Sitting of 16 January 2002

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

    Devolution
    Rosemary McKenna: If he will make a statement on relations between the UK Government and the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland. [25591]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): We are working constructively and in partnership with the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland to enable them to work as effectively as possible in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
    Rosemary McKenna: Every decent person from both communities in Northern Ireland was outraged by the despicable murder of the young postman Daniel McColgan—a tragedy for him, his family and the entire community. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such acts of violence deliberately undermine the devolved institutions, which are the bedrock of the peace process? Will he tell the House what the Government, the Northern Ireland Assembly and all the other agencies are doing to protect those public sector workers who have been cruelly threatened?
    Dr. Reid: Yes. As I said a few days ago, the vicious sectarian murder of Daniel McColgan is nothing less than a war on all the people of Northern Ireland, including those who are the youngest, schoolchildren, the weakest, old people, and the most exposed and vulnerable, public sector workers who work in the community because of their own dedication and commitment. I believe that part of the aim of those involved in such sectarian murders is indeed to undermine the progress that we have made and the stability, including that of the new devolved institutions, that we have in Northern Ireland as a result of that progress.
    I believe that we owe it to Daniel McColgan and all the other victims of sectarian hatred to speak out with one voice across Northern Ireland. Indeed, there is a growing tide of revulsion at the activities of the paramilitaries. That is why I welcome all expressions of solidarity with what we are trying to do to create peace in Northern Ireland,
    276
    including the trade unions' initiative to hold rallies on Friday lunchtime to express their contempt for the sectarian hatred.
    As for my staff, I have made it plain and ensured that the 3,500 civil servants who work with me in the Northern Ireland Office and its agencies will be able to attend those rallies if they wish. These are extraordinary circumstances, and I understand that they call for an extraordinary unity of purpose throughout Northern Ireland. I hope that that will be widely supported and accepted by everyone involved.
    Mr. David Trimble: May I associate myself entirely with everything that the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna) have said about the murder of Daniel McColgan and, indeed, about our concerns about recent events in Northern Ireland? The Secretary of State is right to say that elements in Northern Ireland—dissident republicans and elements in loyalism—want to undermine the devolved institutions and the progress, precarious though it is at times, that we have made, but does the right hon. agree that one of the hopeful signs about the disturbances in north Belfast in the past week is that the residents of the Upper Ardoyne-Glenbryn area were not willing to reinstate the protest at Holy Cross primary school? Does he agree that the fact that no protests took place is a sign of the progress that we have made and the way in which the devolved institutions, working on the socio-economic issues and with the Secretary of State, who remains responsible for security issues, is paying off?
    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is crucial in this situation that everyone does what he or she can to support the work of the police in Northern Ireland? We have had very serious reservations about what the Government have done to the police in Northern Ireland, and we feel that that has done a lot to undermine their effectiveness in the present situation, but at the same time, we will do all we can to support the police. In that context, is it not highly regrettable that republicans still withhold support from the police and that republicans appear to—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I realise how sensitive and difficult this matter is, but this is Question Time and I call for short questions and, of course, short replies.
    Dr. Reid: In that case, Mr. Speaker, yes, I did note the fact that protests were not staged at Holy Cross last week, and I commend all those who took that decision. It would have been the right decision under normal circumstances; it was even more welcome under last week's extraordinarily tense circumstances. Yes, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the need to support the police.
    Most people will be bemused when they hear some people in the community in Northern Ireland demanding action from the police and demanding that the police stand up against that form of thuggery and violence, but when the police turn up to do just that, they are attacked from the back with petrol bombs and blast bombs, sometimes from members of the very communities that demand that the police take such action. The only way to stand against such violence is by remaining united and by having one

    277
    voice and one purpose right across the community. That is the way to ensure that the police can be effective in defeating this violence.
    Mr. Peter Mandelson: The Bloody Sunday inquiry, once started, must obviously be allowed to complete its marathon. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that the costs of the inquiry, in particular the huge earnings being taken out of it by the legal profession, are in danger of discrediting the exercise in Northern Ireland? To create a gold mine out of such terrible and tragic events must surely be wrong. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the legal profession should consider the matter and consider making a voluntary reduction in its earnings from the inquiry? If it is unable to do that, will it consider making a hefty contribution to the victims funds in Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Reid: We are always mindful as a Government of the costs of any enterprise, including inquiries. So concerned was I by some of the proposed increases in fees for lawyers at inquiries that I have caused the matter to be taken to judicial review. I am somewhat constrained in what I can say about it while the review is proceeding.
    It is perfectly reasonable to say that the inquiry was a necessary part of investigating the truth to close a chapter on a very sorry episode in Northern Ireland's troubled history and, at the same time, to agree with the sentiments expressed by my right hon. Friend that we should not allow its substance to be detracted from by the enormous costs that appear to be being incurred. That would also detract from the real purpose of the investigation. Holding both views is entirely compatible.
    Mr. Nigel Dodds: Hon. Members on both sides will rightly condemn the atrocious murder of Daniel McColgan. One feature has been the widespread condemnation of that atrocious event and the threats against workers, both Catholic and Protestant, and school children, both Catholic and Protestant, in north Belfast. All such threats, violence and intimidation are to be condemned by all sides.
    Does the Secretary of State agree that we have seen an upsurge in violence from elements on the loyalist side and from the republican side as well with the discovery of pipe bombs and the increase in the number of so-called punishment beatings and shootings? Will he therefore provide reassurance to my constituents in north Belfast who have yet to see any of the benefits of the peace process? In view of the murders and violence that we have seen, those people have a right to ask that the police and security are not run down and that the Chief Constable will be given whatever resources are necessary to combat the upsurge in violence. Will the right hon. Gentleman also give serious consideration to the introduction of measures such as closed circuit television in interface and flash-point areas, in an effort to provide immediate reassurance?
    Dr. Reid: Unusually, I agree with almost everything that the hon. Gentleman said. Yes, the resources will be made available if necessary; yes, we will see what we can do to address the security problems in north Belfast; and, yes, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and others are engaged in trying to address some of the social problems.
    278
    Even in the midst of the troubles that we face now and the terrible deaths, the one part of the hon. Gentleman's contribution that I do not agree with is that neither his constituents nor the people of Northern Ireland have benefited at all from the peace process. That is patently not the case, but I am the first to admit that we have an imperfect peace, as we have an imperfect democracy. We have a long way to go on both.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: I join the Secretary of State and the House in condemning the terrible murder of Daniel McColgan and the murder of other people in Northern Ireland.
    I say this with some shame, but does the Secretary of State agree that, in recent months, there has been an expression of naked sectarian hatred in certain areas of Northern Ireland that has been battened on to by the paramilitaries for their own political and mercenary ends? Does he further agree that the upsurge in revulsion on both sides of the entire community, right across the political spectrum, is perhaps a glimmer of light—a slight glimmer of hope—that we can start to lay our terrible heritage to rest?
    Dr. Reid: I agree with my hon. Friend. In order for such evils to continue, it is necessary only that good people do nothing. That is why I welcome the unity of purpose, the declarations of intent and the practical demonstrations of opposition to both this violence and the sectarianism that is so often at its roots. Sectarianism is an evil that, once spread, will contaminate everyone.
    I also agree that very often those sectarian causes that are supposedly espoused by some people on both sides of the community are a cover not so much for purposes of self-glorification but for the lining of their own pockets. We have to be very careful not to forget that paramilitary activity blights Northern Ireland not just with political objectives that it aims to achieve through violence, but with its degeneracy into organised crime, which my hon. Friend mentioned. Both of those will be ruthlessly opposed by the Government and, I hope, everyone in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: I want to endorse on behalf of the Opposition every word that the Secretary of State and other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House said about the hideous cold-blooded murder of Daniel McColgan. I also endorse what has been said in support of Catholic postal workers and teachers in north Belfast, and in support of all the people from both communities in Northern Ireland who, by continuing to go about their jobs and leading a normal life, are not giving in to violence and intimidation.
    In the second half of last year, the Government launched on their lamentable course of not insisting on and waiting for the implementation of the Belfast agreement. When they went beyond it by making unilateral and unreciprocated further concessions to Irish republicanism, one of the many obnoxious things that they did was to agree at Weston Park to introduce an amnesty for on-the-run terrorists by the end of 2001. What is the current status of that promise?
    Dr. Reid: First, may I welcome both the hon. Gentleman's support for the position that the Government are adopting and his presence in, and attempts to identify with, Northern Ireland during the past 48 hours?
    Secondly, however, I take issue with the hon. Gentleman's proposition that we can govern and make advances in Northern Ireland merely by keeping to those arrangements that were specifically agreed in the Belfast agreement. There are many other things to take into account, including combating electoral fraud, and visits to the Province by Her Majesty. We could endlessly debate those because they are not in the Belfast agreement, but they are a natural part of good government.
    Thirdly, on the hon. Gentleman's question, we have agreed to resolve the issue that arises from those fugitives who have not benefited under the terms of the early release scheme. When we have practical proposals on that, we will bring them to the House.
    Mr. Davies: I take some comfort from the fact that 31 December 2001 has come and gone without the Government making that further concession to republican terrorists. I want to say once again from the Dispatch Box that, if we are to have a successful peace process in Northern Ireland, it is extremely important that two things occur. One is that the Government are rigorous in insisting that all parties fulfil their commitments under the Belfast agreement. No one should get any advantage, let alone new concessions, for failing to fulfil their undertakings. The second is that the Government need to maintain a balance as between the different communities in Northern Ireland, so that it does not seem as if just one party to the Belfast agreement is getting all the concessions.
    Finally, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the other day we discussed the difference between a concession and something that is done on its own merits. From his response just now, it seems that he still has not grasped the essential distinction. Of course we will agree with measures that are introduced on their own merits, but surely he cannot say that the amnesty for on-the-run terrorists is being introduced not as a concession but on its own merits.
    Dr. Reid: I do not think that the terms of the Belfast agreement were merely a series of concessions to one side or the other. The other night, I pointed out that I regard the acceptance by republicans of the principle of consent not as a concession to Unionists but as a natural and right thing to do. The same is true of many other principles of the Belfast agreement. We resolved and made it public at Weston Park that we would tackle and resolve anomalies arising from the early release scheme; when we have plans that we want to lay before the House, we will do so.

    Organised Crime
    Paul Farrelly: When the organised crime taskforce last met; and what was discussed. [25592]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): The organised crime taskforce, which I chair, last met on 12 December to discuss how to build on the successes already achieved. Since then, on 10 January, a
    280
    joint Customs and police operation seized a fuel-laundering plant in South Armagh that was capable of stealing £75,000 per week in unpaid taxes.
    Paul Farrelly: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work being done by the taskforce. It is well known that organised crime raises money for terrorism. To what extent are the taskforce's successes stopping money going into the coffers of paramilitary groups, and to what extent is the taskforce contributing to the seizure of arms from paramilitary groups, especially those that are not signed up to the peace process?
    Jane Kennedy: At the heart of the Government's approach to tackling organised crime are efforts focused on—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the House allow the Minister to be heard? There is a great deal of noise.
    Jane Kennedy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    At the heart of the Government's approach and the task force's efforts is our recognition of the impact of organised crime on Northern Ireland's society. Organised crime undermines civic values the world over; the problem is compounded in Northern Ireland, where, unfortunately, paramilitaries have the apparatus and the will to commit crime for profit.
    Money laundering is only one of many aspects of the development of organised crime of which we are aware, and the taskforce is assisting the organisations that comprises—public agencies that have come together to tackle organised crime—by utilising the best minds and the best trained financial investigators available. We are aware of the need to crack down on groups involved in organised crime; the debate on the previous question leaves no doubt that it is a factor that must be borne in mind. When faced with the sort of violence that we have witnessed in the past week, we must bear in mind the fact that the paramilitary organisations engaged in that violence are equally capable of turning their hand to organised crime. The role of the taskforce is therefore essential.
    David Burnside: The Minister will share the revulsion felt by the vast majority of Northern Ireland's people against criminals masquerading as paramilitaries who are involved in drug dealing and driving drugs into our society, especially when their activities are directed towards young people and schoolchildren. She will also be aware of my strongly held belief that the only way to tackle drug dealers and put them out of business is to pass a law that allows phone tap evidence to be admissible in court. Will she put that item on the agenda of the taskforce's next meeting and draw evidence from the success in Italy, where, by using such a law, the Government have had great success against the Mafia and organised crime?
    Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman has, rightly, raised that point before. We keep under constant review all the tools that may become available to the Government, with the assistance of the police and security forces our main focus. We have to continue the fight

    281
    against organised crime and constantly bear in mind the link between organisations engaged in organised crime and paramilitary associations in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: The taskforce has said that, along with money laundering and fraud, fuel smuggling is one of the most serious crimes committed in Northern Ireland, given its social impact. Does the Northern Ireland Office hold discussions with the Treasury to let it know that the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic has a devastating effect because differential duty rates are applied? One of the easiest ways to handle the problem would be tax harmonisation between the two parts of the island of Ireland, which would remove the opportunity for smugglers to be involved in this trade.
    Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. We have considered this issue, and discussions have taken place on all the factors that affect organised crime in Northern Ireland. Fuel tax evasion is a crime in itself, irrespective of the tax regime, and should be vigorously opposed. I support my hon. Friend in saying that it is important that the whole of Northern Ireland society unites behind the police service and other organisations, including the Inland Revenue, to assist them in their efforts to bring to justice those involved in organised criminality, which includes those crimes that are difficult to tackle. The police can have an effect, and successes will continue so long as society unites to assist them in their efforts.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: I agree with the Minister about the scale of the threat posed by organised crime. Would it not be better for the Government to redirect the tens or hundreds of millions of pounds from the scandalous gravy train that the Saville inquiry has become to the police, so that they can fight organised crime more effectively?
    Jane Kennedy: The police in Northern Ireland, Customs and Excise officers, the Inland Revenue and the other organisations in the taskforce are doing a superb job in tackling organised crime. The Government are not complacent. We are conscious of the scale of the problem, but the police have the resources, expertise and skill, and they are having successes. On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I refer him to the answer that my right hon. Friend gave a few moments ago.

    Decommissioning
    Mr. John Baron: If he will make a statement about progress on decommissioning. [25593]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): The Government are committed to seeing all illegally held weapons put permanently and verifiably beyond use. As the commission has reported, it will pursue its mandate, which is the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms.
    Mr. Baron: I thank the Secretary of State for that response. Given that the Government have shamefully further appeased terrorists by allowing them another five years to decommission, and given that violence continues,
    282
    will he accept that there needs to be far greater transparency in the decommissioning process to boost morale and confidence in the flagging peace process?
    Dr. Reid: It is a bit of a tragedy that the Conservatives are reverting to type on this issue. There may be legitimate questions and arguments on all these issues, but to see every compromise necessary to put an end to the longest running dispute in British history as merely appeasement or a concession is to make cheap political points when we need statesmanship and leadership.
    We want to see and will continue to press for the decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons, including those of the Irish Republican Army. The hon. Gentleman should not diminish the historic significance of the decommissioning that has already taken place.
    On the methodology, it would be better to leave that to the integrity of General John de Chastelain, who operates under the statute, the remit and the modus operandi that were agreed by the House of Commons.
    Lembit Öpik: Accepting that the Unionist section of the community in Northern Ireland feels that various concessions, with which I agree, towards republican paramilitaries are a bridge too far, may I ask the Secretary of State what assurance he can give that he will take specific measures to build confidence in the Unionist community? He could, for example, provide an assurance that anybody who is on the run and has yet to be tried will not be given an unconditional amnesty, but will have to face a trial, whether or not they are subsequently released on licence.
    Dr. Reid: The best assurance that can be given to any member of the Unionist community, which by definition has as its principal objective the union of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, is the democratic consensus, which is now accepted by everyone, and that the future constitutional status of Northern Ireland will be in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland. That is not a concession to Unionism but a democratic right. On the anomalies arising from the release of paramilitary prisoners, which we have pledged to resolve, when we have concrete proposals on that, we will of course bring them to the House.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Jenkins: My right hon. Friend knows that in Staffordshire we have some very good public services provided by dedicated public sector staff, but historically Staffordshire is one of the lowest-funded areas in Britain.

    283
    We always appear at the bottom of any funding league table for education, health and the police. Will the Prime Minister give us hope that in future the funding formula will be open and transparent, that it will be fairer and that it will close the gap between areas that receive an average amount of funding and those at the bottom of the table? That will allow dedicated public sector staff to provide even better services for people in Tamworth and the rest of Staffordshire.
    The Prime Minister: I can at least assure my hon. Friend that the review of the funding formula is intended to ensure that it is fairer. He will know that in Staffordshire, as elsewhere, additional resources have been going to education, health and the police. That means that education results have gone up, police numbers have gone up, waiting lists have gone up—[Laughter.] The number of nurses has gone up and waiting lists have gone down. As a result of that investment, services can improve. That contrasts with the position of the Conservative party, which with its proposal to cut public spending to 35 per cent. of GDP would take £60 billion out of our public services and decimate them.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: When did the 10-year plan for transport begin—in December 1999 when the Deputy Prime Minister announced it, or on Monday when the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions announced it again?
    The Prime Minister: The strategic plan in 1999 set out the overall level of money for investment, and the strategic plan announced on Monday showed how that money will be spent. [Laughter] I am sorry if the Conservatives cannot see the difference between the overall amount of money and how it is to be spent. We are in favour of investment, and that stands in contrast to their proposals to cut investment for transport.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: That would make more sense if it were not for the fact that in the past two years the Government have announced the same policy five times and the same money at least four times. During that time, the Prime Minister and his team have both backed privatisation and renationalised the network, and he now wants to go cap in hand to private industry to get extra funding. Yet the figures show that throughout that period the delays on the railways had risen by 61 per cent. even before the strikes. That is 1,300 more delayed trains every single day. Will the Prime Minister tell us how much more it will cost him, as a result of that mismanagement, to get private money into the service?
    The Prime Minister: First, let me correct the right hon. Gentleman on delays. Until Hatfield in October 2000, punctuality increased and there were more trains running. After Hatfield, when it became clear that the track infrastructure needed a total renewal, it is true that punctuality went down, as a result of decades of underinvestment. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is simply this; we are putting in some £33.5 billion of public investment in the next few years. Incidentally, £6 billion of private sector investment has
    284
    already been committed and more will come. We are in favour of that investment going in. Is the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister may well be in favour of that investment going in, but the reality is that he will not get it put in. Private investors are now going to demand danger money for having anything to do with the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions after what he has done to Railtrack. A quick glance at the City will show that all those investors have now written investment in the Government down below investment in Mexico. They would not invest in the Government before investing in Mexico. As a result, they will now demand £1 billion extra to cover their risk. Does that not make the Transport Secretary the most expensive Cabinet Minister in history and should not the Prime Minister save the travelling public's money and sack him?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman says that no money will come in from the private sector. I have just pointed out to him that £6 billion has already been pledged; the train operating companies have said that they will indeed put money in; and the director general of the CBI has welcomed the plan. The question that the right hon. Gentleman has to answer, but did not, is this: does he support public investment in the railways? It is almost a statement of the obvious to say when we look at the railways today that the problem is decades of underinvestment. The Government have a proposal to increase investment dramatically so that over the next few years investment at about three times the level will be going in. We are in favour of that investment; the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of taking it out. Whether in education, health or transport, we believe in investment; he does not.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend will have seen stories and photographs in the press about the treatment of al-Qaeda prisoners by the United States. Does he share the concerns of many people in this country that the west is in danger of losing the high moral ground as a result of the treatment and possible mode of trial of those prisoners?
    The Prime Minister: First, I hope that the whole House realises that there is still a situation of very great danger in Afghanistan for American troops, British troops and others; there are still pockets of resistance from the Taliban and, even as we speak, there are reports today of a fresh of cache arms being found, with a conspiracy to kill American troops, and no doubt British troops if they were in the vicinity. We are dealing with highly dangerous people.
    Secondly, of course I totally agree that anybody who is captured by American troops, British troops or anyone else should be treated humanely in accordance with the Geneva convention and proper international norms. For that very reason, a British team will see those people claiming to be British citizens detained in Cuba; we will make sure that they are being properly and humanely treated. I simply say to my hon. Friend that we have been in discussions with the Americans, who assure us that those people are being humanely treated. They are getting fed properly and are being allowed to exercise and shower

    285
    properly; they are being looked after properly with medical treatment; each is being given individually, should they wish, a copy of the Koran and the time to make their religious observances.
    Rather than believing exactly what is reported in the media straight away, it is important that we get to the truth of the matter. The international Red Cross will go and see those individuals; British officials will see the people from Britain. There should be no doubt about two things. First, as I said, we are dealing with very dangerous people. Secondly, however, we are a civilised people and will treat prisoners in a proper and humane way.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Further to the question raised by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), given what we know already, will the Prime Minister make clear, where British citizens are concerned, his views on their being hooded, shackled, sedated and kept in cages?
    The Prime Minister: Let us wait and see exactly how the prisoners have been treated. It is important not to say anything that prejudices their defence to the charges that have been made against them, but nobody should be in any doubt that the members of the al-Qaeda network are highly dangerous people. It would be unsurprising if they were subject to strict security measures, but of course they should be properly and humanely treated—in exactly the way that the Taliban would not treat their prisoners.
    Mr. Kennedy: The entire House is united in wishing to see those responsible for the appalling atrocities of 11 September brought to justice, but will the Prime Minister recognise and stress to the Americans that if we are to maintain the global opinion which has been so successful in the fight against terrorism, we must demonstrate that our values remain above those of the people who seek to destroy them?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, but with respect, the right hon. Gentleman should listen to what I have been saying over the past few minutes. Of course it is correct that we make sure that people are humanely treated. That is precisely why a British team will visit those who claim to be British citizens. The international Red Cross will see those people. We understand that they are being humanely treated, being given proper medical advice, food and allowances for their religion, and being allowed to shower and to exercise properly and so on. I repeat that it is important for us to get to the facts of how that group of people, 50 in number, is being treated, rather than simply reacting instantaneously to reports in the media.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Following my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), what exactly is the justification for continued bombing of Afghanistan?
    The Prime Minister: The justification is the very reason that I gave a few moments ago. There are still pockets of resistance by the Taliban. The discovery today, which is emerging now, of a conspiracy to kill American troops in and around a particular American camp, and the discovery of a large amount of weapons and ordnance, are an indication that the campaign is not over yet.
    286
    I can tell my hon. Friend that when I met the representatives of the new interim Government in Afghanistan, put together by the United Nations, they regarded the actions of American, British and allied troops in Afghanistan as a liberation of the people of Afghanistan. They believe that as a result of the defeat of the Taliban and their removal from government, people in Afghanistan have, for the first time in years, the prospect of a decent future. War is always a bloody and difficult business. We should carry it on until we have squeezed out the last remaining remnants of the Taliban. Then our task is also, as we will show at the Tokyo conference soon, to reconstruct Afghanistan and give it a proper future.
    Mr. Michael Jack: In a week when eight-hour trolley waits have become a reality at the three-star Blackpool Victoria hospital, I draw the Prime Minister's attention to the remarks made by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, Lord Hunt, at a recent conference, when he said that the national health service has two years to win back public confidence, or other forms of funding will be considered. Does the Prime Minister agree with his Under-Secretary on the timing issue? Can he tell the House what are the other forms of funding that are under consideration?
    The Prime Minister: First, in relation to the national health service, of course it is important that it wins back confidence, which is why the report from the modernisation board last week—which, incidentally, and contrary to what the Conservatives said, included representatives of the royal colleges, such as the Royal College of Nursing, and the British Medical Association—was clear that the NHS is making progress, and that most of the indicators are now moving the right way. Of course there will be big pressures over the winter, but there are more beds now, more nurses and more doctors, and the waiting lists are indeed coming down.
    Secondly, in respect of alternative systems of funding, the right hon. Gentleman knows what we believe. We believe that, as is the case in Denmark, where I gather the shadow Health spokesman has been, the health service should be funded out of general taxation. The alternative is the proposal from the right hon. Gentleman's party, which would force people to pay and would cut public spending. Hon. Members can point their fingers as much as they like, but the proposal of the Conservative party is to cut public spending and to force people to pay. That is the difference between a party that believes in the national health service free at the point of use, and a Conservative party that would cut spending and charge people.
    Geraldine Smith: The Government have recognised the problems that British seaside resorts face owing to the decline of the domestic tourism industry, and the urgent need for regeneration. Can the Prime Minister therefore tell me what funding will be made available to regional development agencies so that they can implement the coastal strategies that they are currently drawing up to help to regenerate seaside resorts such as Morecambe?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot give my hon. Friend off-hand the exact level of funding for Morecambe or indeed coastal resorts generally. She is right to say that

    287
    the regional development agencies now have a specific remit to encourage economic development. In areas such as hers, that means the coastal resorts. Of course, additional finance is being put into tourism at the moment. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that it is necessary to ensure co-ordination on a regional basis and that it would be very unfortunate if we adopted the Opposition's proposals and abolished the regional development agencies.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Is the Prime Minister aware that band D council tax payers in Suffolk will shortly be receiving bills of about £1,000—a staggering 60 per cent. increase since he took office? As my constituents reflect on the quality of services provided by the Labour-Liberal Democrat county council, may I ask him how he can reconcile his clear commitment not to raise taxation with this huge stealth tax increase for the people of Suffolk, which over five years has averaged no less than six times the rate of inflation?
    The Prime Minister: In actual fact, we have put more money into the local authority settlements than the Government the hon. Gentleman supported ever did. Of course, that money is delivering better education for his constituents—he did not mention that—and better social care and services. It is precisely for that reason that we believe that it is important that this money carries on going into our public services. Of course, the hon. Gentleman believes in taking it out.
    Julie Morgan: Following this morning's highly successful launch of the anti-hunting campaign "Countdown to the Ban", will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government's pledge to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue still stands? Will he advise the House as to when we can expect a vote on a ban on hunting with dogs?
    The Prime Minister: The commitment in our manifesto does indeed stand. We promised a free vote in the Queen's Speech. There has been no decision yet on the timing of the vote, but the Government will make an announcement at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: When the Health Secretary told NHS executives that he would
    "come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who has anything to do with the private sector",
    what did he mean by that?
    The Prime Minister: The Health Secretary has announced a whole series of partnerships with the private sector. I should have thought that it is very sensible that where it is important to use the private sector, we do so, but nobody should be in any doubt that of course the purpose of that is to provide a better service within the national health service. That is quite different from what the right hon. Gentleman wants to do, which is force people to pay for their health treatment and privatise the national health service.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Yesterday, the Prime Minister and his Health Secretary apparently hated the private sector. Now it is clear that today they are turning to it in
    288
    desperation. Who knows what they are going to do tomorrow? Almost anything, it seems. The Prime Minister should pay attention, because the Health Secretary told the House six months ago that there should be "one monopoly provider" of health care. He says now that the NHS should
    "no longer be a monopoly provider of care".
    Which is the correct statement of Government policy?
    The Prime Minister: The statement is set out very clearly in the national health service plan: where we can work with the private sector, we will do so. The reform programme in the health service is delivering more beds and more nurses—some 27,000 more nurses. It is delivering real improvements both in waiting times and in waiting lists, which are down on those under the previous Government. It is also, for example, delivering changes in the way in which cancer patients are seen; more than 90 per cent. of them are now seen within two weeks. Cardiac waiting times are also improving. These are changes that are being delivered by a Government who believe in reform and investment. When I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he supported the investment in the railways, he gave us no answer. Now let him get to his feet and tell us—it is very simple—so that we can have a proper debate: does he support the additional investment going into the health service or not? If he does, how does that lie with his commitment to reduce spending to 35 per cent. of GDP?
    Mr. Duncan Smith: It is no good the Prime Minister asking me what I support when he does not know what his Government support. On health, as on everything else, they do not have a clue. The right hon. Gentleman forced school bullies to be kept in school, but now he wants them kicked out; he dispersed asylum seekers, but now he wants them all to be kept in the same place; he wanted a democratic House of Lords, but now he wants a House of cronies; he said that he wanted to renationalise the railways, but now he is begging for private money. Is this not a case of power without purpose, politics without principle and a Government without direction?
    The Prime Minister: I suppose that, for the right hon. Gentleman, that passes for stinging rhetoric. He said that we did not know what we support for the health service. With respect, we do. We support the extra investment, which has reduced waiting lists and given us more nurses, doctors and beds. Those who work in the health service said last week that they were turning the corner and that it was getting better. We know the difference between the two political parties: we support investment and reform because both are important; the right hon. Gentleman does not support the extra investment. He wants to run down the health service so that he can say that everyone gets hopeless care on the NHS and he and his supporters can justify privatising it.
    The difference is the same as it always has been. We created the health service—the Conservatives opposed it. We invest in the health service—they cut the investment. We want a health service that is free at the point of use—they would make people pay for it.
    John Cryer: After the examples of Equitable Life, Railtrack and even Johnson Matthey, why should we hand over chunks of the health service to

    289
    private sector managers? How will the whizzkids from the private sector transform the health service, especially when, as the Prime Minister rightly said, it is getting better under Labour?
    The Prime Minister: Two groups of people will oppose our plans. My hon. Friend says that he opposes using the private sector, but I disagree with him. On the borders of my constituency, a new hospital has been built under the private finance initiative. That also applies to other facilities in my constituency. The PFI is improving health care within the NHS. The reform programme in the health service will continue because it is right; it will deliver better health care.
    The other source of opposition is on the Conservative Benches. Conservative Members may be in favour of reform, but they are against investment. The new Labour Government have adopted the right position: yes to investment, and yes to reform because both will deliver a better national health service, not an old-fashioned health service, or a privatised system, which Conservative Members want.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Prime Minister is aware of my total support for the Unionist cause in Northern Ireland and for the role of our armed services in the campaign against terrorism worldwide. Will he therefore tell the House the cost of the Saville inquiry, not least because the Parachute Regiment which is currently engaged in operations in Afghanistan is involved? I understand that the cost exceeds £60 million. Can that figure be justified?
    The Prime Minister: The cost of the inquiry is £52 million. The reason for the inquiry is that it was important to lay to rest some of the claims that have been made over many years. Public inquiries cost a lot of money; the BSE inquiry cost around £30 million. However, it was important in the context of the peace process in Northern Ireland that we made progress and held such an inquiry.
    The hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members have criticised the peace process, and I heard the attacks on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland this afternoon. I hope that they also realise how much money and how many lives have been saved by the Northern Ireland peace process. Conservative Members may currently oppose it, but hundreds if not thousands of people are alive today who otherwise would not have been; there is investment in Northern Ireland that would never have been made and there are jobs that would never have existed without the peace process. Hope and prosperity are at least available to people in Northern Ireland. If we went back to the old days of the Conservative Government, both would be missing. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we proceed, I must ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) to be calm—very calm indeed.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: I welcome the review of student finance that was announced recently. If there is to be any delay in making changes, will
    290
    consideration be given to finding extra finance for students from poorer backgrounds, who are finding things very difficult at the moment?
    The Prime Minister: It is important that we get the right balance of contributions from the individual and the state, and that is precisely what we are looking at at the moment. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that, contrary to some of the things that were said a few years ago, the number of people going to university is up, not down. We must focus in particular on those people from poorer social backgrounds who perhaps do not get the chances that they need. I know that my hon. Friend would want me to point out that 50 per cent. of those who go to university do not pay tuition fees, as a result of the Government's changes.

    Waste Refrigeration Equipment
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: What action he has taken to co-ordinate the work of Government Departments in connection with the (a) disposal, (b) recycling and (c) re-use of refrigerators.
    The Prime Minister: A number of Departments, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Cabinet Office and the Treasury, have been working closely together to devise the most efficient means of recycling old refrigerators, with the overall aim of reducing damage to the environment.
    Mr. Sayeed: About time too. In 1998, the Government signed up to a directive about the disposal of fridges without understanding the implications of that directive. It was a further two years before they understood what they had agreed to. They then faffed around for some 18 months and failed to request a delay in implementing the directive. Will the Prime Minister tell me why we are in the ludicrous position of having 3 million fridges to dispose of, without having a single plant in the United Kingdom capable of doing the job? Who is going to pay for this fiasco? If ministerial responsibility is to mean anything—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: It is not correct to say that no preparations have been made. Indeed, we have recently announced some £6 million-worth of extra funding—as the hon. Gentleman may know—precisely to help with the issue of recycling that he raises.

    Engagements
    Mr. Michael Connarty: Is the Prime Minister aware that many people—I would say the majority of the British people—believe that his efforts and those of his Government on foreign and defence policy since 11 September are exemplary? May I seek an assurance from him that he and his Government will not lose sight of the fact that the treatment of the Palestinian people by Israel is perceived to lie at the heart of the problems of the Islamic world? Will he do everything in

    291
    his power to ensure a peaceful and equitable solution to the problems in the middle east, based on United Nations resolutions?
    The Prime Minister: We will certainly do what we can to assist the parties to make progress in the middle east. As I have said many times before, that must be based on two very secure principles. The first is a 100 per cent. effort by the Palestinian Authority to crack down on the violence and terrorism that are causing such destruction and misery in Israel, and—in my view—a guarantee from the Arab world about the security of the state of Israel. The second is a proper, viable Palestinian state in which Palestinians and Israelis can live side by side in justice together. We will certainly do all that we can to make progress on this issue.
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: Many hundreds of my constituents working at Huntingdon Life Sciences, its shareholders and funders are being subjected to a massive campaign of intimidation from animal rights terrorists. Like other terrorists, they organise internationally and use extreme violence to further their views. Does the worldwide international fight against terrorism extend to Huntingdon and what does the Prime Minister intend to do to stop the violence against my constituents?
    The Prime Minister: First, let me say to the hon. Gentleman that the violence against his constituents and
    292
    against Huntingdon Life Sciences is totally and utterly beyond the pale. It is totally wrong. Those are criminal acts. For that very reason, we are tightening the law to ensure that we deal with these people in a more satisfactory and quicker way. Through the hon. Gentleman, I want to say to his constituents and to Huntingdon Life Sciences that one of the proud traditions of this country is that of scientific inquiry. People are perfectly entitled to their strong views on animal welfare, but it would be deeply regrettable if we lost any part of scientific endeavour in this country. The hon. Gentleman's constituents and that company will have our full support in making sure that the actions of these people do not succeed.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has just told the House that the cost of the Saville inquiry is £52 million. As he ought to know—the House has already been furnished with written answers—that is only the cost to the Northern Ireland Office. The cost is already more than £14.5 million to the Ministry of Defence and the estimate of costs to the Northern Ireland Office is £100 million. That does not include costs to other Departments such as that which pays Lord Saville's salary. What opportunity is there for the Prime Minister to return to the House to correct the record?
    Mr. Speaker: Why does not the hon. Gentleman try next Wednesday?

Travel Concessions (Young Persons)
3.32 pm
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit local authorities to include persons at or under the age of 25 in travel concession schemes.
The city that I represent, Milton Keynes, has a young population and the highest number of under-25s per 1,000 people of any city in Europe. The figures for 2000 show that 75,000 of the 209,000 population are under 25 and that there are 24,000 young people aged between 17 and 24. Whenever I speak to them about what affects their lives, the issue that is always top of their list is transport, and more specifically, the cost of public transport and how that reduces their access to training, employment, leisure and other services.
Young people rely on public transport. A recent survey by Milton Keynes Community Foundation shows that whereas an average of only 43 per cent. of city residents use public transport, the figure increases to 57 per cent. for 16 to 24-year-olds. The national travel survey shows that 17 to 20-year-olds use buses twice as much as the rest of the population. They make 13 per cent. of all journeys by bus compared with only 6 per cent. for all ages. That reflects the absence of alternatives for most young people. Only 41 per cent. of 17 to 20-year-olds hold a driving licence compared with 71 per cent. of adults.
In relying on public transport, young people are very similar to the over-65s and, like pensioners, they tend to have lower incomes than other adults. Unlike pensioners, however, they are not offered travel concessions unless they fall into certain restricted groups.
The Transport Act 1985, which applies to local authorities in England outside London and to Scotland and Wales, allows councils to provide travel concessions for elderly people, the blind and the disabled, and children under 16 or those between 16 and 18 in full-time education. My Bill would amend the Transport Act to permit local authorities to provide concessions for under-25s so that all young people were covered, whether in full-time education or not. Similar changes would be required to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to give the same powers to London boroughs.
My experiences talking to my young constituents in Milton Keynes have highlighted to me the barrier that is placed before them by the current cost of public transport. Of course there are some young people who are employed in well paid jobs, but I suspect that most of them will own a car and will be among the minority of young people who do not use public transport at all.
The majority of young people are on low incomes. The national minimum wage levels for 18 to 21-year-olds is only £3.50 an hour. Young people under 25 receive lower levels of housing benefit, income support and jobseeker's allowance. Wage levels in general are often lower for young people, reflecting their lack of experience. Students at further education colleges get little or no financial support, although I am pleased that this Government have begun to recognise the needs of this previously neglected group of students. Unemployed young people are in an even worse position. For all these young people, the cost of public transport is a major problem.
294
I am indebted to the YMCA, which works with young people across the country, for evidence that shows that the problems identified by my young constituents in Milton Keynes are shared by young people throughout the country. In 2001, the YMCA responded to the consultation by the social exclusion unit on "Transport and Social Exclusion". Questionnaires were sent out to all 160 local YMCAs, working in 230 communities. The responses from young people and youth workers showed the ways in which lack of affordable public transport affects the ability of young people to make the most of the opportunities available to them.
In Nottingham, a YMCA resident—a trained joiner and cabinet maker on jobseeker's allowance—is faced with fares of nearly £4 return to travel to job interviews in nearby Ilkeston. The YMCA had to lend him the money, but the youth workers have commented that they do not publicise the YMCA fund because demand would then exceed supply. Chester YMCA echoes the point that
"transport problems are the most common problem, from getting to youth projects through to inhibiting job seeking and studying."
In Romford, the YMCA often has to make up the shortfall in people's travel costs; otherwise they cannot travel to job interviews or training further afield.
A worker at Bishop's Stortford YMCA highlighted the additional problem of the penalty in fare costs of changing from one bus to another:
"If young people have to take several buses to sign on, or to get to an interview, that begins to get expensive."
Mendip YMCA in Wells drew attention to the problems in more rural areas where support services are widely based. Young people from Wells have to travel to Glastonbury or Frome—over an hour's bus journey—or even to Yeovil to obtain a crisis loan. In urban areas, the probation service, the benefit office and the Employment Service may all be on different bus routes.
If young people find employment, particularly if they are on the youth rate of national minimum wage, the added costs of travel can often more than cancel out the financial benefit of working. Romford YMCA often has to fund travelcards for young people on the new deal when they first start work, or they would be unable to afford transport to work. The lower rate of housing benefit for those under 25 means that they often cannot afford to live in the more expensive areas near their work or training, thus adding to transport costs.
A resident of Milton Keynes YMCA signed off benefits to work for the Post Office over Christmas but could not afford to pay transport costs before his wages were due at the end of December. He had to stop work and go back on benefits. Colchester YMCA highlighted the further education students who face costs of up to £15 a week to get to courses.
The examples collected by the YMCA mostly concern relatively disadvantaged groups of young people, but although the majority of young people may not face severe problems in transport to their education or training, most still find the cost of transport limits their access to sporting and leisure facilities. This has two worrying side effects. The first is that young people may be tempted to accept lifts from people they do not know, or to walk home alone late at night because they cannot pay the transport costs. The second is that young people, unable to afford the transport to city centre activities, tend to congregate aimlessly around suburban shopping centres, drifting into vandalism through boredom.

295
It has long been accepted that local councils should have the powers to offer travel concessions to pensioners, because access to affordable public transport is seen as crucial to allowing pensioners to lead full lives. Indeed the Transport Act 2000 gave elderly people an entitlement to a half-fare concession on local bus travel. As I pointed out earlier, young people are similar to pensioners in being very reliant on public transport, having low access to private cars and being on lower than average incomes. My Bill recognises that young people, too, need access to affordable public transport to lead full lives. By encouraging young people to use public transport we may also be helping the environment in which we all live, by building a habit that carries through into later life—the habit of using public transport more and the private car less.
I would ask hon. Members to think of the experiences of young people in their constituencies, and to listen to the views collected by the YMCA and echoed by young people all over the country. I ask hon. Members to support my Bill and help our young people to gain a greater freedom of movement and ability to lead fuller lives through access to affordable transport.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Phyllis Starkey, Charlotte Atkins, Richard Burden, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Vernon Coaker, Phil Hope, Helen Jackson, Mr. David Lammy, Margaret Moran, Mr. Martin Salter and Ms Claire Ward.

Travel Concessions (Young Persons)
  TRAVEL CONCESSIONS (YOUNG PERSONS)
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey accordingly presented a Bill to permit local authorities to include persons at or under the age of 25 in travel concession schemes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 April, and to be printed [Bill 82].
Opposition Day
[7TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Railways
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.42 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the failure of the Government to tackle adequately the growing crisis on British railways; and believes that the salary of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions should be reduced by 1.8 per cent. and that payment of a further 22 per cent. be withheld until 31st March 2003.
  I shall begin by agreeing with the Secretary of State that the state of British railways is, as he said, "unacceptable". With some justification, right hon. and hon. Members can point to the failure of past Governments to invest adequately in our railways as a possible cause. No doubt that was even true of past Liberal Governments. Past investment has, at times, been lamentable. With justification, many right hon. and hon. Members will also point to the problems of fragmentation caused by aspects of rail privatisation. Criticism may also be levelled, as it was by the head of the Strategic Rail Authority on Tuesday, at some of the management of our railways system—notwithstanding the excellent work done by many railway staff.
  The Liberal Democrats accept that past underinvestment, privatisation and some poor management have all undoubtedly played a part in the current rail crisis. However, we have had a Labour Government for nearly five years and it is reasonable to question what they have done in that time to seek to rectify the problems of our railways. Have the Labour Government improved the situation or has it got worse? Public opinion is clear. The YouGov poll in The Mail on Sunday last weekend showed that 70 per cent. of people believe that the situation on our railways has got worse since Labour were elected in 1997.
  I acknowledge that not all is bad; for example, there has been an increase in passenger numbers and in private investment in the railways, and the Strategic Rail Authority has been established. However, we also note that between 2000 and 2001 train delays increased by 70 per cent., meaning that, collectively, passengers wasted at least 4,600 years last year waiting for delayed trains. Cancellations increased by 45 per cent. in the same period. There is massive overcrowding—39 per cent. of rail journeys are overcrowded; as I pointed out yesterday, it is somewhat bizarre that the Government have introduced legislation to tackle the overcrowding of chickens but have taken no action to reduce the overcrowding of humans on trains.
  The Government have said that they want our stations to be safer. They are right. Train use will not be encouraged if people have to wait in unlit, unstaffed stations at night, if information is inadequate, or if car parks are insecure. However, although the Government announced a secure station initiative in 1998, nothing was done. As a result, only about 120 of the 2,500 railway stations have so far achieved accreditation. At that rate, it will take a staggering 76 years before all stations are deemed safe.

