, line 24, at end insert—
"(c) after subsection (5) there is inserted—
"(6) The applicant's housing needs shall be assessed before advice and assistance is provided under subsection (5).
(7) The advice and assistance provided under subsection (5) must include information about the likely availability in the authority's district of types of accommodation appropriate to the applicant's housing needs (including, in particular, the location and sources of such types of accommodation).":"
Page 14, line 24, at end insert—
"(d) after subsection (7) (as inserted by paragraph (c) above) there is inserted—
"(8) If the authority decide that they owe the applicant the duty under subsection (5) by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, they may, pending a decision on a review of that decision—
(a) secure that accommodation does not cease to be available for his occupation; and
(b) if he becomes homeless, secure that accommodation is so available.""
Page 14, line 31, at end insert "; and
(b) in subsection (5), for "continue to secure" there is substituted "secure"."
Page 14, line 44, at end insert "; and
(b) in subsection (4), for ",they may continue to" there is substituted ", or had the power under section 195(6) to do so, they may"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]

Human Genetic Databases
6.10 p.m.
Lord Oxburgh Lord Oxburgh rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee, Human Genetic Databases: challenges and opportunities (4th Report, Session 2000–2001, HL Paper 57).
1026
The noble Lord said: My Lords. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Our committee decided to undertake the inquiry because it believed the subject to be of great importance and technically complex. It decided to do so when it did because it appeared that parts of our work could usefully complement that of the Human Genetics Commission. The work of that commission extends far beyond ours and we address a number of matters which fall outside its immediate remit. However, there is an important area of overlap where science, medicine, ethics and the law are inextricably interwoven.
Throughout our work we have kept in touch with the commission and I am glad to acknowledge a most constructive interaction between the two bodies. I look forward today to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, bringing the House up to date with the commission's latest thinking. I am also delighted that the noble Lord, Lord May, has chosen this occasion for his maiden speech. We look forward to hearing that and the contributions of other noble Lords.
The committee is most grateful to those who gave up their time to give evidence and instructed us in the complexities and implications of the fast-moving field of molecular genetics. However, the fact that the report was completed not only to a very high standard but in record time because of the impending dissolution of Parliament is due to the exceptional efforts of three people: first, our outstanding special adviser, Professor Paul Elliott of the Imperial College School of Medicine; secondly, Dr Adam Heathfield, our special assistant; and, finally, Mr Roger Morgan, our clerk. All burnt an amount of midnight oil that went far beyond the call of duty and the committee is most grateful to them.
We are also most grateful to the Government for their published reply to our report. It is gratifying to find a high degree of agreement on such an important matter.
Human genetic databases are simply organised collections of genetic data relating to particular individuals, or organised collections of human tissue that could be used to provide such data. Each of us has imprinted in the chemistry of our cells a unique genetic code that contains elements inherited from both our parents. Although the codes of all human beings are similar and distinct from those of other animals, there remain minute differences between individuals that allow us to develop as distinct individuals with different body types, different personalities and different resistance to disease. How we exploit or indeed suffer from the different genetic potential that each of us has depends on what we eat, on how we live and on our external environment.
It is the highly personal nature of these data and their growing potential to reveal some of our most intimate details that makes them sensitive and suggests that human genetic databases might he in need of regulation.

1027
In practice, genetic databases are of interest to three distinct groups for rather different reasons: first, the Home Office and security agencies; secondly, the insurance industry; and, thirdly, health practitioners and researchers. I shall deal with the first two rather briefly.
I shall deal first with the Home Office. Minute samples of human tissue—perhaps a hair or fragment of fingernail—can provide genetic data about the person from whom it came. Matches can then be sought against the police database that contains the data of people convicted of particular crimes, or with data collected from a small group of suspects for the purpose.
Even if no match is found, it may be possible to deduce some personal characteristics of the person from whom a sample came. It is already possible to specify whether it is a man or a woman and, in future, it is likely that it will be possible to specify racial type and the colour of hair and eyes.
That is clearly a very important forensic tool. Equally clearly, there are civil liberty considerations related to the protection and use of the police database. We were a little uneasy that adequate safeguards do not appear to be in place both to protect the interests of individuals and to protect the police from unjustified complaints concerning that database.
Turning now to insurance, I must remind the House that this use of genetic data has been the subject of a valuable recent report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology in another place. We would not dissent from the findings of that report.
Until late last year, some insurance companies expected insurance applicants to disclose any available personal genetic data on the ground that it was relevant to insurance risk. However, the industry recently announced a welcome five-year moratorium on this practice.
The concern is that people may choose not to undergo genetic testing that could be important for their health if it could make them a poorer insurance risk. In fact, personal genetic data contain little information pertinent to insurance risk that is not already available from family histories, disclosure of which is readily accepted.
The main substance of our report concerns the use of genetic databases for therapy and biomedical research. I must, however, at this point digress to emphasise that, regardless of their practical applications, genetic databases are the essential tools for research at one of the most exciting and fundamental frontiers of human knowledge—the nature of life itself—and merit support for the same reasons that we support pure research in other areas, such as astronomy and particle physics. The difference is that this is one of the rare occasions when the advance of pure science walks closely hand in hand with its practical application. It is also one of the rare occasions when one may justly claim that, along with the United States, the UK research community is a world leader.
1028
So why is there a problem? The problem is that making sense of the genetic data, which is acquired by detailed and careful analysis of tissue samples, depends crucially on linking those data to individual medical records. The usual method is to compare the genetic data of many individuals who display a particular medical condition and to search for elements of the genetic code that they have in common and are absent in others. Such studies obviously require that genetic data be associated with individual medical histories, individual by individual. However, current legislation (the Data Protection Act) requires that sensitive personal data be used only for the purposes for which permission was given at the time the data were originally collected; and that is the nub of the problem.
Collection of medical history begins at birth and continues over a person's whole lifetime. It was impossible to anticipate when such data began to be collected decades earlier what the focus or requirements of future research might be. Equally, it is impracticable to find and seek the permission of many thousands of individuals every time a new experiment is contemplated
Smaller-scale experiments, such as the Avon Longitudinal Study, are indeed possible under present arrangements but national and international studies, which are increasingly important, would not be feasible.
In looking for ways around this problem we believed that a balance had to be struck. On the one hand, society should respect the desires of individuals both to preserve their privacy and to withhold consent for the use of their personal data in research of which they disapprove. On the other hand, the case histories and personal data of earlier generations are the practical basis of today's medical knowledge. We felt that there is a general moral obligation on us all to do for succeeding generations what our forefathers have done for us.
Naturally this dilemma is not unique to the UK. Drawing on our observations of practice in other countries, we proposed a solution based on the concept of "the trusted third party". The idea was that, on a one-off basis, everyone should be invited to agree—or not—that, as long as their personal privacy was protected, their medical data could be used for medical research that was approved by the "trusted third party".
We proposed that the "trusted third party" should be an independent non-governmental medical data panel containing lay people, medical, legal and ethics professionals, as well as representatives of government departments. It would be their duty to pronounce on the acceptability of research proposals in the light of what they judged to be public sentiment of the time. We saw the independence of such a body as essential, perhaps ensured by having its members nominated by different social and professional constituencies.
The proposal appears to a significant extent to have been overtaken by events. The Health and Social Care Act 2001 established a Patient Information Advisory