  297
  What about affordability? Britain's railways are the most expensive in Europe—almost the most expensive in the world. In this country, passengers can travel, on average, 55 miles for £10. That compares with 128 miles in France and 806 miles in the Czech Republic for the same amount. Under the ridiculously complex fares structure through which passengers must wade, many of our fares are excessive; yet the Government have made no serious attempt to tackle that problem.
  We need a safe, reliable and affordable railway system but we do not have one.
  Simon Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to get a grip because the problem affects our reputation abroad? It affects investment in this country and the perceptions of foreign business and our trading partners when they see a railway system that does not deliver. Does my hon. Friend agree that the sooner there is a safe and correct decision on the London underground and the sooner there is investment, commitment and action as regards the rail network, the sooner the City, the business community—the chambers of commerce and the CBI—will feel that they can go back to selling Britain abroad, as they want to do and as I hope the whole House wants them to do?
  Mr. Foster: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Despite our criticisms of the current state of the railways, I hope that all hon. Members want our railways to succeed for the very reasons given by my hon. Friend. I certainly agree that not only must we have a quick decision from the Secretary of State on the London underground but it must be the right decision. I very much welcome the suggestion made today by the right hon. Gentleman that he may be more prepared than heretofore to consider alternative proposals—including the one first made by the Liberal Democrats—for a bond issue arrangement for the London underground.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: I am sure all hon. Members in the Chamber want the railways to succeed, but would that be helped if passengers took the advice of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten)? On Meridian television, on Sunday at lunchtime, the hon. Gentleman advised people to break the law by refusing to show their tickets to railway staff. Is it right to incite passengers to break the law and to take out their frustration on the hard-working staff of the railways?
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the legal requirement is to have a valid ticket for travel. He will also be aware that many rail passengers are extremely fed up with the current state of our railways and the Government's failure to tackle it. I suspect that on 1 March many of them will find some way—whether through the suggestion of my hon. Friend or in some other way—to make known their concern about the current crisis and to put pressure on the Government. I note with interest and some pleasure that later today the Secretary of State is to meet some representatives of the passengers who are so deeply worried about the situation on the railways.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Foster: I will a little later, but I want to make some progress.
  As the Secretary of State said just two days ago in the House, we do not have a railway system that is fit for the 21st century. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's candour then, and the candour that he showed earlier today when he was asked why Lord Birt had been brought in to advise on the railways. The right hon. Gentleman's succinct reply—that it keeps him occupied—betrays a great deal.
  Even more forthright than the Secretary of State was the Minister for Europe, who told The Spectator magazine that we had the worst railways in Europe. Rail passengers are only too well aware of the problems of delays, cancellations, overcrowding and excessive fares. No wonder they are lobbying the Secretary of State later today.
  Sadly, however, some information about the state of our railways is being denied to passengers. The Government seem unwilling to provide some very important facts. Just before Christmas, I submitted some 200 parliamentary questions about the state of the railways. The House may be interested in some of the replies.
  I asked, for example, about collisions involving mark 1 rolling stock—the slam-door carriages. The Department answered by suggesting that the information was not available, yet I assure the Secretary of State that it can be found on page 94 of the Health and Safety Executive's annual safety report. The data show that, of the 106 train collisions that occurred in 2000–01, 58 were due to trains colliding with the open door on a slam-door carriage.
  I also asked for a regional breakdown of speed restrictions, but the Department again felt unable to oblige. However, discussions with the train operating companies, and the data that they have supplied, mean that we know that the information is available.
  I asked also for details of the proportion of track that does not meet minimum required standards. I was told that the information was not available to that level of detail. That was an odd response, as the information can be found in Railtrack's network management statement.
  Many of my questions referred to safety improvements. I am sure the Secretary of State would agree that restoring confidence in the safety of our railways is crucial. Safety recommendations must be implemented swiftly and the public must be kept informed of progress on implementation.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman share the concern of many people in south Wales about the reports that emerged over Christmas and the new year regarding the condition of the track bed on the line between London, Swansea and Cardiff, which is subsiding? Does he share my concern, with regard to safety, that the Strategic Rail Authority's plan, published

  299
  this week, makes no mention of any work being done on the line in the next 10 years? We will have to wait half a century before that line is upgraded.
  Mr. Foster: I agree, and the same applies in the south-west of England. Cornwall has been given objective 1 status by the Department, yet it does not enjoy a similar status when it comes to improvements in rail facilities.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: With regard to safety, last week I met Chris Gibb, chief executive of Wales and West Passenger Trains. The meeting had been planned before Christmas, and we discussed the line that runs from Manchester, through Shropshire and Herefordshire, and down to Cardiff. He told me that when he lays on extra trains for rugby international matches at the Millennium stadium in Cardiff, he has to borrow coaches from a museum, as he has so little in the way of resources or infrastructure. Does my hon. Friend think that that is a safe way for passengers to travel to a rugby match?
  Mr. Foster: I suspect that my hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I do not believe that that is the right way to go forward. I am sure the Secretary of State will have heard what my hon. Friend said, and I hope that he will respond later.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: No; I want to make progress because many other hon. Members wish to speak.
  The point is that safety recommendations need to be implemented swiftly. Following the dreadful Paddington crash, Lord Cullen made very many safety recommendations, 41 of which were due to be implemented before Christmas, by 19 December. When Lord Cullen published his report on 19 June, he recommended that a review of compliance with his recommendations should be conducted on behalf of the Health and Safety Commission within six months of his report, and that those reports should be published.
  On the same day, the Secretary of State said that he wanted a report on implementation by 19 December. Despite asking questions about those 41 Cullen recommendations, we still do not know whether they have been implemented, yet I have received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), that states:
  "The review of compliance has been completed."
  It goes on to say that checks on "areas of uncertainty" are being made and that the report will be published next March. That is simply not good enough; any accurate information on this crucial issue should be published immediately.
  Yesterday, I incorrectly stated that the information was on the Secretary of State's desk. He has assured me that it is not, so I unreservedly apologise to him, but that raises a fascinating question: given that he wanted that report by 19 December and that the review of compliance has been completed, why is it not on the Secretary of State's desk? Why does he not demand that it be put on his desk immediately? Why does he not agree to publish the accurate information that it contains straight away?
  The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers): For the simple reason that, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Health and Safety Executive is an independent body. At the moment, it is clarifying some of the reports that it received from the industry with regard to compliance by 19 December. It will report to the Health and Safety Commission in February, and I will receive a report after that. That is the sequence of events, and I am afraid that it is the price we pay for having an independent HSE that is not dictated to by party politicians.
  Mr. Foster: If the HSE is not dictated to by party politicians, it is slightly odd that the Secretary of State said in his press release on 19 June that he wanted that report by 19 December, and I hope that he will take that up with the HSE.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will be prepared to intervene one more time. One of Lord Cullen's key recommendations was that signal improvements in the Paddington area should take place by 19 December. Does the Secretary of State know whether those improvements have taken place? Clearly, he has nothing to say. The travelling public will note that he could have obtained that information and asked for an answer to that specific question, yet it appears that he has failed to do so. That is typical of so much of what has happened under this Labour Government. The Minister for Europe also said in that article in The Spectator:
  "We started transport investment far too late … We should have been more radical earlier."
  Mr. Bill Rammell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that investment is key and that people judge politicians not on what they say, but on what they do. Will he remind the House of how much additional money, above and beyond the Government's public expenditure plans, was included in the Liberal Democrat's alternative budget last year?
  Mr. Foster: Yes, I certainly can, and I shall come to that very point—[Interruption]. The answer is £250,000—[Interruption.] A figure of £250 million was included in the Liberal Democrats' alternative budget, but given that the hon. Gentleman is interested—
  Mr. Rammell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: No, I will not give way; I am still answering the hon. Gentleman's first question. As the hon. Gentleman is interested in government investment in the railways, I hope that he will do me the courtesy of waiting a couple of minutes before I tell him precisely what the Labour Government have invested in the railways.
  Mr. Rammell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that an additional £250 million in the context of an additional £33 billion is technically called "peanuts"?
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. First, he has multiplied his Government's figure by 10 and compared it with a single year's figure. Secondly, in his comparison, he is referring not only to Government money but to expected and anticipated private sector money. If the chaos on the railways

  301
  continues at its current level, there is fat chance that the Government will get the private sector investment that they expect.
  David Taylor rose—
  Caroline Flint rose—
  Mr. Foster: Although I wish to make progress, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  David Taylor: With an interesting statistic earlier, the hon. Gentleman spoke about the travelling public's aggregate waiting time for trains. With the aid of a ballpoint pen and the Order Paper, I have worked out that, since 1 May 1997, the electorate of the United Kingdom have waited an aggregate of 200 million years for a clear exposition of how the Liberal Democrats will finance their transport policies, and of where the taxes will fall.
  Mr. Foster: If the hon. Gentleman wants clear exposition, I will be more than happy to provide him with a copy not only of the Liberal Democrat manifesto—which was the only manifesto to contain full costings—but of the very detailed alternative Budget that we set out. It contains all those details. He need wait no longer; they will shortly be coming his way.
  Caroline Flint rose—
  Mr. Foster: I shall not give way, as I wish to make progress.
  The real question is whether the Labour Government have made progress in solving the problem on our railways. I suggest that one reason why they have not made progress is that they have schizophrenia about the whole issue of privatisation. The House will be well aware that, when the Labour party was in opposition, it opposed rail privatisation. However, within two years of coming into power, it published the fascinating document "Releasing the Power of Rail", which offered a rather different view of privatisation.
  I have referred to the document before, but it certainly deserves a second outing because it contains what a Labour Government said about railway privatisation. It states:
  "Railways are back … Trains are cleaner, safer and often a good deal faster … There is, as a result of privatisation, new energy and enthusiasm in the industry."
  Despite what the Government now say about fragmentation, the document even boasted:
  "There are now 25 operating companies, instead of just one."
  It concluded with this wonderful sentence:
  "The arrival of competition has produced a surge of talent and innovation."
  With such confidence in the system, it is hardly surprising that so little action was taken to get to grips with the problem.
  The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) raised the issue of money. On Monday, I asked the Secretary of State whether it was true that the Government will have spent less on the railways in their first five years than the
  302
  Conservative Government spent in their last five years. He gave me a perfectly correct figure about total investment—public and private combined—over a 10-year period and, as I said earlier, I accept that there has been increased private sector finance. However, he failed to answer my question.
  I will therefore answer the question for the Secretary of State from figures provided by the Library of the House of Commons. In the first five years of the Labour Government, total Government spending on the railways will have been £8.2 billion. In the last five years of the Conservative Government, total Government spending on railways was £13.3 billion. On the crucial issue of investment in the railways, the disparity is even more marked. In their first five years, the Labour Government will have spent £0.7 billion on investment whereas, in their last five years, the Conservatives spent not £0.7 billion but £5.7 billion. Little has been done. Despite the high-level meetings that the Deputy Prime Minister had when he was in charge of the railways, he did little and achieved little.
  Then we had a new Secretary of State. Was he going to do anything? Initially, his departmental press release of 18 June, headed "Government Pledges Certainty to allow the Industry to tackle the tough job ahead on our railways", quotes him as saying:
  "So I am not going to embark on big structural changes. What the industry needs now is a period of stability and certainty".
  That was before his famous U-turn when he took action on Railtrack. We agree with the direction that the right hon. Gentleman wants to take on that. After all, it was a Liberal Democrat proposal of many months earlier. The point is, however, that the way the right hon. Gentleman handled that process has led to further confusion in our railways and worsened the situation.
  Mr. John Redwood: Has the hon. Gentleman also noticed that as recently as this week the SRA—the creature of the Secretary of State—praised privatisation for the 34 per cent. increase in passenger numbers and the 40 per cent. increase in freight achieved since privatisation? Even the Secretary of State is muddled over whether it is a good or bad thing.
  Mr. Foster: I think that many right hon. and hon. Members are confused about the Labour Government's view of privatisation. On Monday, the Secretary of State said that the third way is fraying at the edges and that the private sector was not necessarily the best way forward. The next day he supported the SRA, advocating the continuation of privatisation through the use of private sector money. We also heard the Secretary of State for Health talk about the privatisation of the national health service. I am as confused as the right hon. Gentleman about the Government's approach to privatisation.
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: No, I want to make a bit more progress.
  We have also seen the SRA's strategic rail plan, to which the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) referred. I welcome it, although I would argue strongly that it has come far too late. Unfortunately, it contains much that is not new. Plans to introduce train

  303
  protection warning systems have already been announced, as was the decision to buy new rolling stock to replace slam-door carriages.
  The plan has little detail on reducing fragmentation, excessive fares or overcrowding. Indeed, in the light of the earlier 10-year plan, the Government seem to be rowing back on some of their aspirations. On excessive fares, the 10-year plan says:
  "Punctuality, reliability, affordability and comfort are what most passengers want from their trains. We will seek real reductions in the cost of rail travel".
  The SRA plan simply says:
  "We must focus on performance and reliability, the key issues that passengers say time and time again. The SRA will be carrying out a review of fares policy."
  I hope that affordability does not drop off the agenda and that a wider range of fares will be regulated.
  Mr. Streeter: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the many defects in the 10-year plan released this week is that it has little to say about journey times and rail services in the far south-west? In particular, will he and his hon. Friends get behind the excellent campaign, now spearheaded by the Plymouth Evening Herald, to reduce the average journey times of trains to Plymouth to three hours? Does he agree that in the 21st century it is a disgrace that journey times from London to Plymouth are consistently around the four-hour mark? Will he back a three-hour campaign?
  Mr. Foster: I am delighted to give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to guarantee him coverage in the next edition of his local newspaper. He has heard me say that rail transportation from Paddington to the south-west and to south Wales is totally inadequate. Unfortunately, it seems to be slipping further and further down the Government's list of aspirations with regard to the things they want improved.
  Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: No—no more.
  Under the Labour Government, we have had far too many false dawns. What are the successes of the national punctuality taskforce that was set up at the insistence of the Deputy Prime Minister in February 1999? What has happened to the train reliability action groups that the Government set up? How many different dates have we been given for getting back to normal? What happened to that fresh start for the railways promised by the Deputy Prime Minister in April last year?
  Now the Secretary of State expects us to draw a line in the sand, but before doing so and moving forward to what we all hope will be a better and brighter future for our railways, let us not forget the five wasted years of Labour Government. The right hon. Gentleman wants to be held to account by the next election, but he must also be held to account for his and his Government's inaction to date. The Government are keen on performance-related pay, so with 22 per cent. of trains delayed, we should delay paying that proportion of the right hon. Gentleman's ministerial salary; with 1.8 per cent. of trains cancelled, we should cancel that proportion of his salary. Unless
  304
  there are significant improvements on our railways before long, the Secretary of State's mother may defend him, but no one else will, and nor should they.
  4.11 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "believes that the railway infrastructure was badly damaged by decades of underinvestment and a flawed privatisation; recognises that the Government made tough decisions in the first two years of the last Parliament to deliver the economic stability that means it can put record levels of investment into the railways; notes that annual average total investment in rail over the 10 year plan will be £4.3 billion, compared to £1.4 billion for the period 1989/90–1996/97; congratulates the Government on its decisive action over Railtrack, so undoing a failed Conservative privatisation; welcomes the SRA's Strategic Plan that sets out an effective agenda for the railways; calls for the resolution of the present industrial disputes through negotiation not strike action; and believes that the steps taken have laid the groundwork for a railway system that will be fit for the 21st century.".
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on introducing this timely debate on the state of our railways. I agree with him—in part because he was quoting me—that we do not have a railway system fit for the 21st century. That is despite the fact that many dedicated, highly motivated people work in the railway system. They are frustrated that they are not working in an organisation that is delivering for the travelling public. It is important that we acknowledge the good work being done by many people in the industry.
  As I said in Monday's statement on the strategic plan, there are two principal reasons why we do not have a railway system fit for the 21st century. First, for decades now there has been chronic underinvestment in the railway system. The grand schemes of the 1950s and 1960s of modernisation being achieved through British Rail led us to the 1970s and 1980s when, to be frank, there was political disinterest in the railways. No real priority was given to the subject by Governments, both Labour and Conservative, during that period. In the 1990s, the railways were used to push forward privatisation, first with the train operating companies and then, later in the 1990s, with the privatisation of Railtrack.
  Geraint Davies: I have British Rail's 1980 annual report in which the then chairman, Sir Peter Parker, said:
  "Planned limits on railway investment have remained virtually unchanged for nearly 10 years … If a rising profile of investment is not agreed, and desperately soon, much improvement in service quality … will be long delayed."
  Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current calls for long-term investment should have been considered in 1980, when the Tories had the opportunity to invest?
  Mr. Byers: The record will show that I made it clear that both Labour and Conservative Governments did not invest during the 1970s and 1980s. At the time, many of us in the Labour party argued against the public expenditure cuts that were being made—that takes me back a few years. None the less, my hon. Friend makes an important point about the need to invest in public services.
  The 10-year plan launched by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out for the first time a framework in which not only railways but transport overall could

  305
  develop and expand in future. We now need to respond to the extra demand within the system. More passengers are being carried and freight has increased significantly in recent years, but the system has not been able to cope with that increased demand. We must now ensure that we can meet the demand that has been created, and that we can achieve the increase that we want to see, which is one of our key targets in the 10-year plan.
  Mr. Redwood: We were meant to have a plan at the end of 1999. A plan was launched in the summer of 2000, and another was launched on Monday, which was thin gruel with a few spin doctors' scraps in it. That so-called plan says:
  "We need one plan"
  and achieving that
  "is a key target for 2002".
  Even the plan is delayed. When will we get the real plan?
  Mr. Byers: When the right hon. Gentleman has studied the plan, I hope that he will agree with me that it provides a comprehensive statement of exactly what benefits and improvements the travelling public can expect. Some people are critical because they do not think that the timetable is quick enough, and others ask questions about priorities. People may criticise, but for the first time the stall has been set out and people will be able to judge delivery.
  The important point made in the plan is that this is not the end—it is not just the plan and that is it—it is a beginning, and there will be another plan next year, because it will need to be revised and reviewed in the light of experience. That is how it must be. It would be a terrible mistake if we thought that the plan was set in concrete and could not be changed in the future. The strategic plan was clear about what needs to be done.
  The first reason for the under-performance in the railways is the chronic underinvestment over many years.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The Secretary of State has outlined past experience in the railways and the problems created by the chronic underinvestment, and I think that everyone agrees with him on that. Will he now put his mind to the chronic underinvestment in Wales in the next 10 years under this plan? Does he accept the figures produced by the Wales Transport Research Centre at the University of Glamorgan under Professor Stuart Cole, which show that the plan has only 17 per cent. of what the railways in Wales need for the next 10 years?
  Is not the Secretary of State concerned that he could be storing up problems for the future in Wales by continuing the underinvestment under this plan, and that he could have the same problems as the Government had with the health service, when they addressed the problem of numbers on the waiting lists? They should be addressing the crucial infrastructure issue, rather than the number of passengers travelling in and out of London. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the huge underinvestment in his plan for Wales?
  Mr. Byers: No, I do not accept that there is an underinvestment in Wales. The strategic plan shows that, for the first time, the Strategic Rail Authority, working
  306
  with the United Kingdom Government and the Welsh Assembly, is identifying what needs to be done with regard to rail provision in Wales. We will open up the Vale of Glamorgan line for passenger traffic between Barry and Bridgend, which is a real improvement. Early next year, we will have a new franchise for Wales and the borders, which will significantly drive up and improve standards in Wales, and overcome some of the difficulties that we have heard about from Opposition Members. That is a significant move forward. I welcome the close working relationship that has already developed between the Strategic Rail Authority and the Welsh Assembly. Engaging in a proper and effective dialogue is the best way to address the concerns of the people of Wales.
  Mr. Streeter rose—
  Caroline Flint rose—
  Mr. Byers: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint).
  Caroline Flint: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have a role in driving the pace of change through the franchising process? I am sure that, like me, he welcomes the agreed two-year extension to the Great North Eastern Railway east coast main line franchise, which has resulted in 11 extra services running from Leeds to London. GNER will refurbish every train in the fleet and rebuild every locomotive. Is not that good news for the travelling public and for those of us who are taking action on the franchising process to make the private operators put in the required investment?
  Mr. Byers: When hon. Members have the opportunity to see the details of today's two-year franchise extension for GNER, they will realise that it will have real benefits for the travelling public. Most importantly, they will understand why there was a need to introduce a two-year extension at this time.
  Pete Wishart: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Byers: I want first to make the point about GNER because it is of concern to many Members. The extension is for two years because the detailed work to upgrade the east coast main line was not carried out by Railtrack. That work can now be done. When we come to re-let the franchise after the two-year extension, we will be able to consider awarding a five, 10 or 15-year extension for the franchise on that line. The nature of the upgrade will mean that the franchise lends itself to such a lengthy extension.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Byers: I have a wonderful trio of Members to choose from. I will stick with Wales and the borders for the time being and give way to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik).
  Lembit Öpik: I acknowledge that there is significant investment for parts of Wales, but will the Secretary of State make a commitment to reconsider

  307
  the plans for the more rural parts of Wales, particularly mid-Wales, which have not received the degree of attention that he implies they should have done?
  Mr. Byers: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of the Strategic Rail Authority, as I know that it is considering how it can respond to the needs of particular communities.
  Pete Wishart: Does not the extension to the GNER franchise mean that the Secretary of State has reneged on the commitment that he made in July to replace the existing rolling stock on the east coast main line? Is not that another indication that the 10-year plan is really a solution for London and the south-east? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a growing perception that it offers very little for Scotland?
  Mr. Byers: The agreement announced today offers real benefits to people in Scotland. For example, there will be an extra carriage on each of the high-speed trains. My announcement last summer was basically a negotiating position aimed at finding out what the Strategic Rail Authority could secure from GNER. We never believed that all those objectives would be achieved. People will recognise the benefits that the changes will bring to passengers on the east coast main line and travellers to Scotland.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Byers: Hon. Members are trying to divert me to Scotland. I shall visit the south-west in due course, but I shall go via Hereford.
  Mr. Keetch: The Secretary of State knows that he will be very welcome in Hereford whenever he wants to visit. Returning to Wales and the borders, the current owners of the franchise there told me that because they will not know for another 12 or 15 months whether they will be successful in retaining the franchise, they will not make any significant investment at all, which is understandable. Is there not a need for longer franchises to give a period of stability so that companies can invest as they should be doing?
  Mr. Byers: When the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to read the new franchising statement from the Strategic Rail Authority he will see that it is considering a 15-year franchise, broken into three parts so that it is reviewed after five years. To be frank, I am concerned about what the position would be if, after five years of an extended franchise of 15 or 20 years, the company was clearly under-performing on its contract. It is important that we have break clauses in such franchises, and that is the direction in which the Strategic Rail Authority wants to go.
  Malcolm Bruce rose—
  Mr. Streeter rose—
  Mr. Byers: I shall make a quick visit to Scotland and then I shall go to the south-west.
  Malcolm Bruce: Does the Secretary of State accept that his need to pursue private finance means that there is
  308
  a danger that the money will go where the people are, as those are the areas in which private investors will be interested? Surely with a not-for-profit Railtrack he has a responsibility to invest in the infrastructure in areas such as the north of Scotland to ensure that businesses and people have choice and access to markets. Those areas should not be entirely dependent on their ability to attract private finance. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people on the Aberdeen to Inverness line are saying that they will no longer travel by train, not because the trains are not frequent enough but because they are so overcrowded that passengers cannot get on?
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There will be parts of the rail network where the private sector is keen to be involved, but we should never forget that the network is for the whole country and there is public service provision in the railways. Some lines are not economic, but it will be a disaster for the network if we close them down to save money in the short term, because in the long term that will deny passengers to the main lines. We must not make that mistake. We know from the way in which the rail network has been misused over the years that easy decisions can be made, but in the end some lines will not be cost-effective and they will need a public subsidy. The 10-year plan contains scope for the public sector to make provision to secure those routes.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before my right hon. Friend leaves Scotland, there is a special problem which is something of a nightmare—the key Forth rail bridge, the greatest monument to 19th century engineering, with which there are expensive maintenance problems. I am not asking my right hon. Friend for an answer off the top of his head, but could he get his officials to look at where the boundary for responsibility lies between the Scottish Executive in Edinburgh and his Department? There are urgent matters and it may be a question of a stitch in time saving nine.
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Yesterday I had a meeting with the Scottish Minister for Transport and we looked at a range of issues to do with rail in Scotland. I am acutely aware of the need to make sure that the bridge is maintained safely and securely. Probably the best thing would be for me to do some detailed work and write to my hon. Friend so that he is fully aware of exactly what is being done.
  Mr. Streeter: I am impressed by the Secretary of State's detailed knowledge of rail services in Wales, Scotland and all round the country, which is very much to his credit. However, will he turn his attention to the people living west of Exeter in the far south-west? Does he understand the dismay that there is literally nothing in the 10-year plan to encourage anyone living in Devon, Plymouth or Cornwall that unacceptable journey times will be speeded up during the next 10 years? Will he give hope to regular rail users and business people in the far south-west that during the course of the 10-year plan something will be done to speed up the time that it takes to travel west from Exeter so that we can have a three-hour journey from London to Plymouth and down into Cornwall? The situation is serious.
  Mr. Byers: In an effort to join the hon. Gentleman on the front page of his local newspaper, I had the

  309
  opportunity to speak with the editor of the Plymouth Evening Herald at a reception at No. 10 Downing street last week. He pointed out the importance of the rail link between Plymouth and Paddington, so I am acutely aware of the problem. Improved frequencies are mentioned in the strategic plan, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that journey times are important; I am sure that the SRA will want to consider that.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Byers: I want to make progress, but Cornwall is in the right direction.
  Mr. Tyler: To enable the Evening Herald to represent the views of the three parties, I point out that the Secretary of State has just touched on one of the major issues that we face in the south-west. He referred to the journey time to Plymouth, but there is a world beyond Plymouth; people do not realise just how far Penzance is beyond Plymouth. It is extremely important to recognise that we have a national railway system, to which he referred in the context of Scotland. If he does not represent the public interests of the more peripheral parts of the United Kingdom, nobody else will. The private investor never will.
  Mr. Byers: When I was appointed Secretary of State, there was criticism of the fact that a non-driver had been appointed. However, when we have a debate such as this, it is useful to have a non-driver at the Dispatch Box. I have taken the train on most of those routes and I am aware that there are many miles the other side of Plymouth. There is a great need to make sure that Cornwall and many other counties in the south-west are effectively served by rail. The point is well made. I re-emphasise the fact that we are talking about a railway network. Of course, 70 per cent. of passenger journeys are in London and the south-east and there needs to be a concentration of resources to solve problems there, but not at the expense of other parts of the United Kingdom. The important thing is that the additional money that we have secured means that there will be funds to make improvements in those areas and ensure that we can discharge our responsibilities in London and the south-east where the bulk of passenger journeys takes place.
  I was explaining that there were two principal reasons why the railway system was failing; the first was underinvestment and the second related to the failure of Rai1track. The House has debated that on many occasions, so I shall not go into great detail now. I just want to say something about the money that we are committing, as that was raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). In the next 10 years, £33.5 billion of public money will go into the railways. I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions and know that there is concern. I was told that it was good to have that money going in, but I was asked whether I could ensure that there was not large-scale underspending in the Department, which would prevent money from being spent on transport and railways.
  As the Select Committee heard this morning, at the end of March 2001 there was an underspend on capital of £350 million for that financial year—an underspend
  310
  which is unacceptably high. As Secretary of State, I have tried to make sure that our capital programme is forecast correctly and spent on schedule. We are taking significant steps to achieve that. It was to make sure that we do not have a large underspend at the end of the present financial year, that on 28 November I wrote to all budget holders of capital spending in the Department and in our agencies. I shall quote from the letter, as it shows how seriously I as Secretary of State take the issue of making sure that we spend the money that has been allocated.
  The letter stated:
  "As a Department, we are responsible for a large proportion of the Government's capital investment programme.… I am therefore concerned to ensure that we should be doing all we can to keep underspending to a minimum, consistent with value for money. I am, of course, aware that there is always a risk of slippage, particularly for large and complex capital programmes, and that there are other constraints relating to capital programmes. However, I attach great importance to ensuring that, with good management and forecasting, slippage should be kept to an absolute minimum. Where investment in one project is slipping, to compensate you should consider advancing spend on other committed projects."
  That is necessary to make sure that money that is allocated is spent when it is needed. The measures that we have introduced in the Department will make sure that we overcome a large degree of underspending, while still achieving value for money.
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: One of the areas where the underspend was greatest was on the channel tunnel. Can the Secretary of State give me an assurance that the problems that freight trains have had getting through the tunnel because of asylum seekers will be ended, and that the underspend will not occur again?
  Mr. Byers: The underspend on the channel tunnel did not arise for that reason, but because there was no slippage. Delivery came in below the amount of money that had been allocated. That was good management. The project is going extremely well. It is on budget and on time.
  The entire House agrees that we cannot allow people to enter our country illegally through the channel tunnel. We take a robust position on that. We have a good relationship and we have reached a satisfactory conclusion with the French in respect of Eurostar. We have effectively closed that route. We are putting great pressure on the French to adopt robust physical measures, such as fencing and proper lighting, and to ensure a police presence to deal with the problems of freight. Those issues must be addressed in a way that does not disadvantage the British freight business. We are urging the French to move. The Government are aware of the seriousness of the problem, and we will do all that we can to overcome it.
  The hon. Member for Bath mentioned the spend under the previous Labour Government from 1997 onwards. We must acknowledge that in the first two years of that period, public spending was restricted to the programme laid down by the Conservative Government. It was not an easy decision to take. I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury for part of that time, so I bear some of the responsibility. I shall explain to the House why we adopted that approach.
  When we came into office in 1997, the national debt stood at £350 billion. That was 44 per cent. of our gross domestic product and was costing £25 billion a year in

  311
  debt repayments. National debt was not falling, but going up. In 2001–02, because of the measures that we introduced and the tough spending round for those first two years, debt will fall to about 31 per cent. of GDP, costing £18 billion a year to service, so already we have £7 billion a year extra for essential services—money which is not being spent on servicing the debt because the national debt has been reduced.
  That was not an easy decision to take in those first two years, but the tough regime that we introduced ensured that, at a time when we were getting the economy right and it was growing, we could use the money to start to repay the national debt. As I said, the regime ensured that £7 billion a year extra is now available for investment in transport, health, education and so on. In addition, we reduced not only the national debt, but unemployment. The number of people in work has increased by 1 million since April 1997. As a result, we are now spending £4 billion a year less on unemployment.
  So, those tough decisions that were taken early on have provided us with about £11 billion a year extra that we can spend on essential services, and we obviously have the benefits of the growing economy as well. Those are the reasons why we took those decisions. The Liberal Democrats can criticise us for that and complain about the spending levels that resulted, but because of the steps that we have taken we can deliver through the 10-year plan long-term, sustained investment in the railway network. The railways, perhaps more than any other area, need not merely the odd one or two years of investment, but a long period, and 10 years will make a marked difference to the railway infrastructure.
  Mr. Don Foster: I note with interest that the Secretary of State has not denied the proposition that I put to him on spending. I said that the Labour Government had spent less in real terms on the railways in their first five years in office than had been spent in the previous five years, during which a Conservative Government were in power. The right hon. Gentleman is now seeking to give the House the impression that there is to be a huge bonanza in additional Government money for the railways. Will he confirm whether my figures are correct, not least in view of the merriment about the additional £250 million a year proposed by the Liberal Democrats? Will he confirm the Library figures? On a 1999–2000 price base, they show that, in the last eight years under the Conservative Government, the total annual Government spend on the railways was £2.4 billion a year, while the figures in the 10-year plan suggest that that will rise to a staggering £2.5 billion—an increase of only £100 million a year.
  Mr. Byers: The figures are clearly set out in the plan. The important point is that somebody travelling on the train will not be bothered too much about whether public or private money has been used to buy, for example, the rolling stock. People will want to know only that the train is in decent condition, that it will get to the destination on time and that it is safe. Such a division does not make sense in the real world. Surely, the key issue is the total investment that is being made in the railways, not whether it is public or private. A big increase is occurring in terms of public investment and I am confident that we will secure the private investment that will be necessary to support the railway network.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Byers: I have a great choice. I give way first to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles).
  Mr. Eric Pickles: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State. We generally agree that it does not matter where the money comes from, but may I remind him that, although he has just spent about five minutes explaining why he could not put any money in and telling us that happy times were here again, he has not only failed to deliver a single penny piece extra of public money for the railways, but has put private money in jeopardy by making his ill-considered attack on Railtrack?
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman returns to his refrain about the private sector not wanting to invest in the railways because of the action that the Government have taken on Railtrack and says that private companies will walk away. Interestingly, when we discussed the matter on 15 October last year, he said:
  "Where is the £34 billion of private investment to come from? The best we can hope for is a 12-month delay in investment in such vital services as the west coast and east coast main lines".—[Official Report, 15 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 957.]
  [Interruption.] It is said that that is exactly what happened. Well, today, GNER has announced £100 million of private sector investment in the east coast line. That happened this morning.
  Mr. Pickles: It is for rolling stock.
  Mr. Byers: It is private sector investment; it is new money. Last year, the hon. Gentleman said that there would be a 12-month delay in private investment in the east coast main line, yet today GNER is making a contribution of £100 million. Let us consider how the money will be used. There is a contribution to the infrastructure upgrade—that is the track, not rolling stock; £10 million for stations and integrated transport; money for rolling stock reliability and static converters, and for improvements to rolling stock and extra coaches. Every pound and every penny of the £100 million constitutes private sector investment. So much for the hon. Gentleman and the 12-month delay in private sector investment.
  Mr. Pickles: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Byers: No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman, and it was a bit embarrassing. [Interruption.] Oh, go on then.
  Mr. Pickles: Let us be clear. Does the Secretary of State claim that the upgrade to the east coast and west coast main lines can be covered by such relatively small sums of money? Is that why he is trying to get out of phase 2 of the west coast upgrade? Is that why he is trying to negotiate to ensure that we do not get trains that travel at 140 mph? In the world that he occupies, are such little gifts regarded as major triumphs?
  Mr. Byers: We have 25 franchises, many of them for much longer than two years. A two-year extension secures £100 million of private investment. Conservative

  313
  Members like to claim that the private sector is walking away from investing in the railways; it is not. When it perceives a good investment and a good return, as GNER and the rolling stock companies did with the east coast main line, it will make the investment.
  The transport plan and the 10-year plan is clear and precise about the way in which the money will be spent. There will be a public sector contribution, much of which will be invested in the infrastructure, and private sector investment, partly through special purpose vehicles and partly through the new franchising arrangements.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the last Conservative Chancellor gave only £500 million to upgrade the whole west coast main line? When Railtrack went into administration, the predicted cost for upgrading that line was £10 billion. It would have been cheaper to build a brand new line.
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend has followed the vagaries of the west coast main line in considerable detail. He knows that the project was dogged first by a failure of political commitment by the Conservative party. We have tried to drive it through. As time goes by, the new management of Railtrack is beginning to realise the state of the project, and greater difficulties are becoming apparent.
  However, it is important to acknowledge the significant contribution and investment that Virgin has made in the new rolling stock that it has earmarked for the line. That is another good example of private sector investment; the new trains are impressive. We must recognise Virgin's commitment. We have to work with Railtrack and the SRA to make sure that we conclude an agreement that will deliver on the west coast main line and make a genuine difference to the travelling public.
  Mr. Wiggin: In the Select Committee meeting this morning, the Minister said that he favoured fewer train operating companies, perhaps because so many operate at a loss. Will GNER be one of the train operating companies that is likely to disappear?
  Mr. Byers: The fact that GNER has made a commitment of £100 million suggests that it will be around for the long term. I am confident that it will be involved in the refranchise when it happens because it offers a good service on the east coast main line. However, it is right to go through the franchise process to ensure that we make a genuine difference.
  Conservative Members have often made points about private finance in the current circumstances. Much has been written in the Financial Times and other newspapers about the clear distinction that the City makes between the financial state of a private company such as Railtrack, and the sort of public-private partnerships and special purpose vehicles that we envisage for investment in the railways in the future. That is how it should be, and I think that there is a recognition that that is the case. GNER has clearly demonstrated this morning, with its £100 million investment, the way in which the private sector wants to continue to be involved.
  I shall conclude with a few points about the SRA' s plan, which was published on Monday. The short-term priorities identified in the plan reflect the need to tackle
  314
  problem areas such as poor performance, to develop a new industry structure following the Railtrack administration, and to implement much needed improvements throughout the country. For the medium term, the Government have set three core targets for the railway industry through our 10-year plan, all of them to be met by 2010. Those targets are passenger and freight growth of 50 and 80 per cent. respectively, and a reduction in overcrowding in the London area. The 10-year plan also sets out a broader range of objectives for the railways, including improvements in safety, performance and quality.
  Mr. Don Foster: The Secretary of State has raised the issue of safety. Does he know whether Lord Cullen's recommendations on improvements in signalling in the Paddington area were implemented by 19 December last year, as they were expected to be?
  Mr. Byers: I understand that the train protection warning system was introduced fully in Paddington during the autumn of last year. The hon. Gentleman is right to pick me up on Cullen, because he raised the issue earlier and I must address it. Cullen asked for an investigation into whether compliance had been achieved by 19 December. That work has been concluded, and certain issues are now being clarified. As I said in my earlier intervention, the conclusions will be published in March. However, the delay that has been incurred has exposed a weakness in the Health and Safety Executive.
  The delay came about because the HSE was not properly staffed to deal with that level of work in the time in which we all agree it needed to be done. I have made sure that it is to be staffed at a proper level. In 1999, there were just 56 railway inspectors at the HSE. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a vital area, and the work was not being done quickly enough so far as I was concerned. As a result of the action that we have taken, there will be 196 railway inspectors at the HSE by March this year. The sort of delay that we have seen will not be repeated, and we can treat safety issues as a priority in the way in which the hon. Gentleman wishes us to do, in relation not only to Cullen but to the whole range of safety issues in the industry.
  The broader range of objectives for the railways includes safety, performance and quality. Although the strategic plan focuses on the short and medium term, the longer term is not neglected. I have no doubt that the condition of the railways in the United Kingdom is not one of which anyone can be proud. I say that as Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. I took the decision that we were not going to tinker around at the edges of the problem, or muddle through; rather, we would take the necessary decisive action.
  I have come in for a great deal of political criticism from Opposition Members for the actions that I have taken. I do not regret the decisions that we have taken, because decisive action was necessary if we were to create a railway system fit for the 21st century, and the one that the fourth largest economy in the world deserves. We have not got that yet, but I am confident that, because of the decisive action that we have taken over time—there are no quick fixes so far as railways are concerned—the travelling public will be able to see real improvements by 2005. By 2010, at the end of the 10-year plan, we shall

  315
  have had the significant sustained investment that the railways need, which will change dramatically the quality of experience so far as the travelling public is concerned.
  Priority will be given to railways; that is my commitment as Secretary of State. It is a commitment on which I intend to deliver for the Government and for the travelling public. On that basis, I ask the House to support the amendment.
  4.49 pm
  Mrs. Theresa May: I refer the House to the declaration that I made on Monday 14 January, which can be found in Hansard at column 33.
  There can be no doubt that the state of the transport system in this country, and of the railways in particular, is a matter of prime concern to everyone. Central to that is the performance of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. He has repeated this afternoon what he said to The Guardian on Monday 14 January:
  "There can be no more excuses. It's now our responsibility … I am taking responsibility."
  So said the Secretary of State. Of course, his responsibility is at the heart of today's debate, because the motion is about whether we think that he is doing a good job on the railways.
  It will surprise no Member of the House to hear that I think the Secretary of State is doing a pretty bad job. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!] I realise that that is a revelation to every Labour Back Bencher, but nobody who has read the press or listened to commuters in recent weeks can be in any doubt that that view is widely held outside the House. Indeed, if the silence on the Labour Benches on Monday when the Secretary of State made his statement on the Strategic Rail Authority's 10-year plan is anything to go by, he can take little comfort in thinking that his colleagues have a better opinion of his performance.
  It so happens that Newcastle's The Journal recently asked the Secretary of State about his performance:
  "Are you confident you're up to the job?"
  He replied:
  "I've got no doubt. People will not take my word for it. They'll look to see what we deliver in practice. That's the acid test."
  He is delivering in practice a 45 per cent. increase in train delays and what the Minister for Europe tells us is the worst railway in Europe.
  We know that the Secretary of State has been undermined by the Prime Minister's appointment of Lord Birt to consider transport policy, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for his reference to the fact that the Secretary of State thinks the Prime Minister has appointed Lord Birt in order to keep him occupied. The Secretary of State has been undermined elsewhere. He told readers of The Guardian that he might perform a U-turn on the London Underground public-private partnership, but the Prime Minister told us that the tube PPP is definitely going ahead.
  The Secretary of State cannot now rely on the other blue-eyed boy of new Labour, the Secretary of State for Health. On Monday, the Secretary of State told us in his interview with The Guardian:
  "There is not a love affair with the private sector."
  316
  However, the Prime Minister reminded us this afternoon that the Government's health service strategy is all about private sector partnerships for the future of the NHS.
  In fact, the Secretary of State cannot even rely on himself. I wonder whether he remembers telling The Guardian:
  "I do believe in the Third Way".
  On Monday, he told us that he is backtracking from the third way because it is becoming "flaky". All that would be an amusing farce were it not for the fact that underlying it is something that matters to the quality of life of everybody in this country—the state of the railways. Passengers' quality of life is not the only issue, because the impact on the economy of having a decent railway system, or one that is not working properly, is also involved. The problem is not just the state of the railways today, but their state in the future.
  Geraint Davies: Dragging us back to the point, how much more would the hon. Lady like to be invested above and beyond the 10-year plan? Would she re-privatise the railways?
  Mrs. May: I find the hon. Gentleman's second question a little surprising, because the train operating companies are still in the private sector. I apologise, because I cannot remember whether he was one of those who applauded the Secretary of State when he put Railtrack into administration.
  Geraint Davies: I was.
  Mrs. May: Excellent, but the hon. Gentleman may think twice about the Secretary of State's actions when he discovers that the company to replace Railtrack will be a private sector company. Far from changing the structure of the railways, which the Labour party has always said has so many problems, the Secretary of State is keeping the structure between Railtrack, the replacement Railtrack and the train operating companies exactly as it was under privatisation. The hon. Gentleman needs to find out more about his party's policy before intervening.
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend might refer to the Secretary of State's very own SRA plan, which says that
  "almost all new projects will be financed by Public Private Partnerships"
  and not through capital support from public funds. He is hiding behind a private sector strategy in the document.
  Mrs. May: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. Now that this has been pointed out to Labour Members, I hope that they will start to understand a little more about what the Secretary of State's promises actually mean.
  I would like to refer to investment, and I shall do so briefly. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bath for placing on the record the Library figures that compared the investment record of the last five years of the last Conservative Government with that of the first five years of this Government. The facts are clear. Investment in the railways during the last five years of the Conservative Government was higher than in the first five years of this Labour Government. The figures quoted by the Secretary of State on Monday are repeated in the Government

  317
  amendment today, namely the investment in rail of £4.3 billion for the 10-year plan, compared to £1.4 billion for the five years up to 1996–97.
  I have discovered how the Department came across these figures. I understand that it took the £49 billion of total public and private investment from 2000 to 2010, divided it by 10 and adjusted it for cash-expected prices. The Department then looked at the SRA national rail trend statistics on the SRA website—there are two different sources for the statistics—referring to Government support only, and averaged only public sector investment over the last five years of the last Conservative Government. The Secretary of State says that actually what people care about is the total amount of investment and not where it comes from, but they also care about the Government giving the facts correctly and not trying to spin fantasy figures to tell a political story that is not true. I hope that the Secretary of State will in future quote the right figures when he talks about investment.
  Mr. Don Foster: Is the hon. Lady aware that if one takes the much-vaunted £180 billion of investment for the 10-year transport plan overall and, instead of adding accumulatively the various amounts, studies it on a constant price basis, it comes to only £157 billion? By the time one takes out all of the money that is regularly spent each year, the hon. Lady will agree that it amounts—to use a phrase coined by a Labour Member—to not much more than a string of beans.
  Mrs. May: That point about the Government's fantasy figures was taken up in the leader column of the Financial Times yesterday, which concluded:
  "There can be only three conclusions. The promised enhancements will not happen; much greater public subsidy will be required; or the amount of double counting in the government's £180 billion 10-year transport plan is much greater than was previously clear."
  We know that the Government double and triple count, and they have done that in terms of the railways and transport investment, but people know the reality because they know what they experience every day when their trains are not running on time or are cancelled.
  Investment is a key issue in looking ahead to improving the railways for the future. There is a black hole at the heart of the Secretary of State's plans. He prays in aid the Financial Times in terms of looking at private sector investment for the future and says that the private sector will come forward with all of the investment, but yesterday the Financial Times posed a very important question to the Government:
  "In its 10-year plan for transport, the government estimated that it could persuade the private sector to invest £34 billion in the railways over the period … The question is: where will the revenue come from to finance this new private investment?"
  Even if money comes forward, it will do so at an increased cost; the price to the taxpayer or to the passenger, through fares, will be higher. We have had estimates that it could be as much as an extra £1.5 billion over two years. Again, I am grateful to the Financial Times, which said:
  "If fares raise £3.4 billion, this achieves a maximum of £1.7 billion extra a year at the end of the plan. Not nearly enough to provide a commercial return on £34 billion of new private investment."
  318
  If the Secretary of State gets his money, it will be at a higher price to the taxpayer or the fare payer.
  When the Minister for Transport sums up, perhaps he will tell the House what the Government estimate will be the extra cost of obtaining that £34 billion from the private sector, as a direct result of the Government's actions with regard to Railtrack, which have so damaged private sector confidence. [Interruption.] The Minister for Transport is laughing at that question so perhaps he would like to answer another one. How much of the private sector investment that is forecast in the 10-year plan from the SRA will he guarantee will have been put in to the railways by the time of the next general election?
  The Government have created a problem for themselves through the way in which they handled Railtrack and put it into administration. That problem is accepted by the SRA which says in its plan that one of the milestones that needs to be passed on the way to delivering the strategic plan is the resolution of the Railtrack administration and the implementation of any financial and structural reforms that are needed as a result. [Interruption.] The Minister for Transport yawns when I mention the 10-year plan, but I thought it was the plan to end all plans and would give us all the answers on the railways. He is the same Minister for Transport who informed us that while the Secretary of State was on holiday in India he had not been in touch with the Department: it was not necessary, the Minister for Transport told us, because he was in charge so everything would be all right. He now seems to be bored by the issue.
  Perhaps the Minister would explain to us when he thinks Railtrack will come out of administration and the costs will be closed down. The administrators have told me—it has been confirmed in written answers—that the cost up to March will be £2.9 billion. That is what they have asked the Government for. If Railtrack stays in administration for as long as is now predicted by commentators—until the middle of next year—an extra £7.5 billion will be needed to pay the costs of administration. The problem with that is the impact that it is having on the railways that the travelling public use. Delays have increased and people are suffering cancellations, but the 10-year plan gives no hope that they will see the increased capacity in the system that is needed if overcrowding is to be reduced and the quality of journeys improved.
  The issue is not only about individual passengers, but about the impact on the economy. As the British Chambers of Commerce has pointed out to me:
  "A coherent and comprehensive transport strategy is essential to UK business competitiveness … the Government has missed a once in a generation opportunity to plan ahead sensibly for the long term sustainable development of the UK rail infrastructure."
  The problem is that the Government have not put that new capacity in place.
  Other aspects of the plan should worry rail passengers. It suggests a reduction in the number of train operating companies and the merger of some franchises, but the SRA has also stated its aim of giving priority to express services, and that could lead to a worrying situation. I shall give an example from my constituency. Maidenhead and Twyford stations are served by Thames Trains. First Great Western goes from Paddington through to Reading without stopping at Maidenhead or Twyford. The SRA proposes that First Great Western and Thames Trains