1029
Group that appears to carry some or all of the responsibilities that we foresaw for our medical data panel, albeit in a rather different way.
To avoid any confusion, will the Minister be good enough to confirm that the new group will be able to pronounce on all requests for access to personal medical data for biomedical research, regardless of whether they originate within or outside the NHS? Furthermore, will the group recognise that it is in the nature of research that a successful and therefore beneficial outcome cannot be guaranteed at the outset? Otherwise it would not be research. Finally, will the new group have the resources and the procedures required to deal with applications speedily and effectively?
In a commendable effort to move the research forward and to circumvent some of these problems, three major medical bodies have come together to fund jointly an experiment of truly gigantic proportions. The Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Council and the NHS plan to enrol a cadre of 500,000 volunteers for genetic testing, who have agreed from the outset that their medical records may be used for research. This should help the UK to maintain its already commanding position in the field. But it will take time to establish and there will also be projects for which a different patient sample is required. It therefore remains urgent that the problem of existing data and patient records be addressed.
What benefits will such research bring, and when? Broadly, there are three areas currently in prospect. First, because the genetic basis of some diseases, currently untreatable, will be understood, it will be possible to design new drugs to target them. Even existing drugs may be used more effectively because genetic differences mean that the same condition in different patients may need to be treated differently. It will also help to avoid prescribing drugs that will do no good, or even harm.
Secondly, it will be possible to advise individuals that by living in a particular way they will reduce their chances of suffering particular illnesses.
Thirdly, and further into the future, it may be possible to repair genetic defects, whether they are inherited or are the result of subsequent damage.
These benefits will come gradually because the field is still in its infancy, but it is not unreasonable to expect that practical benefits will begin to flow within the next 10 years.
As well as humanitarian benefits, the advances will bring commercial opportunities. The design of new drugs that will be effective in individuals with a known genetic make-up will form a major part of the future business of pharmaceutical companies. That raises important questions that could merit an inquiry in their own right; namely, what aspects of such research should be patentable? Our committee did not explore those questions in full detail, but if a commercial company is to invest in R & D, it must be able to look forward to a period when it sees a return on its investment.
1030
On the other hand, the fundamental mapping of the basic human genetic code is human physiology that most people agree should remain in the public domain. It is, however, primarily the workings of the code that need to be understood for useful therapeutic intervention and it is this that is both in its infancy and of the most commercial interest. In my view, it will be easier to see a fair way of protecting legitimate intellectual property in this area when the science itself is better understood.
Before we get that far, however, other hurdles need to be overcome. It is easy to think that the challenges are all for biomedicine. That is far from the case. Our current success in genomics may come to nothing if the enormous challenges for computer science are not tackled as well. Here the UK position is less encouraging. The challenges are of two kinds. First, there is the need to develop computational methods to deal with prodigious amounts of heterogeneous data in ways that are quite novel. Although we have some excellent research groups in the UK, this country as a whole is not an international leader in these disciplines. Secondly, it is not clear that the UK will be able to find sufficient trained people to support the computational needs of the work. Our committee saw a major need both for computational research and for trained people. Unless the issues are addressed through the research councils and the university funding councils, UK genomics efforts could founder.
Before concluding, I shall say a few words about the NHS. With patient records extending back over 50 years for more than 50 million people, this should be a gold mine for health researchers. In fact, partly because computerisation has come in so late, so patchily and with such a diversity of incompatible systems, and partly because use of the NHS number, which should be our unique health record identifier, is honoured more in the breach than in the observance, this potential is unlikely ever to be fully realised. We are aware that things are changing and that there is a shortage of resources, but progress has been glacially slow. It does seem, however, that things are rather better in Scotland than in England.
I have attempted to sketch some of the highlights of our report and to set the scene for our debate. Many of the important matters that the committee touched on will, I have no doubt, be taken forward by the Human Genetics Commission. However, it is essential to emphasise that exceptionally the UK is poised to make groundbreaking advances in fundamental biomedical science that will carry with them improvements in health and important commercial opportunities. However, those opportunities will be realised if, and only if, we have a responsive and sympathetic regulatory environment for handling medical data, a fair and effective way of handling intellectual property and a properly supported computational infrastructure. I commend the report to the House.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee, Human Genetic Databases: challenges and opportunities (4th Report, Session 2000–2001, HL Paper 57).
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, it is quite daunting to follow a wide-ranging and superb speech such as we have heard from our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh. It was a great pleasure to serve under his chairmanship on the committee, where he carried out his duties with good humour and great skill. I hope that in your Lordships' House in the future a proportion of seats will continue to be given to Cross-Benchers such as the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh.
I, too, pay tribute to our excellent specialist adviser, Professor Elliott, our specialist assistant, Adam Heathfield, our Clerk, Roger Morgan, and his staff for making life easier for us, despite us being sometimes quite elusive.
Of the five Science and Technology Committees on which I have served, I found this one much the most conceptually difficult—not because of the complexity of genetics itself but in understanding how the prodigious quantities of data are handled and the tricky ethical issues involved.
The Sanger human genome research centre at Hinxton, which we visited, deposits 50 million base pairs of genetic data every 24 hours. Using the full power of its computer resources, which are huge, it would take about a week to sequence the genome of only one individual. Senior staff at the Sanger centre were concerned that the highly qualified IT staff that will be needed for future development are in short supply. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, will address this issue later.
Of course, most genomic data held on a database consists of only a fraction of a total genome of an individual. For conditions dependent on the expression of a single or small number of genes, comparatively small databases may be sufficient for research purposes. But the inheritance or susceptibility of most common diseases is polygenic—dependent on quite large numbers of genes—and so large numbers of individuals are needed to detect the genetic differences, as the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, pointed out.
Professor John Bell, who is Professor of Clinical Medicine at Oxford, put it this way in evidence to us. He said:
"The ability to use genetic factors diagnostically will be … to put people into risk groups where they are either at a higher or a lower risk of developing particular outcomes. That is a terribly important difference. In my view, the public—and, indeed, some of the medical profession—have got confused over the clear distinction between single gene disorders … and common diseases where you are really looking at epidemiological-like risk factors of which genes are one. That is not to say that they will not be useful, because one of the great challenges in health care is to try and stratify people into those at high, medium or low risk of different diseases".
He was referring, of course, to diseases such as cancer, in its various forms, coronary heart disease and so on. This approach is also relevant to responses to certain drugs, a matter described more fully by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh.
That is why it is necessary to recruit and follow up large numbers of people who are representative of the population as a whole, who have different lifestyles
1032
and who are exposed to different environmental and socio-economic influences. If, at the same time, we have access to tissue or blood samples giving genetic information on the individuals in this population and follow their health status over the years, it should prove possible to identify the genetic profile of, for instance, smokers who succumb to lung cancer compared with those who also smoke but do not get lung cancer. This would make it possible to identify and target vulnerable individuals before their cancer develops. Some may say that that would be a bad thing because it would give the green light to other smokers. I doubt if it would work that way. Perhaps liability to coronary heart disease would have been a better example.
It is often suggested, more in hope than experience—again as described by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh—that because the National Health Service holds health information on almost everyone in the country, particularly those on GP lists, we could have a ready-made, vast database. The reality of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, indicated, is very different. The basic problems are twofold. First, the data recorded by each trust and each GP practice is incomplete, inconsistent, often out of date and therefore inaccurate, particularly in relation to addresses and post codes and so on, which are very important as indicators of the environment to which people are exposed.
Secondly, the systems of recording the data are many and various and not necessarily compatible. In the GP field, of which I have some experience, software firms were encouraged by the previous Government to compete in selling their programmes to GPs. In any case, these systems were mostly set up to help GPs in their own practices with, for example, repeat prescriptions, appointments systems and so on, and not for record linkage. Similarly, each trust developed its own system. The Department of Health is now having to mount special, expensive exercises to enable the transfer of patient data from practice to practice, practice to hospital and hospital to hospital.
In its response, the Department of Health put on a very brave face about what is happening. I know that the department is fully aware of the enormous benefits to be gained from an integrated system for the administration of the National Health Service alone, but important epidemiological research benefits would also follow.
As the Government's response indicates, increasing amounts of money are being allocated to IT by the department. As an indication of the importance it gives to this issue, four out of the 15 pages of its response refer to IT. I recognise that it is a huge task, but I am a little concerned that the approach being adopted may be too bureaucratic.
For instance, the four pages to which I referred contain references to the titles of 14 separate new National Health Service organisations or initiatives. I attempted to find out more about two of these—Information for Health, a 1998 document, and Building the Information Core, a 2001 initiative—on the web.

1033
When I searched for them, I came up with the answer, "not scanned". I hope and trust that these initiatives, and the rest of the department's IT strategy, are more accessible to those directly involved.
I know that information technology is one of my noble friend's particular areas of responsibility. I am sure that he will have a suitable riposte to my remarks. But there is a target date of 2005 for the achievement of the department's internal objectives on IT and I hope that he will be able to use global warming to speed up the glacial pace mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh.
In the meantime, there is a pressing need to harness a sufficiently large population to carry out the population-based research described earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh. The MRC/Wellcome/NHS collection will help to fulfil this need. An important reason for setting up the collection is that each subject will have been given full details of the scheme and will be allowed to opt out if they so wish. Other existing large population databases, such as the General Practice Research Database (GPRD), would not have this opportunity, as well as there being other disadvantages.
Finally, I should like to touch on the ethics of secondary use for research of data originally assembled for another purpose or as part of a routine medical record. It is difficult to be brief in such a complex area, so I shall jump several stages of the argument and go straight to the report's recommendation for the setting up of a medical data panel,
"to provide a single clear process for approving projects".
In their response the Government say that Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 would fulfil this function better through the Patient Information Advisory Group which it sets up. It will have statutory status and will be able to advise on regulations. These are certainly important points.
However, information reaching me from the first meeting of the PIAG suggests that a form of bureaucracy may be creeping in in that a number of decisions were put off. But that is only one meeting and it is early days yet. However, I suggest that there may still be a role for our medical data panel to clarify, amalgamate and present the requests of researchers to the PIAG in a more convincing way.
I believe that I have spoken for too long already. I am sure that noble Lords are impatiently waiting to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord May. I hope that my noble friend and his department will continue to refer to the report and will listen to and act on the more erudite speeches which are to follow.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I do not know whether what I wish to say will form one of the erudite speeches, but I shall give my non-scientific view of the matter. I thank the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for doing a marvellous job. I was enormously impressed throughout the inquiry by his
1034
breadth of intellect and his enormous ability to bring some expert knowledge to every aspect of what to me was a very complicated issue indeed. I am most grateful to him for helping me to grasp something which I never believed I would understand. I am also very grateful to him for giving a much more scientific explanation of the report. I can only give noble Lords the non-scientific result of my sitting through what I considered to be a most fascinating period of several months when we took evidence from experts in the field and on all aspects of it.
I would like to concentrate on what appeared to me to be the highlights of the proceedings. As has already been said, our scientific adviser was Professor Paul Elliott. At the first meeting we received a presentation from him concerning the main issues that we were likely to come across in hearing the evidence. What impressed me about his presentation was the very important environmental issues and their impact on the genetic influences. The implication was the enormous amount of extra information that one needs in a database. It was not just genetic information, but the environmental implications that went with it. That point will arise later when I refer to the need to understand one's genetic make-up and the environment in which one lives.
The presentation also added significantly to the amount of information that has to be included in a database. Our attention was drawn very early on to the enormous computerised resources that would be needed to store all that information not only in a databank, but in a way in which it could easily be understood and used later on. I shall come to that point later. That was the first main issue, which for me was an important part of the inquiry.
As has already been stated, the background to a great deal of the evidence was the proposed United Kingdom population medical collection of 500,000 people, how that would work, how the information would be collected, saved and protected when collected, and how it could be used later on in a significant way. That drew me to one of the main and fascinating issues which emerged from the inquiry.
All the information is enormously important to the individual. It can be used by others against the interests of the individual. It is the individual's private information and we consider that such information is private. Yet for the population as a whole to gain any benefit from that information at some stage it has to be used. I was interested in Professor Bell's evidence to us. He emphasised that there was little purpose in having a data collection of 500,000 individuals unless one could draw on it in future.
To me it is not just a question of drawing on it in the light of what we already know, but also in the light of issues which are beyond our comprehension at the moment. We do not know what new ideas and possibilities will unfold as a result of the genetic information which is now being collected and understood more and more. How can we persuade an individual to give up the information and put it into a databank on the basis that it may well be used in a