  319
  should merge. When they do and if express services are given priority, how many services that currently stop at Maidenhead and Twyford will be cut as a result of the Government's plan? Will the names of Byers and Bowker go down in the annals of rail history alongside that of Beeching? How many local services and stations will be at risk?
  The Secretary of State says that he is responsible for the state of the railways. He promised us a 10-year plan that would give us a railway fit for the 21st century, but the real problem for passengers is that the 10-year plan does not deliver the increase in capacity that is necessary to improve services. The real problem is that the right hon. Gentleman does not know whether he can deliver a 10-year plan because he has no guarantee of future private sector investment or even of the public sector investment that he proposes. He is not delivering capacity, he is not improving services, and he gives passengers no hope.
  Recently, in an interview, the Secretary of State said that his decision on Railtrack was high politics. It is time that he stopped playing high politics and started delivering the railways that passengers want and the economy needs.
  5.5 pm
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I speak in favour of the amendment and against the motion. In fact, the motion would have been better if it had included the words "When the Secretary of State is successful he will receive a huge bonus." I am convinced that my right hon. Friend would indeed receive that bonus.
  I congratulate the Secretary of State on the good work that he is doing. I was delighted when he said that he wanted to stay in the job for many years. When we consider the history of transport in this country, we realise that one of the problems is that Transport Ministers do not stay in post for very long. I notice that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young)—a former Transport Minister—is in his place. Under the Conservatives, there were about a dozen Transport Ministers during 18 years, and under the Labour Government there have been four. That has added to some of the problems.
  I hope that the Secretary of State and his team stay in their jobs. There is one reservation, however: we need a Secretary of State who has responsibility only for transport and nothing else. We should remove all other responsibilities. That was a problem under the previous Government. We should focus on transport, as it is important for the people of Britain and has an essential role for our future. It is wrong to add further responsibilities to the role of the Secretary of State. The role of a Secretary of State for Transport would be every bit as important to the daily lives of people in this country as that of the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for International Development. I want the restoration of a Ministry of Transport.
  Recently, the Secretary of State has been criticised unfairly—not least for his decision to ask that Railtrack be put into administration. There is no doubt why that criticism was made. Many wealthy and influential people lost a large amount of money. There was no cry from the Labour Back Benches or the general public to the effect that my right hon. Friend's decision was wrong—we think
  320
  it was the right decision. However, some of the wealthy people who lost money are extremely influential—especially in the Conservative party.
  Mrs. May: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that more than 90 per cent. of Railtrack employees, some of whom lost their life savings as a result of the Secretary of State's action, are all wealthy?
  Mr. Martlew: I am suggesting that I represent hundreds if not thousands of railway workers, but I have received only two letters from railway workers who actually lost shares. The rest of them accepted that Railtrack was not working, that the Conservatives had made a mess of things and that the only way to put things right was to put the company into administration and then into a not-for-profit trust.
  Mr. Hopkins: My information from friends in the rail industry is that they want secure jobs in an industry that will be secure in the future. They have written off their shares in Railtrack—they largely blame that on the Tories.
  Mr. Martlew: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. If people want a job with a secure future, those jobs will be on the railways. I come from three generations of railway workers, but when I left school in the 1960s my father told me not to look to the railways for work because there were no jobs in the industry. The situation has changed and the industry now offers a secure future. Indeed, there are now too few skills in the industry—too few people know how to run a railway—and we need more skilled people.
  Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that sickness rates among Railtrack staff plummeted after the Secretary of State's announcement that he was putting the company into administration? Is not the fact that the Government are taking an active hand a measure of the confidence of the staff?
  Mr. Martlew: I think that the high sickness rates were a measure of the lack of confidence in the people running the railways. The trouble with Railtrack was that it was run by accountants and not by railwaymen. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) wishes to declare an interest.
  Back-Bench Labour Members support the decision to place Railtrack into administration, as does the vast majority of the general public. The decision came as a surprise, and it was a welcome reversal of Government policy. I remember asking my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister two years ago whether he would consider reversing the decision on rail privatisation. He told me that that was not necessary and that the SRA and extra investment would sort out the problems. Only recently has my right hon. Friend agreed that that strategy had failed.
  On 23 March last year, I introduced a private Member's Bill. If it had been passed, it would have earned a rather grand title—the Railways Act 2001. The proposal was simply that we should look at how the rail infrastructure was being managed and controlled, and that a report should be prepared containing alternative options. I proposed six options, which included nationalisation, regionalisation and the establishment of a not-for-profit

  321
  trust. Safety would have been the main priority of such a trust, with any surpluses being ploughed back into the infrastructure.
  I am sad to say that the Government opposed my Bill very strongly. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), was the relevant Minister at the time. He spoke against the proposals with some conviction and passion, and anyone who reads column 639 of the Hansard record of 23 March 2001 will see the reasons for the Government's position at that time.
  I am conscious of the fact that the present Secretary of State was not involved in the debate on my Bill. I was delighted when he took the decision about Railtrack—it sent the message that this country's rail system could never work under a privatised Railtrack. I would not disagree completely if the Government were to argue that they had given Railtrack an opportunity and that it had become obvious that the company was going to fail. I am pleased that we are where we are today, and I am sure that we can go on to better things.
  I deal now with the west coast main line. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport would not expect me to make a speech on the railways without talking about that line, which has been in a terrible state for many years and which is still crumbling. I formed the all-party west coast main line group 10 years ago this month. The group is very active, and we had the pleasure of the company of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister yesterday. A total of 50 people, from both the Commons and Lords, attended the meeting.
  When she was Prime Minister, the then Mrs. Thatcher cancelled the advanced passenger train, also known as the tilting train. The Swedes and Italians subsequently pinched the technology for such trains, which are now being imported back to Britain for the west coast main line. That Conservative Government made no investment in the line, even though it is the country's main rail artery. Hon. Members from Scotland and Wales complained earlier about the lack of investment, but they must realise that an upgraded west coast main line is essential for improved services to north Wales and to Scotland.
  The west coast main line has been allowed to decay to a terrible extent. I mentioned earlier that the last Conservative Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), suggested that the difficulties could be put right by the application of £500 million of Government money. The latest estimate is that continuation of the plans for the line proposed by the privatised Railtrack would cost £10 billion, and that it would be cheaper to build a brand new line.
  I accept that the SRA is right to look at the project again, but it is a misconception to believe that work has not started on upgrading the line. A lot of work has already been done, and the first stage of the project should be complete by 2003. By the summer of this year, the first Virgin tilting train should be running, taking guests and competitors from London to the Commonwealth games in Manchester.
  Within a year, 53 new train sets should be running on the west coast main line, giving us a good new service. I understand that the old rolling stock is to be scrapped,
  322
  as it deserves to be, but decisions remain to be made. The first is whether to accept the proposal that trains on the west coast main line should be allowed to travel at a maximum speed of 140 mph. The first stage of the project will allow tilting trains to travel at 125 mph, but the trains are designed to do 140 mph, so the matter needs to be debated and discussed.
  A second matter for discussion is the mix of services on the line. The hon. Member for Maidenhead mentioned her constituency, and it is clear that we must think about local traffic, cross-country traffic and freight traffic as well as express services. The SRA must come up with the mix that is best for the railways.
  I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to tell the all-party group that by the end of February the SRA will have produced a definite blueprint for the west coast main line.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman will have read the SRA's document fairly carefully. It does not give any commitment as to when PUG2—passenger upgrade 2—will be completed. Was his all-party group able to obtain any commitment on that matter from either the Secretary of State or the Minister for Transport? Or does he think that the new Pendelino trains will run at 125 mph for the rest of their life?
  Mr. Martlew: I was in the chair at yesterday's meeting, which meant that I had the advantage of being able to put the first question to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport. That was the question that I asked, and his reply was that the matter would be decided by the SRA before the end of February. I believe that in some areas of the country it will be relatively cheap to allow trains to run at 140 mph, but that it will be very expensive in other areas.
  A decision therefore has to be made, but there is no doubt that the original costings that caused Sir Richard Branson and Virgin to buy trains that could travel at 140 mph were sadly flawed. Those costings put the total amount of money involved at around £2 billion or £3 billion, not £10 billion. I believe that the train companies using the west coast main line will come to a sensible agreement on the matter.
  Finally, I turn to that part of the SRA report that deals with the need for a National Rail Academy. I am pleased that it has finally been accepted that there is a massive skills shortage on the railways. I asked my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State about that two years ago, and he replied that serious problems existed. The SRA clearly accepts that.
  Earlier in 2000, I had discussions with the then Minister for Lifelong Learning, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks). He came to Carlisle and we gave him a good demonstration of how the National Rail Academy could work. We showed how it could be funded, where it should be based and how quickly we could get the project off the ground.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport will not be surprised when I tell him that all the available data pointed to the fact that the academy should be based in my constituency. However, if the SRA is serious about reducing the skills shortage quickly, a quick decision on the National Rail Academy is needed. Carlisle is one of the options for its location. If we do not get the skills,

  323
  we will not complete the 10-year plan. It is simple as that, and it will not matter how much money is spent or whether it comes from the private or the public sector—if we have not got the skills, the plan will not work.
  In conclusion, the Secretary of State has my full confidence. He has taken some hard decisions and a lot of criticism—he seems to be able to take a lot of criticism, and I applaud that as well—but he has to change the Government's policy on the railways and Railtrack, and the decision that he has taken will bear fruit in the future.
  5.20 pm
  Sir George Young: Whatever disagreement the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) may have had with the last Conservative Government, we did at least have his support on one issue—the fact that there was a separate Department of Transport for the whole period from 1979 to 1997, whereas Labour put transport back into a much larger Department. I clutch at that straw from his speech as a sign of support of the Conservative party's transport policy.
  When I saw the Liberal Democrat motion on the Order Paper, my first feeling was one of sympathy for my successor but one at the Department of Transport—it is a difficult portfolio and a subject on which every citizen has a view and the press can be pretty merciless—but when I saw the Government amendment that feeling of sympathy soon passed.
  In the weeks since Railtrack's collapse, the Government have sought to defend what they did by saying that privatising the railways was wrong, that it was a privatisation too far, that the structure was too fragmented and unsustainable and that there was therefore something of the inevitability of a Greek tragedy about what has happened in recent months. As one of those who was directly involved, I should like to put the opposite case, not just to explain why we did what we did, but, more important, because we will get the wrong solution if the wrong analysis is made of the current crisis. Simply parroting the words "botched privatisation" or "fatally flawed" gets everyone nowhere.
  There was one overpowering argument for privatising the railways: privatisation would unlock the capital needed to modernise the rolling stock, the permanent way, the signalling and the stations and to build new links such as Thameslink 2000. Decades of underinvestment had to be confronted. That investment was, in turn, the key to a balanced and sustainable transport policy, reducing dependence on the car and the lorry by developing attractive alternatives and seeking to contain the never-ending demand for more roads. But there were other reasons as well.
  Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir George Young: This speech will not stop at many stations, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
  British Rail was inefficient, monolithic and hidebound by tradition. The skeleton of the advanced passenger train at Crewe is a monument to the problems that the public sector had in introducing new technology. British Rail's culture stifled the good management potential that was locked inside.
  324
  Privatisation was going to transform an industry that looked inwards to the Department of Transport for support into one that looked outwards to its market for custom. It was going to bring into a rather introspective and protected industry successful operators of other transport modes. It was going to reduce the subsidy for running trains, by removing some of the cosy practices that had grown up unchallenged for decades and freeing up the money for other public services. So the policy was not some mad ideological transfer—John Major was a pragmatist with a deep suspicion of ideology. We both wanted a better railway, and privatisation of transport was part of an approach to improving public services that had worked successfully elsewhere.
  That starting point was underlined by my experience of getting money for transport when the railways were in the public sector. I would appear before EDX, or whatever Cabinet Sub-Committee was adjudicating on public expenditure, usually chaired by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). My colleagues would declare their pleasure at seeing me, saying how imaginative my view on the future of the railways was and how well presented was the associated bid for funds, but they would say, "But, George, you have to understand that our priorities are health, education and law and order. Colleagues in other spending departments have put forward equally interesting proposals, more central to our manifesto. We are sure you will understand if your bid is cut back, and your presentational skills will enable you to defend the settlement."
  Although much has changed since 1997, that feature has not. In Labour's first term, only one section of the transport industry was starved of the capital that it needed—the only section still in the public sector: London Underground. Passengers faced fare rises higher than those on the railways, and the backlog of investment got worse.
  As the Secretary of State said on Monday, passengers do not mind where the money comes from, and when the industry was moved from the public sector to the private sector, which is where I believe it should be, the dead hand of the Treasury was lifted. The constraint on expenditure was no longer how much I could get out of the Chancellor, but how fast the train operators, the train manufacturers and Railtrack could sensibly invest.
  People might accept the strategic decision on privatisation, but have doubts about the structure—the so-called fragmentation. That is a highly complex issue on which I wish to make two brief points. The first point is simply that industry today is more disaggregated than it was 40 years ago. People make less themselves and buy more in from others. There is more specialisation, more subcontracting and greater flexibility in the market. Car manufacturing is a good example, with the manufacturers basically assembling bits made by other people. That specialisation and subcontracting is not just a feature of industry; it happens in medicine, education, the sciences and services. So the British Rail monolith was no longer the best model.
  There is a second, more specific, point, however: the safest and most successful transport industry in this country is the most fragmented—civil aviation. That industry is subdivided into far more component parts than the railways. The stations—the airports—are in multiple ownership. Some of them are owned by the British Airports Authority, some by local authorities and others

  325
  by bus companies. Signalling—air traffic control—is totally separate from the airports and the airlines. There are tens of different train operators—the airlines—and if a new airline puts on a new service from Luton to Glasgow, we do not say that it is an unwelcome fragmentation of the industry; we welcome the new service. The airlines do not own the aircraft; they lease them, and they are maintained and serviced by others. Someone else does the baggage handling and other companies do the catering. Civil aviation is a disaggregated, specialised industry, linked by contracts. Critics might call it fragmented, but it is safe, successful and popular.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir George Young: I will briefly stop at Surbiton—an important suburban station.
  Mr. Davey: Does the right hon. Gentleman have no regrets about the structure of the railways that he chose? For example, Japan went for a privatised railway that was regionalised but vertically integrated, and its railway has been terribly successful—unlike the model that he chose.
  Sir George Young: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. We looked quite hard at that model. It is very inflexible, and it is difficult to get in a succession of train operators if they also own the infrastructure. We set up a basic structure of unified network ownership: Railtrack; train operating companies, which run the services on franchises; and the so-called ROSCOs—the rolling stock companies—which own the rolling stock and lease it to the train operating companies.
  Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir George Young: No. I must make progress.
  There is also a transparent and independent system of regulation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said from the Front Bench, that core structure has rightly been virtually untouched by the Government.
  However, another factor was at work before 1997, and it was every bit as important as the structure. We all know of some very odd structures that work well because people want to make them work. Before 1997, all the players were determined to work together to build a better and safer railway.
  After privatisation, Ministers, Railtrack, the train operating companies, the franchising director, the regulator and all the new people who we attracted in from the other transport industries, such as shipping, aviation and buses, worked together with the excellent managers who joined from British Rail. We all believed that that was a new chapter in the history of the railways, in which we could access the funds we could never get from the Treasury, reverse decades of decline and play a key role in a more balanced transport policy. It may be an old-fashioned word, but there was trust between the key players.
  326
  Initially, things went well, and the number of passengers started to rise. Indeed, more people now travel on the trains than at any time since 1945. More train services were put on. Indeed, there are now 25 per cent. more trains. Freight was attracted back off the roads. Safety and punctuality continued to improve, and key fare increases were pegged to protect commuters. The subsidy paid to the franchise operators was less than the subsidy paid to British Rail to run the network, and the planned investment in new rolling stock and stations increased substantially. Railtrack began ambitious plans to build new links between the lines north of London and those to the south of it and, as we have just heard, to modernise the west coast main line. Those who were running the system genuinely believed that there had been a renaissance in our railways and that, after decades of underinvestment, a new future was opening up.
  Then we lost the 1997 election. It would be naive to blame everything that has gone wrong on the change of Government in 1997. I am not politicising the problem, and nor would I wish to. One of the difficulties that I faced was the absence of a consensus on how the railways should be run. Had we been re-elected in 1997, I am sure that we would have wanted to make modifications in the light of experience—as we had done with other privatisations—but I am convinced that we would have avoided the debacle of last October.
  The key factor that I have just mentioned—the determination to make the new system a success, with everyone working as a team—began to be eroded after June 1997. The new Government had opposed privatisation, but they had neither the funds to renationalise the railways nor the political will to make privatisation work. Ministers started to settle old scores, sniping at some of the new train operators and at Railtrack. The team spirit gave way to the blame culture. The regulator was sacked, and a new and at times aggressive rail regulator began to make it difficult for Railtrack to raise the capital it needed. A new Strategic Rail Authority was set up between the Government and the industry, making things more complicated rather than simpler. The letting of new franchises was suspended, with short-term renewals instead of long-term contracts, and personality conflicts got in the way of the industry's needs.
  Crucially, there were management failures at Railtrack and elsewhere. I was interested to read page 15 of the strategic plan, which states:
  "Whilst it is true that some structures can be more unwieldy than others, it remains fundamentally the case that neither contracts nor regulation manage companies: people do. It is the failure of the management process in the railway industry that is at the heart of what needs most to be corrected."
  I agree. Management failures, principally at Railtrack, began the process of erosion of public confidence. After Hatfield, Railtrack lost its nerve. Then Gerald Corbett resigned and it lost the confidence of politicians and the City.
  Without being party to the negotiations with Railtrack last summer, it is difficult for an outsider to comment on what went wrong. However, something clearly went wrong in the management of the dialogue between Railtrack and the Government. It may be that a key ingredient was missing—the will to find a way through the problem. The Secretary of State may never have wanted a deal, or the Treasury may have made it clear that it would not fund one at any price.

  327
  If that is the case, Railtrack should have spotted what was going on and not overplayed its hand. If Railtrack's dividend policy was a problem, it should have put that issue on the table for discussion with the Government. If its policy on executive pay was a problem, that should also have been put on the table for discussion. If the Government had doubts about the competence of management, those doubts should have been talked through.
  What actually happened, however, was that the Secretary of State was leaning over the patient discussing a cure at the same time as he had his foot on the oxygen pipe. Not surprisingly, the patient expired. Eventually, we will find out what went wrong, but the breakdown of that dialogue was a disaster. I have no doubt that the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee will want to inquire into the actions of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. They rightly did that for the privatisation process and I have no doubt that they will do it with equal vigour for the de-privatisation process. I hope that they ask whether the Government costed the alternative when they pulled the rug from under Railtrack.
  If the Secretary of State thought that he had a new, inexpensive and popular solution, he was wrong. His action has raised more questions than it has answered. The railways now face a period of uncertainty, with a question mark over investment and a field day for the lawyers. There will be more disruption, more delay, more discontinuity, more short-term franchises and an exodus of talent. I have no doubt whatever that the taxpayer and the passenger will pay more than they would have done if a sensible deal with Railtrack had been arrived at and that improvements will take longer.
  The private money that was going to be invested by Railtrack in modernising the railways—£34 billion—is no longer available on the same terms, if at all. The Government will have to find more money themselves, and the history of the railways shows that Governments do not put up the money that is necessary. The action that the Government have taken to put Railtrack into receivership will have repercussions way beyond the railways. They will reverberate throughout the growing dialogue between the public and private sectors on joint ventures, and make the City and international investors ultra-cautious about investing in projects in partnership with the Government.
  I note in passing that the Government's policy for the railways sits uneasily with their policy for London Underground. With the underground, the Government want to keep the operation of the trains in the public sector but use the private sector to modernise the infrastructure. However, with the railways, the Government are leaving the running of the trains in the private sector while the public sector assumes responsibility for the infrastructure. It is difficult to see a coherent approach in their transport policy.
  What happens next? Let us look to the areas of agreement across the Floor. I accept, as do the Government, that there should be unified ownership of the railway network—the bits that do not move—and that the company that owns it, the son of Railtrack, should look to the private sector for the capital that is needed to modernise it. That should be off the Government's balance sheet. I have no difficulty with special-purpose vehicles, which are a new form of financial rolling stock.
  328
  We agree that the trains should be run by companies in the private sector on franchises that are competitively bid for. Those companies can be sacked if they under-perform. We could never sack British Rail, so we have created something that we never had before—a competitive train operating industry. We agree that the companies should lease their trains from others if they want to. We also agree that there should be transparent and independent regulation of the industry to ensure fair play. So there is a quite a lot of common ground.
  What is fragmented is the Government's response, with the Secretary of State and his Department being second-guessed and shadowed by Lord Birt and others in a number of unaccountable bodies at No. 10. It must be up to the Transport Secretary, who is accountable to Cabinet and answerable to this House, to come up with the strategy.
  We have to sort out Railtrack quickly because that lies at the heart of the system. Without Railtrack or its successor functioning properly—instead of being run by receivers—there is nothing on which to build. If there is a way through the litigation and the various bids, it must be pursued. New long-term franchises must be let before blight descends, and we must stem the exodus of skills from the industry.
  Finally, it is vital to restore the confidence of the private investor, as the Treasury will never fill the funding gap. That can be done if the will is there and if trust can be rebuilt. However, I do not believe that the current Secretary of State—admirable qualities though he may have—is the right person for that task. Having drawn his line in the sand, he is on the wrong side of it. The Prime Minister should ask someone else to begin the process of rebuilding.
  5.38 pm
  Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: I shall use my time in the debate to be somewhat parochial and to consider what the strategic plan means for Wales and Welsh railway services.
  I have been here since the start of the debate and listened to the arguments of Conservative Members. I am stunned that, in every contribution that they have made, there has been no whisper of an apology for the fact that rail services are in their current state as the result of what has happened, not overnight, but over 20 or 30 years. I shall cite some examples from my area that show that it is a travesty that the Opposition have not had the courtesy to apologise for the fact that this debate has had to be called today. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) referred to the Secretary of State taking responsibility. However, from a Back Bencher's and rail user's point of view, that is a refreshing and welcome change. Opposition Members have never taken responsibility.
  I welcome the Strategic Rail Authority's plan and what it means for my area. I welcome the investment but, perhaps more than just the money, I welcome the overall co-ordination of rail services. I hope that we can stop the buck being passed, because I know from listening and talking to my constituents that one of passengers' major concerns is that, when they have a problem with the railways, they do not know where to go to obtain redress. That is why they come to me. They are stumped, in short. I write to rail companies and their responses often blame another rail company. Pinning them down has been one of the major problems for my constituents and passengers from west Wales.

  329
  The railways are important to west Wales. From the days of Isambard Kingdom Brunel, who saw the potential of having a railway junction in west Wales, which was also where ships could dock for transatlantic travel, we have had a long and noble tradition in the railways. We were fortunate to keep our rail link through the 1950s and 1960s and the days of Dr. Beeching. The railways are important because two ports still rely on them—Stena at Fishguard and Irish Ferries at Pembroke dock. Many of their passengers are foot passengers who travel by rail to cross to Ireland.
  Our area is dependent on tourism. Part of our economic development strategy has been to preserve the beauty of the area and to encourage people to come to us by rail. We have tried to increase cycling and walking holidays, which has meant encouraging people to come by train. There are social considerations, too. Many people in Milford Haven, in my constituency, do not have personal transport. The rail link between Milford Haven and Haverfordwest is a valuable lifeline to our county town.
  I mentioned the lack of an apology from the Tories. We can talk about money and the facts and figures until the cows come home, but it is the evidence on the ground that is important. In the 1980s, we lost our sleeper service to London. In the 1990s, before 1997, we lost our daily 125 service to London. That was an important factor for economic development; it prevented individuals from taking a day trip to London for business purposes or other reasons, because they cannot get back to Pembrokeshire and west Wales in the same day.
  That problem was compounded by flawed privatisation, which is the most apt description of privatisation. Pre-privatisation, it took two hours 45 minutes to get from Paddington to Swansea; it now takes three hours. A cynical person could say that the extra 15 minutes were added on so that the privatised rail companies were less liable for compensation if things went wrong. Several hon. Members—notably from south-west England—have complained about journey times. I wonder whether their experience is the same as mine, because journey times in west Wales are certainly 15 minutes longer than they were pre-privatisation.
  The other problem we face—again, it may be common to the south-west—is the replacement of train services by bus services. I inquired about that when it first happened because there seemed to be no logical reason, such as conflicting services, why the train should not carry on. The answer was simply a shortage of drivers. Since fragmentation and privatisation, drivers have been employed by different companies, so there is no pool of drivers to call on to take the trains to the end of the line. In addition to having an impact on links to the ferries, it also affects elderly and disabled passengers. They often catch the train because of the facilities and services that it offers and so that they do not have to lug their luggage on and off a bus.
  Another important problem is that of local train connections. They have had a dramatic impact on train services to our area. The local linking train used to wait in Swansea for passengers from the mainline train. Post-privatisation, that changed. The train waits for a maximum of seven minutes because, after that, the other train operating company becomes liable for compensation.
  330
  What are the benefits of that for passengers and customers? In my experience, privatisation has detracted from the service and removed choice and quality.
  I mentioned my personal experience of passing the buck. I welcome the change at the top of the SRA. As a Member of Parliament who wrote to it, I have been unhappy that it appeared to be an apologist for the rail companies. The plan and the change at the top will, hopefully, lead to an improvement and to those companies being called to account across the board so that the buck can no longer be passed.
  A pie chart in the SRA's strategic plan shows that Railtrack is responsible for 42 per cent. of rail delays whereas the train operators are responsible for 43 per cent. I had a meeting the other day with First Great Western trains. It gave me another pie chart that showed that Railtrack was responsible for 74 per cent. of the delays. Other reasons for delays, including the state of the fleet, were down to 26 per cent. That again shows the need for the vision and co-ordination that the SRA will offer from now on.
  In my meeting with First Great Western, we obviously focused on a Welsh perspective. I want to draw the attention of the House to one or two things that I think can improve services in Wales. I also want to show that investment further up the line can have a dramatic impact on our services. It has been brought to my attention that there is no signalling in the Severn tunnel, which means that there is a seven-minute gap between every train that goes through it. If signalling were put in the middle of the tunnel, capacity would be increased and trains could go through every four minutes. Clearly, that would have a dramatic impact on the service to Wales in terms of capacity and reliability. I am told that only £2 million of investment is needed to do that, which seems a small sum in terms of the benefits that it could bring to Wales.
  Junctions at Cardiff and Newport, which are especially slow, add to journey times and affect track capacity. That is another issue. First Great Western raised several problems further down the line. With regard to Swindon and Didcot, the joint use by slower freight trains has an impact on services to Wales. There are also concerns about the Reading bottleneck. That is a good example of how investment all the way down the line in the UK has an effect on the whole of Wales.
  As a rail user, I have one small additional matter to raise: car parks. In my area, it can be a 40-mile journey to the nearest station to get a long-distance train. One problem is the lack of car parks and the security in them. Friends of mine have returned after four days to find the wheels missing from their cars. If we are to meet the Government's targets for rail use, it is vital that the problem of secure car parking be addressed.
  Finally, one welcome feature in the strategic plan that has not been mentioned is the idea of providing accessibility for all and what that offers for disabled people on trains. The fact that all new vehicles will be fully accessible and that additional funding will be available to make all stations accessible is important, especially if rail is to play an increasing role in public transport in this country.
  5.48 pm
  Mr. David Heath: I do not think that the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) should be in any way apologetic for

  331
  taking a parochial view in the debate. If the debate is to serve any purpose, and I think that it serves many, it is for us to express on behalf of our constituents the cri de coeur that derives from their daily experience of public transport. If there is one thing that unites the House, it is the lamentable state of the railway system.
  All hon. Members recognise that the travelling public's patience with the railway system is exhausted. They have to go through a daily misery, whether it is on the trains, the tube system in London or in the alternative forms of private transport on the roads that they choose to use instead of public transport—there is a knock-on effect. The most common sentiment that I discern among my constituents is a fatal resignation to the idea that the trains will not do the job that they want them to do. They are resigned to the fact that they will not arrive when they expect them to and that things are not getting any better.
  Not only is that view expressed by people throughout Britain, but it is alarming to note that it is also expressed abroad. I draw the House's attention to an article in Le Monde this morning—I shall not attempt to read it out in French. Under a heading that includes the phrase "the worst railway misery in Europe", the article states:
  "One cannot begin to find an end to the list of the difficulties that millions of users live with every day: breakdowns, accidents, delays, overcrowding in the coaches … "—
  I suspect that that series of dots leads on to a gallic shrug. If that is the impression gaining currency both in this country and abroad, something must be done.
  My constituency is served by several railway systems, not least of which is South West Trains. I do not want to dwell on SWT's problems today, save to say that the mud wrestling in misguided pursuit of machismo that has featured in industrial relations within that company does neither the railway industry nor passengers any good. The sooner a settlement is reached, the better for all concerned.
  For every person in my constituency who struggles with SWT, there is a person who shares the experience of the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire of trying to use First Great Western, which operates the alternative route to London, or someone who has attempted to use the almost mythological cross-country service—everyone knows that starting in the south-west and trying to get anywhere other than London involves at least a day's journey, because the connections simply do not work—or local services. I am not over-sentimental about filling the gaps that Dr. Beeching left behind, although I remember as a child seeing from my bedroom window the old Cheddar Valley steam train. That track will not be brought back into service, but there are serious questions to be answered about infrastructure and the provision of better local services.
  The knock-on effect of not providing a rail service is misery on our roads. It is instructive that on the first day of the industrial action on SWT it was almost impossible to use the A303 and M3. I am told that the traffic was backed up from London all the way to Winchester, which is not something that anyone with an appointment in London was prepared to countenance.
  Our constituents expect, and it is reasonable to do so, reliability, efficiency, safety and affordability in their train services. They are sick and tired of the merry-go-round of excuses. The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire mentioned the buck passing from one company to another,
  332
  each denying responsibility for the day's delays in the service. There is a merry-go-round of excuses at official level, among Ministers, Departments, and the various bodies charged with regulating the rail industry. Those merry-go-rounds are now matched by the carousel of consultants, some of whom have scant experience of the rail system, who have been brought into advise Ministers and the rail service. What on earth John Birt's role can be, I do not understand. No expert on the police, he does not appear to have improved that service, and he is certainly no expert on trains—indeed, it is reported with some degree of authority that he is averse to using trains in both his personal and business life.
  Now we have the strategic plan. As is typical of the railway system, it is late in arriving, we are not quite sure in which direction it is going, and there is no indication that it will ever reach its destination. Those of us from the west country who read that compendious document find little to support investment in the west of England. The best expression of any interest in the west country is the glossy picture in the section headed "Conclusions", which shows Bristol Temple Meads station. Unfortunately, there is no train in sight, only a rather nice new bus. That says everything about the services we can expect to receive.
  The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): Does the hon. Gentleman not approve of integrated transport?
  Mr. Heath: Yes, I would, if a railway element were included; currently, however, none is.
  On Monday, the Secretary of State told us that
  "The strategic plan for railways draws a line in the sand and represents the point at which we say enough is enough."—[Official Report, 14 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 33.]
  We agree—enough is enough. However, the amnesia that has afflicted members of the previous Government—as evidenced by the speech of the former Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young)—has spread to the current Government. When Ministers talk about decades of underinvestment in the railways, they forget that we have had half a decade of underinvestment under a Labour Government.
  Where did all the promises made by the Deputy Prime Minister during his period of responsibility for the railway get us? How did they improve the system? Instead of improvements, the right hon. Gentleman bequeathed a system in chaos to the current Transport Secretary, who now wants to start with a blank sheet. It is a nice trick—if it can be pulled off—to start with a blank sheet half way through a Government, but I doubt that the travelling public will accept that, or that they will judge the Government's performance by any yardstick other than whether their travelling experience improves or continues to deteriorate.
  Malcolm Bruce: My hon. Friend is rightly highlighting the growing cynicism of a public who were faced with the fuel escalator, which gave huge revenues to the Exchequer but did not result in any investment in the public transport to which they were asked to switch. Now, they have no confidence in the future of the plan. Not only the short-term objective of a decent transport and communications policy, but confidence in our ability to

  333
  get people off the roads and reduce emissions in accordance with our long-term Kyoto commitments, are being undermined by a Government who have failed to inspire confidence in the future of public transport as a viable alternative to the roads.
  Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the crux of the matter. If we are to attract people back to public transport and the railway system and get them to leave their cars at home, we must first reverse the disintegration of the railway system that resulted from privatisation and has been continued by the current Government. Secondly, we must create a fair fares structure to encourage people to believe that they can afford to use the railways.
  Thirdly, we must secure the infrastructure investment and development that are needed. I have a modest request to make on behalf of my constituency. We have been trying to use the Great Western line to Penzance as a means of providing local services by reopening stations at Somerton, Langport and Witham Friary. Although that reached "feasibility" stage under Railtrack, the plan has now disappeared from the map, which is regrettable.
  We need a safe system. I was alarmed by the Secretary of State's comments on the Cullen recommendations for Paddington. Those of us who use the station want to know that Paddington is safe to use, but it appears that the right hon. Gentleman himself does not yet know whether the recommendations that emerged from Cullen have been implemented. That is a disastrous omission on the part of the Secretary of State and his advisers.
  Mr. Don Foster: My hon. Friend might be even more alarmed to learn that when purportedly giving information about signalling improvements in the Paddington area, the Secretary of State assured the House that the required TPWS—train protection warning system—improvements had been made. My hon. Friend is aware, although the Secretary of State clearly is not, that Lord Cullen made two wholly separate recommendations. We still have not heard about the recommendations on signalling.
  Mr. Heath: That is precisely the case. The Secretary of State does not know whether signalling improvements have been made. He is waiting for the Health and Safety Executive to report—three months late. He is apparently not curious about whether that critically important safety improvement has been made—an improvement that would allow passengers to travel safely into Paddington. That speaks volumes about the Government's priorities.
  Privatisation was a terrible adventure for the rail industry. Coupled with underinvestment over a long period, it has had disastrous consequences. The fact remains that the Government were elected five years ago to do better. They have failed to improve the system over that period, and for the public it is now time for delivery or removal.
  6 pm
  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: This is the fourth occasion in recent months when Opposition parties have initiated a debate on aspects of the railways. The Conservatives have secured three
  334
  debates, and the Liberal Democrats have selected the topic for today's debate. I do not think for one minute that anyone in the House would criticise Opposition parties for raising the subject of the railways, because it is clearly an important issue that concerns the public. Many Members experience rail travel in their daily lives.
  I suspect, however, that members of the public who have followed the debates in the past few months would not have been impressed by what we have heard from the Opposition parties, such as the Conservative party spokesperson's staggering refusal to explain its policy on the railways. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) was pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies), and she failed to answer his question about what the Conservatives would do and how much money they would put into the railways. If a member of the Conservative Front-Bench team replies to the debate, perhaps they could at least give us an inkling of Conservative party policy on the railways—how much money it would put in, what it would do about Railtrack as it now stands and whether it supports or opposes the Strategic Rail Authority's 10-year plan. I do not think it too much to ask for the House to be given an inkling of Conservative party policy on the railways.
  I listened carefully to the opening speech of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I was genuinely interested to find out about his party's constructive policies on the rail network, but I did not hear too much about that.
  Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that on 14 February we published our detailed proposals for the future of the railways. We are delighted that the Secretary of State has now adopted some of those proposals on the future of Railtrack. We are hopeful that he will shortly adopt our proposals for the future of the London underground too.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It seems that the Liberal Democrats support the Government's proposals on Railtrack and the 10-year plan, which makes me wonder why the motion was tabled in such terms. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats should support the Government amendment.
  I am sure that the public welcome the fact that the SRA has a 10-year plan, which, together with the Government's 10-year plan, provides a real strategy for improving rail services. Some of the improvements in the rail network that have already been made since the election of a Labour Government have been possible despite the lack of investment in safety and the fragmentation of the network that we inherited.
  In a few months, for the first time in 40 years, rail services will return to a line in south-east Edinburgh, where two new stations have been provided with funding from the Scottish Executive and the SRA. Those improvements can be built on under the SRA's plan, and I welcome that strategic plan and the Government's response to it.
  Of course many of us would like to expand on the SRA's proposals. We have our own ideas. Because of the nature of the transport sector, it is almost impossible to please everyone all the time, because people have their own strongly held views on this area of policy.
  Even in a sector that tends to be critical of initiatives from Governments of whatever colour, there has been a guarded but positive response to the SRA's plan from the

  335
  industry and from industry commentators. That suggests to me that the SRA is acting on the right lines, at least in broad terms.
  Having raised in parliamentary questions and in correspondence my concerns about the future of rail services in and around Edinburgh, I want to put on record my acknowledgement of the response from the SRA and from Ministers to concerns expressed by me, by other hon. Members and by many outside bodies. I welcome the decision announced today on the two-year franchise for GNER. Unlike the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), who has now left the Chamber and has been the only member of the Scottish National party present during the debate, I recognise the benefits that travellers in Scotland and in the rest of the country will enjoy as a result of that two-year extension of the franchise.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State listed some of the improvements that have been made. I refer also to the improvements to the diesel train sets, which provide the train service to north-east Scotland and which the hon. Member for North Tayside did not acknowledge in his criticism of the Government.
  I particularly welcome the decision to give the go-ahead to the rebuilding of Edinburgh Waverley station, which is essential for the east coast main line upgrade. It is also essential for the planned improvement to local services in the Edinburgh and south-east Scotland area, and is vital for the better development of Edinburgh city centre.
  I also welcome the confirmation that the east coast main line upgrade is to be included in the medium-term programme. I note that the SRA will be bringing forward detailed proposals in the near future. That upgrade is vital not just for Edinburgh but for cities and communities along the line from Edinburgh to London. It is vital for tourism, business, leisure travel and freight.
  I note that the SRA makes it clear that it will take the lead in the joint venture set up to take forward the east coast main line upgrade. I strongly urge the SRA to ensure that it provides strong leadership, because none of us wants the east coast main line upgrade to be bedevilled by the problems that affected the west coast main line upgrade because of the complexity of the contractual relationships that were necessary to take that project forward.
  I welcome many other aspects of the SRA plan. They bring benefits to my constituency and to Scotland as a whole. Even the improvements in the east coast main line outside Scotland will bring benefits to people in Scotland. They travel to London and use trains that start in London. Their trains are affected by delays in the south-east commuter network. Benefits from the upgrade further south will also be felt in Scotland.
  There are always more things that can be done and further improvements that can be made. The SRA is right to give a high priority to achievable objectives in the short term, but what I find particularly exciting about its proposals is that it identifies a list of longer-term projects that should be investigated for possible future development. Those projects would revolutionise rail travel in many parts of the country. From my constituency perspective, and as a Member from Scotland, I am excited about the vision of a new north-south, high-speed line, which would offer immense possibilities for leisure,
  336
  tourism and business travel, would take pressure off the road network and air services, and would also help to bind the United Kingdom together as a concrete embodiment of the benefits to Scotland of our links with England.
  I hope that the Minister will favourably consider the proposals for a new high-speed line from the south of England to the north. Such projects require costings and value-for-money analysis, but they also require a leap of faith. I urge the Government to take that leap of faith, and to take the SRA' s lead in developing that idea. What better monument could there be to the Government's commitment to modernising the rail network than to open such a line? It would mean that people in this country would no longer look to the continent for its high-speed, modern services and look in despair at the largely 19th century railway network in this country. I urge the Government to do what they can to take that proposal for a high-speed line further forward at the earliest opportunity.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I have declared my interests in the Register.
  I had hoped that we would have a proper debate on the so-called 10-year plan, which was issued on Monday with such a fanfare and received a pretty disappointing press thereafter. Perhaps we have not done so, other than some interesting detailed observations from Members with constituency interests, because there is so little in the plan before us. Perhaps it has dawned on Labour Members that they have been rather let down.
  If we look to the plan for a promise that 140 mph trains will be bought and will operate on the west coast main line, we look in vain. If we look to the plan for a guarantee that the full west coast main line upgrade will go ahead, we see instead that it is subject to review and very likely to be downgraded. If people in my part of the world, the Thames valley, seek the promise of a solution to the problems of conflict and lack of capacity on the lines through Reading into Paddington and Waterloo, they will be answered only with a deafening silence.
  There will be no solution to the obvious problem that after a very successful period immediately after privatisation, in which there was a big surge in the usage of the railways, the Government have, during the past five years, failed to make the commitment to invest in the new capacity that is so obviously needed to respond to that successful growth.
  We see the schizophrenia on this issue not only in the statements of various Ministers and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) admirably pointed out, in the contradictory statements made by the Secretary of State, but in the words of the newly appointed chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority. In his foreword to the plan, he points out that privatisation has been a great success, and he draws great comfort from the fact that there has been a 34 per cent. increase in passenger usage of the railways, a 40 per cent. increase in freight and a 20 per cent. increase in train usage of the network.
  Mr. Hopkins: Is it not the case that the main factor behind that increase is the recent growth of the economy under a Labour Government, and in fact it has nothing to do with privatisation?
  Mr. Redwood: I do not accept that, because we had periods of substantial economic growth when the industry

  337
  was nationalised, and it never succeeded in increasing passengers and freight as it did in the beginning of the railways' remarkable renaissance after privatisation. I know from experience in my own area that we had a strong economy in the late 1980s, and we did not see anything like that growth in passenger usage of the railways in those days. When we introduced privatisation, there was successful growth in the industry—services improved and companies accommodated more passengers. That growth was, rightly, proudly trumpeted by Ministers until recently, and in the plan it is proudly trumpeted by the chairman of the SRA.
  The chairman goes on to explain, however, that all is woe on the railways because of the obvious failure, which has been most pronounced in the past five years, to make any response to that success or to make a commitment to the new rail capacity and the investment required to cash in on that success and further expand the railways. The chairman's prose is not particularly elegant, but its meaning is devastating. He says:
  "We have to rediscover the service ethos and an accountable delivery culture, rediscover industry-wide investment planning and rediscover how to train, manage and motivate our people so that the team works together like an efficient machine."
  This is after five years. It is after the Government introduced their chosen vehicle, the SRA, appointed a boss, gave him his head and then, for some unknown reason, decided to sack him and replace him with someone else.
  How long will it take for the Government to get the SRA up and running in the way that they would like? Why is it that, five years in, we hear from their recently appointed nominee this devastating indictment that practically all the measures that the Government said are necessary to perfect privatisation have not been taken because they chose the wrong person and did not get the SRA straight?
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that the privatisation introduced by his Government is the reason for the current fragmentation and disjointedness in the rail service to which he is referring? It is not down to people's failure to work in teams; privatisation was flawed and has led to the breaking up of the railways. Under this Government, the SRA is trying to put strategy and vision back into our rail service.
  Mr. Redwood: I wish that that were true, but I take the view that the original structure as set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the Transport Secretary at the time, was beginning to work extremely well. There was a great increase in rail usage, but the intervention of the SRA and the Deputy Prime Minister, in his role as Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, completely undermined the working relationships in the industry and put on ice quite a lot of the investment. The Government deliberately stopped investment by refusing to renew or extend franchises for companies that would otherwise have made big investment commitments. They worked away gradually to undermine Railtrack, leading to its administration, as we saw.
  338
  The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) smiles and he is sure that he is right, but he ought to read the plan because it is a great admission of failure. It is all about the failure of the Government's body, the SRA, which was going to solve the problems that they thought existed but which has clearly made them all worse. The chairman goes on to say in his foreword:
  "We will change the way the SRA is structured and managed to deliver this new railway."
  Here we are, five years on, and two or three years after the SRA got up and running, and we are told that the body was completely wrong. That is the view of the Government's chosen agent, and the SRA must now be fundamentally restructured. Will the Minister tell us how long that complete restructuring of the SRA will take? How long will it be before the SRA stops looking at itself and engages with the chief executives and chairmen of the private companies running the industry, gets them on side, gets us back to work and gets the industry investing again?
  This is not so much a plan as a plan to have a plan. Again, the chairman lets the cat out of the bag in his remarkably forthright foreword. He says that we need one plan, and that is the key target that he has set himself for 2002. This is not the plan; it is a plan to have a plan. The plan is even more delayed than the trains that it is talking about. The Government say that they believe in planning; they set up a body to make a plan; they have two launches of a plan that is not a plan, and they then decide that the latest plan is a plan to have a plan at some unspecified date this year.
  Bob Russell: It has nice pictures though.
  Mr. Redwood: Some of the pictures are quite jolly, but the Government seem to be interested in photographing buses and empty railways because they are rather embarrassed by the shortage of good train shots caused by the cancellation of so many trains due to strikes, absent plans and the failure of investment because franchises have not been renewed in time.
  We are told that the Government have embarked on creating a new type of vehicle. They should be rather more honest with their supporters about what is going on. The Secretary of State has been absolutely masterful in leading many of his Back Benchers, who never really liked privatisation, to believe that in some mysterious way he is renationalising the main part of the railways, Railtrack. Some of them are happy because they think that that is what is happening. However, if they read the plan carefully they will be deeply disappointed.
  We have a private company that was put into administration by a Secretary of State who wanted to waste taxpayers' money and give far more money to the receiver than he would have had to give the company to keep it flourishing in the private sector. We now have a private company, run by private sector accountants in a private sector administration, which the Government are looking to sell on to another private company in due course. The Government say that they may come up with a new type of private sector bid—a company limited by guarantee that is not for profit—but it will be difficult to attract capital into a venture that makes no money for its shareholders.
  From what I have read in the newspapers this week it will be even more difficult to raise bond finance for such a company. I hope that Labour Members understand how