1035
manner about which we have no idea at the moment, but in the hope and the knowledge that it will bring benefit to many people although not all?
We pondered this matter a great deal, as was mentioned by the two previous speakers. We came to a view about the setting up of the panel. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, has explained the Government's response. I believe that they accept the principle of having an independent group look at these matters, although they are already covered by existing structures. No doubt the Minister will refer to that.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, is in her place. We were most grateful to the noble Baroness and others for giving evidence on this matter which we found fascinating. But it was not completely consistent. Some believed that there was greater responsibility as regards the benefit to society as a whole, whereas others felt that the powers and rights of the individual probably came first. But it was not a fixed feast. In that regard fascinating evidence was received from a number of people that at no stage can one say that this particular point is the balance between the rights of the individual against those of the majority: it moves in relation to public opinion. How does one define and encapsulate it? We still have to ponder that question.
Although we have, and can still, draw attention to known specific benefits that can come from genetic research, we have not yet seen it all. I believe that until people understand more about what can be done and the benefits, which not everyone will recognise as benefits, we shall return to the issue time and time again. In my view there is no better place for these matters to he pondered than in the House of Lords where we can bring such a wide range of knowledge, experience and skills to try to find a consensus on how these matters change. It may be that the best panel to deal with these issues is the House of Lords itself under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh.
There is another point which I found quite fascinating. I shall read a part of the evidence which was received from Professor Sir George Radda. He said,
"but perhaps in the longer term what is important is that it—
the genetic database and genetic information—
"is going to lead us to a completely new understanding of the nature of disease and its progression. Not only will we have new drug targets, but we will also have a new approach to medicine, thinking about preventing heart disease much more than treatment, informing the public about in what way they can avoid the interaction between bad environment and their genetic makeup. That is not going to happen in the next five years … but in the next ten or fifteen years I think we are going to have a tremendous amount of new information on those sorts of environmental gene interactions"
I believe that returns to the point of how we can relate these issues of genetic knowledge, environmental knowledge and future health. It is a question of tying together a system that allows us to trace the future health of an individual whose genetic basis and make-up we know. Then, we can begin to bring out the enormous advantages referred to by Professor Radda.
1036
Bringing all these resources to bear will not be the job of government alone, although government must ensure the computer power and the skilled operators—who are in extremely short supply; it was drawn to our attention that every time a suitably able person is found to deal with the computerisation of these matters, he or she is whipped away to a job in the City or to some other higher-paid job. Government must be aware that, if we are to achieve these things, the provision of highly skilled people is be a vital factor. There will have to be a commercial element; and it is important that it should be allowed free knowledge and free expression. It is important that there should also be sufficient flexibility in the regulatory system which is bound to be involved in such issues to allow the commercial world to grow these opportunities for the benefit of all.
Perhaps I may conclude by quoting from the final part of a recent interview with Mr Bill Heseltine, founder and chief executive officer of Human Genome Sciences in the United States. He says:
"I can imagine a world in which we level the genetic playing field so almost everyone can live to between 120 and 125 years, and where most accidental damage can be repaired. But that should be shared by all people, not just a few. That is health Utopia".
That is the kind of ambition that many people have.
Twenty years ago, I learnt that I was a diabetic. I was told then that if I wanted to live very long I must not eat any more fatty food and must take plenty of exercise. I took not the slightest notice of that advice. Even if people were told when they were young that a certain lifestyle would make all the difference to them and they could live to be 125, I do not believe it would make the slightest difference to their behaviour. Although we shall have the knowledge, it does not necessarily follow that we shall all live longer.
But there will be advantages for many people. There is great potential for opening up new health opportunities in areas of the world where few such opportunities presently exist—the kinds of areas in which the noble Lord, Lord Patel, is involved. As a nation—together with the Government and the commercial world—we must embrace and support these advances in every possible way.
6.53 p.m.
Lord May of Oxford: My Lords, at the outset, I want to thank the many people who have helped to induct me into the workings of this House—especially the staff, who have been unfailingly thoughtful and willing. On a personal note, as your Lordships may have guessed, I am a joint Australian/British citizen, and a relative newcomer at that. I like to think of myself as part of the UK academic brain gain in 1988.
The Select Committee report on Human Genetic Databases: challenges and opportunities is a most thorough and altogether excellent account of the issues. I want to comment on a couple of its detailed recommendations.
I begin, however, by saying that as you read this report, and consider the range of biomedical advances it envisions, you might blanche at the possible cost

1037
implications for the National Health Service. There are many, however—and I am one of them—who think, to the contrary, that as medicine becomes more based on genetic and molecular understanding, it might at the same time become more oriented to prevention and less oriented to heroic intervention. This could, at least in some areas, reduce rather than increase costs—just as the advent of polio vaccines reduced the costs of iron lungs, along with reducing suffering.
Turning to the report's recommendations, I wholeheartedly underline the succinct summary in paragraph 11. It says that past achievements have resulted in the UK being in a unique position in the field of genetics. Nevertheless,
"To succeed, we must … ensure that we have a regulatory regime that is sympathetic to the work, but which offers individuals the privacy they have a right to expect".
In particular, I warmly commend the Population Biomedical Collection, as proposed jointly by the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and the Department of Health. This project aims to take advantage of the some of the unique aspects of the comprehensively embracing nature and history of the UK National Health Service. However, I agree with the statement in the report that, in order to do this successfully, three things must be done:
First, as my noble friend Lord Oxburgh said, the unpredictability of future secondary uses of the database—and such unpredictability is the only certainty—requires that a medical data panel be created along the lines proposed.
Secondly, the adoption and implementation of uniform protocols and standards for medical records is long overdue. I realise that this is easier said than done, but done it should and must be. In parenthesis, my noble friend Lord Oxburgh said that it is already being done somewhat better in Scotland. I hope that he will sympathise when I say that, as a Celt, with a father born in Carrickfergus and a mother whose maiden name was McCredie, I simply say: "Of course".
Thirdly, attaining the benefits foreseen in the report will require substantial investment, particularly in people with skills which are often more conventionally thought of as lying in the physical sciences rather than the biological sciences—information technology; statistics; computing science; mathematical aspects of the genetics of populations, as distinct from a focus on the detailed genetic constitution of individuals. This is indeed the century of biology, but physicists and engineers will continue to play a crucial role in creating the enabling instrumentation and analysis. We forget that at our peril.
The report says many other important things. However, I want briefly to widen the discussion from human genomes to those of other creatures. More and more, we are learning to reconstruct the evolutionary tree of life, from the evidence contained in the genetic make-up of other organisms. There are many surprises. We humans are less genetically distant from other animals, and even from plants, than was
1038
previously thought. For example, almost half the genes found in bananas are also found in us—a fact which I sometimes think is more evident in some of my acquaintances than in others!
There are potential practical implications here. For instance, of roughly 300 genes known to be associated with diseases in humans, almost 200 are also found in the genome of the fruit-fly. This raises the possibility of future alternatives in some particular kinds of biomedical research involving non-human animals. But much more important, I think, are the ethical implications for how we see ourselves as part of a larger web of life on earth.
In conclusion, the issues raised in this Select Committee report—hugely important though they are—are ultimately but a shadow of things to come. The century just ended saw more advances in our understanding of the external world than in all previous human history. We have used that understanding to make life better in both the developed and the developing world. However, we are only just beginning to realise, and grapple with, the unintended adverse consequences of our well-intended actions: climate change and diminishing biological diversity are two examples.
In the century just begun, however, our understanding begins to reach beyond the external world, down into the molecular machinery of life itself. The doors opened by this understanding will increasingly raise ethical and other questions, compared to which today's excellent report is a whispered preamble. We need to ask what kind of world we want to create with the possibilities that science offers, subject to the constraints that science clarifies, rather than just letting things happen. So today's report, wise though its recommendations are, is even more interesting and even more important for the questions of tomorrow which we here foreshadow.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, what a pleasure and a privilege it is to have heard such a marvellous maiden speech. The noble Lord, Lord May, is a very distinguished scientist, as was pretty obvious from the way that he spoke this evening. Of course, he is president of the Royal Society, in which position he has the role of representing the scientific view at large; and he did so this evening in an exemplary way. It was a fascinating speech to which, if I did not, unfortunately, have to intrude, in a way, in order to give my own speech, I could have continued to listen for a very long time. If noble Lords were worried that the introduction of people's Peers might somehow lower the tone of your Lordships' House, I believe that such fears have been allayed tonight. It is obvious that the noble Lord will contribute greatly to our deliberations.
I, too, should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, who chaired our committee so gently, so wisely and so carefully. Indeed, it was a great pleasure to work with him. I also commend our specialist adviser, Paul Elliott, and the secretariat that gave us such excellent support.

1039
I shall focus my remarks on the two parallel concerns that have been mentioned by other speakers. These formed the essence of our deliberations: the need to protect the rights and interests of individuals from whom genetic data may be obtained, and, at the same time, to be able to use those data for the good of society as a whole and for other individuals within it. It may be thought that this requires a choice to be made, or a balance to be struck, between two conflicting aims: between society and the individual. But, in this case, I believe that it is vital for us to keep both. It is quite possible to achieve both provided that we do not become side-tracked by extreme cases, and instead take the reasonable, rational approach that I believe our report took.
Perhaps I may elaborate a little on the latter. In general, patients are very happy to be given treatment for their ills. They may, or may not, realise that they are virtually all heavily dependent on research that has been carried out with the help of previous patients. Further, they have been largely unconcerned hitherto that information about their own case might be used for research that is aimed at helping future patients—providing that they themselves are not harmed, disadvantaged or embarrassed in any way. This give and take has worked remarkably well, even though it may have been largely achieved below the level of consciousness of many.
I believe that individuals do have a moral responsibility to society to allow information about themselves to contribute to the pool of knowledge that can lead to improvements in the care of others, provided that they are not harmed or embarrassed in any way. I do not use the words "moral responsibility" lightly; such matters have be considered along with the rights of the individual.
It is worth considering what are the potentially undesirable outcomes of access to this information about patients. These largely involve access to information by those who might use it against the best interests of the patient—insurance companies are often quoted in that respect, as are employers, and a wider public where codes of confidentiality do not exist.
I have looked long and hard for evidence of patients being inconvenienced in any of these ways by this give and take in which patients accept both the treatment in the NHS and a tacit responsibility to contribute to the health of others. As far as concerns the use of data, I have not really found any such evidence in practice. However, when we come to genetic information new fears are raised because genetic data have the additional capacity to predict the future; that is, future susceptibility to the risk of getting a disease which is not yet apparent in an individual, and, perhaps equally importantly, has some predictive capacity for susceptibility in close relatives—that is, people not directly tested.
But even here, as has been suggested by others, we should not ascribe to genetic tests an accuracy that they do not have, and probably never will have. In fact, with the small number of exceptions of rare genetic
1040
diseases, prediction by DNA analysis for the vast majority of illnesses is not much better than simply asking patients about what illnesses have occurred in their close relatives. Both family history and DNA tests can give an idea of the risk of developing a disease but, with the rare exceptions such as Huntington's disease, are not nearly as clear cut as some would have us believe.
It was at least in part for that type of reasoning that the committee recommended that there is no real need to seek additional legal provisions over and above those provided by the Data Protection Act and the common law. In most instances, we can rely on these and two safeguards that are extremely valuable; namely, the principles of anonymity and of consent. Where anonymity can be guaranteed, you c staid argue that consent is unnecessary. That is certainly the case as regards the Data Protection Act. But this does not take account of the possibility that an individual may wish to object to certain lines of research being pursued with data—even anonymous data—derived from him. So consent is clearly desirable.
If anonymity and consent was all that there was to it, there would be few problems. But, unfortunately, neither anonymity nor consent—or "fully informed consent", as some would have it—is always possible. On the one hand, many types of research using genetic data cannot be carried out unless one knows from which patients the data have been derived. Does a particular DNA pattern lead to a risk of developing a certain disease? That can be determined only if you follow named patients over time. So anonymity is problematic.
On the other hand, consent is not always possible either. As we have heard, in many instances the type of research that will be done at some time in the future is not known when the data are collected. That is the case for the large cohort study being set up by the MRC, Wellcome and the NHS. It will probably provide for the possibility of much future research, the nature of which we cannot possibly predict. How can individuals give informed consent to research that cannot be predicted? Furthermore, by the time that such research is performed, many of the individuals will be untraceable or dead, so it will be impossible to go back to them to obtain new consent.
That is why an alternative route had to be found. The committee proposed the establishment of an independent guardian of such data—the medical data panel—which would examine research proposals to ensure that the data that it was protecting were used only for legitimate research and that the patient's interests were taken into account. The idea was based on a Danish model which has been shown to work very well, at least in that country.
Unfortunately, in their response the Government did not accept the proposal and pointed instead to two other types of committee, which they thought would be adequate for the purpose—the research ethics committees and the Patient Information Advisory Group, set up under the Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001. I believe that in this rare instance

1041
the Government are wrong. First, research ethics committees are heavily overburdened with a large number of different types of research proposals. The committees are largely made up of volunteers from a variety of backgrounds. While they do a marvellous job, they cannot be expected to have all the necessary expertise to take on that additional role. There is already evidence that the conclusions that ethics committees are reaching about such research proposals differ markedly around the country. Local and multi-centre research ethics committees need help. That could be provided by a medical data panel that had a specific remit, the necessary knowledge and the expertise to command the confidence of the public while facilitating the pursuit of important research.
Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act has appeared since our report. I am afraid that the incredibly bureaucratic system involved seems intent only on delaying or preventing research rather than facilitating it. Its working so far gives little confidence that it will be capable of changing the image that it already unfortunately conveys of being the enemy of research. I believe that there is even more need now for an independent medical data panel that works on common-sense principles and can advise on important matters openly and transparently. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will at least agree to leave open the possibility of looking again at the proposal. I cannot believe that it would not have wide support.
Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for leading us so wisely and gently through the morass.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I, too, take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord May of Oxford on his brilliant maiden speech. I look forward to hearing him on many other occasions. I also take this opportunity to thank our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for providing such excellent chairmanship.
This is one of the key reports that will help shape the development of healthcare in this country. I welcome the fact that the Government's response was positive on the whole. Human genetic databases have the potential to identify genes involved in the development of progressive diseases. Such information should increase understanding of the biological mechanisms of disease and indicate ways in which a disease might be prevented or treated.
The Medical Research Council has already provided grant support for a number of genetic databases focused on specific diseases, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, asthma and Alzheimer's disease. Those databases are being developed in partnership with charities and patient groups. Plans are well advanced for the creation of a large prospective cohort—BioBank UK—that will collect medical and lifestyle information on about 500,000 people aged between 45 and 69, as well as DNA samples. Data collected through BioBank UK will act as a national resource for studies of the
1042
interaction between genetic, environmental and lifestyle factors in the development of the common multi-factorial diseases of adult life. The importance of the public ownership of that national resource is underlined by the experience with the private sector genetic database initiative in Iceland. That cannot be over-emphasised.
It is clear that, while the setting up of a national genetic database is at an early stage of developing protocols for the collection of samples and data, the cost involved in that process and subsequently in the ability to identify individuals in the databank throughout their lives and link genetic information with health information for individuals or groups of individuals will require a long-term commitment of resources. As it cannot be possible at this stage to identify all the costs and as the eventual cost will also depend on other initiatives, such as our ability to collect patient health data electronically, can the Minister comment on the Government's commitment to supporting the cost of BioBank UK and to future costs? Is he able to comment on the current status of the initiative on the electronic collection of reliable patient information?
The report's recommendation for a national identification number given at birth or at registration as a citizen is important. There is some doubt that that is currently widely used, that general practitioners are informed of the hospital number or that it is used widely in communications. It has been suggested that the system seems to work better in Scotland. As someone who works in Scotland, I can tell your Lordships that it does, but not as well as you might think.
It is important that there is public ownership of the national resource of a population-based genetic databank. Experience in other countries, not only in Iceland, has shown that commercial ownership is unacceptable to the public and has run into other difficulties.
Having said that, if the potential benefits of such a databank are to be realised fully, particularly in the development of treatments for diseases, it has to be possible for industry, particularly bio-industry, to have appropriate controlled access to the data, including for genetic research and especially for pre-competitive research. Clearly, access to such data must be made known to the public, particularly to the individuals who are participating in the databank. Commercial organisations should not have ownership of the database itself.
The issue of consent has already been alluded to. The initial process of giving consent to opt in to the databank, following relevant and appropriate information, is absolutely right. However, the subsequent consent to further research requires clarification. The recommendations in the report are right. They protect the rights of individuals, while also allowing the use of the information for secondary research purposes.
That leads me to the issue of the medical data panel. As has been said, that recommendation has been superseded by the establishment of the Patient

1043
Information Advisory Group under the Health and Social Care Act 2001. We should wait and see how the group works in practice. There is no reason why it should not do all that the medical data panel would have done. If it does not work, the case for replacing it will be even stronger.
None the less, there may be a need for an independent oversight body for a genetic data bank—to establish policy on access to samples and databases, to protect participants and the public interest, and to ensure confidentiality and data security. Perhaps that role should be performed, without legislation, by the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust. Other genetic databases also should come under the remit of that body.
The report also points out the need for training in computing science, bio-information and genetic science. Although I am pleased to note that the Medical Research Council has increased the number of awards for training PhDs and post-doctoral scientists, more is needed. I also believe that universities have a role to play in establishing training not only for scientists, but for genetic counsellors. If we are to meet the population's future needs in genetic information and decision making, we shall need more genetic counsellors. Establishment of genetic databases and the knowledge that will follow from other research in genomics will lead to a need for the appropriate provision of genetic services.
I also believe—although it is not directly relevant to this report—that the issue of genetic services needs to be addressed now. I wonder whether the Minister will tell us what plans the Government have on genetic services.
Based on the available evidence, I believe that there is a further need for the General Medical Council to clarify its guidance to doctors on prior consent before passing patient information to disease registries or for audit purposes. The current guidance seems to produce constraints. At another meeting, evidence was presented showing that that is causing problems.
Much public anxiety about genetic information centres on its use and control. This report, and the Government's response to it, should go a long way to reassuring the public on the issue.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, it was daunting enough for a layman to take part in this inquiry, but to follow the President of the Royal Society and two extremely distinguished medical men only makes the problem more difficult, especially as I feel that it is sometimes dangerous for laymen to intrude.
Perhaps, however, I have a couple of justifications. Some noble Lords may remember that, at the end of 1998, having already debated the NHS's 50-year record, we debated a Motion moved by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege on looking ahead to the next 50 years. Looking back on that debate, I was rather pleased to find that my own contribution to it concentrated entirely on the advantages that were to flow from the genome revolution. Nothing that we
1044
heard in Committee cast any doubt on the somewhat starry vision that I sought to express in 1998. We have heard today that we are still only at the threshold of realising not only what can be done because of the science, but the consequent ethical considerations—which were described in an outstanding maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford. We can now see the possibilities of harnessing the new science for better prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness.
At this stage in the debate, I should like to concentrate on one particular aspect of the report and the Government's response to it. The report acknowledges, right at the beginning, at paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5, that the inquiry started when the Select Committee visited the laboratories of SmithKline Beecham, in Harlow. In a presentation there, its then research director, Dr George Poste, a most distinguished member of the pharmaceutical industry, pointed to the key role of human genetic databases. He went on to say that, in Britain, the NHS should constitute a uniquely valuable source of information.
At the time, I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, the then Select Committee chairman, that the Select Committee should examine that possibility. Happily, we did. The investigation turned out to be both challenging and fascinating. I fully endorse the remarks that have been made by other noble Lords about our chairman, our specialist adviser and those who helped us to draft the report.
I return to George Poste's point: the NHS should have the capacity to be an enormously valuable source of data for the purposes that we are discussing now. The Select Committee made various recommendations to that effect. However, it was not only Dr Poste who made that point; we heard a good deal of evidence from various sources that harnessing that NHS data, in the form of computerised genetic information, was an essential precursor to maximising the benefits to patients and to public health. I shall give only two examples, both of which are drawn from a fascinating seminar that was arranged for us at Imperial College, where we heard from some of those who are engaged in compiling, using and analysing databases.
First, Professor Ian Purves, professor of health informatics at the University of Newcastle, said:
"large-scale projects to interpret the impact of genetics on disease would need good quality primary health care information about a large number of patients: computerised records were the obvious way of producing such data".
Secondly, we had what I might describe as an electric presentation by Professor Carole Goble, of the department of computer science at the University of Manchester. She described
"the challenges created by attempting to link (or fuse) the extremely large databases that were increasingly common in genetics research".
Professor Goble went on to describe the differences between the various sources of information within the NHS. As much of the information had been compiled for a very wide variety of purposes, and because of the use of different terminologies, there was bound to be what she called this inherent "semantic heterogeneity"