  339
  serious the matter is. Apparently, a group of convertible bond holders voted against the scheme of arrangement for the bond finance in Railtrack which the Government hoped would go through. The Government are now in an invidious position, and some people believe that they, through the administrator, may not meet all the payments on the debt. If we get into an Argentinian situation with Railtrack bonds, the Government will find it difficult to raise money from the City for a future vehicle, if they manage to construct one that is a front for the Secretary of State.
  The Minister has leave, if he wishes, to intervene and assure me that the Government will make every payment on those bonds and guarantee that the bondholders will have all their interest and money repaid. I am happy to give way if he wishes to give that assurance. The fact that he cannot do so and is trying to smile and pretend that it does not matter means that I have touched a sensitive nerve; the Government are trying to launch a company on bond finance but, at the same time, they cannot give a guarantee that they will be any better than the Government of Argentina on a bad day in meeting obligations incurred by a company that has almost become a creature of the state.
  The Secretary of State has enormous influence and a lot of responsibility for the railways. He made a big error in putting a private company into private bankruptcy, but now hopes that he can get it back into the private sector. He has underwritten the position, presumably because the Treasury insisted that he do so, by stating, through the chairman in the 10-year plan, that practically all the projects of the new Railtrack will be privately financed; that will be done through public-private partnerships, not private capital. For a long time, I have tried to get the Government to tell the markets and the travelling public their plans for granting money to the new Railtrack, whether it is taken on by a company limited by guarantee, as they wish, or some other private bidder.
  That question is not unreasonable; the Government will have to reveal the answer before they can have a competition to get Railtrack moved back into the private sector, up and running and perhaps investing again. Answer came there none until we had the strategic plan, which includes a little clue. It says that out of the £33.5 billion of public money, some £26 billion will subsidise the existing railway, quite a lot of which will be routed through the train operating companies. Only £7.5 billion therefore could conceivably be for Railtrack-type investment over the whole 10-year period, which demonstrates that unless something dramatic happens, there will be a fall in investment in mainline railway activities compared with the poor totals managed in the years prior to privatisation. That is an extremely disappointing outcome, which Ministers should take more seriously.
  The chairman of the SRA has a delightful sense of humour. In his foreword, he gives one of his aims:
  "I want to see fewer accountants, fewer lawyers and fewer consultants. Instead I want to see more engineers, more operators, more project managers".
  To assist the chairman, the Government put all of Railtrack into the tender loving care of a set of accountants in administration, then went off and hired a whole load more consultants, lawyers and accountants to advise the Secretary of State. Railtrack plc, which is in administration, has to have that sort of advice, as does
  340
  Railtrack Group. It is therefore turning into a field day for a lot of hard-working and intelligent lawyers, accountants and consultants.
  I have previously estimated that the total cost of Railtrack administration in lawyers' fees, administrators' fees, accountants and consultants will be more than £100 million. No Minister has ever been prepared to gainsay that figure, and I am now beginning to feel that my expectation is far too modest; the legal complexities, with failed bondholder issues and possible lawsuits from Railtrack group, will be such that millions more pounds could be spent on those fees.
  Mr. Don Foster: The right hon. Gentleman and I may fundamentally disagree about the ideal future for son of Railtrack, but would he at least agree that he has just made a significant point, which is amplified by the bizarre situation? The administrators Ernst & Young, with all their consultants and advisers, are currently working up a number of alternative models while, at the same time, the Secretary of State is bringing in further advisers to come up with his own preferred model. That will then be put to Ernst & Young which, in turn, will have to put it to the Secretary of State who, at the end of the day, will make the decision and choose his preferred option. Why Ernst & Young is wasting all that time and spending all that money is frankly beyond me.
  Mr. Redwood: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The Secretary of State is in such a complex and difficult legal position that he has to allow work to continue on other options besides his favoured option. He has to be careful, if he thinks that he can make those decisions himself, not to be conflicted when he comes to make the ultimate judgment. It would be difficult for him if his company limited by guarantee were up and running and had put in a bid, but it was not quite the best bid on the table. If he were behaving honourably, as I am sure that he will, he would have to award the contract to the best bidder. However, if the two bids are dissimilar—if a direct comparison is difficult and it is arguable which is the best bid and which is not so good—he has to make sure that he has avoided any conflict during the process and has given a fair chance to the other bidders. It would be much better if one Minister were the advocate for the company limited by guarantee and someone else made the decision; otherwise the Government could well have even more expensive legal actions on their hands.
  For reasons of natural justice, the Government need to be fair-minded, but they must also satisfy a series of legal problems. First, they must demonstrate to the administrators and, through them, the Railtrack shareholders, that the best possible deal has been done for the shareholders, who still have rights. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead always points out, many of them are railwaymen and many are pensioners living on their pension funds; they are not rich and would like to get something back from this awful mess.
  The Secretary of State also has to satisfy European competition law. If it appears that he only ever had in mind one option, which then wins the competition, there could be difficult questions to answer in Brussels and the European Court about whether European competition law had been properly observed. A private sector company is in private sector administration, and has to be properly open for tender and bid. It is also a private sector company

  341
  with a strong Government interest—the Government are the subsidiser of last resort—and has a strong monopoly position in a particular sector of the British transport market, which means that regulators and lawyers will take a strong interest in it.
  We see from the document that an important part of the task of the chairman of the SRA in 2002 is to try to attract private capital for the railways. Hallelujah—that is exactly what is needed. Many Members have said that it is difficult to see how all the money in the modest plan will be drawn in. It is certainly difficult to see how there will be anything but delay in the really big sums needed in 2002 and 2003, given the uncertainties. The problem for the SRA and the Government are the contradictions. They say that 2002 is the year for delivery and the year to bring in private capital, but they are not making the decisions that they need to make today to maximise their chances of attracting that capital.
  I put two simple points to the Government; if they seriously want lots of private capital, the first thing that they should do is get Railtrack out of administration and into workable ownership and management as quickly as possible. If reports are true—they may well be—and there is no chance of Railtrack being out of administration before this autumn, and possibly not until next year, we will have wasted more than a year. There can be no effective negotiations on private financing in conjunction with Railtrack because everyone will say, "We need to know who will own the company, what the rules are and what its balance sheet is before we can make an assessment."
  The second thing that Ministers should do if they want private capital is settle the franchise position, which they undermined by granting short franchises or delaying franchise renewals. Instead of apologising for that mistake and agreeing proper franchise periods which could lead to those companies making a lot of new investment in new trains, which my constituents and others want, Ministers have compounded their error by saying through the SRA that they now wish to amalgamate franchises. The amalgamation of franchises is not a simple task. It means asset swaps, asset mergers, takeovers; all sorts of complicated corporate finance and legal activity; great complexities in bringing the franchises together under new and existing owners; and sorting out the resulting financial and asset complications, which would result in much more delay. By their decision, the Government have guaranteed a big gap in the order pattern for new trains in many parts of the country while we sort out who will run the franchises and when they will be up and running.
  The chairman of the SRA says:
  "The clear message … is that the prospects for Britain's railway have never been better."
  However, that does not seem to follow from all the other things that he said in his foreword. A few paragraphs earlier, he told us of a state of confusion; the Secretary of State has given him the impossible task of trying to stabilise an industry when the Government are making up policy as they go along. This is the man who is told that most of the money must be from the private sector, but we must not tell the Labour Back Benchers because they think that it will be a public sector operation.
  My constituents and I want a big expansion in railway capacity. We want to be able to drive to the station, park in a decent car park with proper security, and find that
  342
  there is a regular service to London and other important towns in the neighbourhood. We want four or five trains an hour to London, not two or three, as we have at present. I can promise Ministers that there is plenty of business out there if the companies are allowed to get on with it.
  I have been asking endlessly for Ministers to give an assurance that a scheme that I have backed, and which is wanted by the local train operating company and the local council, and was wanted by Railtrack before it went into administration, for a new station and better waiting facilities and for work to begin on improving the track, would go ahead despite the administration. There is no such reassurance, and there can be no such reassurance, I fear, because although Ministers have heavy influence and are paying very big bills, they are not in control, nor is the SRA, and they are not driving forward the better railway that we want.
  When the story comes to be written in a few years' time of the Secretary of State's decision to put Railtrack into administration, it will go down as one of the biggest bungles in the interface between politics and business over which any Minister has ever presided. We will discover during the next two years that it will have been massively more expensive to have that animal in administration than it would have been to do a deal with a private sector company. We will discover that the Government do really want to get it back into the private sector, because the Chancellor does not want all the money on his Budget for the massively expensive upgrades and improvements in the railway.
  We will discover that while the Government and their lawyers, accountants and consultants are busily arguing with each other and trying to protect the Secretary of State against a minefield of legal actions, the travelling public have walked away, bought a load more new cars, and are sitting in traffic jams because they have no choice.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I have very little time, so I shall make just a few key points. I regret that the Liberal Democrats have chosen to throw barbs at my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, instead of the brickbats that are due to the Conservatives, who caused all the problems. My right hon. Friend is doing a tremendous job in extremely difficult circumstances. He has my strong support and that of my hon. Friends. I look forward to his success in future years.
  The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George. Young), in his own elegant way, put a wonderful gloss on a national transport disaster perpetrated by his Government. We are trying to pick up the pieces—rather belatedly, I think. We should have taken action in the first week of May 1997. We have taken action only now, but we are at least beginning the process, which will be long and difficult.
  My right hon. Friend has taken the first necessary step, but he must go a lot further. He should look at the state-owned, integrated national railway systems on the continent, which are light years ahead of our railway system. They are integrated and publicly owned and rely on public investment. We must review the way in which we invest not only in the railways but in other parts of the public sector and question the Treasury rules on borrowing. Many other countries in the European Union park such investment off their public sector borrowing

  343
  requirement so that they can get inside the borrowing limits of economic and monetary union and the stability and growth pact. They are right to do that and we should follow their example. If they can get away with it, so can we. We could solve many problems in the public sector if we did that.
  There are two fundamental problems arising from privatisation—fragmentation, about which we have heard much, and the fact that it is finance driven, not public service driven. I take issue with the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, who compared railways with airlines. If airlines have a route that is failing, they take it off. There is no problem. However, we cannot take off the Circle line. It is part of the fundamental infrastructure that is necessary for the functioning of our country, not to mention its capital city. There is a difference between the vital infrastructure of the railway network and airlines, which can change.
  We heard reference to Railtrack being the problem, whereas the train operating companies seem to be blameless. According to the strategic plan published this week, the total delays caused by train operators were 43 per cent., and the total delays caused by Railtrack were 42 per cent. so they are equally to blame. We heard today that the train operating companies have serious financial problems. We must look to reintegrate the train operating companies, the track and the engineering work into one integrated railway industry—we must get back to what we had before.
  The problem with British Rail was not that it did not work, but that it was starved of finance. If we had invested in British Rail in the way that the continentals have invested in their railways, we might be where they are now. I recently visited SNCF in France and saw developments that we will not see in this country for a decade, even with the best will. I spoke to an SNCF engineer and asked where the finance came from. He said, "In France, when we speak of PPP, we mean public, public, public." I urge my right hon. Friend to consider the possibility of going back to a properly integrated state-owned railway system.
  6.35 pm
  Tom Brake: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for introducing the debate in his usual forceful and entertaining manner. He painted a bleak but accurate picture of the railways today: train delays up 70 per cent., cancellations up 45 per cent. and overcrowding running at 39 per cent.
  My hon. Friend focused on some of the key unanswered questions in relation to Lord Cullen's recommendations, which were due to be implemented by 19 December, and he set out a number of Liberal Democrat proposals which, if adopted, would ensure that the line in the sand drawn by the Transport Secretary would not be washed away by the waves created by the next multi-billion pound infrastructure overrun, or the failure to secure the very high levels of private investment that are needed to deliver his 10-year plan.
  Significant contributions were made by other hon. Members, and I shall touch on those briefly. I echo the comments of the Secretary of State about the dedication and commitment of the people who work in the railway industry, and I welcome his honesty about the state of our
  344
  railways. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) posed a number of pertinent questions to the Minister, particularly about the cost implications of the fact that Railtrack has been put into administration, and how that will affect the private finance that the Government seek to secure, in relation to both the rail industry and the PPP for London Underground.
  The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) made an interesting bid in support of past Conservative policies to reintroduce a Department of Transport. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who is in his place, used a French term—renaissance—to describe the railways under the Conservatives. I would use another French phrase to describe his attitude—"Je ne regrette rien." However, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's point about contradictions between the Government's policies in relation to rail and to the tube, where the approaches that they have adopted with regard to who runs what are diametrically opposed.
  The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) said that she would make parochial points. There is nothing wrong with that; our constituents often want us to raise matters that are relevant to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that the mud-wrestling at South West Trains must stop, and I agree with him entirely. On Lord Birt's involvement, that is startling.
  Norman Baker: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather odd that Lord Birt has been appointed to his new role? When he was at the BBC, he took a unified structure, split it into little pieces, set them against each other and put a bureaucracy on top. Given that the Tories did that with the privatisation of the railways in the first place, what useful contribution can he now make?
  Tom Brake: The Transport Secretary stated what Lord Birt's involvement will be. His involvement with the railways is simply to keep him occupied, although I hope he does no damage in the process.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) wanted to know more about Liberal Democrat policies. Several of his hon. Friends are consulting our paper "Transport for People", so I advise the hon. Gentleman to speak to them about that.
  Paul Farrelly: I have indeed examined "Transport for People", which has a very catchy title. I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on specifying—although they have not used any figures—where they would get some of the extra investment that they propose. The proposals include congestion charging and workplace parking taxation. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that will be a revelation to Liberal Democrats in my constituency, who have been criticising the Labour party for allegedly taxing motorists off the road?
  Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, although I had hoped that it would be slightly shorter. The Liberal Democrats are happy to let local communities make their own decisions on congestion charging.
  I agreed with the comments of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about the plan. If there is anything in it, it is simply reheated existing policies. It is

  345
  certainly long overdue. He will not tempt me, however, into talking about Argentina's economy—a matter for another debate. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) said that there was a difference between aviation and the Circle line, as one cannot shut down the Circle line, but I am afraid that London Underground currently does that far too frequently and easily.
  In the remaining few minutes, I should like to concentrate on two matters that have not been discussed in any detail: the supply of power to trains and carriages, and the future of London Underground. If the issue of power is not resolved, it is extremely unlikely that the Transport Secretary will be able to deliver his plans. We know that the SRA strategy has announced 1,700 new trains, although they are not really new trains and this is not news, as they have been on order for some time and their delivery is already way behind schedule. Some 2,019 new carriages have been ordered, but only 195 have so far been delivered. The train operating companies will have to get 12 of the vehicles into service every week. Will the Minister tell us how the Government will ensure that they do so? That target sounds extremely ambitious.
  None the less, when and if the trains are delivered, they will need a power supply. The arrangements in Railtrack southern region are in disarray. It is thought that the power network cannot be upgraded there by the deadline of the end of 2004. It appears that many millions of pounds have been spent on trains that cannot be used for a number of years. Who is responsible for the blunder? According to the Secretary of State, it is pre-administration Railtrack. However, Modern Railways magazine disagrees. It believes that Railtrack simply did not have enough notice to upgrade the power supply in time. As I said, that means that the commitment of £1 billion-plus on new carriages and trains could be jeopardised, as those trains will not be able to run on the system once they are available. Southern region representatives say that it will take at least another six months before even the scale of the upgrade is known. Additional work needs to be done in respect of 630 substations and so on. Apparently, the equipment could be ready for that, but there is a significant problem—I know that the Secretary of State is aware of it—in terms of the manpower that will be needed to do the work.
  Will the Minister tell us whether he believes that that is a failure of Railtrack, as the Secretary of State said, or of the train operating companies or, as Modern Railways suggests, the Strategic Rail Authority and possibly the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions? I await his response. I hope that he will answer a very simple question: will the power be ready at the right time and in the right place to allow all the trains to run when they are available for service? A simple yes or no will do.
  The second issue on which I want to focus is the London underground. Many hon. Members are as perplexed as I am about the fact that the Government appear to be committed to recreating on the London underground many of the structural failures that we have seen on the railways. Indeed, they are almost building in the same faultline. Furthermore, the tube PPP has many other faults. One of my main concerns is the almost excessive secrecy and commercial confidentiality that
  346
  have been involved, which seems incompatible with the democratic need for accountability. That has led to some disturbing incidents.
  In 1999, the Deputy Prime Minister said that a £4.5 billion saving would be achieved through the PPP. Since he made that statement, I have been trying to pin the Department down on the subject. I received a response on 14 November 2001 telling me that the £4.5 billion figure was meant only to "inform the debate". Can we really believe any of the figures that are spouted by the Government, or must we assume that they are all about spin and have no financial substance? The obsession with commercial confidentiality means that we have to rely on the media to find out—we hope—about the state of the PPP.
  Mr. Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that if the rumours are true and the Government have become bored with the PPP and do not think it can work, massive cancellation fees will have to be paid to the unsuccessful bidding parties, on top of the £100 million that has already been incurred in advisory fees?
  Tom Brake: I have pursued the Government on that subject, but they have been unable to supply me with information about the additional costs not only of consultants but of the whole process.
  As I have only one minute in which to conclude my remarks, I return to the motion and our proposal to dock the Transport Secretary's pay on the grounds of poor performance. Part of the remuneration of the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, who has just been appointed by the Government, is received in a bonus, and train operating company managers are also paid by results, so I think it is entirely fitting that the Transport Secretary's pay should also be performance related. To date, his achievements are less than remarkable. As I said at the very start of my speech, train delays are up by 70 per cent., cancellations are up by 45 per cent. and overcrowding is running at 39 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman is presiding over a rail system that is on the verge of collapse. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is fortunate for him that we have a minimum wage, because his performance to date warrants nothing more.
  6.47 pm
  The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's comment was in the same league as a remark made by a departed colleague, Simon Mahon, a long-standing member of Bootle council who prefaced his peroration in the Chamber, "Finally, Mr. Mayor." I am sure that you will let the comment pass with your usual graciousness, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Fortunately for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, you did not have to sit through the debate. This was not a great parliamentary occasion. Indeed, the motion set the tone for the debate. No answers and no policies were given by Opposition Members. There was also considerable confusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) drew attention to the Liberal Democrats' policy of paying for the railways out of congestion charges and workplace parking charges. Their spokesman answered that it was their policy to let local communities make their own decisions on

  347
  congestion charging. Perhaps they will not accept my suggestion that that is not exactly the firmest base for financing the national railway system, let alone that there might be some disparity between the two.
  Tom Brake: is the Minister really suggesting that the national railway system should be financed through local congestion charging schemes?
  Mr. Spellar: Of course not; I was citing paragraph 317 of the Liberal Democrat document. If the Liberal Democrats have their way, it will be difficult to fund anything out of congestion charges. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme suggested that there were local differences, so I checked today. I asked whether any Liberal Democrat councils were progressing with proposals on congestion charging. For once, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is right: the answer is none. I am willing to stand corrected, but as far as I know, no Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities are pushing for congestion or workplace charging in their areas. There is a slight hole not only in their policy but in their finances.
  Mr. Don Foster: The Minister is right; I know of no Liberal Democrat-run council that currently proposes congestion charging. However, in London, where the first scheme is most likely to take place, the Liberal Democrats are backing it, unlike Labour members of the Greater London Authority, who refuse to support a proposal that was introduced by a national Labour Government.
  Mr. Spellar: I understand that Liberal Democrats are happy to jump on someone else's bandwagon whenever possible, but taking responsibility is different; that is why the motion contains no details about their policy or any alternatives. We are considering a franchise party, which has a rag bag of policies. I note that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) is not here today; he is continuing the habits that he had when he was a Labour Member. What other party that believes in increasing fuel prices would welcome into its ranks the only Labour Member who said that we should have given in to the fuel protesters and cut fuel prices? What a shower!
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) issued a rail users survey. He asked what we should do about it. I expected him to present a policy.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I put forward Liberal Democrat policy.
  Mr. Spellar: Let us consider Liberal Democrat policy. Liberal Democrat Members believe that the company that runs the trains should also be responsible for the tracks and signalling. However, their document states that their proposed form of Railtrack should take care of the tracks and signalling. Their policy is, "Tell us what you want, and we will propose it." However, they did not propose much tonight. There was therefore some confusion on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
  Before I consider the rest of the Opposition, I want to refer to the positive and thoughtful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). He has long played a positive role with regard to the west coast main line and he drew attention to some of the genuine
  348
  problems that have to be faced. I shall deal with their origin shortly. He mentioned potential conflict between express, local and freight trains.
  The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made the same point, although her surprising conclusion was that proposals for one operator for each London terminal would exacerbate the problem. It is generally agreed in the industry that those proposals would improve matters. We are prepared to consider the problems that she believes might arise, because doing that, and examining the way in which we create extra capacity, can lead to their resolution.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle rightly identified the skills shortage in the industry, much of which was created by management failures at the time of privatisation. For example, the train operators made approximately 1,000 drivers redundant. The results have been only too clear in recent weeks. The same applies to track engineers. Much expertise left Railtrack; in some cases, it went to the subcontractors, but in others it left the industry. According to the Railtrack mantra of the times, skill and expertise in the industry were perceived as a cost which had to be driven out. Instead of regarding the skills base and the experience as an asset, Railtrack viewed them as costs to be reduced.
  I was slightly surprised and disappointed by the contributions of the right hon. Members for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who were joined at one stage by another old lag, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). They presided over doubling the national debt in five years, adding £175 billion to it. That constituted a huge burden on future generations and an enormous problem that the Government had to solve. We have done that. Conservative Members often talk about the confidence of financial institutions and the City. The financial community probably has more confidence in a party and a Government who have put the national finances on an even keel than a party that doubled the national debt in only five years.
  The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire identified one of the difficulties. He said that Gerald Corbett had resigned and that Railtrack had lost the City's confidence. That was a charitable admission that Railtrack's problems had long and deep roots in its senior management. Contrary to the scare stories that some newspapers are publishing, the majority of the reduction in the value of the shares—from nearly £18 to £2.80—happened as a result of the judgment of the markets on Railtrack's management. Not once did Opposition Members give the slightest indication of what they would have done with a Railtrack that was failing organisationally and financially.
  Railtrack management approached our predecessors in the Department in April and secured a commitment of some £1.5 billion. That was honoured. However, the company returned in July and claimed that without new and additional money, it would not be able to describe itself as a going concern.
  Mr. Redwood: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Spellar: I shall give way if the right hon. Gentleman tells us what he would have said to Railtrack managers came back with a begging bowl, in the words of the regulator, in only a few months.
  Mr. Redwood: Anyone sensible would have sat down with Railtrack's management, haggled, negotiated and

  349
  Worked out what the Government wanted to secure in terms of strengthening the board and in return for promises of money, and provided the money. The Government had already promised some money. A deal then would have been billions of pounds cheaper than their current actions.
  Mr. Spellar: The right hon. Gentleman claims we should have done a deal with that company when we had sat down, negotiated, haggled and done a deal with its representatives in April, only for it to return in a few months—not influenced by Hatfield or any other event—to say that the money was not enough and that it had no idea about the amount of the final bill. Not only Ministers, but others in the industry judged that Railtrack had no control over its costs. That was apparent on the west coast main line. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) asked about that line, on which the costs rose by some £2.3 billion to more than £7 billion.
  Mr. Pickles rose—
  Mr. Spellar: The Opposition did not mention John Armitt, the new chairman of Railtrack. He is a highly respected civil engineer, who is pulling things round. Although the right hon. Member for Wokingham sneered at the appointment of Richard Bowker to the SRA, I believe that the new team will provide a new vision for the industry.
  I have said a number of times in previous debates that the Tories were not only unfit to be the Government but unfit to be the Opposition. I suppose that meant that there was a vacancy for an Opposition. Well, it was certainly not filled today by the Liberal Democrats.
  Mr. Don Foster rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The Minister is obviously not going to give way.
  Mr. Spellar: The only party dealing seriously with transport is the Labour party, and that is why I have no hesitation in calling for the rejection of the Liberal Democrat motion and the carrying of the Government amendment.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 339.

  Division No. 134]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Beggs, Roy

  Allan, Richard

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Amess, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Bercow, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Boswell, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Brady, Graham

  Bacon, Richard

  Brake, Tom

  Baker, Norman

  Brazier, Julian

  Baldry, Tony

  Breed, Colin

  Barker, Gregory

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Baron, John

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Barrett, John

  Burnett, John

  350

  Burns, Simon

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Burnside, David

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Burstow, Paul

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Burt, Alistair

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Keetch, Paul

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Cameron, David

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Key, Robert

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Cash, William

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Lamb, Norman

  Chidgey, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Leigh, Edward

  Clappison, James

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lidington, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Luff, Peter

  Collins, Tim

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Conway, Derek

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Cotter, Brian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cran, James

  Malins, Humfrey

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Mates, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Dodds, Nigel

  Mercer, Patrick

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Doughty, Sue

  Moore, Michael

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Oaten, Mark

  Ewing. Annabelle

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fallon, Michael

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Page, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Paice, James

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Paterson, Owen

  Francois, Mark

  Pickles, Eric

  Garnier, Edward

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Price, Adam

  Gibb, Nick

  Prisk, Mark

  Gidley, Sandra

  Pugh, Dr John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gray, James

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Grayling, Chris

  Rendel, David

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Greenway, John

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Hammond, Philip

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hancock, Mike

  Ruffley, David

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Salmond, Alex

  Harvey, Nick

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hayes, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Simmonds, Mark

  Heath, David

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

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

  Hendry, Charles

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hermon, Lady

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hoban, Mark

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Holmes, Paul

  Spink, Bob

  Horam, John

  Spring, Richard

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Streeter, Gary

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Swayne, Desmond

  351

  Swire, Hugo

  Weir, Michael

  Syms, Robert

  Whittingdale, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Willis Phil

  Thurso, John

  Wilshire David

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Winterton Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Trend, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Wishart, Pete

  Tyler, Paul

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Viggers, Peter

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Walter, Robert

  Waterson, Nigel

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Watkinson, Angela

  Bob Russell and

  Webb, Steve

  Mrs. Annette L. Brooke.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clelland, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Coaker, Vernon

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cohen, Harry

  Allen, Graham

  Colman, Tony

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Connarty, Michael

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Corston, Jean

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cousins, Jim

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Crausby, David

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cruddas, Jon

  Baird, Vera

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Banks, Tony

  Cummings, John

  Barnes, Harry

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Battle, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Beard, Nigel

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bell, Stuart

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bennett, Andrew

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Benton, Joe

  David, Wayne

  Berry, Roger

  Davidson, Ian

  Best, Harold

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Blackman, Liz

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

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  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

  Browne, Desmond

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bryant, Chris

  Doran, Frank

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dowd, Jim

  Burgon, Colin

  Drew, David

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  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

  Casale, Roger

  Ennis, Jeff

  Cawsey, Ian

  Etherington, Bill

  Challen, Colin

  Farrelly, Paul

  Chaytor, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Clapham, Michael

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Flint, Caroline

  Flynn, Paul

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Follett, Barbara

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  352

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Foulkes, George

  Linton, Martin

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Lloyd, Tony

  Gapes, Mike

  Love, Andrew

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lucas, Ian

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Luke, Iain

  Gilroy, Linda

  Lyons, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Goggins, Paul

  McCabe, Stephen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Grogan, John

  MacDougall, John

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  McFall, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McKechin, Ann

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hanson, David

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Havard, Dai

  McNulty, Tony

  Healey, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hendrick, Mark

  McWilliam, John

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Heppell, John

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mann, John

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Marris, Rob

  Heyes, David

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hill, Keith

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hoey, Kate

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hood, Jimmy

  Martlew, Eric

  Hope, Phil

  Meale, Alan

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Merron, Gillian

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Miliband, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  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

  Hurst, Alan

  Morgan, Julie

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Mullin, Chris

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Illsley, Eric

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Norris, Dan

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Joyce, Eric

  Organ, Diana

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Owen, Albert

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pearson, Ian

  Kemp, Fraser

  Picking, Anne

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kidney, David

  Pike, Peter

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Plaskitt, James

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Pollard, Kerry

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Pond, Chris

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Pope, Greg

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pound, Stephen

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lammy, David

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Laxton, Bob

  Purchase, Ken

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Purnell, James

  Leslie, Christopher

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Levitt, Tom

  Rammell, Bill

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rapson, Syd

  353

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Tami, Mark

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rooney, Terry

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Ross, Ernie

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Roy, Frank

  Timms, Stephen

  Ruane, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ruddock, Joan

  Todd, Mark

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Touhig, Don

  Salter, Martin

  Trickett, Jon

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Truswell, Paul

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sawford, Phil

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Tynan, Bill

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Vaz, Keith

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Simon, Siôn

  Walley Ms Joan

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Watson, Tom

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  White, Brian

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Soley, Clive

  Winnick, David

  Southworth, Helen

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Wood, Mike

  Squire, Rachel

  Woodward, Shaun

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Worthington, Tony

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wray, James

  Stevenson, George

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mr. Phil Woolas and

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mr. Graham Stringer.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House believes that the railway infrastructure was badly damaged by decades of underinvestment and a flawed privatisation; recognises that the Government made tough decisions in the first two years of the last Parliament to deliver the economic stability that means it can put record levels of investment into the railways; notes that annual average total investment in rail over the 10 year plan will be £4.3 billion, compared to £1.4 billion for the period 1989/901–996/97; congratulates the Government on its decisive action over Railtrack, so undoing a failed Conservative privatisation; welcomes the SRA's Strategic Plan that sets out an effective agenda for the railways; calls for the resolution of the present industrial disputes through negotiation not strike action; and believes that the steps taken have laid the groundwork for a railway system that will be fit for the 21st century.

Care System
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Will Members please leave the Chamber as quickly and quietly as possible? We now come to the debate on the state of the care system. Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.15 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: I beg to move,
That this House believes that the underfunding of social care by successive Governments has led to bottlenecks and delays in the NHS, reducing health care capacity and increasing waiting times; further believes that it is the most vulnerable elderly who suffer the consequences of inadequate care; regrets that the piecemeal approach of the Government to hospital delayed discharge simply shifts the pressures from one part of the care system to another; condemns the Government for its mishandling and misunderstanding of the care home sector and the consequent loss of homes and beds; regrets that the failure to adequately fund social care has produced serious staff shortages and reduced choice and quality for those in need of care; and calls on the Government to undertake a whole system review of funding for social care to tackle staff shortages, increase capacity, promote choice and ensure that people get the right care at the right time.
I am pleased that my hon. Friends and others are staying for this important debate on the state of the care system and the crisis in it. The national health service is always in the news, but the Government often overclaim for it and for their delivery. In fact, it frequently under-performs. As with the railways, they have been too timid and from day one they failed to invest in our health care and our health systems.
The results of that are there for all too see: long waits in our accident and emergency departments, more people waiting for treatment, more people waiting to get out of hospital after being treated. The NHS is short-staffed and struggling to deliver, but it is only part of the picture. Step back and take a look at the bigger picture—the care system outside our hospitals. The Cinderella status given to social care and the failure to invest in the care system are fuelling the pressures on accident and emergency departments and hospital wards.
There are countless victims of this Government's failure to invest in the care system—every year, 700,000 elderly people find themselves stuck in hospital and unable to leave because there is not enough care provision outside. Grotesquely, elderly people are left in hospital waiting for someone to die in a care home before the council will fund their care home place. In parts of the country, two people have to die before one new care place is funded. People are labelled bed blockers as if it is their fault that they are stuck in hospital. It is the Government's fault, but those 700,000 are just the tip of the iceberg.
Richard Younger-Ross: My hon. Friend refers to "bed blockers" and suggests that the Government blame elderly people for being in those beds. Should not we use the expression "bed lockers", because it is the lack of Government funding that ties elderly people to beds?
Mr. Burstow: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. As a consequence of the Government's failure to invest in social care and the care system outside our hospitals, there is increasing gridlock in the care system. As a consequence of that, people are suffering and receiving bad care.

355
What is happening to people waiting for treatment? We know that in the five years since the Government came to power at least 5,000 years of bed time have been lost to the NHS as a result of delayed discharges. Who pays the price for that incompetence—5,000 years of time wasted? In the first quarter of this year alone, 22,000 more people could have been treated if the care system did not leave people stuck in bed once they are well. If we managed to treat those people in the health service and get them out quicker, we would be able to reduce or perhaps remove the need for them to fly abroad or rely on private health care for treatment.
Madam Speaker, looking at the figures for the first quarter—
Mr. Tony McNulty: Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Burstow: Maybe in the future. Let us guess how many operations have been cancelled in the first quarter of this year. For want of an NHS bed and appropriate treatment, 20,000 people had their operations cancelled.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument. Although the Government are open to criticism for the way in which they fund social services authorities, does he not agree that some authorities hardly assist in ending bed blocking? For example, the Rev. David Barker of Nettlestone in my constituency is concerned that the Isle of Wight council, which is of course led by the Liberal Democrats, is not providing the necessary support for people who are sent home, so they are left in beds.
Mr. Burstow: It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman is not backing his council to make sure that it has the resources to do the job. It will be noted in the Isle of Wight that he is not standing up for the Isle of Wight to ensure that it has the resources; many of his hon. Friends do defend their social services departments.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burstow: No, the hon. Gentleman has made his point. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is not giving way for a second time.
Mr. Burstow: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman may not have liked the answer, but that is the answer he is going to get.
There is a chronic shortage of staff and a substantial loss of care home beds, and care increasingly is being rationed. These are the hallmarks of a Government who have neglected the care system. Last year the King's Fund report "Future Imperfect" warned the Government of the increasing difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff, with vacancy rates in excess of 20 per cent. and turnover rates in excess of 16 per cent. It is no wonder that some home care agencies have hit crisis point and have gone out of business.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Before my hon. Friend leaves the causes of bed blocking and the subject
356
of social services departments, does he agree that there has been a gross neglect of district nursing services by all health authorities in recent years? District nurses are getting older and unable to cope. People are not going into the profession, because of the pay and conditions. However, they are crucial to relieving bed blocking from hospitals.
Mr. Burstow: District nurses are an essential part of the team that is needed in the community to facilitate appropriate and prompt discharge from hospital. In too many places, as my hon. Friend has rightly said, they are not there in the numbers needed to do the job.
Added to that is the issue of the new standards for domiciliary care and the fact that a high proportion of home care workers are not far off retirement. As a result, things are set to get worse before they get better in that sector. The same difficulties beset the care home sector.
Mr. David Heath: My hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way. Before he leaves the subject of the domiciliary sector, is there not now a real problem in recruiting domiciliary assistants not only in the public sector, but in the private and voluntary sectors? Is it not the case that the standard spending assessment for personal social services across the country fails to deal adequately with that problem this year, which means that the situation can only get worse?
Mr. Burstow: My hon. Friend is right, and I wish to refer to the social services SSAs in due course.
I was about to say that the same difficulties beset the care homes sector. The Association of Residential Care said recently:
"With some supermarkets offering £8 per hour to stock shelves overnight it is hard to attract staff to a complex and often stressful job for much less money. In some parts of the country the only people applying for vacancies are those that Mcdonald's and Tesco have already rejected."
It is a frightening thought that our care homes are so dependent on the rejects from McDonald's.
Staff shortages are no excuse for a minority of care homes that resort to the restraint and chemical management of residents instead of offering decent care. The Local Government Association has warned the Government about staff shortages: in particular, the vacancies of about 10 per cent. in management posts which have led to a cycle of heavy workloads, low morale, long hours and high staff turnover.
Care staff are voting with their feet. As many as one in five care staff, social services staff and others are actively seeking new jobs. No wonder two out of three social services departments are reporting recruitment difficulties. We are faced with the real prospect of importing staff from abroad, only to export elderly people to the continent to be cared for.
In the care homes sector, there is no escaping the fact that a combination of falling incomes and rising costs has resulted in a substantial loss of beds. In the last three years alone, 35,000 beds have been lost and the number of new registrations has dropped dramatically.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: If the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly on this point, can he explain why, during its eight years of running East Sussex county

357
council, his own party came consistently bottom of the national league table for the rates it paid to care home owners?
Mr. Burstow: Probably for the same reason I gave to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner): the council in question was not properly funded in terms of social services. Yet again the hon. Gentleman plays into the hands of the Government by dividing councils and accusing them of failing to deliver, when in fact they have not been given the resources to do the job in the first place.
As a result, care home fees have been driven down so far that we are in a situation where it is impossible to be certain that continuity of provision can be maintained. With figures as low as £225 per week for residential care and £336 for nursing care, how are owners supposed to comply with the new standards, let alone staff their homes and care for the residents?
Mr. Stephen McCabe: I have some sympathy with the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. But how does he reconcile the difficulty that he describes, of new care standards—which he criticises—and of staff whom he describes as McDonald's rejects? Surely if we want the right staff in place, we must have the standards to encourage them.
Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that standards must be appropriate and that there is a need for extra training. But training is not cost free; it requires money. The problem is that the Government have not recognised that and they appear to be in denial when it comes to the extra costs that are a consequence of compliance with the standards. That is where the problem lies and that is why we are bringing the matter to the House tonight.
On issues of funding, we see that private payers and so-called preserved rights residents are subsidising the shortfalls in state-paid fees. In the case of preserved rights residents, this was in excess of £50 million last year alone. Charities that run care homes are using as much as £185 million of their own funds to plug the gap in state funding for care. That is 19 per cent. up on last year and it is still rising. Money given by the public for charitable purposes is used to prop up state-funded care that is inadequate because it is not properly funded.
On top of that funding shortfall and the staffing crisis in care homes, care homes are also faced with the new care standards coming in this April. Higher standards will mean fewer residents and even less income. Try selling that to a bank manager: "We want to make adaptations and changes to our care home and we need extra capital to pay for that. But we will have less income once we have made the changes". I do not see many bank managers signing up to that.
It is no wonder that, faced with mounting difficulties, care homes are often realising a better rate of return on their capital by selling the property. The victims of this are the frail and vulnerable elderly who are forced to pack their bags and move to another home. The trauma can and does kill. Despite mounting evidence of the extra costs of complying with the new standards, Ministers seem to remain in denial.
358
Earlier today I was briefed by Leonard Cheshire Homes, which had done some calculations on the costs of complying with the standards for young adults. It found that the weekly cost per resident in one of its homes for disabled adults will rise from £680 to £1,092, a 62 per cent. increase to comply with the training and other standards laid out by the Government. In addition it has estimated that it will need to find an extra 237 nurses to deliver the standards. Where are 237 extra nurses coming from? The NHS? I do not think so. The Government need to spell out where the extra resources are coming from.
Home care fares no better. Under the Government, there has been a 19 per cent. reduction in the number of people receiving home care—93,000 fewer people a year receiving home care in just four years. The Government amendment says that more people are living independently. Perhaps that is what it means—93,000 extra people not being supported in their own homes.
The rules have been rewritten so that only the most frail and dependent are looked after and the rest have to fend for themselves. To make money stretch a little further, care is increasingly being rationed. It is being rationed by denying help to those with moderate care needs or with a carer at home. It is being rationed for those who have high care needs by having them wait in hospital beds or, more likely, having them wait unseen in their own home. It is also being rationed by setting limits either on how much the council is prepared to pay or on the quantity or quality of care to be provided.
According to the LGA, six out of 10 councils have tightened or proposed to tighten the way in which they ration care, as a way of controlling their spending. All we are talking about tonight are things that are not luxuries—help with getting in and out of bed, getting dressed, keeping clean, eating a reasonably balanced diet, having nails cut, using the toilet, having clean laundry, living in a decent environment. We are talking about a person's basic dignity. That is why Liberal Democrats remain committed to the principle that personal care should be free, on the basis of a person's need.
Increasingly, personal care involves services that would have been seen in the past as nursing care, such as changing catheters and dressings, preventing or treating pressure sores and managing medication. That is why Liberal Democrats say that nursing care should be free on the basis of need, not according to who provides it.
The Government's answer to the crisis in the care system is to treat the symptoms and not the causes. The £200 million initiative to tackle bed blocking that was announced last year falls well short of what is needed to tackle the staff shortages, capacity constraints and rationing of the care system that are causing delayed discharges. The £200 million has to be set against a long history of underfunding.
Year by year, the gap between what councils spend and what the Government think needs to be spent on social care has widened. The gap has increased from 3 per cent. in the early 1990s to 8 per cent. in the mid-1990s; in the past three years, it has widened to a gulf of 12 per cent. More than £1 billion has to be found by local councils through council tax to meet statutory duties and respond to yet more Government initiatives and priorities. As a direct consequence, over the past two years three out of four social services departments have overspent their budgets.