1045
which limits the ability of computers to do the huge amount of analysis that our report consistently recognises will have to be done. Additionally, as Professor Goble said, "intelligent input" will continue to be needed, with the clear implication that, without common standards, full value cannot be gathered from the databases.
Those concerns, which were echoed by many of our witnesses, led us to make some key recommendations, although I shall draw attention to only three of them. In paragraph 5.28, we said:
"GP databases need to be made compatible with one another and held in a way that allows the computer retrieval of the wealth of clinical information they contain … Achieving this will require an NHS-wide standard protocol for data capture and retrieval, and that will need to be in place much sooner."
The noble Lord, Lord May, said that universal protocols were long overdue. One does not doubt that the Government have a great task before them.
Paragraph 6.23 of our report states:
"We recommend that the Government should review the strategy for instituting electronic patient records throughout the NHS, to include clinical information contained in GP, hospital and other health records. Delivering a fully functioning national system … will require firmness of purpose to drive forward the development of robust and standardised systems".
The third recommendation to which I draw attention relates to the use of the NHS patient number. We stated,
"we recommend that the Government should urgently make use of the NHS number mandatory as a common identifier".
One has to ask: how did the Government's response measure up to those three demanding but entirely necessary requirements? They are very clear, and essential if we are to realise the aim of using NHS data as recommended by Dr Poste.
I have to say that I do not find the Government's responses to those three recommendations in the least convincing. In their response to the first recommendation, which was about compatible GP databases, we were treated to a description of a quite different problem—the question of the use of the NHSnet. Well, we have a parliamentary net, and most of us are now familiar with its use. With the greatest of respect to Ministers, that has nothing to do with standardised patient information.
The Government's response went on to describe various other measures that were being taken to strengthen GPs' ability to use computers, with the emphasis, quite reasonably, being on measures that will improve the delivery of care. However, measures that are devised to improve the delivery of care and all that goes with that are not by themselves going to begin to meet the requirements involving the use of standardised records to realise the benefits of the genomic revolution.
We called for an,
"NHS-wide standard protocol for data capture and retrieval".
Is the Minister really going to argue that the Government's response to the first recommendation, about records, will achieve the NHS-wide standard protocol for which we asked? If so, how? And if not, why not?
1046
I turn to the second of our three recommendations, which called for a,
"strategy for instituting electronic patient records throughout the NHS",
and for "standardised systems". And the Government's response? That refers to the development of,
"electronic patient records to support many aspects of its"—
that is, the NHS Plan's—"vision". It also referred to "Lifelong electronic health records", "Round-the-clock … access", "seamless care", "public access", and,
"effective use of NHS resources".
Those are all no doubt highly relevant to the proper functioning of the NHS but they bear very little relation to the requirement for the standardised data for which we called. It is even more disturbing that the department that drew up the response to this recommendation has not recognised that what it has described has fallen so far short of what the Select Committee asked for.
I turn to the third recommendation, which was about making use of the NHS number mandatory as a common identifier. It is interesting to hear that it does not work in Scotland quite as well as we had been told. The Government say in their response that the NHS number is,
"a requirement of NHS Information Technology Standards".
Yes, some efforts have been made to increase its use. And yes, there is now a system—the NSTS system—for tracing NHS numbers. Again, however, that bears absolutely no relation to the recommendation. The response is totally silent on our recommendation that the number should be made mandatory throughout the NHS. The Government do not even tell us why it should not be made mandatory; that is simply left in the air. I find that an inadequate response to a very straightforward and essential recommendation.
My final point has not been raised by other noble Lords. I was fascinated to read in The Times this morning an account of the interview with the Secretary of State for Health. We seem to be heading for a very different kind of health service. A sub-headline in the article quoted the Secretary of State as saying:
"We must redefine the NHS from a centrally run monopoly. It is time to let go".
He is also quoted as saying:
"The job of government should not be to run the system but to oversee it. We want greater community ownership and less state ownership, leading to greater diversity and plurality in local services".
Many of us say, "Hear, hear", to that. Some of my honourable friends in another place have been making powerful speeches along exactly those lines. Now we have it from the Secretary of State himself. He went on to say that one cannot run the NHS from the Secretary of State's office in Richmond House. I was conscious that I could not do so from the Elephant and Castle. One simply cannot do so. Yet the structure seems to suggest that one can.
The point that I wish to make is that there is nothing in that more diverse NHS that Mr Milburn now seems to be offering the country—we shall certainly need to

1047
see the details—that would preclude the NHS from adopting the IT standards that we have been discussing and for which the Select Committee called. He may not have had IT standards in mind, but Mr Milburn said:
"All this will be held together by a common set of values about care being largely free at the point of delivery and a common set of standards".
It is perfectly possible to reconcile the more diverse NHS that Mr Milburn is advocating and the unified—standardised—information service for which the Select Committee called. The Government's response to the Select Committee's three recommendations falls far short of what will be required to enable the doctors, scientists, informatics technologists and all the others to begin to realise the potential that the new branch of science can offer to people. Nothing need inhibit the common standards for which we have called.
I return to George Poste. It was his vision that the NHS is such a source of information that sparked us off. I find it very disappointing that the first reaction to our report, in which we called for that, falls far short of what is required. I do not detect the clear purpose or robust resolution for which we called, and I find that disappointing.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I found the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, agreeable and stimulating. He is to be congratulated on having extracted from us an excellent report on such an important subject and on having introduced it so clearly to the House this evening.
It was good to hear the remarkable maiden speech of my noble friend Lord May of Oxford. He speaks with the awesome authority of the Royal Society and has much to contribute to your Lordships' House.
It was pointed out in 1999 by a working group of the National Institutes of Health in the United States that during the latter half of the 20th century two scientific fields stood out for their speed of progress and their evident implications for society. One was biomedical science; the other was computation.
Our report dealt with the developing convergence—to use a popular word—of biomedical research and computing science in the construction of genetic databases. That convergence looks set to dominate much of biomedicine for decades to come and to require continuing developments in the techniques of computing science.
Most of our report, of course, was concerned with the biomedical content of genetic databases and with their regulation to address public concern about their use. From that point of view, our most important recommendation, made in paragraph 7.56 and explained by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, was that databases as such did not require separate regulation. In so far as the privacy of personal data is concerned, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, said, the Data Protection Act 1998, together with the common law, is a sufficient basis on which to provide adequate regulation.
1048
Since that was written, however, I have become more acutely aware than I was that the need in genetic research repeatedly to copy, combine and edit data from one database to another may make it difficult, if not impossible, to ascribe ownership to the data. It seems to me that that point will need to be looked at closely in the interpretation of the Act.
However, those issues are being addressed today by several noble Lords who are well qualified to deal with them, and I am not. Instead, I want to say a few words about one particular recommendation that occurs in paragraph 5.27 of our report. I shall paraphrase it because it is rather long. It states:
"We recommend that the Government [and other relevant bodies] should give high priority to funding training and supporting research in the areas of bioinformatics, statistical genetics and the computing science underlying database management".
In other words, we recommend that those bodies—the Government included—should give close attention to the convergence of which I have just spoken between biomedical research and computing science.
Of course, when any new interdisciplinary subject emerges, one starts by assembling teams of researchers containing representatives of the relevant disciplines. Thus, in genetic database research the teams contain computing scientists as well as biomedical experts. But that is not enough. As the NIH working group, to which I have already referred, said:
"What is needed is a higher level of competence in mathematics and computer science among biologists themselves".
It goes on to make as its first recommendation the creation of a number of centres of excellence in "biomedical computing", which, as well as getting on with the job, would play a major role in educating practitioners of the new discipline.
A scientist who wishes to seek out a gene that may be responsible for the onset of some disease—for example, breast cancer—will wish to assemble a database that he or she hopes will show the pattern being sought. The data that is involved may come from a new experiment or, much more likely, as I have already mentioned, from reinterpreting data already entered into other databases assembled for other purposes. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said, Professor Carole Goble of the University of Manchester, of which, I should declare, I was Chancellor at the time, described to us the difficulties of linking together extremely large databases of quite different natures—annotated DNA sequences and clinical trial data, to mention but two.
The DNA from one human being amounts to the equivalent of about 3 billion characters of text, which can easily be stored on a small computer such as the one that I have on my desk at home. The same applies to many other noble Lords. However, building databases that account for genetic variation, in which we must store the DNA sequences from a possibly very large number of individuals together with much other information, poses serious problems for data management, organisation and storage—many orders of magnitude more than I have available at home.

1049
Searching the combined data for significant variations presents new challenges for the designers of computer software.
Obviously great computer power must be, and is, available in the major centres of genetic research. But in order to harness that computer power, a number of powerful algorithms must also be available. These are the building blocks of the software that instructs the computer how best to go about its allotted task. In the case of genetic databases, the algorithms are pieces of computer software specialised so as to encapsulate the biomedical hypotheses being tested. They constitute the bridge between data and understanding.
Clearly such algorithms, which are the core of computer software, allowing the efficient assembly of a new database, possibly from disparate parts, and the scanning of such a database for desired patterns, should be devised by someone steeped in biology as well as in mathematics and computing science.
To be a little more explicit, the development of algorithms and the design of databases are core problems requiring much research in mathematics and statistics and, of course, in computing science itself. But the tools provided by computing scientists will be useful only if we have people available who understand both fields. That is why we need training as well as research in the new field.
I could give other examples of convergence, but I shall end, if I may, with a question to the Minister. I know from the government response that funds are supposed to be available for bioinformatics. But is he satisfied that adequate policies have been made for the training of specialists in biomedical computing equivalent to those being made by the National Institutes of Health in Washington? I am bound to say that the evidence that we received from bodies such as the research councils did not convince me that his answer should be "yes".
7.49 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I start by adding my garland to the many laurels already received by the noble Lord, Lord May, on his very fine maiden speech. He is a great advocate for science and, indeed, a great advertisement for the benefits of immigration. It is good to see him here in this House.
The noble Lord reminded me that recently I was at an international forum where I heard the Foreign Minister of Israel, Shimon Peres, speak. He said that it is not philosophers who change the world; it is scientists. But then scientists have to persuade the philosophers that they have got it wrong. Having heard the noble Lord, Lord May, speak on a number of occasions, I can tell your Lordships that there is no end to his powers of persuasion. I know that this House will be greatly enriched by his presence in our many philosophical discussions of genetic issues.
I have just returned from India, where the Prime Minister launched for the British Council a festival of science. That was a glorious event, which brought together many eminent scientists from Britain and
1050
India. We had there our own Nobel Laureate, Sir Paul Nurse; Sir Walter Bodmer; Professor David King, The Chief Scientific Advisor; and Professor Richard Sykes from Imperial College. There was a whole range of truly wonderful scientists from Britain. The event was greeted with huge enthusiasm. I think that we would all agree that that confirms the esteemed place of British science in the world. There was also great interest in the Human Genetics Commission, which I chair. While greeting the benefits and advances that are coming with genetic science, the world also shares many of the concerns that the public have about some of the challenges that go hand in hand with that.
There is an avid desire to know how Britain will meet those challenges. The way that I always respond is to say that all sources of wisdom are to be welcomed and embraced. Indeed, that was the response of my commission when the Science and Technology Committee said that it would look into genetic databases and asked what we felt about that. We greatly encouraged the committee to have such an investigation. Indeed, it has proved to be as helpful as we imagined. The Human Genetics Commission thoroughly welcomes the report. In particular, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and his colleagues for their complete treatment of this complex matter.
This may be a complex matter, but it is one which affects people in an immediate sense. In the commission we undertook a large-scale public survey of attitudes towards personal genetic information. We found—this was not a result which surprised us—that people are concerned about how information on their DNA will be stored and used. For that reason it is vital that any regime of controls around that sort of database should be strong, clearly understandable and capable of securing public trust. There are several reasons why that is so. Some are reasons of principle. Human rights considerations require respect for the privacy of the individual. At the core of this is the right to keep personal medical information, including genetic information, private. That is nothing new, It goes right back to Hippocrates and has long been recognised as a cornerstone of ethical medical practice. We must not allow that principle to be weakened.
Apart from such reasons for taking the security and confidentiality of genetic data seriously, there are practical and pragmatic considerations to be borne in mind. Genetic knowledge has made immense strides. We all know that we are on the verge of great medical breakthroughs. Continued research is vital. That will require the co-operation and trust of large numbers of people. The setting up of genetic databases is an important part of that research, as other noble Lords have explained. How we regulate those databases will have an effect on their success. The stakes are high.
How are we to achieve that public trust? If we are called upon to identify the absolutely central principles which must govern genetic databases, I believe they would be, first, as others have said, that the principle of consent must be centre stage. That requires open explanation and voluntary agreement. Your Lordships have heard from the noble Lord, Lord

1051
Patel, about the proposed population database known as BioBank UK. The commission is discussing with those responsible for that database how the overall research protocol will embody respect for the principle of informed consent.
Secondly, there must be what we call the principle of minimalism. Here, others may differ from the general consensus of the commission. Personal data must be used only for those purposes which have been agreed to by the person who provided it. That means that in general, databases set up for one purpose should not be used for quite different purposes. Again, there is a lot at stake here. If the public were to think that genetic data stored in medical research databases might be accessed for police purposes or for establishing paternity, we can be pretty sure that a lot of people would be unwilling to participate. We must work out ways of ensuring that the integrity of research databases is fully respected and that people's trust in them is not betrayed. The recommendation of a panel to oversee databases is one that we support.
Those are the general points. I shall now say a few words about particulars. First, your Lordships debated the issue of forensic DNA databases during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. In the course of that debate I raised certain doubts about changes to the conditions governing the taking of DNA samples from those suspected of having committed a criminal offence. As noble Lords are aware, I am a criminal lawyer. I expressed concern at the fact that the samples of those who are subsequently acquitted, or who are not even charged—for example, those who volunteer samples for elimination purposes such as the husbands of the victims of rape or persons in a village who volunteer their samples when a child has been killed—may none the less have their samples retained on a national DNA database. Those protestations did not have the desired effect, or at least not the effect that I desired. I do not want to rake over them. However, in allowing those data to be retained in respect of innocent persons, we are out of step with every other comparable jurisdiction which uses such databases. I am not happy about that.
But the law has now changed. We need to ensure that the independent body which the committee recommended should be established to oversee that the national DNA database is set up. I note with satisfaction that the Government have said that they will give consideration to the need for independent oversight. There is an important point here, which I want to emphasise. Two things are stored. The first is identifying information which consists of a series of numbers forming the basis of the so-called DNA fingerprint. The second is the sample of cells from which that information is obtained. Both of those are retained; one in a computer and one in a fridge.
It is important that there is independent oversight of both of those. That means that not only will there be supervision of matters such as access to the DNA fingerprints in the computer and over who has that access, but also there will be control of anything that is done to the samples; that is, the cells which are stored in individual containers. Representations have been
1052
made to us at the commission that there is no real justification for keeping the samples. The answer given by those who keep them is that there could be, for example, a breakdown in the computer. But the question of whether they need to be retained is one which should not be forgotten.
There may be some who take the view that the state does not have the right to retain the tissue of individuals who are innocent in the eyes of the law. We should be careful to remember all the anguish and embarrassment experienced over the retention of organs and tissues within the National Health Service. People feel strongly about their tissue, and are entitled to those feelings. We should be conscious of the ways in which we can undermine the trust that needs to exist between citizens and the state.
The other particular aspect of the report about which I should like to speak is the question of how we ensure that the law adequately protects the security of genetic data. The committee has placed its trust in that regard in the Data Protection Act, which sets out the conditions under which data is stored in this country. In general, the data protection legislation provides valuable protection against wrongful disclosure of personal information. However, there are respects in which the protection may be considered to be on the weak side. In particular, the wrongful disclosure of such data is not an offence. We have had submissions to the commission that that should be reviewed. Indeed, the commission is currently looking closely at the issue of whether there should be created a criminal offence of wrongful disclosure or misuse of genetic information. After our considerations we shall make recommendations to the Government within the next few months.
Finally, the report has been most timely. Not only has it helped us on the commission to address these issues, but it has been very closely looked at by others engaged in work involving genetic databases. Its influence will be far-reaching. I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and his colleagues on the committee for this very important work.
When the Prime Minister was in India at the launch of the science festival, he spoke about the extraordinary strides that are being made. He quoted Gandhi and said that there should not be politics without principle. He also said that there should not be science without values. I think that we all would agree with that.
8 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, may I first compliment the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and all the members of Sub-Committee II on the quality and clear-sightedness of their report on human genetic databases. Although I am a member of the Select Committee, I was not a member of the sub-committee that conducted this interesting and worthwhile inquiry. But I have read it and the Government's response with a great deal of interest.
It strikes me that many of the report's recommendations are of value, not only in addressing the issues that arise specifically in relation to genetic