359
How much worse would the problems in the NHS be if councils spent down to the level the Government think is necessary and clamped down on overspending?
Against that backdrop, the absence of any extra cash for social care in this year's local government settlement is mind boggling. Social care has been short-changed to the tune of £113 million in the coming year—money that was pencilled in by Ministers in the spending assessment in 2000, but not actually delivered this year. As a consequence, overspending will continue to rise.
Health and social care are two sides of the same coin: underfund one and the other is undermined. It is for that reason that the Government must undertake a whole system review of funding social care. Such a review must go beyond the Government's sticking-plaster solution of cash to tackle delayed discharges. What is needed is long-term, sustained investment in social care, informed by a realistic assessment of what is needed to deliver real improvements.
Social care is stuck in crisis management mode. Those with less acute needs drop off the queue, only for the vicious circle of lack of support, leading to increased dependency and greater calls on high intensity care, to start all over again. That is a false economy that is doing great harm. The true cost of running the system in that way is measured in two ways—in ministerial failure and in human misery.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Hinchliffe. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: I apologise. I thought that the Minister was holding back.
7.33 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"welcomes the Government's strategy for modernising social care services through unprecedented real terms increases in resources, which enables and promotes better joint working between the NHS, social services, and the independent care sectors, develops a national framework for standards and quality and ensures a greater emphasis on users and patients in the design and delivery of services; notes that this has led to more independence for older people, fairer funding of long term care, reduced levels of delayed discharge and greater choice for users; and condemns the Liberal Democrats for their obsession with producer interests over those of users and patients and their failure to recognise that investment must be matched by reform."
I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the peroration of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) was so underwhelming that I had not realised that he had finished speaking.
The care system plays a vital role in ensuring that vulnerable people of all ages receive the care that they need, and I should like to start by commending the efforts of those social workers and care staff in both the public and independent sectors who, every day of the week, provide support and opportunity to people in need. Incidentally, those staff will not have been impressed by
360
their description by the hon. Gentleman as rejects from McDonald's. That reference might have been noted outside the House.
Mr. Burstow rose—
Jacqui Smith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman intends to withdraw that slur on our care staff.
Mr. Burstow: It was an attributed quotation from an organisation. That is all.
Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman has not apologised, but he has attempted to pass the buck.
However, it is clear that we can all do more to ensure that the care system provides the right care at the right time and in the right place, that it promotes independence and choice and that it puts the user and the carer at the centre of services.
The hon. Gentleman made much of delayed discharges and we are all agreed that we need to make sure that people do not have to wait in acute hospital beds when they could be better cared for elsewhere. That is, of course, not a new problem and, in fact, the proportion of older people who have to wait while their discharge is arranged has fallen steadily over the past four years. It is true, however, that we need to consider the issue seriously.
A serious consideration of this issue must start with an honest look at the figures. Today we have heard ludicrous claims about the number of people who have their discharge delayed. This evening, the figure went up to 700,000. Throughout the day, the figure has varied by about 200,000, depending on which edition of the press release is being referred to. The hon. Gentleman's calculator may have been red-hot today, but I am afraid that taking a figure from a parliamentary answer and then multiplying it by the number he first thought of might make for good stories, but it does not get us any further in the important task of ensuring that everybody gets the care they need when they need it and where they need it.
Mr. Waterson: We have all learned to disbelieve figures quoted by the Liberal Democrats, but will the Minister comment on the figures published on Friday by Eastbourne district general hospital that show that, despite the extra money that has been invested recently by the Government, the number of beds blocked has risen since June—when it stood at 46—by so much that the acting chief executive said that the hospital had 75 beds blocked and a consistent flow of patients who need them?
Jacqui Smith: I do not have the figures for Eastbourne at my fingertips, but I know that like other areas it will have benefited from the extra investment and will be subject to the targets for reducing delayed discharges. Of course we need to tackle delayed transfers in order to make sure that the whole system works effectively, but I have to point out to hon. Members that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam suggested, more operations are now being done in the NHS and waiting lists are down.
We know that there is more to be done. That is why, in October, we announced an additional £300 million—not £200 million—during this year and next for councils to work with their health and independent sector partners to tackle the delays and the causes of delay.
Richard Younger-Ross: The Minister mentioned a figure of £300 million, but the directors of social services

361
estimate that £1 billion is required. What will fill the gap between the £300 million that the Government are providing and the £1 billion that the experts in the field say that they need?
Jacqui Smith: That is not the first example, and I am sure that it will not be the last, of the Liberal Democrats calling for more money regardless of how we change the system. I will say more about the extra resources that the Government are putting in to personal social services over and above the £300 million, but the point remains that we have been willing to invest that sum in order to ensure that we can tackle delays.
Mr. Terry Davis: Is the £300 million intended to deal only with delayed discharges from hospitals or also with delayed admissions from the community?
Jacqui Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention and I know of the good work that he has done in Birmingham on the problem of delayed discharges. As I will explain later, the investment in social services, and that £300 million in particular, has to deal with all the problems in the system, including funding projects that will ensure that people do not end up having to go into hospital, perhaps by providing better support in their homes, as well as ensuring that we have the capacity and the necessary services to get them out of hospital in a timely manner.
Mr. Heath: Everything that the Minister says shows that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) is right to say that the Government are in denial. For example, is it not the fact that in Somerset the extra money that has been provided to deal with bed blocking is almost exactly matched by reductions in grants for other parts of social services? That means that no improvement is possible.
Jacqui Smith: No, it does not mean that, as I shall explain later. I monitor carefully the figures for delayed discharges and can assure hon. Members not only that the trend is down but that since last September there are fewer blocked beds and fewer people wait more than 28 days. The investment and the new services that it has brought are working, and the health service and its social care partners deserve congratulations on the progress that is being made.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam made some points about care home capacity. The Government are well aware of those issues. Once again, however, the truth has been misrepresented. Figures show that the loss of beds during the past few years is nowhere near as high as the figure of 35,000 cited today, or the figure of 50,000 that has often been cited. Indeed, residential care and nursing home capacity is roughly the same today as it was four years ago.
It is nonsense to consider closures in isolation. Laing and Buisson's figures, for example, show that more than 33,500 beds were created between 1996–97 and 2000 as a result of new registrations. The net loss of care home beds during that period, according to Laing and Buisson, which has no axe to grind in the matter, was about 19,000.
362
To claim a higher figure is both mischievous and misleading. After this debate, 1 hope that figure will not be used again.
What must we do to maintain that capacity and to ensure that standards are what we would expect for our constituents who use those services?
Sandra Gidley: I am listening to the Minister's comments with interest, but let us put the dispute over the historical figures to one side for a moment. When I visit care homes in my constituency, I am told that the wholly erroneous standards specified in the Care Standards Act 2000 are forcing them to make real decisions about the future. They have to decide whether they can afford to make those so-called improvements even though their homes already function perfectly. The owners are all drawing up plans to sell their large old houses for flats. What impact will the Act have on the number of future places in homes? Has the Minister made an assessment?
Jacqui Smith: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. We are witnessing a certain amount of confusion among Liberal Democrats this evening—certainly as regards their historical position. The hon. Lady seems to be suggesting that we should oppose the whole idea of setting up national standards, while the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam supported it. I take the impact of standards extremely seriously, as I shall explain later.
Mrs. Joan Humble: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Liberal Democrats seem to be denying the need for care standards to protect elderly people who desperately need them? Is she aware that, when the Government held their widespread consultations on care standards, most care home owners in Lancashire told me that the standards were, by and large, examples of good practice. Those owners were already implementing such standards. If they had a concern, it was about building regulations. The Government responded to that concern by extending the period needed to convert the buildings to the new standards.
Jacqui Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know that she has a close and good relationship with the care homes in her constituency. I shall talk about care home standards in a moment.
It is also worth pointing out that the Liberal Democrats have turned their fire on domiciliary care. Those services have never been regulated. I am interested to know whether the Liberal Democrat approach is that there should be no regulation of the whole sector that deals with care services provided to people in their own homes.
Mr. Burstow rose—
Jacqui Smith: Hopefully, we shall now receive clarification.
Mr. Burstow: I am more than happy to make it clear, as we did throughout the passage of the care standards legislation, that we support the introduction of national

363
minimum standards but, as we pointed out, higher quality comes at a cost. The problem is that the Government are not prepared to write the cheque.
Jacqui Smith: I am glad that I gave the hon. Gentleman the chance to correct the impression that he gave in his original comments.
It is important to remember why national standards are being developed—that relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble). The old regulatory system for care homes is riddled with gaps and anomalies. Existing standards for care homes are set and administered in different ways by different authorities, and some homes are not regulated at all. I am sure that hon. Members will have heard—as I have—the complaints of care homes and users about the current inconsistencies.
The introduction of national minimum standards will mean that providers will be clear about the standards that they have to meet, and users and their carers will know what they can expect as a minimum. It is right to provide that protection and assurance for the vulnerable people who use our care system.
Andrew George: The fundamental point is that, although we welcome the introduction both of care standards and of the increase in the minimum wage, there is an increasing mismatch with the money provided to social services. The Minister knows that, next week, I shall be meeting her with a delegation of representatives from health authorities, social services and the independent sector to raise the issue of that increasing gap between the cost of meeting the welcome standards and improvements in the residential sector and the money provided for social services. That problem affects not only Cornwall but many parts of the country. The Minister must address that gap.
Jacqui Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I have lost count of the number of Liberal Democrat demands for extra money but I shall deal with his point.
The way that we implement the standards is crucial. In particular, the focus of the National Care Standards Commission, when it takes over regulation and inspection in April, will be to work with providers to help them to meet national minimum standards. In practice, that means that if standards were not being met in a few respects the commission would note that in its inspection report and would write to the home owner giving reasonable time in which to make the changes.
Of course, the point of national standards is to ensure consistent high standards throughout the country, not to close good homes. That is why, when we heard the results of the consultation, we made changes to the standards, putting off the environmental space standards until 2007 and ensuring that space could be used flexibly. However, I am determined that the standards will be introduced in a way that will safeguard users and maintain good homes. I will be discussing with industry representatives and with the National Care Standards Commission the details of the environmental standards, and how we can ensure that they are introduced in a way that promotes higher standards for users but does not drive high-quality care homes out of business.
364
Local authorities are rightly responsible for decisions about the fee levels that they pay. It was interesting to hear Liberal Democrat Members speak about the failure of some Liberal Democrat councils to live up to the enthusiasm of their Members of Parliament. However, fee levels should reflect the quality of care that we expect from care homes for our older people. That is why I welcome the fact that local authorities are using funding from the £300 million building capacity grant to buy additional places in care homes.
A number of councils have drawn up new agreements—which include increased funding—with the independent sector, to stabilise the sector and ensure that standards of care are maintained. That will help to ensure that capacity is maintained locally, so that the right range of care services can continue to be provided to older people in the future.
The debate about care goes wider than care homes alone. The Government have also introduced a range of reforms to the long-term care system. Free nursing care in nursing homes was introduced on 1 October, as we had promised. The benefit is felt by more than 42,000 people, who could save as much as £6,000 per year. Councils have had extra money to introduce deferred payments, so that people do not have to sell their homes to go into residential care. Since last March, the value of a property has been disregarded for 12 weeks in the residential care means test, and capital limits have been increased.
It is important to maintain capacity and make the system fairer, but more of the same just will not do if we want to provide real choices and independence for our older people. I am encouraged by the figures that show that 5 per cent. more households were receiving intensive home care packages in 2000 than in 1999. About 1.5 million people now receive care packages of all types in their own homes.
In addition, the national service framework for older people, published in March last year, focuses on raising standards and promoting independence in services for older people.
Dr. Evan Harris: Is not the Minister concerned that the 5 per cent. more people receiving intensive care packages at home might have come at the expense of the 93,000 fewer people who receive all types of care packages at home? Stealing from one group of vulnerable people to provide for another such group is a cynical tactic, not something of which she should be proud.
Jacqui Smith: I am sure that Liberal Democrat councils around the country will be interested to hear that Liberal Democrat MPs think that they are stealing when they make local decisions about resources. The important point is that local authorities and their health partners are using the extra resources that have been made available to find new and different ways to support old people's independence. That is to be welcomed.
Central to raising standards in the national service framework is the increased development of intermediate care services to provide rehabilitation, to support independence, to prevent people from going into hospital into the first place, and to help them back into their own homes after a spell in hospital. The extra investment in these services has already led to more beds, more places and more people receiving these services.

365
A new advice and information line, Care Direct, went live in the south-west from 1 October, providing advice and information on health, housing, social care and social security issues. These types of services—new services that promote information and independence for older people—will be developed across the country. These and other initiatives already being delivered, totalling £1.4 billion from 2001 to 2004, will support older people more effectively and independently.
Richard Younger-Ross: The Minister is generous in giving way again. She is good at blaming Liberal Democrat councils for what they do or do not do, as if we controlled the world. No party is in overall control of Devon county council, but the leaders of all the four political groups in that county—Liberal Democrat, Conservative, independent and Labour—came to lobby Devon MPs last week. They had but one message: that funding for Devon is inadequate, and that there is insufficient money for the SSA for services for the elderly or for children. Devon's problem is that it cannot deliver enough money to the independent care homes. It recognises that, as do the independent care homes. How can the council improve the care standards—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. An intervention is meant to be brief.
Jacqui Smith: I had started to speak about the extra resources going into local authorities. Some of those extra resources are, rightly, finding their way into new services and into increases in fees.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam called the Government's policies quick fixes, or words to that effect.
Mr. Burstow: Sticking plasters.
Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman called the policies sticking plasters, but not one of them is a quick fix. The accusation is ironic, coming as it does from Liberal Democrat Members, who think that the only fix is more money, more quickly.
Of course we need to reform the system further: we need new services, new choices and new ways for health, social care and their independent partners to work together. That is why my predecessor established a high-level strategic commissioning group to give greater direction to the commissioning of care services for adults.
The agreement published by the group, which brings together representatives from a variety of organisations, sets out responsibilities and expectations for central Government, local government, the NHS and independent providers. It stresses the need for councils and the independent sector to enter into long-term agreements on placing people into care homes or giving them other forms of support. It will lead to improvements in the commissioning of services and therefore more choice and security for older people.
The Government have broken down the legislative barriers that prevented health and social services from working together, so that services are now beginning to be designed around what older people actually need and want rather than what fits administrative boundaries.
366
We need to see even more of that type of working. Of course, that needs more investment and resources and, yes, social services have been underfunded. That is why the Government have increased social services funding by more than 20 per cent. in real terms since 1996–97—an average annual real terms increase of 3.2 per cent.
Incidentally, before we hear from the Conservative Opposition spokesman, I should say that that increase stands in contrast to an average annual real-terms increase of 0.1 per cent. in the last five years of the previous Government and no promise to match our social services spending at the last election.
Mr. Burstow: Perhaps we can have a quick reality check. Will the Minister confirm that the gap between what the Government say social services need to spend and what they actually spend amounts to £1 billion—a 12 per cent. difference? That is the reality, is it not?
Jacqui Smith: We are working with the Local Government Association to ensure that, as I have said, we continue to put extra resources into social services. In fact, the gap has narrowed in the past year. We are working to attract more staff through a recruitment campaign that we launched last year, and it has already attracted at least 14,000 responses. We are investing in training support to ensure that our care workers have the skills that they need.
Today, Liberal Democrat Members have been big on calls for more money and short on vision or ideas for reform. The Tories will be big on complaint and low on investment. What people will get from a Labour Government is more investment, higher standards, more services, more choice, more independence and more hope for the most vulnerable people in our society. I commend the amendment to the House.
7.57 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: I certainly welcome this debate, but I must say that listening to the increasingly bitter exchanges between the Minister and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), I began to feel that I was intruding on private grief—it seems that the love affair between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats is well and truly over if the early stages of the debate are anything to go by. It is amazing to think, Madam Deputy Speaker—and even you can think about it—that there was a great cosy love affair only 18 months ago. Lord Ashdown, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) were all involved in a Cabinet Sub-Committee—the first time that that has happened since the time of Lloyd George. Tonight, we can well and truly see that that love affair is over. The bitterness of both sides is more than apparent, given the way they were at each other's throat.
Just yesterday, it was widely reported that the elderly in Britain are being penalised by the NHS because of widespread health care bias and discrimination. Although that is deeply alarming, such discrimination is not a wholly new revelation. Indeed, such prejudice towards the elderly has increasingly manifested itself in another aspect of Government policy since 1997—long-term care for the elderly. Between 1998 and 2001, the number of general nursing homes in England fell by 13 per cent. During that relatively short period, nearly 22,000 nursing homes beds

367
were lost and about the same number of hospital patients had their discharges delayed because there were no places available to look after them properly in the community.
Less than one year ago, there were 525,900 places in residential settings for long-stay care for elderly and physically disabled people across all sectors.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am a little concerned by the fact that the debate seems to be concentrating on beds when community care should be about preventing people needing beds. How do countries such as Denmark, with a similar proportion of elderly and very elderly people, manage without any care homes whatever?
Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue concerning domiciliary care, and I will refer to it in my speech. The simple answer to his question is that the debate has revolved around beds because it is about the crisis in care. Unfortunately, the Government's record on what has happened to the number of beds over the past few years has helped to contribute significantly to the crisis. That is why the issue will be an integral part of the debate. I know that the Government do not like to hear bad news or, in many cases, the truth when it is unpalatable, but they will have to listen to it this evening without the fantasy, the spin or the denial of Ministers.
Mrs. Humble rose—
Mr. Andrew Turner rose—
Mr. Burns: I will give way when I have made some progress.
As I was saying, less than one year ago there were 525,900 places in residential settings for long-term care for the elderly and for physically disabled people across all sectors. That is a drop in capacity of almost 50,000 places since 1996–97. Indeed, 760 care homes were closed in 1999 alone, resulting in the loss of more than 15,000 beds. In anyone's mind—except that of the Minister, who does not seem to think that it is happening—that is an extremely alarming situation.
I do not know about the Minister's constituency, but in mine two care homes have closed in the past 12 months. I suspect that most hon. Members—certainly those on the Opposition Benches—will probably have experienced the same tragic situation. For some reason, it is not obvious to Ministers, who want to perpetuate the myth that everything is fine and that any fact or statistic that suggests otherwise is not true.
Mrs. Humble: I remind the hon. Gentleman that his Government introduced the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. When the then Secretary of State for Health announced its introduction, he agreed with Sir Roy Griffiths who had been commissioned by the then Government to produce a report and who said that 25 per cent. of care home beds would be lost as a result of that legislation because it was deliberately designed to move people out of residential care and into a home care setting.
Mr. Burns: The hon. Lady must understand that one of the fundamental principles of community care was to
368
examine where it was possible to allow people to remain in the familiarity and security of their own homes with domiciliary care packages. If there were a static population, that would lead to the loss of some beds because they would not be needed. The hon. Lady is talking about what happened 10 or 11 years ago and the elderly population has increased significantly since then. For a variety of clinical and funding reasons, many people have not been to able to remain in their homes. In recent years, care homes have closed and beds have been lost not because there is no demand for them, but because it is not viable for a variety of reasons—some financial and some bureaucratic and administrative—for them to be retained.
The other problem is that the closure of homes is not taking place where there is spare capacity. More often that not, it is happening in the south-east, the south-west and the eastern region, where there is the greatest demand, and that creates a greater problem. The situation is critical. A survey in May 2001 showed that more than 70,000 pensioners were forced to sell their homes in 1999 to pay for the cost of residential nursing care. That represented a near doubling of the 40,000 pensioners in the same circumstances when a similar survey was carried out in 1995.
Even more worrying is the survey of 104 councils which showed that
"potentially more than a quarter of a million"
pensioners have been forced to sell their homes to pay for care costs since Labour came to power. Is that what Labour meant when it claimed that things can only get better? That is not how most elderly people who have gone through that tragic process or who are fearful that it might happen to them would define getting better.
Mr. Burstow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burns: I want to make some progress first.
The Government have failed to address the problem for far too long. The average age of this country's population is increasing. Some demographic projections indicate that the provision of nursing home beds needs to expand by around 65 per cent. by 2031 if the population is to be adequately cared for. Yet with the number of beds falling, an even greater expansion—possibly as much as 100 per cent. over the next 30 years—will be needed to meet the target.
Mr. David Drew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burns: No, I am going to make progress.
The Government can continue to spin the situation, to fiddle the figures and to call it what they like, but the stark fact is that there is a crisis in long-term care. They may refuse to recognise that, but Opposition Members are not the only people who live in the real world and understand what is going on. Frank Ursell, the chief executive of the Registered Nursing Home Association, has commented:
"The Government can rightly be accused of fiddling while a vitally important part of the health care sector declines before its very eyes. Inaction by the Government, coupled with chronic underfunding of services for older people, could mean that there will be insufficient long-term beds available in the years ahead."

369
The National Assistance Act 1948 is long out of date. Fortunately, the provision and the policy of caring for old people has moved on from the undignified and sole-destroying placement of the elderly in long-stay hospitals, where they had little comfort and little self-respect or dignity. That has gone, and I suspect that no one would object to that.
We have to ensure that community care is developed—I strongly support this policy—so that it provides the back-up and the freedom from fear that the elderly deserve in the 21st century. I am afraid that despite some welcome strides forward, such as the raising of standards, more has to be done to address the problem. The knock-on effect of the loss of nursing homes and beds is causing a critical problem with delayed discharge, or bed blocking. A vicious circle is emerging. The increasing number of residential home closures has led to further delays in discharging older people from acute hospital wards. Not only does that prevent them from leaving hospital, but it lengthens the waiting times for patients who want hospital treatment.
The situation is ridiculous. On 9 October last year, the Government claimed that approximately 6,000 beds were blocked by patients who were well enough to be discharged. On 15 October, the Daily Mail revealed that the real number of delayed discharges was 100 times higher. [Interruption.] The Minister says, "It's wrong." It is not. I am worried that a Minister can sit there and, almost ostrich-like, blind herself to the reality of what is going on in the real world.
Although the Minister says that the article was wrong, after the Daily Mail had pointed out that the Government's figures were wrong, the Government admitted that they were wrong: they had referred only to those beds blocked in NHS hospitals on any one day, leaving out the other 364 days in the year. There is no point in the Minister repeating like a parrot, "It's wrong." It is not wrong. The Daily Mail also revealed that Department of Health statistics showed that over the course of the year, there were more than 680,000 elderly bed blockers. The Government insult the country by systematically refusing to accept what is happening. How are we to believe Ministers if whenever they are given information they do not like, they say it is not true?
Last year in inner London, 11 per cent. of acute beds were blocked. In December, in response to a written question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the Minister acknowledged that 36 per cent. of patients subject to delayed discharge were delayed in hospital for more than 28 days. That equates to almost 245,000 patients. How many patients could have received acute treatment had those beds been available and not blocked by people who had nothing wrong with them but had nowhere else to go?
The Government's policy and the knock-on effect of delayed discharge is having a profound effect throughout health care provision. Insufficient care facilities in the community mean that elderly people are being kept inappropriately in hospital, which in turn prevents those who need hospital treatment getting a bed.
We recognise that hospital is not always the most appropriate environment in which to care for elderly people. Wards tend to be noisy and overcrowded,
370
with individuals afforded little privacy. The Government have failed to meet their deadline for ending the use of mixed-sex wards. Even more disturbing is the high risk of elderly people in hospital acquiring infections: almost one in 10 of all hospital patients contract an infection during their stay.
Although I welcome last October's announcement by the Government that they would release £300 million over two years to tackle delayed discharge, I agree with Sheila Scott of the National Care Homes Association, who described the sum as a "sticking plaster". With 680,000 bed blockers last year, 1,000 extra beds will do little to alleviate the problem that the money is intended to tackle. The vicious circle will continue to revolve until the problem of bed blocking and delayed discharge is brought under control. In the meantime, all care suffers. Under new Labour, we have been put in the ridiculous position whereby one is put on a waiting list both to get into hospital and to get out of hospital.
The Government have failed on another key aspect of health care: free nursing care. Before the last general election—under new Labour, these things always happen just before a general election—the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State promised that there would be free nursing care in England as soon as its introduction was viable. Since then, the implementation of the policy from 1 October has not lived up to the expectations raised by that promise.
Many people feel betrayed because they took the Government's words at face value and believed that everyone would receive free nursing care. They failed to realise that it was the Government who would define nursing care and personal care. Now, a significant number of people who thought they would be entitled to receive free nursing care have been told that they will not get it, because the care they need has been categorised as personal care. Some sufferers from Alzheimer's disease or dementia, for example, may not receive nursing care because it is judged that their care is personal care, and under the new policy personal care is not paid for by the system.
Mr. Burstow: I seek clarification. Is the hon. Gentleman advancing the view that personal care, like nursing care, should be free? Can he explain why his Front-Bench team, who in opposition took that measure through in the last Parliament, did not pick it up and did not deal with the complications of the Government's free nursing care scheme?
Mr. Burns: We fully support the provision of free nursing care, as we did before the last general election.
Dr. Evan Harris: Not personal care?
Mr. Burns: No, free nursing care. Like the Government, we also said at the last general election that we would not give a commitment to free personal care. We fought the last election on that policy, and so did the Government. I know the Liberal Democrats had a different view, but I am stating the policy on which we fought the last general election.
Far too many people feel that they have been let down over the free nursing care promise, which has not lived up to expectations. The Government wring their hands

371
and will not accept evidence that any constituency MP is more than familiar with, especially if they live in the south-west, the south-east or the eastern region. They see homes closing down and being sold off for other endeavours. Homes are under tremendous financial, bureaucratic and administrative pressures. They are desperately trying to provide the highest standards of care for their residents.
We all support the idea of more provision of domiciliary care for people for whom it is a viable and rational option, so that they can remain in the security and familiarity of their own homes. However, there is a crisis, as the title of the debate on the Order Paper shows. It would be far better for the elderly of this country if the Government recognised the arguments and did more to help alleviate the problem, rather than pretend that it does not exist or that it will merely fade away.
8.17 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I welcome the debate. I shall probably break the consensus that has existed so far. I do not subscribe to the view that the success of community care policies can be evaluated on the basis of the number of beds in private care homes. I worked in the care sector for many years, including in care homes. My mother ended up in a care home, and that was the worst experience of my life. I do not want to end up in a care home. I think that we can do a damn sight better for our elderly people than sticking them in institutional care. As the Minister implied, it is about time that we showed vision and courage by moving in a more radical direction.
I felt depressed when I listened to the criticisms of the Government, which were almost wholly based on the decline in the number of care beds. If community care is working, of course there will be a decline in the number of care beds. Reference has been made to people such as Sheila Scott, the chairman of the National Care Homes Association, and others whom I have known for a long time. I probably know more private care home owners than most hon. Members, and I have never known any who have been poor. Someone somewhere is making money out of the sector. I have not seen them walking away from the private care sector.
I want to explore key areas that have not been touched on so far. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) did not mention the structural problems that have occurred as a result of the split between health and social care since the 1940s, which is a major area. I understood that Liberal Democrat policy was to do something radical about that, but perhaps they have moved away from that position.
Somebody mentioned the National Assistance Act 1948, which set out local government services that were to be means-tested. There was also the National Health Service Act 1946, under which care was to be free. Since then, we have had difficulties in matching up the two parallel systems. In 1974, the Conservative Government moved more elements of local government health care into the health service, complicating matters even further. I worked in social services at that time, so I am aware of the difficulties involved in getting the two elements of the care system to work closely together.
We have talked about the royal commission on long-term care, which was proposed by the Labour party when I was a Front-Bench spokesman on community care
372
policy. I claim no credit for the proposal, because it was the idea of my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary, who is a good friend. It was right to try to develop a consensus on the direction that the long-term care of the elderly should take. Personally, I believe that the conclusion in the majority report was correct. The split between nursing and social care is unsustainable, and nobody has managed to define the two types of care. At the moment, the definition of nursing care is anything that a nurse does. What absolute nonsense. I think that the definition will be challenged in law; it is impractical and it will not last very long.
My Government have made tremendous progress on community care, and I concur with much of what the Minister has said. I fully and actively support many of the Government's reforms, but I do not believe that we yet have the right policy to tackle the divide between personal and nursing care. We will have to revisit that matter. I would go further and tackle the separate structures for health care and for social care. I do not want to rehearse arguments that I have been making for many years about having a common system delivering health and social care, but until we get that we will have problems.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman and I have worked together over the years and I know of and share his concern. However, I must enter a caveat. In Northern Ireland, health and social services work together, but we still have the same problems with the availability of beds. We must deal with the financial structures so that one section is not holding back from another.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known a long time. He has had a passionate concern about health and social issues for all the years I have known him. Obviously, he knows the Northern Ireland system far better than I do, but I understand that the problems there arise from the fact that although there is one common organisation, there are still separate budgets.
That brings me to my next point, which relates to the figures on delayed discharges which were given to the Health Committee. In October, we were told that 6,000 beds are blocked on any one day. That was the Government's figure. I do not know whether it is correct, but I have not seen a revised figure. We were also told that the cost of an acute bed averaged out at £120,000 a year, so a quick calculation tells us that blocked beds cost £720 million a year.
I would bet my bottom dollar that for a small proportion of that sum, we could have got those people out into the community and cared for them more cheaply, more effectively and, from their point of view, more happily and in a more settled environment if we had a coherent organisation running the whole show. I make a plea for a common health and personal care organisation—a plea that I have been making in the House for the past 15 years. I hope that by the time my career in this place ends, I will have got somewhere on this issue. I look forward to the Minister tackling that point in her winding-up speech; my hon. Friend is really suffering this week.
I turn now to a point that was not dealt with in great detail by the Liberal Democrats. The difference between the marked and welcome increases in NHS funding under

373
this Government and the less positive developments in personal and social services funding is having a serious effect on our ability to unblock beds and tackle difficulties in the community. The Government told the Health Committee that the total gross expenditure on the NHS had increased by 8 per cent. in the last financial year. That is an impressive increase, and I welcome it. The budgeted personal social services expenditure for the same year went up by only 1.4 per cent. That is a big difference, and I am sure that the Minister understands the consequences.
I was reminded of the consequences at my surgery only last Friday night, when a lady came to see me about her mother, an elderly lady who had been in hospital for a hip operation. She was on an orthopaedic ward and was told, to the surprise of her daughter, that she was fit to be discharged into a private care home. The daughter was told that she had to get on with getting her mother out because she was blocking a bed. The daughter felt that her mother ought to be transferred to a geriatric ward or into intermediate care, but she was told that her mother had to go into a private care home.
The daughter obtained a private care home place for her mother. Interestingly, she was told by the ward sister that because her mother had private resources she could fund her care and there was more pressure on her to leave than there would be on someone who would be funded in that care home by the local authority. I do not know whether that is true or not. If after making local investigations I find that that is happening, I may well draw it to the Minister's attention because I will be concerned; I am certain that she will share my concern.
I differ from Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members on the use of the private market. In a week in which the Government have talked about making more use of the private market, it is important to look at the implications of relying on the private market in care provision. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) appeared to accept no responsibility for the current situation in the care home sector. However, he knows full well that his Government decided in 1981 to allow supplementary benefit payments to top up private care home fees. That unpublicised decision led directly to a massive explosion in private institutional care. As a result, huge numbers of nursing homes and care homes sprung up across the country. Mrs. Thatcher believed in stimulating the market; consequently, we are bogged down in the community care system and locked into the kind of debate that we are having tonight in which we worry about the number of beds that we have.
The huge explosion in private institutional care arises directly from the market's involvement. Figures that I obtained from the Library show that, between 1981 when that decision was taken and 1993 when community care changes were introduced, the Conservative Government spent £10 billion subsidising private care homes. How much could a proportion of that money have done to keep people in their own homes? There was money to put people in institutional care, but not to keep them out.
Mr. Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman help me? Is it not the policy of his Government and the Secretary State to use the private sector in the provision of acute health care as well?
Mr. Hinchliffe: I am still trying to explore what has happened this week; it has been an interesting experience
374
for one or two of us. I referred to the use of the private sector in care because I fear the consequences of its use in the NHS, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well; he knows my feelings in great detail.
Mr. Drew: Following that point, does my hon. Friend agree that as a result of the Griffiths report the previous Government wrongly decided to demand that 85 per cent. of all moneys be spent in the so-called independent sector? They spoke about a mixed economy of health and social care provision, but it was nothing of the sort.
Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend is right; that decision pushed people into permanent, expensive institutional care when in many instances they did not need it.
Mr. Waterson: I have not lost the thread of the hon. Gentleman's fascinating argument, which is being followed closely by his own Whips. Will he comment on places such as East Sussex, where well over 90 per cent. of care home beds are provided by the private sector?
Mr. Hinchliffe: I did quite a bit of research while advising the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen on community care for a number of years. In a sense, the problem in East Sussex arises from the use of the market. We found from my research that the market had gone for areas where there were large houses and where, in some but not all cases, there were larger elderly populations. We found that people were being moved out of inner London to places such as Sussex and Surrey, where there were more private care homes. The investment was not in the areas where they were living.
My concern is that the Conservative Government allowed the market to provide what was in the interests of the care home owners, not what was in the interests of the people who ended up having to occupy those homes. The solutions that those people got were not what they wanted. They wanted care in their own homes, or at least near to where they lived. Precisely the opposite happened.
My main concern about the use of the private sector is the way in which it invested in wholly outdated models of institutional care. There was no recognition that most old people do not want to go into a care home. Our country is unique in our reliance on institutional care. In Denmark, which is the obvious example, care homes were made illegal in 1988. Other models of care exist there, because care homes are deemed to be a humiliating form of care.
The models developed by the private sector in this country until recently were based on our old workhouse institution. Some of the care homes are not much better than some of the workhouse institutions of many years ago. I am sad to say that, and I am sorry that there have been attacks on the care standards legislation from the Liberal Democrats. [Interruption.] There certainly seemed to be attacks. I shall check the record. I was actively involved in exposing standards in the private care sector, where people were genuinely suffering.
Dr. Evan Harris: When he checks the record, the hon. Gentleman will see that our concerns have been about care standards that have not been funded and are therefore threatened. When he criticises care homes that are doing

375
their best with the resources and staff that they have, he should reflect on the implications for the care home staff. Are they workhouse staff?
Mr. Hinchliffe: Of course not. I am speaking of the model of institutional care, which is a direct consequence of the workhouse system. It is its historical successor, whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not. In 2002, it is about time that we moved away from a system set up in the 1600s. None of us here wants to end up in an institutional setting, but the debate assumes that we all want to end up there and that we all want to see more care home beds. I, for one, do not. I should like to see a gradual reduction in institutional models and a move towards the models that exist in other countries—
Richard Younger-Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hinchliffe: No. I have given way enough.
I should like to see a move towards models such as care link schemes and housing with care schemes. There are many in the private sector, as well as in the public and voluntary sectors, where intensive care packages are available so that people are not permanently institutionalised in their old age. The key challenge is to move away from costly, outdated institutional care and to develop alternative models of care within the community. That is what people want and it is about time we delivered it.
I have studied the Liberal Democrat motion. As the Government amendment states, it relates more to the producer interest than to the consumer. The motion refers to the
"loss of homes and beds"
and is rooted in grossly outdated thinking. The Government amendment more accurately reflects my personal concerns and contains some vision of future developments. I am happy to support the Government this evening.
8.33 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am delighted to have the opportunity of taking part in the debate, and I am particularly pleased to follow the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). We all feel for him in his personal voyage of discovery, as he finds out what modern Labour party policy is towards our health care system.
It is breathtaking to witness the sheer opportunism and cynicism of our Liberal Democrat friends in some of the matters that they choose to bring before the House, especially in view of the experience of some of us in East Sussex. For eight long, painful years the Liberal Democrats ran East Sussex county council. As I mentioned in an intervention, in every year they succeeded in hitting the bottom of the national league table as the lowest payers to the private sector of any council in the entire country. Interestingly, Sedgefield council was at the top of the table, but that is another matter. There was a combination of incompetence and political dogma. The Liberal Democrats were getting a bit excited about the remarks of the hon. Member for Wakefield, who speaks with great authority and knowledge on these matters. I do not want to upset him,
376
but I must say that they are philosophically very close on these issues. I am convinced that the attitude of the Liberal Democrats in East Sussex during the eight years to which I have referred was based on dogma and the notion that people should not be able to make a profit out of running private care homes. I am sure that that is what drove their attitude to private care homes in my county. Other people's experiences may differ and I am sure that we will hear more about that.
Richard Younger-Ross: Value for money.
Mr. Waterson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say that to the people running private care homes in East Sussex—especially those that have gone out of business in recent years.
As I said, several different pressures were faced. First, the area was the worst paid of any in the country. Secondly, there was the dogmatic insistence of the Liberal Democrat-controlled county council on keeping open its county council-operated homes. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who is gracing the Front Bench, may not remember an Adjournment debate on 19 February 1997 on social services in East Sussex, which I initiated. He was the Minister who responded to the debate, in which I pointed out the disparity between what East Sussex county council was paying the private sector and what it was paying per bed per week for its own homes. At that time, the gap was a staggering £150 a bed a week. He said:
"When a local authority is complaining that it does not have enough money, I cannot understand how it can justify spending about £152 a person a week extra just by placing them in its own homes."—[Official Report, 19 February 1997; Vol. 290, c. 898.]
He calculated that the total amount that was being wasted from the social services budget in that way was £5 million.
More recently, in July 1999, I secured a debate on a similar subject. By that time, East Sussex was paying the private sector £209 a week, but it was paying for its own homes the equivalent of £401 a week. That is a difference of almost £200 for every single person in its homes. I am sure that that figure is now even bigger. In those days, it was difficult as a local Member of Parliament—I anticipate the points that the Liberal Democrats might make—to lobby the Government, whether Conservative or Labour, for more resources when the existing ones were being squandered by the county council.
The third factor that has been hitting care homes in my area very hard is the new standards that will be introduced in April this year. In principle, we are all in favour of better standards. It is right that there should be constant pressure to improve standards and make life better for people in care homes throughout the country. We have no problem with that, but the reality on the ground is that many homes have rooms that are the wrong size and do not have the facilities or the area of land that is necessary to expand their resources in the way the rules demand.
The details of the regulations were made available extremely late in the day. We should bear in mind the fact that this is a question not only of care home owners and operators, but of their bankers. For some time, banks that have previously been heavily committed in the care homes sector have stepped back and decided to wait and see how the new regulations impact on their existing and potential customers. That, too, has had a major impact on care homes in my constituency,

377
It is worth considering the figures that were provided in answer to a parliamentary question that my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) tabled on 9 January 2002. The reply stated that in 1999, 48 residential care homes closed in East Sussex alone, and that in 2000 the figure had increased to 69. Five nursing homes closed in 1999 and 10 closed in 2000. Those figures are worrying. A rapidly escalating number of private homes are being forced to close through a combination of the factors that I have outlined.
We could face circumstances similar to those in Australia, where Government neglect over many years meant that the private care sector died, went out of business and had to be reinvented by the Government at vast expense—many billions of dollars—because there was clearly a need for it. East Sussex is not unusual in having such a high proportion—more than 90 per cent.—of care beds provided by the private sector.
More and more of our older people will need such facilities and they will have to rely increasingly on the private sector. As I said, East Sussex county council kept its homes open for several years. Some of them are simply not up to the task in the 21st century. Recently, I revisited such a home, Parker house, in my constituency. It was built in the early to mid-1960s, and its fabric is crumbling. The facilities do not fulfil existing requirements, and will certainly not fulfil the new requirements that come into force in April.
The now Conservative-controlled county council has consulted on whether Parker house should be closed. I do not want to pre-empt the process or suggest that I have any inside knowledge. However, I should be surprised if the consultation did not conclude that the home should be closed. However, in the run-up to the local elections in May, some prominent local Liberal Democrats will be beating their breasts and claiming that closing the home would be outrageous, and that old people would be thrown on the streets. We should tackle such cynicism head on, and I intend to do that. Liberal Democrats would be saying, in effect, that some of our older people should be consigned to third-rate facilities and care. That is a reflection not on the dedicated and caring staff but on facilities that do not meet existing standards, let alone new ones.
Richard Younger-Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the home should close or remain open and be refurbished? Does he have a view?
Mr. Waterson: I thought that I had expressed my view, but I repeat that I suspect that a decision to close the home will have to be made. I surmise that it could be refurbished, but at inordinate expense. If I had a magic wand, I would start again on the site and build something more modern and in tune with the needs of local older people, such as a resource centre that would meet many needs that are currently not satisfied. Again, that is not to due to the staff. I shall be interested to read "Focus" on the issue. I hope that Liberal Democrats are forewarned that their actions will be met with the force of the argument that I have just presented. I am sure that there are similar facilities around the country in which similar arguments apply.
378
I want briefly to move on to the question of bed blocking, or delayed discharge, as I think it is more fashionable to call it nowadays. I have laid as much blame as I think appropriate at the door of the Liberal Democrats for the chaos in which they left the social services budget, and for their dogma over paying for the private care homes sector. However, the Government cannot escape blame, for two reasons. First, immediately on taking office, they changed the calculation formula for standard spending assessments so that the number of old people resident in East Sussex is no longer properly and fully taken into account by the formula.
Secondly, we have this issue of bed blocking. We keep being told that it is being solved by extra inputs of cash from the Government. At one time, bed blocking seemed to be a phenomenon that occurred in the winter months. Nowadays—at least if Eastbourne district general hospital is anything to go by—it is a phenomenon that starts in the summer and gets worse in the winter. Indeed, it is an all-year-round phenomenon.
The hospital had a major problem with bed blocking before the last election, and—lo and behold—under pressure from myself and others, the Government put in extra cash to tide it over during the election period. Last summer, there was also a major problem. Speaking from memory, I think that 45 beds were blocked in June. That is the equivalent of a couple of wards, if we want to look at it in that way. More recently, the Government have put in some extra funding. But last Friday, the district general hospital commented that the number of blocked beds not only matched but was now rising above the figure for last June, despite the extra funding. The acting chief executive, Glen Douglas, said:
"Bed blocking is causing a considerable problem at the DGH. We currently have 75 beds blocked and a consistent flow of patients who need them."
I have to tell the Minister that, whatever extra funds the Government have put into this problem, it simply is not working. We still have a major bed blocking problem.
Norman Baker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as I missed the first few minutes of his speech. I share his concern about bed blocking, which affects my constituency too. Is he aware that the money provided by the Government has been allocated first and foremost to Hastings, despite promises by the county council? One of the reasons the problem of bed blocking in Eastbourne district general hospital has not been solved is that allocation by the county council.
Mr. Waterson: It would have been helpful if the hon. Gentleman had been here for the first hour and 45 minutes of this debate, but it is nice to have his company none the less. I am not in the business of making knockabout party political points, and I would have hoped that he would agree with me that the extra funds that the Government have produced are not doing the job. Whether the money is allocated to Hastings or Eastbourne is neither here nor there, particularly as a merger of the two hospitals is on the cards in any event.
Will the Minister please promise to look again at the situation in Eastbourne? I appreciate that there are hospitals up and down the country that always have a story to tell about a lack of resources, but here we seem to have a genuine problem. I do not know whether the

379
problem is administrative or endemic, or whether the money is not being disbursed properly, as the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) might have been suggesting. Whatever the practical reason for the problem, this extra money is not doing the trick. Far from bringing the figures down, we are heading towards them being twice the level they were at last summer, when they were already severe grounds for concern.
To echo my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), the Government have created a situation in which we still have significant waiting lists not only to get into hospital, but to get out.
8.49 pm
Ms Dari Taylor: The state system for providing medical or social care is crucial and I welcome the Liberal Democrats' choice of topic for this Opposition day debate. However, I was taken aback by the language used by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). I neither recognise the situation that he described nor believe that the elderly or the great majority of my constituents in Stockton would describe the care that they receive in similar terms. They most certainly do not see social services as Cinderella services. They see them as historically underfunded, but they also recognise the professionalism of the staff who run them, so they would object most strongly to the use of such language and the notion that they must wait for someone to die before they get a place.
Let me explain to the Liberal Democrats. We have too many places and too many homes, not insufficient capacity. There is over-provision, so my constituents would find your argument untypical of the situation that they face. It has been said that district nurses are getting older. We have young district nurses. Many are being trained and many are impacting on the community that I represent. Your use of language suggests to me that you are seeking press coverage.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Lady must use the correct parliamentary language.
Ms Taylor: I am appropriately corrected. The language used by the Opposition seems to court press coverage, but it does not reflect reality.
I shall not pepper my speech with statistics—an awful lot of those have been bandied around—because I want to talk about the reality that my constituency faces. Our health and social provision has developed into a health and social services partnership that has been awarded beacon status. It is innovative and it has high standards. There is a clear, professional and qualitative relationship between health and social security professionals. I hope that the Minister has time to acknowledge the value of the partnership's innovative capability. It is one of only five such partnerships to achieve beacon status and I say to Stockton, "Well done." However, I would not say that everything is fine.
The partnership's policies are often innovative and they challenge a culture in which elderly and old people's residences are seen as coincidental. We do not see things that way and it is clear that my authority does not see things that way. I do not suggest to the House that the partnership is working to maximum effect. I am very realistic. I know that it needs time and that more, serious
380
money is required. It needs space to accommodate individual needs, but my realism is appropriate. A dose of realism would stand Opposition Members in good stead.
Inevitably there are problems and some are historical. We do not need to be told what the Conservative Government did for 18 years. We all know what they did. We know that there are demographic problems and that there is an ageing population to accommodate. There are undoubted problems because we are challenging a culture. The remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) was so appropriate—the elderly do not always want to go into homes and residences. I talked to elderly people when I worked in Sunderland and I talk to them in Stockton. Often they would choose to stay at home.
I am not saying that there are no problems, because problems are inevitable when we propose change. I am especially conscious of the fact that stand-offs always arise when we change a policy relating to vulnerable people. People say, "We would rather things stay as they are because we are not too sure of the quality that you will provide." We understand that and I am not saying that the partnership in Stockton is achieving all. I simply say that it is innovative, achieving change, responding to higher expectations and delivering better services. It is responding in such a way that individuals feel that they are prized in the community.
A lot more has to be done, but a lot is being done. By speaking about my local authority and its relationship with the Government, I am speaking the truth. I am neither exaggerating nor underestimating the problems and opportunities.
It is difficult to see new policies delivering appropriate services, so it is valuable for all of us to hear the language used by professionals in my constituency on the Government's approach. The language of local policy-makers is invariably positive. Members might say that I would not quote them were it not. They would be wrong. It may be difficult but, as a policy-making Government, we have to face up to the problems as well as the opportunities.
The language used shows that partnership is valuable, as is supporting a fundamental change in culture. Establishing relationships between different professionals that are based on co-operation and support is valuable. Many of us in the House have professional backgrounds, and we are here because we want to deliver a policy or create a new approach. The partnership arrangements lead to co-operation. The days of ambivalence are becoming fewer and there is less indecision about whose responsibility a person is. Although all the problems have certainly not been solved, they are withering on the vine. Health and social needs are being handled holistically by partnerships such as mine, and we are achieving a much higher quality of care and support.
The director of social services for Stockton has said:
"Labour has done a lot",
adding that local flexibility was liked. The Secretary of State's remarks about freedom for local hospitals and local social services will provide the opportunity to develop services that respond to local needs. Stockton's social services director warmly welcomed that, and believed that it showed that his staff's professionalism was being recognised. The director said that they believed that a relationship of trust was beginning to develop.