1053
databases but also much other research into human disease, as well as cost efficiency in the NHS, tracking down wrongdoing and many other issues. This multiplies the value of the report several-fold.
Perhaps I may also compliment the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford, on his fascinating maiden speech. I am sure that the Minister fervently hopes that his crystal ball gazing about possible savings to the NHS from this work can be achieved. He opened our eyes to future possibilities in a way that was both inspiring and terrifying in terms of the Pandora's box of ethical dilemmas which we are soon to face, far beyond those so ably addressed in the report.
I personally have already benefited from the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord May, in my capacity as chairman of Sub-Committee I and our current inquiry into systematic biology and biodiversity. Therefore, it gives me particular pleasure to welcome him to this House. I know that we shall have many future opportunities to be grateful for his knowledge and expertise.
I turn now to some of the issues raised by the report. I comment first on the recommendations about electronic NHS patient records in paragraph 6.23. That is a matter about which the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, was somewhat critical of the Government in his speech. I believe that investment in this area will have untold benefits in the future. Not only will a fully functioning national system by 2005 enable a wide range of research to be carried out more quickly and efficiently, but I can envisage a situation where appalling cases, such as that of the mass murderer Dr Harold Shipman, could be prevented from happening in the future. If we had had a centralised easily accessible electronic database system with built-in alerts, morbidity trends such as Dr Shipman's caseload contained, which were missed over many years, could have been picked up and a number of tragic deaths avoided.
The hardware, software, systems development, training and oversight of such a national system present an enormous undertaking, but the benefits overwhelmingly justify that. Is the Minister able to update the House about progress in the matter? Perhaps he can address the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and others about it being overly bureaucratic. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, in regretting the Government's rejection of the recommendation of the need for a unified system.
Much of the Select Committee's deliberations concerned the matter of patient privacy, ethics and consent. There have been a number of high profile cases about which the tabloid press have gone to town in a way which I do not regard as being universally helpful, although, to be fair, they raised some very important issues. Sadly, however, their tendency sometimes to go over the top can get in the way of real progress by frightening people unnecessarily. However, I particularly welcome the provisions in the
1054
Health and Social Care Act 2001 which set up a Patient Information Advisory Group. Can the Minister update us about how it is getting on in its early days?
The suggested procedure for informing patients laid down by the committee in its report has been welcomed by the Government. It is however very important that the operation of this procedure is carried out by staff who have had adequate training and with the utmost sensitivity, since some of the issues involved are highly emotive.
The establishment of the UK Population Biomedical Collection is one of the most exciting research initiatives under way in this country. The committee had something to say about the consultation which needs to take place, particularly about the remit of the oversight committee. It is vital that the oversight of this project is done in a way that does not get in the way of the science but which at the same time protects the rights of the volunteers who take part with regard to secondary usage. It is a balancing act that needs, as do so many issues covered by the report, the wisdom of Solomon. I wish it a fair wind.
I turn to the recommendation about an independent body having oversight of the workings of the National DNA Database. In the Government's response they claim that safeguards are already in place. However, we now have an anomalous situation as regards the retention of DNA samples taken from innocent people in the course of an investigation. Those who volunteer to give samples in order that they can be eliminated from an inquiry can insist that these be destroyed when they have served their purpose. However, those from whom samples are taken because they are under some suspicion cannot so elect, even though they are subsequently proved to have had nothing to do with the offence. That strikes me as totally wrong and an affront to human rights.
In the debate on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury put the case against this strongly. The noble Baroness has done so again today. In an audit of the National DNA Database, over 50,000 samples were found to have been retained illegally by the police from suspects who had subsequently been cleared and whose samples should have been destroyed. Instead of putting this illegality right, the Government moved the goalposts and legalised the police behaviour—a matter of great regret to my noble friends and I. This is the kind of abuse which an independent body, as recommended by the Select Committee, overseeing the National DNA Database should be in a position to prevent in future.
In their response the Government say that they recognise the importance of having a system in which people have confidence. However, the Government do not accept the need for such an independent body. From these Benches we do not feel that the justification they give in their response holds water. Can the Minister offer any more convincing justification in his response to the debate today?

1055
I now turn to the patenting of genes. Here I believe that the committee's report strikes exactly the right balance. The principle should be to enable adequate reward to come to those who invest time, money and brainpower in gene research but to avoid a straitjacket that would hinder future research. Patent rights should be granted only when a significant gene function has been established. That does not need to preclude further research based on that gene. I hope that the Government will continue to work within Europe to ensure that the existing balance remains in the interests of future research.
Current safeguards should prevent patents being used in an anti-competitive manner. This is a rapidly developing area. I urge the Government to keep a close eye on it. The stakes are high and the regulators need to be one step ahead, not one step behind, those who would seek to stifle competition and the advancement of science for personal gain. The Select Committee urges the Government to do that in paragraph 8.31. It is one of the most important recommendations of this fine report.
8.9 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, much of what I had planned to say has already been said, so I shall not repeat it. In particular, our splendid chairman the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, has expressed so succinctly the essence of our report. I should like to pay tribute to his excellent chairmanship, expertise and humour.
We are also grateful to the advisers and especially to our clerk, Roger Morgan, whose industry and courtesy, good humour and frankness were of great help to us.
I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford, on his outstanding maiden speech.
As our chairman has said, genetic databases will unlock the health benefits of the human genome project and reveal how much of our health is determined by the genes we inherit and how much by the way we live—and, even more important, what can be done about it.
Incidentally, as more and more is discovered in the genetic field, perhaps that will make people more sympathetic to those with congenitally determined diseases, many of which are rare but others are quite common. For instance, who would have thought that patients with pityriasis capitis, which as noble Lords will recognise, is Latin and Greek for dandruff, would be congenitally predisposed to this fungal infection, which can be kept under control by using the appropriate anti-fungal agent.
Some adverse reactions to certain drugs may be genetically determined, and it will prove of great benefit to patients if that is known beforehand. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned smoking. There is now solid research evidence that half of chronic smokers take on average 20 years off their life. I hope that funds will not be spent to find out how to identify the other half who do not take 20 years off their life. Surely, nothing should be done to encourage smoking.
1056
Much has been written about the problems raised by the complex subject of human databases, and we had the benefit of advice from many different sources. Paul Martin provided a good analysis of how technological and scientific change in the field of genetics demands new governance arrangements. He stated that he doubted,
"whether the existing governance system of medical research in the UK is adequate to respond to recent changes. In particular the system is marked by the absence of a clear policy framework, it is underdeveloped with respect to genetics and suffers from lack of agency; as a consequence there is a strong case for both the reform of these arrangements and the creation of new institutions specifically designed for the task of governing genetic research and the emerging market in genetic data. Without such measures there is a danger that declining public confidence in the conduct of medical research and growing fears about the misuse of genetic data will have a damaging impact on the development of new health technologies".
Several speakers have already stressed that general practitioners are the key players in the management and delivery of health. Their data input is vital in obtaining an overall picture of health needs and provision. As we pointed out at paragraph 5.14 our report, and as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, emphasised, substantial parts of the information in GP records is wrong or incomplete. In some cases, there were errors in 25 per cent of the postcodes alone. Sir John Pattison said that a system of holding each person's data in electronic health records in the National Health Service would not be fully implemented nationally until the year 2005 at the earliest.
Perhaps I may wholeheartedly support the chairman and all those who have made a plea for the right scale of funding in the field. Of course that will be essential but what is even more important is that those who will be working in it have the appropriate expertise. Computer experts have already been mentioned. I wonder whether the government would especially ensure that the computer experts are actually at the cutting edge of the subject. It must be most difficult for civil servants working in a government department for any length of time to continue to have the kind of computer expertise which is essential.
It is disappointing that the Government have not accepted our recommendation that a new medical data panel be set up. As the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, stressed, that would have gone a long way to deal with public concern about confidentiality in health records, genetic makeup and the enormous amount of genetic data that will inevitably accumulate. There is genuine concern that the increasing amount of data will bring to light new and unforeseen situations, the solution to which would have been greatly helped had the government accepted and agreed to our recommendation.
In their reply, the Government argue that confidentiality of patient information is already adequately protected under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001. They suggest that such a medical data panel would have a much wider remit than just the use of genetic data bases. They point out

1057
that Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 provides powers to require patient-identifiable data to be used for specific medical purposes, and that that is restricted to where there is a benefit to patient care or public health.
As the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, mentioned, one of the problems with research is that it is difficult to be absolutely sure that a piece of research will be of benefit to patient care. As the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford, emphasised, the results of much research are unpredictable. To put it another way, research and prophecy are two separate subjects.
In their response, the Government mentioned that they have asked Sir Gareth Roberts to undertake a review of the supply of skilled scientists and engineers in the UK, and that the report be available next spring. Knowing how long these committees and working parties can take, will the Government consider asking for the report to be ready within six months? There is an enormous urgency to the matter.
In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that there will be adequate funding and staffing for this great project. I make a special plea for the Government to avoid the ever-present temptation to swamp the proposed committees with people who have often been described as congenital snag-hunters.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the opportunity arising from the use of human genetic databases can hardly be overstated. As we have heard, they can be crucial tools in developing a full understanding of the effects of genes and their variations. Armed with such knowledge, we could see a revolution in healthcare. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, spelt out many of the potential benefits, as did my noble friend Lord Rea. But with such potential comes a number of real challenges about the use of such databases including information about individuals and their health, and, as the noble Lord suggested, embraces many questions surrounding science, education, health, the law and ethics.
The Select Committee has undertaken an invaluable job in setting out the scope of the key issues that need to be tackled. We are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and his committee for producing such a clear and lucid report on such a complex subject—in, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, suggested, double quick time.
My noble friend Lord Rea, in an attempt to take us down the route of a discussion on House of Lords reform, testified to the quality of expertise available to your Lordships. If the forecast mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is correct and we all live to be 125, some of the calculations that have been made as regards when most of us will die and when elected representatives will assume a higher proportion of the membership of your Lordships' House will be fatally flawed and gross underestimates.
The maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord May, was outstanding. He certainly represents an academic brain gain to this country and to your Lordships'
1058
House. I was fascinated to hear his description of the human tree of life and the interconnection between bananas, fruit fly and humans. He postulated that in the future that may provide alternatives for research in relation to non-human animals. The issue of animal research has been debated a number of times in your Lordships' House. At the current state of knowledge, I believe that properly regulated animal research is crucially important to medical research in this country.
The report made a number of important recommendations to which the Government formally replied in their published response. I welcome the kind comments of the noble Lords, Lord Oxburgh and Lord Patel. I very much agree that the UK has a major role to play in the development and use of human genetic databases and disease registers. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, referred to ground-breaking advances. My noble friend Lady Kennedy referred to the crucial role of science in the UK in ensuring that we make the most of those developments.
The Government are well aware of our responsibility to ensure that the UK continues to take a leadership role. Tomorrow my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health will host a major conference on genetics which will outline measures to ensure that the UK is well placed to take advantage of advances in genetics. He will also refer to the Government's proposed Green Paper on genetics which will be guided by an advisory group ably chaired by my noble friend Lord Turnberg.
Integral to this matter are human genetic databases. They make it possible for personal genetic information to be linked to the wide range of other information that is already available to us. It will soon be possible to link genetic make-up with susceptibility to disease. Most are agreed that that heralds a new way of looking at disease in terms of cause, progress and treatment. I was intrigued by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord May, that ultimately that could lead to a reduction in NHS costs. Of course, Nye Bevan thought that in 1948, but so far we have not seen any sign of it. I say to the noble Lord that it is better not to tell that to the Treasury until we have absolute proof that that will be the case.
The inquiry report also indicates how genetic databases can be used for other purposes. My noble friend Lady Kennedy referred to the national DNA database, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. During the passage of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill the Government gave an undertaking to review the need for independent oversight of forensic DNA samples. I shall, of course, ensure that the comments of both noble Baronesses are fully considered as part of that review.
The inquiry report refers to the many databases that already exist. Most of those databases have been created for specific purposes; for example, to study a specific disease from a pathological, epidemiological or public health perspective. The power and utility of those databases are not in doubt, but I suggest that they lack the ability to be able effectively to study the