381
This is not pie in the sky; it is something that we hope to achieve. We have to start somewhere, and my local authority is starting a positive relationship with the Government because the Government have given them the opportunity.
My local authority has adopted a principled approach to helping the health and social needs of the elderly in a care package known as homes for life. There is determination to establish a service that encompasses the needs of all older, vulnerable people within the broader community, and in which the richness of being part of a community remains. The elderly and the vulnerable have rights and they must have easy access to family and friends. Independence must be a fact of life. This well-rounded and well-thought-out policy maintains the individual's connections with the community. It should not require two bus journeys for a family to visit an elderly person, or a difficult journey for an elderly person to visit their family.
There are problems, and it is early days. We are in a period of transition, but at least we are in that period. Homes for life is a clear and principled approach, and a policy that will support independence.
I wish to respond to the arguments about the private care sector and to refute categorically the challenge in the motion that Government policy has mishandled, and misunderstood, the home care sector, causing a loss of homes and beds. In Stockton, we have not lost any beds. I am the first to acknowledge that the relationship between the local authority and the private sector is not always easy, but no beds have been lost. Concern has been expressed about the amount of money that the local authority is prepared to pay for care and support of the elderly, but those concerns are now being resolved. Private owners are saying that that is because the Government have carefully organised the funding of social services in Stockton to allow private owners to pay appropriately. There has been disagreement, but it has been resolved and negotiations have taken place. Therefore, people in Teesside will wonder what on earth the Liberal Democrats have been talking about.
We do not have bed blocking either. We have two elderly people who have to be placed carefully in residential care.
Mr. Steve Webb: Does the hon. Lady ever read a newspaper?
Ms Taylor: The hon. Gentleman thinks that this is funny. Good for him. The reality is that local people do not laugh about it. They are very grateful. As I was saying we do not have a bed blocking problem, but we have two people who need places. Where is the crisis? From the perspective of my constituency, my council and local private homes, the Government have achieved an innovative care system that is significantly better financed. It has a structure based on a partnership of equals between the public and private sector. It is a service based on the principle that people's individual needs, not profit, come first. It is also accommodating high standards. The local people know that it will take time for all those characteristics to become evident, but they know that we will persist until they do.
382
There is little evidence in Stockton of shortage of beds or bed blocking. In fact, there is much evidence that our policies are competent and achieving a much better service. There is no crisis. Unfortunately, in tonight's debate, the Liberal Democrats have been playing to the gallery. The language they have used is also used by my Liberal Democrat colleagues—and they are colleagues—on Stockton council. During a council debate, when the homes for life policy was introduced, it was warmly welcomed by the leader of the Liberal Democrats. However, when public opinion began to question the policy and the debate became a little bumpy, the Liberal Democrats immediately decided that a change of mind was the most appropriate response that they could make. I suggest that opportunism is the last thing required when a policy is being developed to respond to the needs of the old, the ill and the vulnerable in our society.
Stockton's approach—"Homes for life, a life in your own home"—is appropriate. That policy came about because the Government have allowed us to innovate and to challenge a culture; they have allowed us to say not only that we want quality, but that independent, individual lives should be accommodated in the social and health care system.
9.5 pm
Norman Lamb: If only the whole country were like Stockton—it sounds like a paradise. I have never thought of Stockton in that way, but I learned much tonight.
The test of a civilised society is surely the way that it cares for its older people. Although I agree with the hon. Members for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) and for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) that we should facilitate independent living wherever possible, it is not appropriate for everybody. Ideally, there will always be a place for residential care in a mix of provision.
At present, the vast majority of people who go into residential care go into the private independent sector, so the state of that sector should be of concern to us all. Despite the paradise in Stockton, that sector is in a state of developing crisis and I shall explain why.
The sector has suffered underfunding for many years. In Norfolk, year-on-year fee increases are below the rate of inflation. Last year, the Labour-Liberal Democrat council budgeted for social services spending of £13 million above the standard spending assessment, but it still overspent by £1 million.
The competing demands faced by social services departments put those departments in an impossible position—for example, as regards their child protection work. In Norfolk, we experienced the awful and desperately sad death of Lauren Wright. Part of the problem is that there are insufficient social workers. I pay tribute to the work they do, but there are not enough of them. Furthermore, there is not enough money to pay for an adequate number as well as providing sufficient funds for the care of elderly people.
In addition to the underfunding in fees from social services, the costs incurred by care homes over the years have continued to rise. They have had to cope with the minimum wage and the introduction of holiday pay. I fully support both those things, but they must be funded. The increases have not been enough to fund those extra costs.

383
On top of that, there are the new care standards. I repeat the comments already made by my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches. We support national care standards. They are important, but it is essential that they do not act as a straitjacket that makes it impossible for inadequately financed care homes to meet them, with the result that the homes become unviable and have to close.
The effect of all those measures is that a substantial number of homes have already closed—35,000 beds have been lost nationally during the past three years—and there has been a dramatic drop in the number of new registrations. We have also heard about the knock-on effect for the NHS where blocked beds inevitably result in cancelled operations—despite the situation in Stockton—and longer waiting lists.
The homes that are most affected are those that rely on social services-funded residents, so the most disadvantaged residents lose out most as a result of the current inadequate funding. Furthermore, those residents also lose out owing to the problems in the underfunded NHS—problems such as cancelled operations. They are unable to opt out as people with more money are able to do.
Finally, I shall comment on the situation facing care homes for younger adults—residents with learning difficulties. That sector is the real Cinderella service. Recently, I visited an impressive home called Abbottswood lodge, which is situated in Swanton Abbott in north Norfolk. It is highly regarded locally and has received very good reports from social services inspection teams, but staff there are very worried about the impact of the new care standards on the home. They are especially concerned about the limits on the size of units and rooms in the home. They feel that the overly prescriptive approach will have a severe impact on their ability to continue to operate as a care home for younger adults.
The home is wonderful, an old vicarage with delightful grounds. However, the extent of the grounds cannot be taken into account in the prescriptive rules of the new care standards. The introduction of the national care standards requires sensitivity and flexibility.
It is time for some joined-up Government thinking, to quote a new Labour phrase. There needs to be a whole-systems review, so that we can judge the impact on the health service and on the care sector. It is time too that the whole system received proper and sustained funding.
9.11 pm
Mr. David Drew: I shall be brief, but various points remain to be highlighted.
The problem with the debate is that it is stuck in the past, whereas we should be looking to the future. However, I am not going to live in denial: there are problems in Gloucestershire. Recently, I met care home representatives from my constituency. Homes have closed there for a whole range of reasons, some of which have been noted already.
Yesterday, Lord Sutherland, Baroness Greengross and Ian Philp from the national service framework for older people addressed different meetings. Their various perspectives on the matter allowed hon. Members who attended the meetings to see the good things that are happening, as well as some of the problems with which we are all familiar.
384
My main aim in this debate is to make it clear that I think the mistakes that have been made are not necessarily the fault of this Government, or even of their predecessors. Although we could do some things better, the problem is that many previous Governments have failed to overcome the barrier between social care and health care. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) made that point very clearly.
The Conservative Government may not have been responsible for that mistake but, as I noted in an intervention, it was made worse by the way in which they tried to reallocate funds to personal social services as a result of the Griffiths report. As a result, the NHS was removed from the equation to too great an extent, and there was a failure to understand that it was not a mixed economy of care.
Moreover, that period saw the beginning of the end of county-led provision, certainly in my county. I believe that that was wrong. There was also a failure to realise the opportunities for the mutual sector. I hope that that matter will be looked at again. There is a role for mutuality in this sector, as it overcomes some of the distrust that people feel for the private sector.
I do not want to belittle the private sector. Some of my friends run care homes, and they are open about the fact that they want to make a profit. However, the private sector is not the only solution. We must give credence to mutuality, which is something from which we could gain considerable benefit.
The debate has already touched on various geographical and historical problems. Interestingly, the latest figures from Laing and Bouisson show that demand has not continued to rise exponentially, but has been capped. Perhaps that is a result of the way the funding mechanism operates, but alternatives are already being sought. Demand may grow as the population increases, but we must take demand into account as well as supply. The problem is not merely one of capacity: we must take account of what people want and where they want to go.
There is also a difference in expenditure. Again, I understand from House of Commons figures, drawing on Laing and Buisson's work, that approximately £9 billion is spent in the residential nursing sector, compared with just over £1 billion in the domiciliary care sector. Is that the right balance? Many hon. Members would argue that it is not, and we need to find a difference balance.
In trying to find some solutions, I would argue that the NHS has already moved too far out of the personal care sector. The NHS is invaluable precisely because it is the most trusted of organisations. Despite its various problems, it has a notion of how to deal with people, and we must ensure that that is carried into the personal care sector.
As I have said before in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall, there are different ways in which we can ensure that people are properly accounted for when they enter the system. In the United States, systems called minimum data sets provide a much better understanding of how people in the system can be moved more effectively. I hope that the Government will consider some of the pilot work that has been done in the Bristol area and try to roll it forward towards a national system. That involves using information technology effectively, but if that can be done people will not be lost but will be funded appropriately and they will feel that they are being listened to much more.

385
Another concept worthy of mention is that of supporting people, which has not been mentioned at all in this debate. It is important because for the first time it genuinely locks housing into social care and health provision. People often want to go home when they leave hospital—they do not want or need to go into the residential or nursing home sector—but perhaps cannot do so for the simple reason that their homes have not been adapted, and we must highlight that problem. I have done a lot of work locally and nationally with Care and Repair, and through other home improvement agencies it can lock into that exciting debate.
A final issue is that of intermediate care. I shall not try to define it here tonight; the Government have much cleverer people than me working on that, but we could consider the way in which the NHS and others can provide the appropriate facilities for older people and the other groups mentioned—the vulnerable people—by pursuing intermediate care.
To give it a quick plug, Standish hospital will no longer be used for acute provision after 2004, so it could be considered for use as an intermediate care centre. In the years to come, I shall write to Ministers to advocate that solution, but that much-loved institution should be considered properly. If such things happen in the NHS, some of the pressure will be taken off the care sector, and we shall ensure that we do not view the solution as lying entirely in private provision. That would be neither fair nor realistic to the private sector; nor would it represent an appropriate use of state resources—people's resources—and we could have a much better system accordingly.
9.18 pm
Dr. Richard Taylor: I shall be very brief. I am one of those hon. Members who still has not decided which way to vote this evening or, indeed, whether to abstain, but I have found all the contributions extraordinarily interesting and very helpful.
I am delighted that we have been reminded of the importance of care in the community, yet I am pleased that the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) reminded us that care homes are essential. One of my constituent's comments about his father were published in the Daily Mail. My constituent said:
"He spent two weeks in residence and enjoyed it so much that he decided to continue to live there."
So care homes are right for some people.
I welcome the opportunity to expose the enormity of the task that the Government face. I agree with them absolutely that investment alone is not enough unless it is matched by reform, but the enormity remains. If the £300 million investment announced in October is broken down into counties, Worcestershire received £713,000. If all that money had been spent on residential care, it would have been enough to provide less than one extra place a week. I am not criticising the amount, but merely pointing out the enormity of the task.
The cost of care is not met by social services in my county. I would almost like to arrange a visit to Stockton to see how it does that. Care homes in my constituency hope to take large numbers of fee-paying patients because they subsidise those who are paid for by social services.
386
I shall end my brief contribution with a plea from the chair of the care homes association in Hereford and Worcester that the Minister might have seen. He writes:
"In 2001/2 Worcestershire receives £53 million in respect of payments for Residential and Nursing Care and Domiciliary Care. However, due to political decisions in the Council Chamber, only £33 million is used for the purpose intended".
Will the Minister investigate that claim? If it is correct and if it applies to other parts of the country, will she take action?
9.21 pm
Sue Doughty: I enjoyed the news from God's own county. It is very much a contrast to life in Surrey. My father is 80 and lives in Yorkshire and I have told him. "Don't come south. Stay in Yorkshire." [HON. MEMBERS: "Go to Stockton."] I am not going as far as Stockton.
Many Members have spoken about what is almost crisis management and the problem is not that we resent it if care homes make a profit. Any business can stay in business only if it makes a return on its investment. The cost of living and the price of property is so high in Surrey that investing in care homes involves a bad return on investment. That is the problem.
We still want good-quality care homes and we support high standards in them. However, we recognise the need to fund the provision of that care. Those of us who have constituents who have been bedridden for more than a year as a result of poor care have plenty of reason to desire improvements to the standard of nursing in some care homes.
We are in crisis, but the Minister would be hurt if I did not recognise the contribution that "cash for change" has made to bed blocking in Surrey. Even though, as in other areas, there have been massive queues in accident and emergency departments and even though people have been virtually imprisoned in wards in the Royal Surrey hospital, some improvements have been made. Notwithstanding that, we need ongoing planning so that care homes can plan. Furthermore, we need the money to train and pay care workers to look after people in their homes. Without that funding and without the recognition that counties cannot pay with money that they do not have, we will make no progress.
Some care workers in Surrey work for 10 hours a day, unpaid for some of the time. They do not have enough time in the day to look after people, and that is not good enough. We need to treat people with decency. One of the problems is that there are not enough care workers in Surrey because they cannot afford to live there. However, we cannot bring them in from overseas, as we can nurses, because they are not at national vocational qualification level 3. People advertise throughout the country, but no one responds and we cannot bring people in from elsewhere. Consideration must be given to that point.
We have not touched on care for those who care for others. Although we have considered the revolving-door syndrome and bed blocking, a report commissioned by Help the Aged shows that one third of all carers over the age of 75 provide 50 hours of care a week. Three quarters of older people who live with the person for whom they care receive no regular visits from health or social services. One in 10 older carers who live with the person whom they look after receive home care themselves.

387
Carers over 75 are more likely to be providing intensive care than those between 60 and 74. By 2031, nearly one in three of the population will be over 60.
We all want people to lead happy and healthier lives, but we have to recognise that we not only have to meet the current crisis but have to plan for the long-term needs of the population. We need long-term, consistent planned growth, based on realistic costs of providing social care of a quality that not only meets Government objectives, but provides plain and common decency for our older people.
9.25 pm
Mrs. Patsy Calton: The Government amendment implies that all is improving in care for the elderly. The simple truth is that it is not. Every word of the Liberal Democrat motion will ring true with social services departments, the health service and, more important, users of the services and their carers up and down the land—perhaps with the exception of Stockton.
The Government are not doing enough in the round and the problems start with local government finance. I speak as a past chair of social services in Stockport, where we welcomed many of the social care modernisation reforms demanded by the Government. We are proud of working jointly with the health service and the voluntary sector, and we improved our management and record keeping. Basically, we did our best and the social services department in Stockport continues to do its best against both a backdrop of structural problems associated with local government funding of social services departments and a general backdrop of underfunding of local authorities in many parts of the country.
I wish to explore two issues. The first is the structural problem caused in budgets by the chronic underfunding of children's services. In Stockport, crude standard spending assessment measures do not reflect the levels of need of children within our community. The knock-on effect of meeting the needs of children's services is to steal money from older people's services, with the resultant increases in gatekeeping. That reduces social services departments' ability to provide the right service at the right time for the elderly. All too often, money has to be spent on firefighting instead of ensuring a dignified and supported older age for the infirm. The lack of funding in older people's services leads to bed blocking and to entry to residential care, two outcomes that the vast majority of older people and their carers do not want.
The second issue that I wish to explore is the shortsighted way in which the Government tackle the problems. By the time someone becomes infirm, it is almost too late to engage in issues to do with lifestyle and diet. All the evidence indicates that as our young people get older, their sedentary lifestyle and poor diet, which we know is causing obesity, will lead to greater dependency when they reach an older age. The Government are engaged in pilot schemes such as the school fruits initiative, but they need to do much more to counteract the insidious effect of junk food and drinks machines in school corridors and sports centres throughout the country. Young people used to engage in more vigorous activity in schools, and more needs to be done to establish a better balance between activity and academic work in their lives.
In addition, more attention needs to be paid to the difference that local authority leisure services can make. France, for example, spends eight times as much on sport
388
per head as we do. Leisure services are also often starved of cash because of the needs of other departments, like social services, that are busy firefighting.
I am disappointed that four and a half years on, a Government with a big majority have not come up with proposals to replace the discredited local government finance system. Until they do, SSAs will continue to fail to meet people's needs and the improvements demanded by the Government cannot be implemented.
9.29 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: We have had a good debate, started by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), who stated the position clearly and backed up his remarks with evidence. It is important to provide data as well as solutions to the problems we see.
Using House of Commons Library figures derived from Government answers, my hon. Friend demonstrated that there are bottlenecks and delays in the health service. In the last year, 1,400 years of elderly people's time has been spent waiting to get out of hospital. The Minister may dispute those figures—perhaps she thinks it is only 1,300 years. However, the facts are clear and the Government must acknowledge them before they can claim that they are starting to solve the problem.
My hon. Friend demonstrated the loss of beds and homes in the care sector. He pointed out the cash shortages affecting many social services authorities, leading to a macabre game of musical beds wherein people who require funding can be placed only when one or more care home residents who are funded die. What a sad game to which to subject the elderly people of this country.
My hon. Friend further demonstrated the diminishing eligibility criteria caused by cash shortages, which lead to ever fewer people qualifying for any help from social services, as well as the staff shortages, vacancies and high turnover. Sensibly, he called for a review of the social care sector. In a thoughtful contribution, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) pointed out how much thinking is needed in that respect. An independent review of how to get best practice across the country, new thinking and the funding required is long overdue.
Not only have the Liberal Democrats come up with that proposal, but we are prepared to state that we would put in extra investment and to say where that funding would come from. We have talked about extra investment to tackle delayed discharges. According to figures given by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, tackling delayed discharges in one year would release £720 million. In addition, we would free councils to raise revenues, as voters elected them to, to meet the needs of local people.
Unlike the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats said at the last election that we would be prepared to increase taxation, including setting a new top rate of 50p in the pound for incomes exceeding £100,000. According to Government figures, that would yield an additional £3.7 billion to spend on elderly people, including those in health care settings.
Ministers may disagree with asking better-off people to pay more to help the most vulnerable in society. I think that to do so is wrong, unreasonable and a betrayal of their principles. They cannot deny that we went into the

389
election with a costed manifesto to deliver whatever cash the Labour Government had to spend plus £3.7 billion derived from having the courage to ask the better-off to help to protect the most vulnerable people in our society.
Ministers and their yes men and women on the Back Benches should be ashamed of having lacked the courage to say before—not after—the election that taxes would have to rise. They ruled out the only fair way to raise those funds, which is progressive direct taxation rather than stealth taxes. I suspect that many Labour Members wish that their Government's policy was different.
The Minister's response was astonishing, but nothing we have not heard before: "Crisis? What crisis?" She was eloquently and loyally—I hope it is worth it—supported by her hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), who claimed that there was no problem of elderly people requiring earlier discharge or better services. The hon. Lady was prepared to say that there was a "demographic problem" but added that these are the early days of the Labour Government. if these are the early days, lord help those who need help when the Government have got into the swing of things. She said that there were no lost care homes and no problems, and only two elderly people were suffering from delayed discharge. The Government's new policy to modernise the health care system will be to tell people who want to be discharged from hospital to go to Stockton.
By contrast, we heard testimony from my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) about the problems in Norfolk, from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) about the problems in Stockport, from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) about the problems in his constituency, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) about the problems that still exist in Surrey. In my own constituency, care homes that had survived years of Tory cuts had to close under a Labour Government, and now there is a shortage of beds and a huge increase in the number of delayed discharges in my local hospital.
It is remarkable that the Government refused to acknowledge those problems. The Minister admitted that there was a need to stabilise the private care home sector. If it needs stabilisation, that implies that there is already a problem. What does stabilisation mean? It means rescuing the situation, and she should admit that her limited funding is designed to do that.
The Minister's response was clever but unfair. She chose to centralise praise for the Government every time new money was announced, but decentralise blame to local councils when underfunding led to cuts in provision. She was supported in her tactic of blaming local councils—a few of them Liberal Democrat, but most of them not—and attacking the Labour-led Local Government Association by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who did not even remain in the Chamber to hear the rebuttal of his weakly put point.
The Minister talked about £300 million to tackle delayed discharge and to stabilise the private care home sector. That is not £300 million a year: it is £100 million in the first year and £200 million in the second. We are used to such double counting, but social services
390
departments despair of it. We do not even know whether that will be recurrent. We certainly know that it is not the £700 million that the independent King's Fund has established is required, and we would provide at least as much by releasing those acute beds, as the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said.
The Minister does not put enough money in, but claims praise for the money that she does provide. She blames hospitals for delayed discharges by naming and shaming them, and by giving them zero rating when they are unable to discharge patients and do not have the capacity to admit others.
Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and praise staff in the care home sector, but when care homes cannot afford to pay staff adequately they blame the employers. The Minister claimed that 5 per cent. more people receive intensive domiciliary care, and praised the Government for that. She blamed local councils for the fact that 19 per cent.—93,000 people—receive less care. She probably thinks that it is a triumph that people who do not qualify for care under the tightened eligibility criteria are happily living independent lives, but they are heading more quickly towards high-level care because of the failure of early intervention.
The Minister claimed to have tackled the problem through the establishment of the high-level, strategic commissioning group. Bully for her! That group has come up with fantastic ideas such as long-term contracts. Of course long-term contracts are a good idea, but long-term funding to go with them would be helpful.
The contribution of the hon. Member for Wakefield was interesting. At least he accepted that there was a capacity problem. Like us, he accepted that the ideal would be independent living and less institutional care. Although care homes are suitable for some people, we should not assume that they are suitable for everyone.
The hon. Gentleman said that he disapproved, as he has always done, of the structural divide between health and social care: what the Government describe as a Berlin wall, and what my local trust and social services department describe as a Berlin trench, as they are digging to find the funds to fulfil the extra duties imposed on them by Government. We agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. He accepted that 6,000 people suffer delayed discharge on any one day, and he pointed out that it would save £720 million if that problem were tackled. Again, he agrees with us and our motion.
The hon. Gentleman said that social services were underfunded compared with the health service, and that the real-terms increase in social services was not keeping pace. Again, he agrees with our point of view. He criticised the Government for their non-evidence-based love affair with private sector provision of social care. He supports us in almost everything, but then announces that he will support the Government in the Lobby tonight. Wheels within wheels. If the hon. Gentleman disagrees with the Government but will vote for them when the crunch comes, it is not scrutiny but tribalism. I say with the greatest respect, because the hon. Gentleman is bigger than me, that those who agree with our criticisms ought to follow the logic of their position.

391
The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), one of the few Conservative Members in the Chamber tonight, confirmed in an honest speech that his party in opposition is committed to funding only nursing care, not personal care. [Interruption.]
Mr. Burns: I am not going to change my mind. I shall state my position clearly so that there can be no misunderstanding by Liberal Democrats, because we all know what Liberal Democrats do in our constituencies. I said that, like the Government, the Conservative party fought the last general election on a policy of free nursing care, but we did not have a policy of free residential care.
Dr. Harris: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman repeated his position; I just wish that he had done so a bit more quickly. The hon. Gentleman does not understand, or perhaps he does, that such a policy discriminates against elderly people. It subjects them to the degrading assessment of whether bowel care, catheter care and stoma care is nursing care—that is, a requirement of their health needs—or personal care. What a way to treat elderly people. The Government are saying to them, "If that care need is delivered by a nurse, we'll pay for it, but if it is not, you'll pay for it. Having saved and paid taxes all your life, you will pay for care that you were told would be free from the cradle to the grave."
Dr. Tonge: Does my hon. Friend agree that the policy also discriminates against elderly people who are not only physically but mentally ill?
Dr. Harris: Absolutely. We know that people who suffer from dementia will have a mixture of personal care needs and nursing care needs, and it is degrading, discriminatory and invidious to try to make a distinction between them. We are prepared to say that we would fund personal care, and we have said where the money would come from. I know that there are Labour Members who know, in their heart of hearts, that that is the right policy.
The hon. Member for West Chelmsford did us the favour of quoting Liberal Democrat research, the aim of which, as I think he accepts, was to show that people still have to sell their home to fund their personal care even though the Labour party, in opposition, used to claim that that was a scandal. Very little has changed.
The charges that the Minister must answer are clear. Discharges are delayed, beds are blocked and elderly people have to wait to receive suitable care in an unsuitable setting, which means that other elderly people who require that care have to wait to get into a hospital bed. Indeed, in many places, they have to wait in corridors, with the resulting lack of privacy. Who would have thought that five years into a Labour regime we would see wards made up in corridors, with no screens, no privacy and no dignity, and health care staff struggling to provide the care that patients need?
The Government stand charged with presiding over a system in which 19 per cent. fewer people are receiving social care because of the shortage of cash. They stand accused of under-resourcing that threatens the quality standards that Liberal Democrat and Labour Members want to see. The Government are committed to more tax cuts for the better-off at the expense of services for the less well-off. They are denying elderly people the free
392
provision of personal care on the NHS and subjecting them to degrading and invidious assessments. They are overseeing the tightening of eligibility criteria by local councils, which they are making the scapegoats.
We want to hear the Minister accept that there is a problem, that funding as well as reform is needed and that the Government have the courage to say where that funding will come from. We believe that the better-off who have done well under this Government should help to provide care for the vulnerable elderly who are getting a raw deal from the Government.
9.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): The Government believe strongly in giving people the right treatment at the right time in the right setting. We have had a wide-ranging debate, but I was particularly disappointed by the contributions of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), who opened the debate, and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who closed it for the Liberal Democrats.
There were good contributions in between, but it was extremely disappointing that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam used incredible and unbelievable figures, from which he extrapolated beyond the bounds of comprehension to talk about 5,000 years and 88,000 operations. Where would he get the surgeons to do those 88,000 operations? He was utterly unreasonable and went on to insult care home staff in the most appalling manner that I have witnessed in the Chamber for a long time. To talk about them as rejects from Tesco and McDonald's, when they are putting in time and energy and showing commitment to looking after people in care homes, is dreadful.
I am disappointed that Liberal Democrat Members spoke almost exclusively on behalf of care home providers. That is nothing new. When the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon moved a motion at his party conference last year, he spoke 26 times about doctors, nurses and staff, but only once about patients; they are important, but he spoke about them only once.
Dr. Evan Harris: I know that the hon. Lady follows the Liberal Democrat conference carefully; I just wish that she would take note of the fact that the motion was about staff in the NHS. When we talk about staff in the NHS, we talk about staff, not stabilisers or modernisers.
Ms Blears: When we talk about partnership, we talk about a partnership of staff and patients working together to shape services; that is the difference between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party.
We appreciate that the independent care home sector is facing a number of challenges; we are certainly not in denial about the issue. However, the position is nothing like the one represented by Opposition Members. Let us have a bit of honesty in the debate—it would make a refreshing change for the Liberal Democrats. Figures have been bandied about; the loss of care home places was said to amount to 50,000 beds. It went down to 35,000 beds, but the true figure is 19,000 beds. Those figures are ludicrous. I am glad that Liberal Democrat Members reduced their first figure by about half; perhaps by the end of the debate we shall have the proper figures. They did

393
not take into account the fact that 33,500 beds were created between 1997 and 2000 by new registrations. They should be clear about the figures that they submitted.
Our policy is to allow people to remain as independent as possible and be supported at home, which is why 1.5 million people are receiving care packages of various types in their own homes. Last September, the number of people receiving intensive home care packages was 3,500 higher than it was the previous year. My hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) spoke imaginatively and creatively—[Laughter.] I am sorry, it appears that Liberal Democrat Members do not recognise imagination and creativity when it stares them in the face. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South spoke passionately about the local partnership in her community that is beginning to design facilities around the needs of patients. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield said correctly that we must not judge our success in community care by a simple number-crunching exercise involving the number of beds. We must look at the kind of services that we provide to support people in the community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned, extremely importantly, the role of the mutual sector in drawing up new solutions to those problems. The Secretary of State in his speech yesterday talked about new models of care. The mutual sector has a role to play. I have recently been made aware of a project in St. Helens in which the co-operative movement is looking at providing a range of services—not just residential care, but supported housing with care services in place. When someone begins to become frail, they can get day care; when they are a little more frail, they can get sheltered housing; when they need residential care, they move into that; when they need nursing care, they move into that. They do all of that within the same village community in which their carers and families are involved. That is the kind of new model of care that local people want, and which the Government, with their creativity and imagination, will begin to put in place. The Liberal Democrats have simply spoken about more money for business as usual and the same old system. That simply will not wash.
Solving delayed discharges is important to us and we have made tremendous progress. Since last September there has been a 10 per cent. drop in the national number of delays. We are keen that the figure should fall even further, which is why we announced the investment of £300 million. I am pleased to tell the House that by 6 January 501 beds had been freed across the country.
Richard Younger-Ross: I thank the Minister for graciously giving way. She makes the situation sound rosy, but can she explain the following statement from all 15 local authorities in the south-west, including Labour-run local authorities? They state:
"Local Authorities are placed in an impossible situation with no recourse other than to hold back spending on older people in order to provide marginally safe and adequate services for children and other adults."
Is that the rosy garden that the Minister is painting?
Ms Blears: I was not painting a rosy picture. I acknowledge that there are problems. The Government are not in denial. We are dealing realistically with problems in the community. If local authorities are taking that position, after they have received extra resources from the cash for change programme, it is outrageous that they are not putting in place services for older people. We will look into the matter.
About 2,500 more people will be able to leave hospital at the appropriate time as a result of the extra funds that we have allocated. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) stressed the need to ensure that that happens in his area. I shall examine the distribution of the allocation of those funds in his area, but I understand that the Conservative-controlled county council there has cut grants to carers, leaving them without respite care. That is a serious matter, which will not help the situation.
Mr. Waterson: Before the hon. Lady hands out brickbats, she should bear in mind that a few short months ago, the Conservatives took over a social services budget in chaos, brought about by the Liberal Democrats. I hope that she will also address the point that I made—that the Government changed the SSA calculation for East Sussex to disadvantage central Government funding for older people.
Ms Blears: If the hon. Gentleman wants to argue with the Liberal Democrats, I shall not intrude.
The agreement last year, "Building Capacity and Partnership in Care", set out a new way of providing long-term care for older people. It envisages long-term partnership, joint commissioning, new forms of service and the development of new models. It will give us the sustainable system that we need. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) spoke of the need for long-term planning. That is the aim of the agreement.
Several hon. Members mentioned free nursing care. On 1 Oct 2001 we delivered on our commitment to provide free nursing care for everyone in England. Some 42,000 people will save money on their nursing home costs. We are moving away from a means-tested system of nursing care to one based on clinical need.
We have been much maligned for failing to follow the Scottish Executive and offer free personal care to all, but to implement free personal care for everyone in England would cost approximately £1.5 billion a year. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield takes a different view, but we decided in the NHS plan to make £1.4 billion available per annum to improve services and standards for older people. Spending a vast amount of public money on free personal care would not guarantee improvements for older people. We firmly believe that we have targeted resources so that those most in need will receive high-quality care at no cost. It is important to decide the right priorities. It is right for a Labour Government to target funds on those in most need.
Dr. Harris: The Minister defended her refusal to follow up the recommendations of the majority of the long-term care commission by saying that the funding required would have to come from other vulnerable groups. What about the proposal to raise the funding from the better-off in society through fair, progressive, open taxation?
Ms Blears: As usual, the Liberal Democrats want to face both ways at once. One could say that they want to

395
have their cake and eat it. They want to ask the better-off to pay and to implement free personal care that will, in many cases, benefit those who are better off rather than those who are in most need. There is a fundamental contradiction in their policies.
It is all too easy to spread a mood of doom, gloom and crisis. I challenge Opposition Members to do some hard thinking. I know that that is not easy for them. It is much easier merely to complain and sit on the outside carping and criticising than to come up with constructive new ideas. I am asking them to propose new models to put people at the centre of the service and to design facilities around their needs, rather than to force them into ideas and traditional care that can sometimes rob them of their dignity and independence.
This debate has highlighted some very real differences between the Labour Government and the Liberal Democrats. We put patients and the public first; they put providers first. We want creative and imaginative solutions; they want more places in nursing homes. We want to promote people's independence; they want them to be passive. We want a partnership between the national health service, local government, the voluntary sector and the private sector; they simply want to concentrate on care home numbers. We are forward looking; they are stuck in the past. We are creative and positive; they are negative. We are committed to reform; they have the same old ideas.
There is a lot more for us to do, but we are putting in the investment and reforming the services. The two must go hand in hand if we are to deliver the top-quality care to which people are entitled in this day and age. As ever, the Liberal Democrats are guilty of political opportunism of the worst kind. They just want more money, as usual—the same old record—but they do not want any reform; they just want the same old system.
The Tories are just as bad, but they are not even prepared to put the money in. The only thing that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) could find to talk about was age discrimination. I am delighted to tell him that the Government's national service framework addresses for the very first time the rooting out of age discrimination throughout the national health service.
The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) again raised the very sad case of Lauren Wright. I spoke in the Adjournment debate on the case and, as I recall it, the director of social services in the area was honest and open, and recognised that his problems stemmed not from a lack of funding, but from the systems that were in place and the difficulties of joining up the different parts of the care system. The hon. Gentleman needs to be very careful about putting the blame on that individual.
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) said that he had not yet made up his mind about how he was going to vote at the end of the debate. He now has precisely two minutes in which to do so, so I hope that he can make the decision fairly soon. It is right that his local council will set its priorities. I am afraid that political decisions are made about priorities—that is what we are all here to do and that is what will happen.
The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) said that we were in crisis, but then recognised that lots of improvements were being made because of the cash for change money. I do not know whether she thinks that we are in crisis or not. She seemed very confused about that,
396
but I am pleased that she has welcomed the improvements in her area that have resulted from the Government's action.
It is this Labour Government who have the courage to invest in better services and to challenge all our partners in local government, the national health service and the independent sector to work together in new ways to deliver for the people whom we represent. The Liberal Democrats said in their manifesto for last year's general election:
"Three simple words. Freedom, justice, honesty. These sum up what the Liberal Democrats stand for."
We have certainly seen tonight just what they stand for. Three simple words sum them up: cynicism, confusion and opportunism. I ask the House to reject the motion.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 60, Noes 314.

Division No. 135]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Allan, Richard

Kirkwood, Archy

Baker, Norman

Lamb, Norman

Barrett, John

Laws, David

Beggs, Roy

Llwyd, Elfyn

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Brake, Tom

Moore, Michael

Breed, Colin

Oaten, Mark

Bruce, Malcolm

Öpik, Lembit

Burnett, John

Pugh, Dr John

Burstow, Paul

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Cable, Dr Vincent

Rendel, David

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Carmichael, Alistair

Sanders, Adrian

Chidgey, David

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

Cotter, Brian

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Stunell, Andrew

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Dodds, Nigel

Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

Doughty, sue

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Ewing, Annabelle

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Foster, Don (Bath)

Tyler, Paul

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Webb, Steve

Gidley, Sandra

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Hancock, Mike

Willis, Phil

Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Harvey, Nick

Heath, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Holmes, Paul

John Thurso and

Keetch, Paul

Mrs. Annette L. Brooke.

NOES

Ainger, Nick

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Begg, Miss Anne

Alexander, Douglas

Bell, Stuart

Allen, Graham

Bennett, Andrew

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Benton, Joe

Berry, Roger

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Best, Harold

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Betts, Clive

Atherton, Ms Candy

Blackman, Liz

Atkins, Charlotte

Blears, Ms Hazel

Bailey, Adrian

Blizzard, Bob

Baird, Vera

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Barnes, Harry

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Battle, John

Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

Bayley, Hugh

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Beard, Nigel

Brennan, Kevin

397

Browne, Desmond

Grogan, John

Bryant, Chris

Hain, Rt Hon Peter

Burgon, Colin

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Cairns, David

Hanson, David

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Havard, Dai

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Healey, John

Casale, Roger

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Cawsey, Ian

Hendrick, Mark

Challen, Colin

Hepburn, Stephen

Chaytor, David

Hermon, Lady

Clapham, Michael

Hesford, Stephen

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Heyes, David

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hill, Keith

Hinchliffe, David

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hoey, Kate

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Hope, Phil

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Clelland, David

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Coaker, Vernon

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Howells, Dr Kim

Cohen, Harry

Hoyle, Lindsay

Colman, Tony

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

Connarty, Michael

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cooper, Yvette

Hurst, Alan

Cousins, Jim

Hutton, Rt Hon John

Cranston, Ross

Iddon, Dr Brian

Crausby, David

Illsley, Eric

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

Cummings, John

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Jenkins, Brian

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

David, Wayne

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Joyce, Eric

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

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Keeble, Ms Sally

Dawson, Hilton

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Kemp, Fraser

Dismore, Andrew

Khabra, Piara S

Dobbin, Jim

Kidney, David

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Kilfoyle, Peter

Donohoe, Brian H

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Doran, Frank

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Dowd, Jim

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Drew, David

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Lammy, David

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Laxton, Bob

Edwards, Huw

Lazarowicz, Mark

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Leslie, Christopher

Ennis, Jeff

Levitt, Tom

Etherington, Bill

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Linton, Martin

Flint, Caroline

Lloyd, Tony

Flynn, Paul

Love, Andrew

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Lucas, Ian

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Luke, Iain

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

McAvoy, Thomas

Foulkes, George

McCabe, Stephen

Francis, Dr Hywel

McCafferty, Chris

Gardiner, Barry

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Gerrard, Neil

MacDonald, Calum

Gilroy, Linda

McFall, John

Godsiff, Roger

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Goggins, Paul

McIsaac, Shona

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McKechin, Ann

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McKenna, Rosemary

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mackinlay, Andrew

398

McNamara, Kevin

Salter, Martin

MacShane, Denis

Sarwar, Mohammad

Mactaggart, Fiona

Savidge, Malcolm

McWilliam, John

Sawford, Phil

Mallaber, Judy

Sedgemore, Brian

Mann, John

Sheridan, Jim

Marris, Rob

Simon, Siôn

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Skinner, Dennis

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

Martlew, Eric

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Meale, Alan

Soley, Clive

Merron, Gillian

Southworth, Helen

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Spellar, Rt Hon John

Miliband, David

Squire, Rachel

Miller, Andrew

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Steinberg, Gerry

Moffatt, Laura

Stevenson, George

Mole, Chris

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Moran, Margaret

Stinchcombe, Paul

Morgan, Julie

Stoate, Dr Howard

Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Mullin, Chris

Stringer, Graham

Munn, Ms Meg

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Tami, Mark

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Norris, Dan

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

O'Hara, Edward

Timms, Stephen

Organ, Diana

Tipping, Paddy

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Todd, Mark

Owen, Albert

Touhig, Don

Palmer, Dr Nick

Trickett, Jon

Pearson, Ian

Truswell, Paul

Picking, Anne

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Pickthall, Colin

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Pike, Peter

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Plaskitt, James

Tynan, Bill

Pollard, Kerry

Vaz, Keith

Pond, Chris

Vis, Dr Rudi

Pope, Greg

Walley, Ms Joan

Pound, Stephen

Ward, Ms Claire

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Wareing, Robert N

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Watson, Tom

Primarolo, Dawn

Watts, David

Prosser, Gwyn

White, Brian

Purchase, Ken

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Purnell, James

Wicks, Malcolm

Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Rammell, Bill

Winnick, David

Rapson, Syd

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

Wood, Mike

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Woodward, Shaun

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Woolas, Phil

Worthington, Tony

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Wray, James

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Wright, David (Telford)

Rooney, Terry

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Ross, Ernie

Wyatt, Derek

Roy, Frank

Ruane, Chris

Tellers for the Noes:

Ruddock, Joan

Mr. Tony McNulty and

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Mr. John Heppell.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 60.

Division No. 136]

[10.12 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Dhanda, Parmjit

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Dismore, Andrew

Alexander, Douglas

Dobbin, Jim

Allen, Graham

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Donohoe, Brian H

Doran, Frank

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Dowd, Jim

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Drew, David

Atherton, Ms Candy

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Atkins, Charlotte

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Bailey, Adrian

Edwards, Huw

Baird, Vera

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Barnes, Harry

Ennis, Jeff

Bayley, Hugh

Etherington, Bill

Beard, Nigel

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Begg, Miss Anne

Flint, Caroline

Bennett, Andrew

Flynn, Paul

Benton, Joe

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Berry, Roger

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Best, Harold

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Betts, Clive

Foulkes, George

Blackman, Liz

Francis, Dr Hywel

Blears, Ms Hazel

Gardiner, Barry

Blizzard, Bob

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Gerrard, Neil

Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

Gilroy, Linda

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Godsiff, Roger

Brennan, Kevin

Goggins, Paul

Browne, Desmond

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Bryant, Chris

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Burgon, Colin

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Grogan, John

Cairns, David

Hain, Rt Hon Peter

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hanson, David

Casale, Roger

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Cawsey, Ian

Havard, Dai

Challen, Colin

Healey, John

Chaytor, David

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Clapham, Michael

Hendrick, Mark

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Hepburn, Stephen

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hermon, Lady

Hesford, Stephen

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Heyes, David

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Hill, Keith

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hinchliffe, David

Clelland, David

Hope, Phil

Coaker, Vernon

Hopkins, Kelvin

Coffey, Ms Ann

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Cohen, Harry

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Colman, Tony

Howells, Dr Kim

Connarty, Michael

Hoyle, Lindsay

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

Cousins, Jim

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cranston, Ross

Humble, Mrs Joan

Crausby, David

Hurst, Alan

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hutton, Rt Hon John

Cummings, John

Iddon, Dr Brian

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Illsley, Eric

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jenkins, Brian

David, Wayne

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

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

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Dawson, Hilton

Joyce, Eric

Dean, Mrs Janet

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

400

Keeble, Ms Sally

Plaskitt, James

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Pollard, Kerry

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Pond, Chris

Kemp, Fraser

Pope, Greg

Khabra, Piara S

Pound, Stephen

Kidney, David

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Primarolo, Dawn

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Prosser, Gwyn

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Purchase, Ken

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Purnell, James

Lammy, David

Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Rammell, Bill

Laxton, Bob

Rapson, Syd

Lazarowicz, Mark

Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

Leslie, Christopher

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Levitt, Tom

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Linton, Martin

Rooney, Terry

Lloyd, Tony

Ross, Ernie

Love, Andrew

Roy, Frank

Lucas, Ian

Ruane, Chris

Luke, Iain

Ruddock, Joan

McAvoy, Thomas

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McCabe, Stephen

Salter, Martin

McCafferty, Chris

Sarwar, Mohammad

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

Savidge, Malcolm

McDonagh, Siobhain

Sawford, Phil

MacDonald, Calum

Sedgemore, Brian

McFall, John

Sheridan, Jim

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Simon, Siôn

McIsaac, Shona

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McKechin, Ann

Skinner, Dennis

McKenna, Rosemary

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

McNamara, Kevin

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

MacShane, Denis

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Soley, Clive

McWilliam, John

Southworth, Helen

Mallaber, Judy

Spellar, Rt Hon John

Mann, John

Squire, Rachel

Marris, Rob

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Steinberg, Gerry

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Stoate, Dr Howard

Martlew, Eric

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Stringer, Graham

Meale, Alan

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Merron, Gillian

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Tami, Mark

Miller, Andrew

Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Moffatt, Laura

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Mole, Chris

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Moran, Margaret

Timms, Stephen

Morgan, Julie

Tipping, Paddy

Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

Todd, Mark

Mullin, Chris

Touhig, Don

Munn, Ms Meg

Trickett, Jon

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Truswell, Paul

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Norris, Dan

Tynan, Bill

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Vaz, Keith

O'Hara, Edward

Vis, Dr Rudi

Organ, Diana

Walley, Ms Joan

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Ward, Ms Claire

Owen, Albert

Wareing, Robert N

Palmer, Dr Nick

Watson, Tom

Pearson, Ian

Watts, David

Picking, Anne

White, Brian

Pickthall, Colin

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Pike, Peter

Wicks, Malcolm

401

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Wray, James

Winnick, David

Wright, David (Telford)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Wood, Mike

Wyatt, Derek

Woodward, Shaun

Tellers for the Ayes:

Woolas, Phil

Mr. Tony McNulty and

Worthington, Tony

Mr. John Heppell.

NOES

Allan, Richard

Kirkwood, Archy

Baker, Norman

Lamb, Norman

Barrett, John

Laws, David

Beggs, Roy

Llwyd, Elfyn

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Brake, Tom

Moore, Michael

Bruce, Malcolm

Oaten, Mark

Burnett, John

Öpik, Lembit

Burstow, Paul

Pugh, Dr John

Cable, Dr Vincent

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Rendel, David

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Carmichael, Alistair

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Chidgey, David

Sanders, Adrian

Cotter, Brian

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

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Stunell, Andrew

Dodds, Nigel

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Doughty, Sue

Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyne F)

Ewing, Annabelle

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Tyler, Paul

Gidley, Sandra

Viggers, Peter

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Webb, Steve

Hancock, Mike

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

Willis, Phil

Harvey, Nick

Younger-Ross, Richard

Heath, David

Holmes, Paul

Tellers for the Noes:

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

John Thurso and

Keetch, Paul

Mrs. Annette L. Brooke.

Question accordingly agreed to.
MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government's strategy for modernising social care services through unprecedented real terms increases in resources, which enables and promotes better joint working between the NHS, social services, and the independent care sectors, develops a national framework for standards and quality and ensures a greater emphasis on users and patients in the design and delivery of services; notes that this has led to more independence for older people, fairer funding of long term care, reduced levels of delayed discharge and greater choice for users; and condemns the Liberal Democrats for their obsession with producer interests over those of users and patients and their failure to recognise that investment must be matched by reform.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is the convention of the House that the official Opposition occupy the Benches above the Opposition Gangway. Liberal Democrat Members are not Members of the official Opposition. As no Members of the official Opposition are in the Chamber at present, it does not matter that Liberal Democrat Members are seated on the Benches that are normally occupied by the official Opposition, but tomorrow Liberal Democrat Members will be in their usual place. They have only a short loan of the Benches in question.

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
Ordered,
That, following the Order of 20th November 2000, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John Me 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.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
Mr. Menzies Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following the observations that you made a few moments ago, are we to take it that if the official Opposition do not turn up tomorrow their Benches may be occupied by others?
Mr. Speaker: In this place, we take one day at a time.