1059
complex interactions between individuals' genotypes, the environment in which they live and the lifestyle which they choose to adopt which together determine susceptibility to disease indication or acquisition.
Those studies need access to different sorts of genetic databases that are longitudinal in nature, collect data in a prospective manner and are able to make associations that are not always obvious. Those considerations led to the proposal to establish the initiative now known as BioBank UK. I was particularly interested to hear the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, in that regard. An expert group has developed the detailed protocol for the study which has now been submitted for peer review.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked me about funding. Funding decisions by the sponsors, my department, the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust are expected in April. The noble Lord will not expect me to comment further on that tonight but I acknowledge the importance of his comments on funding. We remain committed to the principles of BioBank UK, which we regard as an extremely important strategic initiative which we believe the UK is uniquely able to undertake.
Of course, we cannot neglect concerns that have been raised about the study, particularly as regards consent, confidentiality and the security of samples and data. The joint sponsors take those matters seriously and propose to create an independent monitoring body with functions not dissimilar to those of the medical data panel proposed in the inquiry report. As my noble friend Lady Kennedy so ably described, the Human Genetics Commission provides the Government with strategic advice on such developments. We are always anxious to listen to that advice.
The current proposal is that the monitoring body I mentioned should be established as a company limited by guarantee so that it can provide independent oversight free from the influence of sponsors and government. Appointments to the board of directors will need to remain open and transparent to assure the independence of that organisation. Advice from the Human Genetics Commission on the appointments mechanisms will be welcome.
Much has been said about the role of the NHS in collecting and supplying clinical data. The inquiry makes a number of helpful recommendations in that area. I do not pretend that the delivery of information systems does not set a formidable challenge for the National Health Service. Anyone who looks at the history of information technology within the NHS over the past 20 years will discover that it has been characterised by a series of failures and of resources ill spent. Frankly, its whole history of information technology reveals that it has been handled poorly.
However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who was particularly critical of the Government's response, that I believe that we have turned the corner. The information strategy that was developed two or three years ago is fully accepted within the National Health Service. I believe that there
1060
has been a sea change in attitudes among people in the National Health Service who are committed to providing effective information systems. The need for national standards is clear. However, we also have to recognise that difficulties exist, particularly in primary care, where in the past IT systems were not put in place with a clear understanding of the standards that should apply and where requirements for the accreditation of systems have perhaps not kept pace with the need for a more considered national approach. However, we are making progress. We have established four boards that will oversee the development of standards in several key areas. There is increased recognition that, although it may not be possible to have an all-singing, all-dancing uniform information system, we can draw together what we have to make sure that communication across systems is much more effective. More resources are going to the National Health Service to allow for greater expenditure on IT.
That must be matched by local determination. As part of the process of agreeing franchise plans for the new strategic health authorities, we will examine closely the proposals that they make for information systems. We will want to see whether enough investment is being put in place and, in the large areas covered by each strategic health authority—with populations of anything up to 2 million—we will want to ensure that the whole health community is committed to a much more integrated approach.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, has suffered more than most over the years from inadequacies in the information system. I agree with him about the need for high calibre staff. In some cases, we have very good staff employed within the NHS, but we should look to private sector partners to provide the required skills.
The noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, rightly singled out the importance of GPs, generally and with regard to information. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, thought that our protestations of success for the NHS Net were a little wide of the mark, but we must recognise that, although there are problems with the number of different systems that GPs have brought into the NHS, many GPs are at the cutting edge of using information. We must embrace that.
I agreed with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, in the context of the speech made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State today. I always suspected that it was not possible to micro-manage the NHS from Whitehall; after three years in the Department of Health, I know that it is not possible. That is why I welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State today. He is absolutely right that, in a more diverse National Health Service, information can often be a unifying factor. We will redouble our efforts to ensure that the kind of progress that the committee wishes to see will happen.
Data protection and confidentiality are important matters. We have debated them on several occasions in your Lordships' House. As a result of the Section 60 order, we have created a group that will be able to deal

1061
with the issues raised by the committee in its report. I listened carefully to the comments and potential criticisms that some noble Lords made about how the advisory group will operate.
I accept the comments made by my noble friends, Lord Rea and Lord Turnberg, that we must ensure that the advisory group operates in as unbureaucratic a way as possible. The Department of Health has put forward proposals for what is described as broad class support for activity—primary research activity—in which the likelihood of detriment to patients is small, the infringement of privacy is minimal, and necessary and appropriate safeguards are in place. Those proposals were developed with the help of key interests, including the Medical Research Council, and should provide a basis in law for the great majority of referral proposals that would otherwise prove difficult to get under way.
We cannot get away from the fact that there will be a certain amount of bureaucracy or administration. We will work hard to minimise that. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, suggested, it is early days; we must see how it works in practice. However, I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, that the power provided by Section 60 extends to all those who may seek to undertake research using patient information. It is not limited to the National Health Service. I accept that a successful outcome cannot be guaranteed for research. That should in no way constrain properly conducted research. Nor should the Data Protection Act or any foreseeable use of the Section 60 mechanism have that effect.
Several comments were made about the remit of research ethics committees. My noble friend, Lord Turnberg, expressed particular concern. Research ethics committees are bound to follow Department of Health guidance, which is available in the Red Book. A new version, entitled Government arrangements for NHS Research Committees, was published in July 2001. It will come into force in April 2002. The Red Book helpfully clarifies the roles and responsibilities of research ethics committees and allows for the provision of a single, clear process for obtaining ethical approval for the secondary use of health and related data. I accept that local and multi-centre research ethics committees are overburdened, but procedures are being streamlined through the central office of research ethics committees. I can assure my noble friend that we will keep that matter under close review.
Although it has not been mentioned particularly in our debate tonight, the committee raised some concern about the patenting of gene sequences. The Government were asked to monitor patenting practices in genetics. As indicated in our response, we are in broad agreement with the findings of the committee, and we will continue to monitor developments in that important area.
The noble Lords, Lord Flowers, Lord May of Oxford, Lord Oxburgh and Lord Rea, raised several important questions about the availability of people skilled in this area. We accept the thrust of the
1062
arguments put forward by the committee. There is no doubt that there are skill shortages in bio-informatics, statistical genetics and computing science. We accept the relevant recommendation. The noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, referred to the review being undertaken by Sir Gareth Roberts of the supply of skilled scientists and engineers in the United Kingdom. I can reassure him that "next year" was next year in 2001. We expect the report in spring 2002. The review will focus on the high-level scientific and technical skills possessed by postgraduates and well qualified graduates. I understand the noble Lord's concern for speed; the Government share that concern. It will be to our everlasting advantage if we tackle skill shortages in such a crucial area once and for all.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, challenged me to describe in some detail the Government's overall plans for genetic services. I have already referred to the speech that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will make tomorrow. It will take the matter forward. We look forward to a Green Paper on genetics. A national network of genetic testing is being developed, with the aim of improving the quality and equity of access to genetic services for patients and their families in the United Kingdom. We are also committed to the creation of two genetic reference laboratories and to improvements to the commissioning process for genetic services through the Genetics Commissioning Advisory Group.
The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, referred briefly to the discussions and agreements that have been reached in relation to insurance. I do not believe that I need go into that further, but I want to take this opportunity to welcome the agreement and the terms of a new five-year moratorium.
In conclusion, I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and his committee for what I believe on any count is an excellent report. It will, I am sure, continue to influence the thinking of government and other decision makers in this country. It is essential that we harness advances in human genetics in a way that is ethically based, commands the confidence of the public and, above all, brings to the people of this country the many advantages which I believe such research can give. Once again I thank noble Lords for the quality of the report and the quality of the debate.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Oxburgh: My Lords, we have had an excellent debate and have heard some excellent speeches. I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord May on an exceptional, eloquent, clear and insightful maiden speech, delivered with rare authority. It will be some time before we hear its like again.
There are several points on which it is worth briefly touching in conclusion. Perhaps for the purposes of clarity one should emphasise that the way in which criminal genetic databases and those set up for medical purposes are used are quite different. It was our intention that the medical data panel should have oversight only of the latter.

1063
The medical data panel would, if functioning as we intended, oversee both genetic data and general medical data. It is essential for the practical operation of research that the same body oversees both matters; otherwise the hurdles for those contemplating research work would become ridiculous.
I am most grateful to the Minister for his assurances relating to the Patient Information Advisory Group and for the other assurances that he has been able to give us. None the less, I believe that certain unease
1064
remains about the advisory group. It lacks independence of government and the moral legitimacy that a panel such as we proposed would carry. That is a pity. I understand that the group has had its first meeting and we must watch carefully how it operates. I look forward to learning the detail, of the independent supervisory body to which the Minister referred. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before nine o'clock.

  Sierra Leone: UN Military Force
  Sierra Leone: UN Military Force
  Reserve Forces: Campaign against Terrorism
  Reserve Forces: Campaign against Terrorism
  Agriculture Council, 18 and 19 December
  Agriculture Council, 18 and 19 December
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Healthy Eating among Young Adults
  Healthy Eating among Young Adults
  BSE
  BSE
  NHS Bed Survey
  NHS Bed Survey
  Patient Choice Proposals
  Patient Choice Proposals
  Ethnicity and Heart Disease Risks
  Ethnicity and Heart Disease Risks
  NHS Trusts: NAO Report
  NHS Trusts: NAO Report
  Specialist Schools: GCSE Achievements
  Specialist Schools: GCSE Achievements
  Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and WEU Assembly: UK Delegation
  Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and WEU Assembly: UK Delegation