Manufacturing (Denton)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
10.26 pm
Andrew Bennett: I am grateful to have the opportunity to debate manufacturing industry in Denton, but I am sad that I have to report the tragic state of that industry in my constituency.
In the past four months, in and around Denton, a substantial number of jobs have been lost. Just across the border, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Heyes), we have lost Celestica—the former ICL company has completely disappeared from the Greater Manchester area. Strachan and Henshaw has closed. A large number of my constituents work at Woodford and Chariton, where there have also been substantial redundancies. Other engineering firms in my constituency face short-time working.
The real blow for the people of Denton—I feel it too—is the decision by Oldham Batteries to close its operation at Crown Point. The company has been in Denton for more than 100 years and it employed more than 1,000 people not so long ago. It is a sad blow that the firm—the largest manufacturing firm in Denton by far—is about to close.
There is a sorry tale of lack of interest from a succession of the people who owned the company. As long as it was a separate enterprise, there was a willingness to invest, but as the company gradually moved—first into the Mirlees Blackstone group, then to the Hawker group and, more recently, to Invensys—there has been a lack of concern for the people of Denton.
It is especially sad that, recently, Invensys has been sending a managing director to Denton for only one day a week to run the plant. How can anyone have a commitment to a local community when they visit it only once a week? That makes it extremely difficult for shop stewards and other people to lobby and argue for more investment in the Denton plant.
We can see in Denton a microcosm of the problems facing the whole UK. We are allowing manufacturing industry in this country to get into a state of terminal decline. Who is to blame? There has been a succession of people in Whitehall—civil servants as well as Ministers from both parties—whose hearts were not in trying to protect and defend manufacturing industry in this country.
I want to examine some of the factors that are crucial for manufacturing industry. The first is the rate of exchange between the pound and the euro. That has worked against manufacturing industry. If we go into the euro system, we must find an exchange rate that is much more favourable to the industry.
It appears that it is much easier for companies to get rid of jobs in Britain than in many EU countries. I have repeatedly been told by shop stewards that employment laws in France and Germany offer workers far greater protection. Because of that, firms with trans-European interests are much less likely to consider reducing employment in those countries, but find Britain a soft touch.
Perhaps shop stewards always make that point, but Oldham Batteries' managing director, Mr. Rowson, said the same thing when he gave the management's point of
404
view. It is high time the Government gave much better protection to people in British industry, and ensured that they were not the soft touch in Europe when it came to getting rid of staff.
We must also consider how the capitalist system works in this country. Shareholders seem to feel little or no concern about whether companies operate as manufacturers or whether the aim is simply to sell off land. When I look around Denton, I am sad to see the numerous examples of how manufacturing industry has been destroyed by companies that can make more money from selling sites than from maintaining manufacturing.
Such companies include Lancaster Carpets and Sainsbury. I am not quite as critical of the toilet seat company called Celmac, which is turning its site over to Morrison supermarkets. It is moving to another location in Tameside, so at least the jobs are being retained, but it is another example of a company that sees that it can make more money from turning a site over to retail than from continuing in manufacturing.
Oldham Batteries wants to sell its site for retail usage, but the company now complains that it might not be able to. That seems a sad reflection on the attitudes of companies and shareholders in this country. They are just as happy to make money from selling land as from providing jobs.
How far should the Government support industry? It is recognised, on the east side of Manchester, that there is a lack of jobs. However, instead of helping industry, the Government devote money to various regeneration packages. That money does not find its way through into encouraging innovation.
I argue that the Government should encourage innovation with regard to batteries. I accept that, since Oldham made the generating batteries for underground haulage in mines and for cap lamps, the industry was likely to contract. However, there has been great opportunity for innovation in the manufacture of electric batteries for cars, for small vehicles used in street cleaning, and so on. The Government should have encouraged innovation much more.
I shall not go on much longer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne wants to make a few comments. However, I hope that the Government will act quickly to ensure that companies in Britain cannot get rid of their labour force more quickly than firms elsewhere in Europe.
My second plea to the Government is that, if we are to protect manufacturing industry in this country, we must look at the exchange rate. We cannot consider joining the euro at the present rate.
At present, Oldham's work force is working with the local Tameside council to see whether a rescue package can be produced. One possibility is that the manufacture of miners' cap lamp batteries could continue as a small operation in Tameside. I plead with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for at least some help in that regard. It would be much appreciated.
A small number of manufacturers have an attitude different from the one that I have described. For example, the Hyde group that operates in Tameside does not have to worry about making a profit this year and satisfying shareholders in the short term. That is because of the way the shares are held in the company. The group has a

405
record of investing in manufacturing industry in Tameside. The Government should work hard at finding ways to help the group with that, and they should recognise the large amount that it does to help the area.
I spoke to Tony Hodkinson, the managing director of Harvey, which is a part of the Hyde group that wants to make machine tools for the aircraft industry. During September and October it was on short time, but it has the necessary long-term commitment and is trying very hard to fight its way through what in manufacturing terms is a recession. I plead with the Minister to offer some hope to those companies. The Government should realise that some companies are trying to fight the system and keep manufacturing in place, and they should give them some recognition for doing so.
It would be easy for the Chancellor to provide much better allowances for the investment, but the message that I want to get across in this Adjournment debate is that manufacturing industry is in crisis across the country, of which Denton is a microcosm. We cannot go on just with service industries; we need to keep our manufacturing base.
When I was brought up in Greater Manchester, one of the best things that a youngster could do was get an engineering apprenticeship. Over the years, we have destroyed almost all the apprenticeship system because of the decline in manufacturing industry. We now have at least to tell the companies that are trying to do something about that that the Government want to help them, so I have some requests for the Minister. Please let us do something about changing the redundancy regulations in this country, so that we give workers some protection. Let us consider our exchange rate policy, so that it provides manufacturing with some protection. Let us ensure that some help is provided in the Budget to keep manufacturing industry going in this country.
10.36 pm
Mr. David Heyes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) on securing tonight's debate on this most important matter, which is hardly less important to my constituents than to his. I am pleased to have the opportunity to make what I promise will be a very brief contribution.
My hon. Friend and I are, of course, next-door neighbours, with the larger parts of our constituencies sitting in the borough of Tameside. Many of my constituents travel to work in Denton, and I am sure that many of my hon. Friend's constituents travel to work in Ashton-under-Lyne. That travel-to-work pattern has been made easier in the past year, since the opening of the final section of the Manchester outer ring road. Junction 22 at Hollinwood and junction 23 at Ashton- under-Lyne serve my constituency, and junction 24 serves Denton in my hon. Friend's constituency.
Although that road's completion was 20 years behind schedule, we all had great hopes that improved access to the national road network would give a much-needed boost to efforts to attract industry and employment to our part of the world. In fact, the reverse has been the case. Despite the energetic and persuasive efforts of local partners—I single out for special mention our local
406
authority in Tameside—there has been an exodus of relatively high-tech manufacturing jobs in the past six months. In some cases, those jobs were located just a few yards from the new motorway.
My hon. Friend has spoken of the problems in Denton, and I share his sadness about hundreds of job losses at British Aerospace in Chadderton and Woodford, where many of my constituents and his are employed, and at Siemens in Hollinwood. More than 800 electronics jobs have gone at Celestica—the remnants of the once mighty ICL, which bestrides the boundary between our constituencies. Many other jobs have gone or are currently under threat.
So how are we to explain what has been happening? One thing is certain: in none of those cases should blame be laid at the door of the workers or trade unions. Productivity levels can match those anywhere else in the United Kingdom or western Europe. Our industrial relations climate has been exemplary. Our labour costs, given the highly skilled nature of many of these jobs, are among the keenest. That, coupled with the skill, dedication and experience of many of our locally based managers, has often given us the competitive edge, until recently.
The global economic forces, structural shifts and exchange rate problems that we have witnessed being played out locally, which my hon. Friend has mentioned, are frankly beyond the ability of our constituents or local agencies to control. My hon. Friend has given his explanation for what has gone wrong and his prescription for action to hold the situation and to start to turn it round. I need not repeat that; I simply wholeheartedly endorse what he said. For the benefit of my constituents, as much as his, I join him in requesting that serious attention be given to what has been said in this debate. I know that I can count on the Minister to take on board our plea.
10.40 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) on securing this debate on manufacturing in Denton and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Heyes) on his thoughtful contribution.
I wish to express my concern at the loss of the manufacturing facility of any leading company. Manufacturing matters, and it matters to the Government, to the economy, to the people who work in it and to all of us who enjoy its products. It accounts for about a fifth of our national income, with almost £150 billion of output each year. It employs about 4 million directly, and millions more depend on manufacturing for their livelihoods, including 2.5 million people in the service sector. A strong manufacturing sector is the backbone of our economy.
As the Minister responsible for small and medium-sized enterprises, I have visited manufacturers who were pioneers 200 years ago and who are now innovators at the cutting edge of competition. On Monday this week, I visited two leading manufacturers in Cornwall—Precision Audio Products and Allan and Heath—and both are major local employers and leaders not just in the UK but worldwide. They export all over the globe. Many of the components for those companies are foreign sourced so

407
they do not advocate the devaluation that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish has advocated. However, I recognise that the exchange rate impinges on companies in variable ways.
Manufacturing is led by some of the most innovative businesses that invest heavily in research and development. It drives innovation in the rest of the economy and creates jobs and prosperity. It is the crucible for productivity improvements across the whole economy, through advances in technology, new goods and processes; but most of all through a highly skilled and highly flexible and dedicated work force. In the last four years, we have helped 3,000 businesses, and supported £6 billion of investment and 135,000 jobs—most of them in manufacturing.
Manufacturing is proportionately even more important in some areas of the country, and Denton is one of them. In Tameside as a whole, around one third of the work force are employed in manufacturing, as against a national average of about 17 per cent.
I was very sorry to hear about the announcement made by Hawker Traction UK that the Oldham Batteries site in Denton is to close. No constituency has a more doughty fighter for manufacturing than that of my hon. Friend. Although such decisions are for the companies concerned to make, they are always extremely regrettable and the effects are devastating for staff and their families.
When redundancies are inevitable, we will not walk away. We will do everything that we can to help people to find new jobs and to get new skills. We cannot, sadly, make up for what my hon. Friend described as the lack of interest shown by successive managements. That is a damning indictment of those managements, but I fear that the Government find that the position is difficult to influence or to reverse.
The company has been in contact with the Small Business Service in connection with the present situation, and the service has provided advice for and assistance with the task of identifying alternative employment opportunities for Oldham Batteries staff. In the north-west, helping businesses is a key element of the North West Development Agency's regional strategy. A number of tools are available to the agency and other Government bodies to help them to assist businesses. In 2000–01, 81 offers of regional selective assistance to businesses in the north-west were accepted. That is the largest number of any English region. The total value of the assistance was close to £20 million, and went towards capital investment of almost £158 million. That had the effect of creating 3,267 jobs and safeguarding 2,056 more across the region. At the same time, 93 offers of enterprise grant funding were accepted in the 12 months to March 2001, with a total value of £3 million going towards capital investment of more than £26 million.
We are always seeking to improve the assistance that we give to companies, and we want to have the right toolkit to do that. Our rapid response units have a creditable record in finding new employment for people who are affected by major job losses. The rapid response unit helped to ensure that about 94 per cent. of the work force at Fujitsu in county Durham found new jobs within 12 months. At Siemens in north Tyneside, the Employment Service played a major role in helping about 90 per cent. of the work force to find new employment. Recently, the Government helped Kirpak Ltd., near
408
Wigan, when its plant was threatened with closure. Plans to move production overseas threatened 169 jobs. Following Government assistance, the company invested £10 million and created an extra 116 jobs. The new plant will be officially opened on 1 February this year.
The rapid response service has shown that it can be effective in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish. The Canadian-owned company Celestica announced in September its intention to close its plant in Ashton-under-Lyne, with 570 job losses. By the end of the year, 412 employees had sought the assistance of the Employment Service job shop. Some 243 were referred to job opportunities and 71 were referred for training.
My hon. Friend touched on the comparative costs of making people redundant across Europe. He will know more than most that that is a difficult and complex assessment to make. It is not necessarily cheaper for companies to close down plants and make people redundant in the United Kingdom than it is elsewhere in Europe. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development rates the UK eighth out of 15 for redundancy costs. Many firms here pay above the statutory minimum redundancy compensation.
Individual circumstances of employees in companies that are making redundancies can, of course, cause significant variations in the overall cost of each large-scale redundancy. By comparing Britain, France and Germany, economists at the Department of Trade and Industry found, on average, that while it is cheaper to make workers with only one or two years' service redundant in the UK than it is in France or Germany, if a worker has longer service, the cost of making them redundant in the UK is less than it is in Germany.
Andrew Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the problems is the amount of consultation, in particular the period of notice in which discussions have to take place? As I understand it, the consultation period is substantially longer in both France and Germany.
Nigel Griffiths: I am happy to refer my hon. Friend's concerns to Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions. However, I chaired a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), a trade union, and key representatives of a plant that was threatened with closure. I put it to the management of that company, which was based in the United States, that the local work force believed that it was keeping the German plant open at the expense of the British plant because it was easier to make people redundant in the UK. The management told me that that was not the case and, separately, that the German plant was being closed as well. There is not a uniform position on that, but obviously I will ensure that the DTI considers my hon. Friend's thoughtful points carefully.
It is of course important that we constantly review the Department's business support activities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has announced several important changes to ensure that, in the regions, Government agencies work together to improve the delivery of support to manufacturers and other businesses.
We can no longer compete on labour costs and raw materials alone. With globalisation, low value added goods can be produced more cheaply elsewhere. The challenge for

409
the UK is to shift focus from competing on cost alone to competing on high skills and high value added products and processes based on quality, innovation and know-how—the very qualities demonstrated in many of the manufacturing plants in the constituencies of my two hon. Friends. Like many British manufacturers, companies in their constituencies are responding positively to the new challenges. A good example in the north-west is that of Bodycote International in Macclesfield in Cheshire. Originally a garment manufacturer, it is now a world leader in heat treatment technology.
The Government are committed to providing high-quality help to people faced with redundancy and to companies facing change. To enable them to overcome the difficulties, we have put in place a combination of mechanisms to encourage inward investment and technological investment in UK companies. At the same time, if companies are not able to keep up or catch up with global competitors, we want to enable the work force to be redeployed to more successful companies, and to retrain if necessary.
Andrew Bennett: Will my hon. Friend consider carefully the possibility of helping people, especially the stewards, who want to keep the manufacture of cap lamp batteries in Denton? Are the Government able to give some help to get their efforts off the ground?
Nigel Griffiths: We are already in touch with the Small Business Service and the Business Links organisation in my hon. Friend's constituency. I am happy to give him an assurance that we will facilitate a meeting with our key business advisers and Employment Service representatives to ensure that every avenue is explored
410
and that all thoughtful and practical suggestions made by my hon. Friend's trade unionist constituents are taken fully into account.
We recognise that the Government have a clear role in helping companies to face the challenges of globalisation, technological change, and the various stages of the business cycle. We are investing £15 million in a new manufacturing advisory service to spread best practice; that will include a centre for manufacturing excellence in every region. The Government are committed to working in partnership with manufacturing and other business sectors, and with employees, to maintain and develop a strong British economy.
We will promote closer links between education and industry, with a view to improving the skills base on offer in all the regions of this country. The Government's policies for delivering stable and steady growth are working, and we shall continue to pursue them as the best means of supporting manufacturing and British industry generally in a global and competitive economy. British manufacturing and business will change, as they must, but we will ensure that they match the best in the world.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Manufacturing (Denton)
  CORRECTION
  Official Report, 15 January 2002: in column 265, Division No. 133, in the Noes, insert Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) and leave out Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North and Sefton, East)
Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Asbestos Sufferers
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. McNulty.]
9.30 am
Mr. Michael Clapham: I am fortunate indeed in having been able to secure this debate. I am pleased to have done so because asbestos sufferers are suffering great anxiety, and what is happening in the industry is of great concern to us all. Recent actions by insurance companies, asbestos manufacturers and, in particular, the courts give sufferers the impression that there is a concerted effort to avoid liability and responsibility to those suffering from an asbestos-related disease contracted in the course of their employment and, in most cases, through negligent exposure to asbestos dust.
I have three main points. First, I want to make the Chamber aware of the size of the problem and to emphasise that it is not only historical but very current. Secondly, I want to highlight the difficulty that many people encounter in trying to establish their eligibility for an award under Department for Work and Pensions procedures, and to suggest how that process might be made easier. Thirdly, I want to refer to recent events and, in particular, to draw the attention of the Chamber to the judgment made on 11 December in the Appeal Court. I want also to suggest a way forward.
At present, asbestos dust is responsible for more work-related deaths than any other single cause—a fact that is not always appreciated. The victims are not located in any single industry, but spread throughout UK industry, although it is fair to say that there are more sufferers in industries such as ship-building, construction and energy. Asbestos-related disease creates a chronic respiratory problem for sufferers, many of whom find that their mobility is severely restricted. The dust can also cause mesothelioma cancer, for which there is no cure, and it is associated with other types of cancer which, according to the Health and Safety Commission, are on the increase.
The latest statistics provided by the HSC make a new prediction that male deaths from mesothelioma cancer are likely to peak in about 2011. I say "new prediction" because earlier predictions were based on the work of Professor Peto, who predicted that the peak would come later. The HSC, working on current cases, considers that it will be a little earlier, but I emphasise that its figures relate to male deaths. Mesothelioma deaths in women are running at about a sixth of the rate for men, and the difference is due to exposure to asbestos.
There were 1,595 deaths from mesothelioma in 1999, the last year for which figures are available, and the HSC reckons that there are one or two cases of other asbestos-related cancers for every mesothelioma case. Working from the statistical information provided by
72WH
the HSC, the GMB union considers that about 4,000 people die in the UK annually as a result of exposure to this fatal fibre, and the number is increasing.
The reason for the increase is that the peak of exposure was in the mid-1960s, when blue and brown asbestos were used widely. After the 1960s, exposure levels seemed to fall as workers became much more aware of the dangers. I would contend, however, that one of the major factors in reducing exposure to asbestos was the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The Act and its associated regulations covered all workers, but the fact that it also created the opportunity to appoint workers safety representatives and set up safety committees meant that it put in place a mechanism to extend meaningful protection to workers in asbestos manufacturing.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify for the Chamber the statistics that he quoted? I have figures from the Financial Times of 11 December which, reporting on the case to which he referred, says:
"The number of mesothelioma cases is not expected to peak until 2020. An estimated 10,000 people will die from the disease in that year—twice the number killed annually on the roads".
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen that information. How does it correspond with the information that he has?
Mr. Clapham: I referred earlier to the new figures from the HSC, which relate to the year in which it expects male deaths to peak. I said that the prediction was new because the earlier work was done by Professor Peto, who believed that the peak would come later. That may be so—much of the work is based on estimates. The HSC bases its estimates on the current number of mesothelioma cases, which in 1999 was 1,595. The difference between the figure in the Financial Times and mine is merely due to the difference between the estimates from the two sources, Professor Peto and the HSC. We must bear it in mind that the HSC figures do not include female deaths.
Although blue and brown asbestos were banned in 1985, and white asbestos in 1999, it should not be assumed that there is no danger at present. In addition to its industrial use, asbestos has been used in more than 1 million public buildings, and I have seen reference to a figure of more than 1.2 million. From this year, the owners of buildings will have a duty to manage asbestos in their buildings, but workers will still be exposed to it. Electricians, plumbers, joiners and heating engineers are all likely to come into contact with asbestos and risk developing mesothelioma cancer. We know from medical evidence that mesothelioma can be caused not only by long exposure, but by intermittent exposure, to asbestos dust. The risk therefore is current, not merely historical.
Claiming benefit for asbestos-related disease or mesothelioma cancer can be a trial. I dealt with such a case about two and a half years ago, and I still represent people in medical appeal tribunals on Fridays, although not every Friday and not as often as I used to. The case to which I referred is that of Ted Dudley, deceased. After he was diagnosed as having mesothelioma cancer, we still had to prove to the tribunal that he had worked

73WH
in an industry where he was exposed to asbestos. We had to do months of work conclusively to prove to the tribunal with engineers' reports that he had been exposed to asbestos while working as a miner. After that, he had to prove to the satisfaction of the Benefits Agency doctor that he was suffering from mesothelioma, despite the fact that he had been diagnosed as such by his own consultant.
The Occupational and Environmental Diseases Association, to which I pay tribute, has long contended that only a small proportion of people suffering from an asbestos-related disease are in receipt of an award. It will produce statistics in a forthcoming pamphlet which clearly show that. For example, it will show that while it is accepted by insurers in the United Kingdom that 80 to 90 per cent. of mesotheliomas are caused by exposure to asbestos, the number of people receiving industrial disablement benefit does not exceed 38 per cent. Moreover, the OEDA believes that for lung cancer that has been caused by exposure to asbestos, fewer than 3 per cent. of people who could reasonably be expected to receive benefit do so.
In mesothelioma cases and asbestos-related lung cancers, the current dual diagnosis procedure should be ended. Even if a man is diagnosed by the consultant treating him as suffering from the disease, he still has to go to the Benefits Agency doctors for confirmation of his condition before benefit is paid, which can take up to six or seven weeks. That time can be ill-afforded because mesothelioma victims generally have a short lifespan. A way forward would be to end dual diagnosis and use the treating consultant's report as the basis for the disablement assessment and awarding disablement benefit. Benefit for mesothelioma victims should be awarded at 100 per cent. because of their short lifespan.
As if being diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease were not sufficiently traumatic, developments in the insurance world and asbestos companies have thrown into question the likelihood of victims being able to claim compensation for that terrible disease. Last October, Chester Street became insolvent and Iron Trades was sold off, which left hundreds of pre-1972 cases in limbo. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) raised the issue in an Adjournment debate and I shall not go over the ground that he covered. After a great deal of work by my hon. Friends, a number of whom are in the Chamber today, and the Treasury, to which I pay tribute, a scheme was worked out with the insurance industry that covered the pre-1972 cases left by the Chester Street debacle. I understand that under the scheme, the pre-1972 cases, which were a big worry, are receiving 90 per cent. of the full value of their claims.
I very much understand the disappointment of claimants who are not receiving the full worth of their claims. I had hoped that in the Chester Street case the resources apportioned by the administrator would have been added to the 90 per cent., taking the figure nearer to 100 per cent. compensation for victims, but that does not appear to be the case. Lawyers tell me that many people who suffered as a result of the Chester Street collapse have not yet received a pay-out under the scheme; the Minister may be able to check that. From
74WH
30 November last year, the Financial Services Authority established another compensation scheme to replace the previous insurance board protection scheme.
The situation is not the fault of the claimants, who are double victims. First, they were negligently exposed to asbestos by their employers and, secondly, they were let down by the failure of insurance companies, particularly in the Chester Street case, but also in the Turner and Newall case, by the route taken by the parent company, Federal Mogul, to escape liability. The next devastating blow for claimants came when Federal Mogul filed for insolvency in the USA. My hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) and for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) gave the House details of that case only last week, so I need not go over them, except to say that there is a document on the web that clearly points out that Turner and Newall and Federal Mogul have taken the insolvency route to escape their responsibility to asbestos victims and their families. The Government must consider that and what route to take to address the issue seriously.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: One concern of the victims of Turner and Newall—as my hon. Friend said, they are victims because of the recklessness of asbestos companies in their heyday—is that the Federal Mogul operation not only protects the company in the United States, but may also formally protect the assets of Turner and Newall in the UK within the Federal Mogul empire, so that they will not be available for UK victims of asbestosis and mesothelioma.
Mr. Clapham: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. There is a real difficulty. As I understand it, Turner and Newall insured its own risks. In addition, its assets are now owned by Federal Mogul, an American company. Even if we can bottom the situation, there is a question about whether Turner and Newall would come under the remit of the FSA compensation scheme, so there is a genuine worry. I understand that the Treasury is working to try to bottom the issue, but it is certainly a great concern. If the victims do not fall under the FSA scheme, the Government and the insurance industry must consider how to address their situation. I shall come to that later.
The hammer blow for sufferers of asbestos-related disease was delivered in the Court of Appeal on 11 December 2001 as a result of the Fairchild case. The Court of Appeal stated that if two defendants equally exposed a claimant to asbestos, the "guilty" fibres could not be identified, so both defendants escaped liability. The judgment specifically says:
"if there has been more than one employment involving asbestos exposure there is no means of determining from which employment was derived the fibre or fibres which brought about the malignant transformation".
That decision effectively overturned the apportionment principle that has existed in the courts in such cases for at least 25 years. Usually, defendants would be joined and liability apportioned according to the time that the person had worked with each employer.
Mr. Mike Hancock: Does not that judgment make it imperative that the Government introduce a national policy of compensation for asbestos workers? In most instances, particularly in the

75WH
building industry, where people may have worked in 30 locations for a dozen employers, it is impossible to prove the source of the disease, and such people have nowhere to go in law. They stand no chance of getting compensation unless a national compensation scheme is put together by national Government.
Mr. Clapham: I agree with the last point. The court decision was a scandal. Using a brief from a causation expert, I hope to demonstrate that the court got it wrong. The difficulty is that leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused. The decision means that thousands of victims of the fatal disease mesothelioma have been deprived of compensation. The decision was first made in the High Court and the case then went to the Court of Appeal, so asbestos victims have been in limbo for nearly two years. That decision was wrong.
Mr. John Battle: In support of the case made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), the judgment on fibres is the equivalent of saying that if someone is killed by two bullets, that person is responsible or is not really dead. The courts and the companies seem to be mocking the victims. People who have already won justice in the courts cannot get the compensation that they have been awarded because of corporate gamesmanship by companies that say that they are going into bankruptcy when they are trading and making millions of pounds. We cannot wait for 10 years of extended court proceedings. We need concerted, joined-up, co-ordinated Government help to break through the proceedings, rather than allowing them to drag through the courts for ever.
Mr. Clapham: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's comments.
I have a brief provided by a causation expert, Mr. Alan Care, of the chemical poisoning department of Russell Jones & Walker. It refers to the court decision and how it dealt with the medical evidence. Mr. Care states:
"The established way in which to deal with causation has already been decided by the world's medical profession in any disease case. It is the Bradford Hill criteria and the twin concept of dose significantly increasing the risk of developing any disease. For causation to be established the following must apply—

Strength of association;

Temporal sequence;

Biological gradient/plausibility (and a dose-response gradient);

Specificity;

Coherence with biological backgrounds and previous knowledge;

Experimental evidence."

Mr. Care continues:
"All of these criteria are met in the case of asbestos induced mesothelioma and this has been accepted for many years. By the gold standard of the Bradford Hill criteria for 'cause' or aetiology for all disease and illness is defined. Asbestos exposure at work caused mesothelioma; of that there is no doubt."
The brief adds:
"The Court of Appeal has made a fatal error and has effectively usurped the established medical and scientific community approach as to cause and causation. The Court of Appeal has asked the question that the medical profession cannot answer—'which fibre?'. It is precisely because medical science cannot
76WH
answer such a question that Bradford Hill is the gold standard. The Court of Appeal should have kept to the law and not muddied its decision by wrongly questioning the accepted basis of causation by seeking to identify the 'guilty fibre(s)'. This is simply not possible."
Dr. Ian Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is just another part of the saga? Previously, the argument was that white asbestos was good enough to eat, and that it was blue asbestos that caused all the problems. That argument has had to be rejected, so the credibility of the medical and scientific establishment in the matter is akin to its credibility in the BSE tragedy.
Mr. Clapham: I agree. There is no doubt that there were people who believed that white asbestos could have been spread on cornflakes and eaten for breakfast. It was only the studies carried out in France and later by the Health and Safety Executive that identified white asbestos as a carcinogen. It may be recalled that as a result of the information gained by the French authorities, asbestos was banned in France. Following the ban, the Canadian producers took them to the World Trade Organisation. The WTO tribunal upheld the right of France to ban white asbestos because it was shown to be a carcinogen.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the Library brief on the case to which he referred? It might interest him. It states:
"The judges at the Court of Appeal admitted that their decision amounted to 'a major injustice crying out to be righted' by the government or by the insurance industry, but refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords."
That request was made on 21 December 2001. Will he join me in hoping that their lordships expedite their decision on whether there should be an appeal, and that when the appeal is heard, it will be heard quickly?
Mr. Clapham: The lawyers will petition the House of Lords, and if the House of Lords decides to hear the case, it could be some considerable time before the case is heard. Meanwhile, the victims wait for justice. We must ensure that the case is heard speedily or that another route is taken.
I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that there may well be another route: a scheme devised by the insurance industry to pay compensation at the levels that the court has been determining, but possibly through some sort of no-fault liability arrangement. I do not expect an answer this morning, but I ask him to consider that proposal, discuss it with colleagues and determine whether the Government could work with the insurance industry to create such a scheme.
If that cannot be done, we need the House of Lords to consider the case, and speedily, but it must be recognised that the House of Lords may well go the way of the Court of Appeal. In that event, the issue of the victims would still have to be addressed. We would require an insurance industry-initiated scheme to be introduced speedily to pay compensation equivalent to that awarded by the courts in similar cases.
I ask the Minister to give consideration to those two courses of action: proceeding speedily to the House of Lords, or discussing with the insurance industry the implementation of an appropriate scheme to compensate the victims quickly.

77WH
There was also some argument in the Fairchild hearing that the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 might enable claimants to obtain compensation. Again, I doubted whether that could happen when I first heard about it. I have received an opinion from APIL, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, which clearly states its view that the regulation in question would not apply to Fairchild and others in his position. A barrister member of APIL has said that claimants and their families recently caught by the Court of Appeal's decision on Fairchild have no claim under the 1979 Act, which, apparently, serves as a safety net for claimants with neither a defendant nor insurance. In the Fairchild case, there was a defendant and insurance, but no liability, so the case falls outside the Act's safety net. It may well be, therefore, that the route considered by judges in the Court of Appeal is not a way of dealing with such cases. Will the Minister consider that issue when he consults his colleagues on the best way of dealing with compensation in these cases?
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but does he agree that even if a route were available through the current workers' compensation scheme, the compensation would be a matter only of thousands of pounds? With proper justice, such compensation may amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds, so the scheme is not adequate in its own right.
Mr. Clapham: I agree completely. The scheme pays small amounts that are linked to weekly payments through the award system of the Department for Work and Pensions. The compensation is nothing like that paid in the courts when negligence is established. I believe that people were negligently exposed in all the cases. If there is to be a scheme, or if the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme is to be the route through which compensation is obtained, it must be significantly enhanced and pay lump sums equivalent to those decided previously in the courts. I urge the Minister, when considering any scheme, to remember that the lump sums, or even periodic payments, must be equivalent to the compensation that people are generally paid in the courts.
Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman is developing his argument well, but there is an unknown factor: the countless tens of thousands of people who cannot prove the origin of their asbestos-related illness. Many such people will not have recourse to the law as they have no such proof, so they will get nothing more than inadequate sums. One of my constituents gets £22.58 a week in industrial benefits at the age of 62, for an illness that is going to kill him and is undoubtedly a result of his working career. What should happen to people who cannot prove where they contracted their illness, are not covered by any sort of insurance and cannot obtain legal redress?
Mr. Clapham: That is an important point. Indeed, it is one of the reasons why the pneumoconiosis workers' compensation scheme came into being in 1979. The scheme was introduced to provide a means of obtaining
78WH
compensation when the responsible company had disappeared and the insurance company could not be traced. However, only pitiable sums are payable under the scheme, which needs to be considered in its entirety with a view to enhancing the payments, which are very small.
I began by saying that much is happening that gives asbestos sufferers the view that a concerted effort is being made to deprive them of their compensation. I want to finish my speech by referring to an article that appeared on 13 December in Post Magazine, which is produced for the insurance industry. The article states:
"Employers liability insurers could escape millions of pounds of disease-related claims in the wake of this week's landmark Court of Appeal ruling, which will leave hundreds of mesothelioma claimants without compensation."
The article quotes Chris Phillips, head of insurance litigation at Halliwell Landau, which represents one of the defendants, as saying:
"We believe the logic in Fairchild may be applicable to any claim where a single act causes damage including cancer and asthma—and this is the line of inquiry being taken actively and considered by the same team of solicitors and counsel."
That shows clearly that some lawyers in the insurance industry are working not to seek justice for their defendants, but to find a route around the liabilities and responsibilities that the industry has in respect of its asbestos victims. That is a scandal.
The Fairchild case must be put in its historical context, given the scandalous way in which millions of workers in the 1950s and 1960s were exposed to asbestos in UK industry, despite the fact that the dangers were known in the 1930s, when the first legislation was introduced, and even before that. Now a Court of Appeal decision has legally deprived sufferers of the rightful route to compensation. That decision is wrong and shameful. We cannot allow it to stand and the Government must act to put in place a route for compensation for asbestos victims.
10.7 am
Mr. John Battle: My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) has campaigned on these matters for many years and it is to his great credit that he has secured this debate. Having sat in the ministerial chair, I must say that I have never seen such a debate so well attended. That tells me that this matter should be given Government time and be properly debated on the Floor of the House, where it can be fully aired. We are discussing one of the most important and lethal legacies of the 20th century, and it will have to be dealt with in the 21st century. I have recently spoken in the House on these matters, so I shall not detain hon. Members, as I know that others wish to contribute and speak for their constituencies.
I represent a community in Armley, Leeds, where asbestos dust was blown out of the J. W. Roberts factory and on to the neighbouring streets. People who lived in the neighbourhood and played in the dust years later have contracted mesothelioma and died from it. It took us 10 years to fight the owner of the factory, Turner and Newall, which denied that it owned the company or had any records or documents, even though we unearthed 27,000 documents about what was happening. We won

79WH
the 1995 case of Margereson and Hancock, who courageously took on the company and won a verdict saying that it was responsible for polluting them and their neighbourhood. It was a groundbreaking case. At the time, I thought that, as a Member of Parliament, I could then leave it to lawyers to do the decent thing, put the other cases forward, get the medical evidence, take them to the courts and get the compensation. Some 15 or 16 people were paid compensation, but others are in train and waiting to go through the process. Some hundreds of people are waiting. Some cases remain to be filed, while some people are waiting for medical evidence.
What happened next? From being a national company in Britain, Turner and Newall became part of a mega, multinational company—Federal Mogul in the United States of America—which started to play global corporate games and decided that it could wrap all the claims together, bury those of Armley and hold off liabilities. Consequently, even those who had won their case in court found that the cheque from the company bounced. Solicitors' letters stated that the company had been put into administration, was filing for bankruptcy and therefore did not need to respond. That process of administration could take years.
It has been reported that the company is trying to sort out the claims, but was Turner and Newall properly insured from the outset? From 1977, the board minutes show that there were doubts about its insurance. Who were the insurers? Nobody knows. When the case was won in 1995, Sir Colin Hope, the chairman of the company, said that he was confident that there was money in the kitty to pay the claims. He was confident that claims of up to £1 billion would be covered and that the victims of Armley would get the money. Where is it? Where is the money for the victims? Is it locked in administration? Why cannot we know? Why are we told that Turner and Newall's insurance cover is commercially confidential? Victims' lawyers cannot know about it.
If the company is not properly insured, it should be prosecuted. The Department of Trade and Industry should have prosecuted it in the past for illegal trading. If it is properly insured, why cannot the insurance money be made available to victims now, outside the administration process?
Games are being played in the world of insurance. We are in murky waters when we consider Turner and Newall's insurance cover. It now claims to be self-insured. I have a copy of the "General Report and Background to the Proposals of the Joint Administrators". The company went to the administrators and asked, "Please make us bankrupt", even though it is trading, getting millions of contracts every week and making millions of pounds. The report to the administrator states:
"In 1996, T&N purchased a £500 million layer of insurance, through the UK Group Company called Curzon Insurance Limited"—
it trades from Guernsey rather than the rest of the United Kingdom—
"which itself reinsured the cover through three major insurance companies. This will be triggered should the aggregate costs of claims made or brought after 1 July 1996 exceed £690 million. Management now believes that the aggregate cost of claims made or brought after 1 July 1996 will exceed the trigger point. Based on
80WH
this assessment, the FM Group recorded an insurance recoverable asset under the T&N policy of US$577 million in the fourth quarter of 2000."
The report continues:
"One of the reinsurers, European International Insurance Company Limited (which is an affiliate of Swiss Re), issued proceedings on 22 November 2001 in the High Court to seek a declaration that it was entitled to avoid the reinsurance agreement."
The company is trying every trick in the book to avoid its liabilities.
We need a co-ordinated, joined-up Government response that involves the Treasury as well as the Department of Trade and Industry because the victims cannot wait for 10 years of litigation. The Armley victims have won court cases that prove the company's negligence. They are not covered by the workers' occupational schemes because they did not work in the company. The employers' liability schemes would not therefore cover them. We need a separate package for them. The proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone are along exactly the right lines and further proposals could tackle matters in the interim. Victims cannot wait for years for the determination of the court cases.
The companies are engaged in corporate gamesmanship on a massive scale to evade their liabilities. In other contexts, we have discussed corporate manslaughter. We are currently considering a classic example. We are not discussing hired hands in the 19th century; people's lives have been taken and the companies walk away and are not held to account. That is wrong and scandalous, and the Government must tackle it.
Mr. George Stevenson (in the Chair): Time is not on our side, and I therefore make a plea for brevity so that as many hon. Members as possible can speak.
10.14 am
Tony Worthington: I shall try to be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) and for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on their speeches. I want to pick up on the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West that the Government must act more co-operatively. Sometimes there almost seems to be a conspiracy to hit the people who have suffered from such an appalling disease. Everyone appears to be lining up to beat them. They come into contact with the Government through the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Health, social security and the legal system. They receive a good service from none of them. The Government must therefore be much more proactive.
We were delighted when the Government produced a response in early May to the Chester Street debacle. However, if it had not been for a handful of Members of Parliament and for asbestos campaigners, thousands of people would have suffered from what is called the genius of capitalism, whereby companies walk away from their responsibilities and profits remain high.
We met the Financial Services Authority when we were campaigning for improvements. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and

81WH
Penistone agrees that it was a bemusing experience. The FSA did not appear to understand that the matter had anything to do with it. We could not understand why the FSA had approved the Chester Street restructuring when it was obvious that the company was headed for oblivion. The FSA interpreted its duties as protecting the companies and their shareholders, not the customers and the small people who were the victims of the action. That view persists.
We subsequently met the liquidators who were checking the way in which the company had been run. Again, that was a disturbing experience because their statutory duty appeared simply to be to ascertain whether the board had taken proper advice, even it was bad, and protected shareholders' interests. They did not understand that there was something appallingly wrong in a chief executive taking more than £1 million from a failing company and thousands losing the insurance that they believed that they had. They did not appear to have a duty to consider that.
I am worried about the new scheme that the FSA introduced at the beginning of December because hardly anyone knows about it. I receive many letters from colleagues who are asking about its details. The FSA introduced the scheme without consulting Members of Parliament who campaigned on the issue, asbestos groups or victims. Document 108 sets out the scheme, but I look around the room and see people who have actively campaigned on the matter and do not know about it.
I shall not say much about the Fairchild judgment because it has been covered admirably, but it is a disaster. The law made itself an ass in that case. Everyone knows what constitutes justice. People have been poisoned by employers who knew about the risks for years. If those employers will not face up to their responsibilities, the Government must ensure that they do. I have lost faith in the courts. The Government must have a law ready to do justice to the victims.
Why will not the Government or the FSA tell us what they are doing about Federal Mogul and Turner and Newall? This company has for years flagged up the fact that it is a chancer. Clydebank suffered under a Turner and Newall company for years. It eventually went and, as always under the genius of capitalism, the public had to pick up the cost. It cost between £10 million and £12 million to make the site safe, and Turner and Newall did not pay a penny. We have to ask the Government what they are doing about this. I do not want letters from the Minister saying that they are monitoring the situation. I know what the word "monitoring" means. It means that they are lying back and hoping that nothing comes to their attention. I want something active done about Turner and Newall.
I want to raise an issue that has not been raised so far, and I shall refer here to British Shipbuilders. A press release from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 10 May 2001 contained the very welcome news that the uncertainty of asbestos sufferers would soon be over, due to a partnership between the Government and the insurance industry. It stated:
"The Government will itself fund the compensation owed to former employees of public sectors for whom it is liable."
82WH
That includes British Shipbuilders.
I am told—if necessary I could provide names—that British Shipbuilders is now not paying up in settled cases. In other words, it is becoming a debtor. Far from co-operating, it is refusing to pay what it has agreed to pay in judgments. Furthermore, in cases in which it had previously agreed liability, it is now withdrawing admissions of responsibility. Just what is going on? Will the Minister give me an undertaking that he will find out, and apply the necessary pressure on British Shipbuilders to act decently and honour the Chief Secretary's promise?
In several of these instances, there are implications for Government expenditure if the insurance industry and the courts do not play the game. We will have to pick up the bill. We are in danger of losing the much-deserved credit that we gained for the Government's response to the Chester Street case if we do not get these other matters right. People in my constituency ask me all the time about how the new scheme is being administered, about Turner and Newall, and about British Shipbuilders.
I would also like the Government to launch an inquiry—and to provide us with the resulting information—into whether payments have dried up, as is stated in complaints that I am receiving. That applies whether the payments were set up under the old Policyholders Protection Board or under the new arrangements. Will the Minister produce some statistics on that? What has been happening to the paying out of compensation over the last few months? Will the Minister also, through Government channels, please tell the FSA that it is simply failing to communicate to the people we represent about how it is responding to their needs. I am delighted that we have had this debate today; I wish that it could have been much longer. The turnout in the Chamber proves how necessary it has been.
10.23 am
Mr. Stephen Hepburn: I congratulate my colleague on securing this important debate; I also welcome the opportunity briefly to highlight a couple of issues.
First and foremost, I want to highlight the severity of asbestos-related diseases in the country and, more specifically, on Tyneside. I was also going to expose the injustice of the Fairchild judgment, but that has already been well covered today. I shall mention the case of a constituent of mine later. I do not need to explain the horrors of asbestos-related disease, because hon. Members know about that only too well from their constituents, whether through their mailbags or from their neighbours.
I do, however, want to reveal the extent of the problem. It is known that there are more than 50,000 sufferers nationally. Locally, on Tyneside, there are more than 10,000. Over the past four years, one person has died of asbestos-related disease every three days on Tyneside. This will only get worse as we come to terms with our industrial past, and with the hard life that people in shipyards, ship repair and shipbuilding—as well as building workers—have endured over the years. They never had it easy. They endured hard conditions involving night shifts, work in dock bottoms and low

83WH
wages. When those people make claims, all sorts of blocks are put in their way by evasive employers such as Turner and Newall, and evasive insurance companies such as Chester Street. The recent judgment in the Fairchild case only adds insult to injury.
Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the effect of the Fairchild judgment in the north-east has been to stop many former shipyard workers living in Jarrow and Durham, for example, getting any access to justice? The nature of the industry was that people moved around from one employer to another, and Fairchild has, in one fell swoop, stopped access to justice for thousands of former workers in heavy engineering and shipbuilding in the north-east.
Mr. Hepburn: That is an excellent point. The Fairchild judgment is unfair; it denies justice to people with mesothelioma—the cancer caused by asbestos. Workers in the shipyards and in the building industry often work for a number of different employers, so how on earth can they prove where a single fibre came from?
I want to highlight the problem by mentioning the case of a constituent of mine, Mr. William Cuskin. He worked as a painter in the shipyards for many years. He worked for a number of companies and came into contact with asbestos on a daily basis. He contracted mesothelioma and, sadly, died in August last year. He contacted me earlier last year, having sought legal advice at the time, and I am dealing with his case now. He died an agonising death, but because of the Fairchild judgment, no compensation will be paid, which is absolutely disgraceful. That is the travesty of justice that people face today. That is the main point that I wanted to raise and, as many hon. Members want to speak, I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Stevenson.
10.27 am
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I shall be brief. I endorse the remarks made by all the previous speakers. The history of suffering in the asbestos industry has been one of companies behaving recklessly. Their consideration for their moral obligations has been so low that they deserve condemnation for their actions past and present. That must be placed on record because they are corporate fat cats who, living successfully themselves, have been quite prepared to dismiss with absolute contempt the needs of some of the most victimised people in society. We have heard this morning how large the scale of asbestos-related suffering is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) raised many issues about the way in which Turner and Newall is using legal devices to avoid obligation. The Government must satisfy themselves as to whether the company was legally insured under the national employers obligation scheme. That is central to the argument, because if it was not, the company should have been prosecuted for that failure, and if it was, that insurance should now kick in.
There are huge questions about the irresponsibility of the insurance industry. Insurance, by its nature, is about the taking on of risk, and about making payments when that risk goes wrong. The insurers try to ensure that they take the money at the front end, but attempt to deny
84WH
liability in all circumstances. That is a disgrace, because, by definition, we are not talking about a group of claimants who can sit and wait for government processes, court processes and administrative and bureaucratic systems to work. People do not have that time. The lifespan of someone diagnosed with mesothelioma is about 19 months.
Mr. Hancock: If they are lucky.
Mr. Lloyd: Indeed. That means that all those people with the disease who are around at the moment will be dead before their claims are settled, unless central Government say to the insurers, "You have to do something very quickly. To do otherwise flies in the face of morality." If the Government would not let them even contemplate that flight from responsibility, they would be forced to act.
I make an appeal to the Minister: please can we have joined-up government? Will Ministers from the relevant Departments get together, so that we do not find ourselves here in a year's time saying that we are monitoring progress? We should be here in a year's time saying to the Minister and his colleagues, "Thank you very much for moving this matter forward on behalf of those people in society who deserve a lot better from those who have betrayed them."
10.30 am
Mr. Mike Hancock: I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on having had the good fortune to be able to introduce the debate and, more important, on the consistency that he has shown in fighting this cause and bringing it to the House's attention on numerous occasions. He has displayed continued determination over getting justice for so many people.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) referred to corporate manslaughter and I agree with him entirely. I would go further and say that there has been corporate fraud. The directors of those companies are nothing short of corporate spivs, as they have given people no support, no protection under the law and little or no opportunity to get decent compensation, which is a fundamental issue because the private sector is not the only party involved and the Government are not blameless. They are not the first to admit liability. Employees who were able to track their work record back have been denied justice and service personnel have been denied justice and told that they must claim.
The statistics are interesting. In the year up to 1998, 11,400 people with asbestos-related illnesses received industrial benefit and 12,900 claimed benefit in 1995. There is a genuine issue here: those who can claim find it difficult to get benefit because of dual diagnosis. They have to go through two hoops, as they have to get their own doctor and a consultant to agree and then convince the Benefits Agency that they have a claim to make. If they are successful, the maximum they are entitled to if they are 100 per cent. disabled because of asbestos-related illness is £108 a week. That may be topped up by other benefits, but only to a maximum of £237 a week.
I am speaking on behalf of a number of my Liberal Democrat colleagues today, and, as is the case for many Members, hardly a day goes by in my constituency

85WH
without a coroner's court addressing a death from asbestos-related illness. That is not unique to Portsmouth, although the situation is worse in the Portsmouth area because of the high concentration of asbestos in ships and the fact that many of the 40,000 people employed in Her Majesty's dockyard 50 years ago worked with asbestos each day.
I shall give two examples of the difficulties. Mr. Winnicott of Eastney in Portsmouth worked in the building industry for 40 years. He recognised that his asbestos-related cancer was caused by working on the docks in Southampton—the very city that the Minister represents. His only benefit is £22.58 in industrial benefit. He has been to several solicitors, none of whom want to take his case on because of the difficulty of the burden of proof.
The example of Mr. Leigh Tongue shows how such a situation can arise so quickly. Mr. Tongue was a pretty formidable character who led a good life. Early in 2000, just before his death, but before he knew he was ill, he wrote to his colleagues to say that he had a great job, a lovely home, a wife he loved and who loved him and two beautiful children. He added, "Life does not get much better than this." On 29 November 2000, he was diagnosed as having cancer through asbestos. He died on 1 March 2001. He was 44. He had run in the Portsmouth command field gun crew twice and he was a physical training instructor in the Royal Navy. He had a great career in civilian life in front of him, having left the Navy.
I took the case up and the Minister wrote to me to say that Mr. Tongue's wife had redress through the benefits system. The benefits system could never replace what she lost and it is hopelessly misplaced as a solution in respect of compensation for that man's two young children. He was denied at least 20 years of working life and his family have been denied his presence for ever, yet the Government suggest that the benefits system can cope with compensation.
I want a system introduced similar to that for the mining industry. I recently asked questions about miners' compensation. On average, it takes 16 months to process a miner's claim from start to finish under the Government's scheme. In November 2001, they processed 7,000 claims totalling £47 million. The number of claims stands at 173,600; a total of 58,000 have been settled and £238 million has been paid out. There are 133,000 vibration white finger claims and £438 million is being paid out.
I want the same justice to be given to those with asbestos-related illnesses. Many suffer an agonising death and every Member in the Chamber will have had first-hand contact with constituents who went through that. I am dealing with more than 200 cases and 30 have been submitted to Ministers for them to use as a test for introducing a Government-related scheme. All 30 involve Government employment in one form or another. We may criticise private companies, but we are not blameless and it is a national disgrace that this moral obligation has not been taken up sooner.
I am delighted that so many Members are here to have their say. Many people fought their claim, but were denied justice. They went to the grave knowing that
86WH
their families would have to continue the battle or give up. That simply is not right. We are short of time, but I am pleased to have played a part in the debate. However, I hope that we are doing more than playing a part. The Minister must take back the strong message that the majority of the House of Commons demands action to deal with this issue in the private and Government sectors.
10.37 am
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you for allowing me to catch your eye, Mr. Stevenson. I shall be brief in order to give the Minister time to respond to the widespread concerns expressed in the Chamber. I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing the debate, and a number of Labour Members and my Liberal colleague, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), on ably expressing the anxieties over this serious issue.
There were 1,595 new cases of asbestos-related disease in 1999 and 678 in 2000. Sadly, those figures are likely to represent a rising trend. The Health and Safety Commission 1993–94 annual report confirmed the continuing upward trend in deaths from asbestos-related diseases in Britain and predicted that the number of such deaths will probably increase until 2010 and possibly 2025. That is a serious problem and it will get worse.
Much has been made of the way in which Chester Insurance Holdings Ltd. was able to become insolvent and avoid its liabilities. The Government should look into that very carefully. The Financial Services Authority needs to take much tougher action in this respect. Without rehearsing the whole history of how the company went into insolvency, it is worth remembering that it was taken over by an American company whose rules on chapter 11 corporate insolvency are considerably different. It has used those rules deliberately to avoid its liabilities. Constituents of the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone and others are therefore unlikely to receive the insurance cover to which they are entitled. That is a disgrace, and the Minister should say something about it when he winds up.
I should like the Minister to comment on the various insurance schemes that are available, and on how they are working. We know that the insurance industry—through the Policyholders Protection Board—
"will ensure that private sector employer companies, or, where that employer no longer exists or is insolvent, the affected individuals, receive 100 per cent. of compensation awarded in respect of injuries incurred after 1972 (1975 in NI)(up to the statutory limit of £2 million per claim).
For injuries sustained prior to 1972 … employees whose private sector employer no longer exists or is insolvent, will receive payment of 90 per cent. of the compensation they would have been entitled to from their employers."
It would be useful to know from the Minister how the two schemes are working. We know that the pneumoconiosis claims scheme in the mining industry is working quite well. There is inconsistency, in that miners can receive quite generous compensation—
Ian Stewart: Well deserved.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: It is well deserved. I am casting no aspersions, nor am I wishing to downplay the deservedness of miners' cases. I am merely seeking to highlight the fact that they are getting generous compensation while people with asbestos claims are suffering and are not receiving the same generous treatment for the same type or class of disease. The Government should look at the issue in the round and make sure that the two sets of claimants are receiving the same sort of compensation.
In order to give the Minister plenty of time to reply, I will bring my remarks to a close. He has much of substance to deal with. Many Members have raised concerns today about a huge issue that affects many constituents, particularly in certain constituencies. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say.
10.42 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): First, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing the debate. The attendance and the forcefully expressed sentiments of hon. Members this morning underline the importance of the issue and the need to ensure that we deal with it in a way that provides justice and reflects the severity of certain people's plight and the speedy loss of life that can occur after mesothelioma has been diagnosed in patients.
There is a need to ensure that compensation, where it is required, is delivered speedily and effectively to those who have contracted those awful diseases as a result of their work, or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) has said, as a result simply of being in a certain neighbourhood where an industrial process is taking place.
I am aware of the efforts that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone has made, and continues to make, on behalf of the sufferers of dust-related diseases. The Government are very sympathetic about the concerns that he has expressed about many issues, particularly the effect of the recent judgment of the Court of Appeal on the Fairchild case on sufferers from work-related mesothelioma who wish to claim compensation and who feel that their scope for bringing claims against employers in the courts has been reduced.
My Department has a particular interest in the matter, to the extent that we administer a scheme—the pneumoconiosis (workers' compensation) scheme—that provides for the payment of compensation to sufferers of certain dust-related diseases who are unable to obtain redress in the courts because the employer has gone out of business and there is therefore no one at whom they can direct a legal action. We have received inquiries about the effect of the ruling on the pneumoconiosis (workers' compensation) scheme, as set up by the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979.
It is worth emphasising that, overwhelmingly these days, the compensation scheme does not provide compensation for miners. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) indicated the existence of the separate miners' scheme.
88WH
Overwhelmingly those people who are provided with compensation have not spent their working lives in the mining industry.
Members are also right to say that the number of cases and claims is rising and that that is likely to continue for some time. Indeed, the number of claims made in the last complete year of the scheme stood at almost 1,000, whereas the number of payments to date over the 20 years from 1980 is less than 10,000. Those payments are clearly going up annually at present.
It might be helpful if I outlined the Fairchild judgment and what it means. One might liken some of the considerations in the Fairchild case to the consequences of the legal proceedings following an attack on a passer-by by six hoodlums. Witnesses have said that the passer-by was beaten-up by a group that they can identify, but because they cannot state with certainty who landed the blows and kicks, no one is prosecuted. That seems to defy common sense. The Fairchild judgment—whether or not it is correct in terms of the exact legal definition—frankly seems to lack justice in terms of people's judgment of the concept of a just outcome to a certain event.
The Court of Appeal commented that for the claimants not to receive compensation was a major injustice—it said that its own judgment was a major injustice—and that it was one that should be remedied by express statutory provision or by an agreed insurance industry compensation scheme. There is a fine balance to be struck. It could be said that unfairness would have been created whichever way the Court of Appeal had ruled, resulting either in the claimants not receiving compensation or defendants having to pay damages for injuries for which they may not have been responsible.
In the six appeals that the Court of Appeal heard, it decided upon three different issues that arise in cases where a claimant suffers or may suffer asbestos-induced mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos dust having worked for more than one employer. Historically, there have been cases where the proportion of the compensation between different employers has effectively been worked out as a method of joint payment. The Fairchild judgment appears to suggest somehow that that route produces injustice to the employer. That is not entirely in accordance with common sense.
John Mann: The funeral will take place tomorrow of my neighbour and constituent Mike Ledger. He worked for two employers, and worked with asbestos for one, Harworth Glass Bulbs, for 33 years. How could justice be served proportionately by deeming that the 33 out of the 39 years of his working life that he worked with asbestos were not relevant to the cause of his death?
Dr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The commonsense view of what has happened to my hon. Friend's constituent would fly in the face of the direction of the Fairchild judgment. We are grappling with that issue.
The judgment suggests that as the claimant cannot establish, on the balance of probabilities, when it was that inhalation took place of the asbestos fibre or fibres that caused a mesothelial cell in the pleura to become

89WH
malignant, he cannot show that a particular defendant was responsible for causing the disease, and cannot recover any damages. The Court of Appeal considered that the claimants could not prove on the balance of probabilities which period of exposure caused or materially contributed to the cause of the mesothelioma. Bringing a case when the case has not been made out on the balance of probabilities may impose on an employer with whom the claimant was employed for quite a short time in a long working life liability for the whole of an insidious disease. The Court of Appeal considered that allowing such a claim to succeed would be yielding to a contention that all those who have suffered injury from which someone else should have protected them should be able to recover compensation, even when they are unable to prove who was the culprit.
The Court of Appeal said that the only damages that can be claimed are for contracting the disease. Until the disease develops, the employee does not know that they have an injury capable of giving rise to a cause of action. Once it does develop, he has to establish on the balance of probabilities that the particular defendant caused the disease. None of the claimants in Fairchild could establish that.
The Court of Appeal's judgment made reference to the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979, and the scheme that my Department administers under it. We are looking very closely—we are not simply monitoring what is happening, but are actively involved—at the implications of the Fairchild judgment on the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme and I hope to be able to let my hon. Friends know the outcome of that in due course, and at an early stage.
Mr. Clapham: It would be a travesty if the insurance industry were able to jettison its responsibility and liability and leave it with the taxpayer. If the Minister is exploring the potential use of the pneumoconiosis scheme, I suggest that discussions should be held with the insurance industry with a view to its contributing to the scheme, to enhance it so that it could make reasonable payments.
Dr. Whitehead: Discussions are being held with the insurance industry. I am sure that my hon. Friends will accept that simply introducing a Government scheme that allows all the people who have been mentioned this morning to walk away from their liabilities would not be a satisfactory way forward. It is right, as far as the pneumoconiosis scheme is concerned, that in the first instance action should be taken against former employers of people who contract one of those awful diseases. Only when it is not possible, for various reasons, to establish the liable employer does the pneumoconiosis scheme take over. That is right in principle, but we must balance it against the other point that, because of various activities, some of which hon. Members have mentioned this morning, it is possible that some people—for reasons entirely beyond their influence—will not get the compensation that they deserve, and it is important that the Government take that into account.
Mr. Kevan Jones: Does the Minister accept that some companies have gone into liquidation or otherwise
90WH
disappeared, but others—as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle)—are using tactics such as voluntarily going into liquidation to avoid liability? They are a very different proposition from the companies that have genuinely gone bust.
Dr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend is right. I was attempting to draw attention to the general principles of the scheme, which should hold. However, in the particular circumstances in which a company has gone into administration or an insurance company has gone into liquidation, we should rightly distinguish between the generality of the principle and the specific circumstances of those cases.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: While the Government consider whether the insurance companies or the employers should bear the liability, people are suffering and many will die. Can the Minister give us some assurance that the Government will consider the problem urgently and ensure that—unlike the pneumoconiosis scheme in the mining industry—a scheme is drawn up quickly and people get the money to which they are entitled?
Dr. Whitehead: The Government are urgently considering the issue, for precisely the reasons that I have mentioned. It would not be right for the Government to stand aside while the issues are debated protractedly, to the detriment of those people who have deserving claims. At the same time, it is important that the principle of the pneumoconiosis scheme is upheld. As hon. Members have agreed, it is not right that companies that are properly liable should simply be able to walk away because a scheme has been put in place that somehow absolves them of that liability.
Mr. Lloyd: The real concern is that many crooks are involved, some of them in high places in the insurance and other companies. Will my hon. Friend undertake to bring those people together and tell them that if they do not act quickly, the Government will make them act? That is the real issue.
Dr. Whitehead: I would love to be able to do that, but frankly the situation with several of the companies is that the process of legal examination of their positions has to be gone through. The issue is the extent to which—as a result of those legal processes being pursued—injustice is meted out, simply by the effluxion of time, to people who are entitled to receive quick compensation. The Government must ensure that the issues relating to the companies are properly expedited, but at the same time we must not lose sight of the fact that people are suffering while those legal discussions are taking place.
One of the companies involved is Chester Street and I note the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone on that issue. I will ensure that the concerns he raises are investigated and I will write to him. On the question of delays in payments, under the Policyholders' Protection Board scheme the board's processes to validate the claims and make payments are usually completed within one week, once the provisional liquidators' team has brought the claim to settlement point, obtained a signed deed of assignment from the policyholder, satisfied its own tests

91WH
to establish eligibility for protection and sent the appropriate documentation to the PPB. I share the concerns of my hon. Friend to ensure that all valid claims are paid as quickly as possible to those who are eligible for compensation. The PPB and the provisional liquidators are conscious of the need to speed up the totality of the settlement process and are continuing to work together towards that end.
Mr. Hancock: The Minister has addressed the problems in the private sector. Will he also give an undertaking to speed up the Government's response to claims lodged against them?
Dr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman has made that point and I am happy to write to him.
Tony Worthington: What about shipbuilders?
Dr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend mentions British Shipbuilders and I am happy to undertake to write to him. Indeed, several letters will be sent after the debate, but it is important that the issues are given proper consideration.
Under the insurance industry's scheme, it is taking a total of four to five weeks to settle and pay most claims, including a seven to 10 day turnaround at the Association of British Insurers—the ABI. The insurance industry has paid about £350,000 so far under the scheme. Occasionally, claims may be delayed beyond the time scales indicated. The provisional liquidator has a duty in the interests of the creditors of Chester Street to defend the assets of Chester Street against invalid claims. Some claims are delayed by gathering and evaluating evidence, disputes over liability, and litigation. Those delays would have happened irrespective of Chester Street's insolvency. After 30 November, the financial services compensation scheme has worked with the provisional liquidators to ensure claims which are eligible for payment by FSCS are paid as quickly as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) mentioned Turner and Newall. Unfortunately, it would take more time than we have to tease out the details of what has happened with Federal Mogul and Turner and Newall. I endorse many of my hon. Friend's comments about what has happened and the effect on those poor people who have been caught up in claims from across the Atlantic in which they have no part and with which they have no power to deal. My hon. Friend mentioned Turner and Newall last week and I know that the legal specialists are working hard to resolve the insurance position. On that occasion, the Minister replied to my hon. Friend that she had asked officials in her Department's insolvency service to keep her in touch with the progress of the case; she also invited him to discuss further with her in the Department the aspects to which he wanted to draw attention.

Metropolitan Police
11 am
Mr. Mark Field: A week is a long time in politics. Only seven days ago, in a debate on the London underground in this Chamber, I was bemoaning the fact that, although I had been putting in slips every week, my name was never called to initiate an Adjournment debate. However, as luck would have it, I have been called to speak on a most important issue. I suspect that shows one of two things: one should be persistent or one should moan often enough and someone in the Speaker's Office will look after one.
Metropolitan police funding is important. Letters on the subject have made up a significant element of my constituency postbag during recent weeks and months. I can confidently assume that the same applies to the other 73 London-based MPs.
I accept that the Metropolitan police work under strong constraints. Even the Home Secretary, in his keynote speech in Sheffield last weekend, recognised that policing in London is more problematic than elsewhere.
There is clear evidence of police overstretch in London. I am sure that other London Members will agree that a blind eye is being turned towards what the police might regard as minor crimes, but which none the less cause great anxiety among the stable long-term residential population—for example, aggressive begging and mobile phone theft, which have made the headlines during recent months. There is a also wide feeling in the business community that there is insufficient concentration on ensuring the core responsibility of the police to tackle crime.
Recent press reports, including one in The Sunday Times of 6 January from which I shall quote, suggest that
"people in London are now six times more likely to be assaulted or robbed than the residents of New York, which was once considered the most dangerous city in the world."
Apparently, in November alone, 2.5 in 1,000 inhabitants of London were victims of violent crime compared with 0.4 in 1,000 in New York. In essence, that means that one in 400 people in London was the victim of some form of criminal activity in one month alone. During the past three years, muggings have risen by about 28 per cent. Violent crime in London outstrips even such hot spots as Chicago, Los Angeles or Detroit.
I realise that the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs will want to comment on the comparisons with the other side of the Atlantic as well as those within the UK, but it is simplistic to compare the London experience directly with that of New York. However, it is interesting to note the divergence in crime and, most important, in public confidence in security over the past five years. Under Mayor Giuliani and his team, New York has adopted a high-profile zero tolerance policy that has concentrated on ensuring visible and aggressive policing in neighbourhoods that previously suffered high crime rates. That has resulted in the prosecution of even relatively minor offences.
I want to say a few words about retention and recruitment in London—two of the most important issues—and to give a London overview. Obviously,

93WH
there have been factors that made a difference both pre and post-11 September. Then, if the Minister will forgive me, I want to be a little parochial in relation to Westminster. I see that my Westminster neighbour and colleague, the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) is in the Chamber.
Londoners and the police agree that a high visible police presence is essential, not only to detect criminals but to ensure adequate prevention of crime and to counter the real perception of fear of crime. Successive Home Secretaries have heralded record levels of police recruitment. Such claims pre-date 1997—I do not want to make a narrow party political point about that. They mask a particular problem for the Metropolitan police—retention.
There has been much talk of the inclusion of a new warden rank in London in future years. That will offer an important short-term fix, but it is equally important that the warden rank is not included in all the official statistics, although we accept that front-line policing requires adequate civilian back-up. A raw head count should not be seen as the be-all and end-all of London resourcing.
In 1991, there were about 28,485 police officers in London. That number has been reduced to about 25,500—about 3,000 short of what is widely recognised as the minimum necessary for effective policing of the capital.
From my experience as a relatively new Member of Parliament during the past seven months, representing a most inner-city of inner-city seats, as well as my experience as the prospective candidate during the previous two years, I have realised from speaking to many people that there is a multitude of reasons why officers want to leave the Metropolitan police. The 30-year rule, whereby pension rights are made considerably more attractive, causes real problems that will come to a head during the next few years as a great bulge of the intake come up to that 30-year deadline.
All too often, police officers want to transfer and move to other parts of the UK in order to obtain a better quality of life and standard of living. In recent years, there has been low morale and resignation from the police service as a whole but also directly from the Met.
When I talk to junior police officers, they tell me that London is an exciting place to come to early on in their police careers. A young policeman working in central London and the west end is very much at the centre of things. There is no doubt that the Metropolitan police are able to take on many raw recruits, but that gives rise to many management problems. Many young officers in their early to mid-20s enjoy the experience of working in London, but when they have four or five years' experience under their belt and are just at the threshold of becoming useful officers they move elsewhere. All too often, apart from anything else, that is due to the cost of accommodation. Many police officers, even those working in the centre of London, live in far-flung places in Hertfordshire or Kent. It is thus unsurprising, especially in view of the transport crisis, that the prospect of daily commuting is daunting, notwithstanding the positive initiatives that the
94WH
Government have taken to help towards transport costs. Such quality of life factors mean that after a while many junior officers decide to move out.
Retention rather than mere recruitment is important. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments as to what we might do to address that issue in London.
Mr. Edward Davey: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that retention will be crucial in sorting out the staffing problems in the London police force over the next few years. Is he aware that the Metropolitan police service has been carrying out exit interviews with officers who have been leaving the force, either to take up other employment or to join other forces? Some of those interviews do not focus as much as one might expect on quality of life issues, but on what are euphemistically described as management issues. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the overall results of those exit interviews need to be made public so that we can understand some of the problems in the Metropolitan police service, especially as regards retention?
Mr. Field: I shall certainly take that on board and I hope that the Minister will have some thoughts on the matter. For obvious reasons, some management-related information would properly need to remain confidential.
One problem relates to one of my earlier points. There is a significant number of extremely young officers in London, many of whom are probationers and trainees. Achieving the correct balance between probationers and experienced officers often means that junior officers feel that they are not getting the on-the-job training that they might receive in other parts of the UK.
I feel strongly about key worker housing, especially in central London. We must try to ensure that key workers, whether in the public or the private sector, are given preference in central London. I appreciate that that is a much broader problem than can be answered in this debate but I wanted to raise it as an important factor. I suspect that there is no political divide on this matter. We all realise that in central London there is a massive polarisation between individuals who are wealthy enough to live in the area and those who qualify for social housing. Unfortunately, that means that the people who are the glue of our society—the people who become shopkeepers, police officers or nurses and who do everything in day-to-day society—do not have the opportunity to live in central London.
I should like some more imaginative thinking to be done on the matter. The Mayor of London, Mr. Livingstone, has put together a rather prescriptive policy that ensures that 50 per cent. of new build will be earmarked for social housing. However, the danger is that a too-prescriptive policy will put developers off building in central London, with the result that we miss out on opportunities. I want the Greater London Authority and local councils to have more leeway when it comes to the allocation of scarce resources.
Ms Karen Buck: The hon. Gentleman may not like my question, but does he agree that the £27 million owed to

95WH
Westminster as a result of the homes-for-votes scandals, if we are successful in recovering it, should be directed towards increasing the stock of affordable housing?
Mr. Field: I had a feeling that that might be the hon. Lady's line of questioning, but I should prefer to draw a slight veil over that matter. An amount of money is due to Westminster city council, which is taking action to recover the funds. Clearly, that money would make some difference.
I turn now to the important question of national pay bargaining. The London weighting is totally inadequate to take account of the cost of living in London. Far more significant premiums should be paid, and I know that London Members have been asked in the past few weeks to make representations to the GLA about London weighting. The debate should cover quality-of-life issues as well as the expense of housing and transport, although I accept that the Home Office has moved in the right direction in relation to transport costs in the past few years.
As a central London Member, I know that many of my constituents owe a great debt to the increased numbers of officers on anti-terrorist duty since 11 September. Clearly, though, having more police on the streets of Westminster and the City of London has been to the detriment of many suburban areas.
I appreciate that the debate is about the Metropolitan police, but my constituency also covers the City of London, and I wish to devote a brief aside to the City of London police, who are under intense pressure. Although the 3 per cent. capital city allocation in the Metropolitan police budget recognises that extra resources are needed to provide national and capital city functions, as well as to police the very shop window of what is a large part of central London, it is wholly inadequate. That was true even before the heightened tension of the international terrorist crisis.
The City of London police's anti-terrorism responsibilities are of a continuing nature, as is the international remit involved in the protection of the constant stream of VIPs who come to the City for both business and ceremonial purposes. However, I share the disappointment felt by many central London Members at the one-size-fits-all approach to the entirety of London policing adopted by the Metropolitan police authority when it comes to calculating its resource allocation formula. That approach fails to recognise the different strains felt by different parts of London.
I am also very concerned at the zero-sum game that effectively means that central London must suffer if the suburbs are to get more money. I hope that the Metropolitan police authority and the Home Office will ensure that London gets the larger slice of the financial cake that is its right.
There has also been insufficient recognition of the fact that London is the economic powerhouse of the country. The city also makes enormous earnings from international investment and tourism. Mayor Livingstone is proposing additional burdens for the Metropolitan police, who are expected to transfer scarce resources to the enforcement of the new bus lanes. The police will also have to enforce the congestion charging zones, assuming that the scheme comes into force as planned from next February. We must get the priorities
96WH
right, as the relatively modest 3 per cent. increase in the Metropolitan police funding has been accompanied by a whopping increase of 41 per cent. in the demands on the force's headquarters.
Above all, Londoners deserve better. Public services such as health, transport and policing are deteriorating while London tries to perform a role as a truly global centre. As I said, London is the economic powerhouse of the country, and central Government should ensure that we are rewarded for the important role that we play.
Slightly parochially, I wish to speak about a police section house in Soho called Trenchard house. Not everyone in the district, or beyond, will be familiar with it, but the Metropolitan police authority wants to sell it off, for short-term financial reasons. I do not expect the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs, who will respond to the debate, to comment now, but I hope that he will come back to me about the matter at another time.
I recognise that that is not, strictly speaking, a Home Office matter, as I wrote to the Minister in November and received a reply in those terms. However, given the housing shortage in central London, it is a source of great concern that Trenchard house could be disposed of. That would fly in the face of what the police are trying to achieve in other ways with regard to retaining staff.
Since 1995, the number of police officers in Westminster has fallen by some 28 per cent., or about 600. That compares to a drop of about 7 per cent. in the number of officers in London as a whole. The residential population in the city of Westminster, which covers a large chunk of my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, has risen by some 30 per cent. in the past seven years. There has also been a 12 per cent. rise in net employment over the past five years. Some 900,000 people come to work in my constituency every day of the working week.
The current police work force in Westminster is about 1,513 officers. The proposal is that, as of the end of March, the figure will rise to about 1,650, although that depends on the Mayor of London delivering the 1,000 or so additional officers that he has proposed. However, a strict application of the resource allocation formula that applies to the whole of London policing suggests that Westminster is entitled only to 1,418 officers. It has been agreed that there will not be a reduction in the number of officers in Westminster, but the 1,418 figure will be used as a baseline for future reference.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman with increasing hidden fury. He is making his case for Westminster, and I hope, if I catch your eye later, Mr. Stevenson, to make some points about Barnet at greater length. In Barnet, we have twice Westminster's residential population, but only a third as many police officers. The geographical area in Barnet is such that the whole of Westminster could fit into two of my council wards. The hon. Gentleman is somewhat over-pleading his case.
Mr. Field: In a sense, that is my role, and I suggest that the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) would probably have made a similar case before May 1997, when he was a city councillor in Westminster. However, my argument is that there should be a bigger cake, and I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman should get furious at what I am saying.

97WH
I do not believe that we should be playing a zero-sum game, so I do not suggest that funding should be taken away from the suburbs, which I fully appreciate face some major policing problems. We need considerably more police throughout London. Central Governments, both before and after 1997, have benefited from the party-political squabbling among hon. Members with London constituencies. I think that we should all work together in this matter.
The current formula gives considerably greater weight to the perception of need than to demand. That puts inner London at a strong disadvantage. For example, the capital city allocation is very much top sliced rather than needs driven. That allocation should reflect the special circumstances of policing in central London, taking account of state visits, ceremonial events, state security, and all the royal and diplomatic protection that has to be provided.
At present, the allocation offers only an additional 360 officers for Westminster as a whole. That does not cover the enormous task of managing the streets in the face of weekly demonstrations and the very real late-night disorder that officers encounter. Hundreds of often inebriated revellers remain on the streets of places such as Soho and Covent Garden because they are unable to get home.
Central London also plays an important role in implementing some very high-profile and labour-intensive schemes such as the rough sleepers initiative. I appreciate that extra Government funding has been made available for some of those tasks, but they are massively labour intensive. I have spoken to Superintendent Burman and Inspector Walsh at the Belgravia station, who have played an important role in developing that initiative.
I should also mention Operation Lilac, in which Westminster works alongside Camden. I spent half a day at Savile Row station with Superintendent Ingledew and saw how hard the officers there work. Such initiatives are high profile and trend setting, and are enormously labour intensive. The necessary funding has to be available. Exceptions must therefore be made for London as a whole, and for central London in particular.
I appreciate that several other hon. Members would like to speak, so I shall wind up my speech by making a few comments. All that I have said must be viewed in the light of the determination in central London to create a better quality of life, not just for the residential population—important thought that is—but for the 900,000 workers who come here every day and, indeed, the tourists who spend enormous sums each year to ensure that we have a thriving economy.
I have worked with Westminster city council, alongside my Labour counterpart, the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. We have individually undertaken large-scale consultation exercises with the public in the past year, and local policies have been developed in the light of many of those results.
An integral part of the civic renewal and regeneration of each of England's cities involves rapid and firm action against antisocial behaviour, which requires labour-
98WH
intensive policing. We need sufficient resources for effective policing, as well as concrete policies to compensate adequately for the much higher living costs in the capital and to ensure that we have good and stable levels of staffing in our police service.
I would plead that urgent action needs to be taken by the Home Office to ensure that Londoners get a fair deal. I draw the Government's attention to the demographic time-bomb, which is likely to result in the significant departure of many senior police officers in the next five to 10 years, and ask for an assurance today that well-thought-out steps will be taken to ward off what could be a very problematic development.
Finally, I welcome the high-profile initiatives mentioned in the national news last week. Sir John Stevens, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, is ensuring that 315 traffic police will be redeployed to front-line street duties, but that is a drop in the ocean in relation to London. I reiterate the fact that we are roughly 3,000 policemen short and crime—more importantly, the fear of crime—grows almost daily for many residents.
11.22 am
Ms Karen Buck: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on securing this debate. I share many of the concerns that he has expressed, which I shall deal with a little later, but I shall concentrate my remarks on three things. First, I want to comment on the level of policing in London, and I will support and underpin what he has said about that in many ways. Secondly, I shall talk about the impact of the resource allocation formula on Westminster. Thirdly, I shall talk about the fight against crime and antisocial behaviour, the responsibilities and duties of the local authorities and the way in which the Government have sought to support Westminster council and Kensington council in doing that work, and I have a couple of criticisms to make of the local authorities in that respect.
I should like to place on record my warm congratulations to the police teams in Westminster and the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea on the work that they have done over the years, especially since 11 September. One of Britain's major mosques—the Regent's Park mosque—and the Muslim cultural heritage centre are in my constituency. I have heard nothing but praise from the directors of both those organisations for the way that the police responded swiftly and thoughtfully to the events of 11 September. Since then, the police have worked closely with the local communities in monitoring the risk of racial incidents and in helping to defuse any of those tensions, and it is right to praise them for their work.
I should also like to praise the work of my local police teams in the general fight against crime and antisocial behaviour, which is a serious problem on my constituency's streets and estates. There is no doubt that crime and the fear of crime, and antisocial behaviour, which are distinct but related issues, represent the top or the second from top concern of almost all my constituency's residents.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster talked about the case for London, and I strongly support that case. It is on record that police

99WH
numbers have declined to a most unsatisfactory level during most of the past decade, although the figures are now rising again, and I shall refer to that fact in my closing remarks. We should be pleased that the tide is definitely turning, but the decline has been substantial and long term. It is undoubtedly the case that police on the beat may not always represent the most effective way to stop crime and catch criminals, but it is none the less true, as policing since 11 September has confirmed, that high-level, visible policing is greatly appreciated by communities and has a knock-on consequence for people's sense of care for their community and in reducing the fear of crime, so allowing more people to go out and about without fear.
I fear that, for many years, London's special needs have not been fully recognised in the funding of the police service, as the hon. Gentleman has said. London has extraordinary costs, especially in relation to housing. That has been mentioned, so I shall not go into detail, but I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments on the recruitment and retention difficulties in the London police service, and housing costs are a key part of that.
We have had rapid population growth in the past few years, as a consequence of which our communities are extraordinarily diverse, which is a challenge for every public service—health, education and policing. That diversity is exciting, but it undoubtedly presents a challenge and involves several cost pressures.
I ask the Minister to consider—I have told the Metropolitan police authority about this, and I believe it to my core—that we need to address more seriously the fact that London, and central London in particular, has the highest incidence of mental ill health in the country. It is a recorded fact that Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority has the highest incidence of mental ill health, especially psychotic illness, in the country. There is no question but that mental ill health is closely related to the pressures on police services. It is about time that all the agencies involved began to collect systematic and comparable data on mental health services and their implications for policing, so that we have an indicator that would be of considerable benefit to virtually every part of the London police service.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I, too, was a little disappointed by this year's settlement for the Metropolitan police service. Although I am sure that there is scope for further efficiency savings, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will use his powers with the Chancellor in the comprehensive spending review to urge for a better deal for the police service, especially the Metropolitan police service, in the forthcoming spending round. Further settlements along the lines of that which we have had will not be sustainable. That has been underpinned by Ian Blair, the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan police service. In giving evidence on the budget to the Metropolitan police authority, he said that, although he can manage with the budget proposed for this year, any further reduction or additional non-Treasury-funded expenses would be impossible to manage. It is clearly not the case that this year's settlement has been
100WH
generous, and we need to press the case for a more generous settlement for the Metropolitan police in future.
Mr. Edward Davey: I agree with the hon. Lady's point about the comprehensive spending review settlement for the Metropolitan police, but does she agree with the bid submitted by the Metropolitan police authority for the forthcoming budget for the 2002–03 financial year, in which they have asked for £97 million to assist in the extra work that they need to undertake next year to tackle the capital's extra security problems? We need an early decision on that request; we can wait no longer. The Home Office needs to assure the Metropolitan police authority and the Greater London Authority that £97 million will be forthcoming, so that, on 13 February, the GLA can set the budget with some certainty that it will have that Home Office grant.
Ms Buck: I am certainly happy to support the principle that there should be an early decision. I have not gone through the budget in detail, so I cannot say whether I would agree with every dot and comma, but I certainly agree that the earlier that decision is taken the better.
My second set of comments is on the resource allocation formula. I hit the roof when I saw the first draft—I think it was a leaked draft—of the resource allocation formula figures, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster has also outlined. I am afraid that the resource allocation formula process was not handled well. Lessons need to be learned from that, because much misinformation was put out. People were allowed to panic when they saw the first draft and before they were reassured that the process was a consultative one. That was deeply regrettable.
I welcome the fact that, as a result of the consultation process, the worst-case figures were to some extent ameliorated. The "pure" resource allocation formula for Westminster began with the figure of 1,410 and ended up with 1,541. In Kensington, it began with the figure of 498 and ended up with 544. We finished better off than we first thought and with no loss against the highest point figures for 2001.
I have spoken to borough commanders about the issue on a number of occasions, and the borough commander of the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea is not dissatisfied. He would happily support claims—I am sure that this is true of others—for additional policing resources, but he is certainly not saying that the final settlement in the resource allocation formula is unsatisfactory.
However, I am afraid that I will now come close to terminating a 20-year close personal friendship with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) by saying that central London has a powerful case, and we sought to make it when we clawed back on the worst figures in the resource allocation formula. However, that case has not been properly accommodated, given the high crime figures in central London and the high day-time and night-time populations in central Westminster. They are the result of the tourist trade, on which criminals seeks to prey, and the fact that people congregate in licensed establishments at night.

101WH
The crime figures in themselves justify a much higher level of policing in central London than in many other areas. It is completely counter-intuitive for the resource allocation formula not to have supported claims for additional policing, given the extent of crime in central London.
There is also the popular assumption that Westminster and Kensington are uniformly prosperous boroughs, and they do indeed include some of the most prosperous areas in the country. However, there are also high levels of deprivation in both, and they are almost exclusively in my constituency. As on so many other issues, we suffer from the tyranny of the average, whereby acute pockets of deprivation do not always receive the attention and the resources that they deserve because of the way in which the prosperity of Belgravia and Knightsbridge flattens out the borough-wide figures. In the arguments about the resource allocation formula, it was pointed out that deprivation is an indicator for police resources and that people from deprived areas come to central London and Westminster to take advantage of the presence of the large day-time population there.
As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster pointed out, Kensington and Westminster have taken a disproportionately large cut in police numbers over the last decade. To my intense dissatisfaction, that fact was initially denied when I made representations on the resource allocation formula and was told that there was no evidence that Westminster and Kensington had received a larger cut than anywhere else.
However, I received an answer to a parliamentary question at the end of October last year and it demonstrated that in 1993, which is when the decline set in, the City of Westminster had 1,901 police officers but only 1,642 in September 2001. Kensington had 655 police officers in 1993, but only 577 last year. The fall in numbers in those two areas was significantly higher than the fall in numbers in the Metropolitan police as a whole. The position has been worsened by the fact that police strength is significantly lower than the numbers for the work force that have been budgeted for, which means that in practice significantly fewer police are available for duty on the streets and estates than there should be.
Although I am not as unhappy as I was when the resource allocation formula first came out, I cannot claim to be satisfied with the level of police services in Westminster or Kensington. I would strongly support any arguments in favour of additional resources for the Metropolitan police authority as a whole and for central London to have its share of those resources.
Although police numbers are rising—that is extremely welcome—it is obvious that, no matter how many police we recruit, it is unlikely that police officers will be available on the streets when most crimes are committed. We know the figure for the chances of a police officer stumbling across a crime being committed. We must therefore ensure that policies and strategies are set in place to reduce the incidence of crime. The Government have done a great deal on that and helped the local authorities that have a critical front-line role in
102WH
helping to tackle crime. For example, Westminster received a grant of just under £2 million to help it to tackle—I am afraid I am straying into the hon. Gentleman's constituency—crime in the Charing Cross area. It has suffered seriously as a result of the drugs trade and associated crime.
More locally, Westminster and Kensington have both received Government funding from the neighbourhood renewal fund, which has been directed towards helping to improve security and tackling crime in the deprived areas of the boroughs. The councils also received a 7 per cent. increase in their general funding this year, which is the equal highest in the country. The local authorities have had the assistance that they need—I accept that there is always a case for more—to tackle the causes of crime. They have introduced practical security measures and have attempted to divert young people at risk of offending by providing alternative activities for them.
My criticism, however, results from the fact that Westminster council in particular has a deplorable record on that front. Its youth service was a disgrace and Ofsted strongly condemned it. In practical terms, in most areas of the constituency there is little or nothing for young people to do and there has not been for years. That is beginning to change but almost exclusively because of central Government support through single regeneration budget funding and the neighbourhood renewal fund.
Mr. Mark Field: I cannot resist the temptation to defend the honour of Westminster council. Clearly, it is well appreciated that its youth department has suffered difficulties as a result of the borough's geography. However, in fairness, as the hon. Lady knows, education results have improved in the past two or three years and it must be pointed out that social services—.
Mr. George Stevenson (in the Chair): Order. We do not want to get into a debate on education or social services. Will the hon. Gentleman make his point briefly in his intervention?
Mr. Field: I just wanted to say that the social services department has received a benchmark award in recent years. Although I do not suggest that everything is wonderful, there have been positive developments. The department is making its contribution to the quality of life issues that we are debating.
Ms Buck: I will not argue about that, but my central point was that the council's record on youth services has been absolutely deplorable. Young people excluded from school are on the streets, and there is a long way to go before the situation is turned round.
I know that other Members wish to speak, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. However, I must point out that on a cluster of estates—the Amberley estate, the Lydford estate, the Avenue Gardens estate, the Hall Place estate, the Church Street estate and around Scott Ellis gardens and the Lisson Green estate—we face serious problems with what is usually lower-level crime and antisocial behaviour. That is directly linked to the failure to sort out the services, support and intervention for young people at risk of committing crime.
Street lighting services, which can also help to prevent crime, are appalling in some areas of the borough. Last year, Westminster council had to admit that it had lost

103WH
control of the street lighting contract, plunging areas into darkness and creating a muggers paradise. I live in north Westminster in what is virtually tunnel, so I can substantiate that point from my experience. Local authorities can do a great deal through environmental and social measures to prevent crime at every level, but Westminster council does not do anything like enough on that. To coin a phrase, we have to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Local authorities are at the forefront of that and not doing a terribly good job.
In summary, I am delighted that police numbers in London as a whole are rising after many years of decline. There is a strong case, which I support, for more police overall. There is also a strong case for additional police resources in Westminster and Kensington because of our high levels of crime, the day-time population and the deprivation in parts on those boroughs. That has not been properly accommodated in the resource allocation formula, and I will continue to make that case. The local authority can do much more to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour.
I strongly support the Commissioner's proposals to introduce auxiliary support to help the police in their work. There is a great deal that the police can do to free up police officers for a front-line policing role by using people to act as their eyes and ears in the community. I once again congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster on securing this helpful debate.
11.41 am
Mr. John Randall: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on giving us another opportunity to discuss police resourcing and the wider issues of policing in London.
I often find myself whingeing on in Westminster Hall and the House about what we want in Hillingdon. As that makes me sound a bit more like Victor Meldrew than I should, let me start by saying that the previous formula for resourcing was incomprehensible and what we have now is a vast improvement—but I would think that because the London borough of Hillingdon is a winner. However, that is relative because it was a loser for so long, with a constant erosion of police officers. We need an extra 93 officers to reach a target strength of 463. That might, on the surface, seem a good target and it is welcome, but it should be seen against what we have lost over the years. People in Hillingdon are happy to have those extra officers, but it does not mean that the problem is solved.
My hon. Friend referred to the danger of party political squabbles, and it is fair to pay tribute to my two colleagues whose constituencies are also in the London borough of Hillingdon—my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). We have put aside party political matters to work together with the London borough of Hillingdon and the excellent police consultative committee. I hope that our unified front has helped us to obtain the increase.
In addition to the constant erosion of police numbers in Hillingdon, the civilian work force has been cut by 30 per cent. so we still have many gripes. Staffed front counters are virtually non-existent in police stations—
104WH
not that there are many in my borough. It is difficult to find a front counter in West Drayton that is open for more than a couple of hours a week, which is a source of great annoyance to my constituents. There has also been a huge increase in the precept that we have to pay.
I do not want to enter into an argument in which the suburbs and the centre of London square up against each other, although Labour and Conservative MPs are present in roughly equal numbers today. The point has been made that we should all argue strongly for increased funding for the Metropolitan police because London is a diverse and special case. It is not just the centre that has problems; the suburbs also have peculiar problems. My borough is diverse. It covers a large area and it is important to recognise its problems.
I want to draw the attention of hon. Members to an excellent pilot scheme that started last Friday evening, when I went out with the local police force. It is trying to be more visible and a large number of vehicles and officers were on the streets to stop antisocial behaviour. It was interesting to discover that many of the people who were involved in under-age drinking were known to the police as burglars and petty criminals. There is a strong tie between the two. People ask whether tackling under-age drinking is a priority—it should be because it is where crime can start: we picked up a young 13-year-old with a knife, and there were other incidents.
I know that most Members of Parliament go out with their local force and it is a real eye opener. I was struck by the sheer size of the division. When a call comes in, it could be for eight or nine miles away. The traffic in the borough, even in the evenings, is not conducive to getting there quickly, which is another source of great annoyance to the public.
The problem with the increase in police numbers in Hillingdon is that it is a target. I emphasise the need for recruitment and retention. We have problems similar to those in central London. The price of housing in suburbia is sky high. There is a great temptation for officers, once they have trained with the Met, to go to other forces where they have a better standard of living. They want to be in the Met, but the housing problem puts them off. I acknowledge that a Conservative Government sold off the housing stock. In retrospect, that was possibly an accountant's move and it has been a problem. Although there has been a climbdown on the Golden Jubilee medal, the five-year service cut-off is a source of great annoyance. At a time when we are trying to recruit and retain people, such small things add up and cause more frustration.
Hillingdon has started a scheme to use street wardens. Although it is welcome in some ways, the police told me that it creates serious problems. The police receive, as I saw at first hand, little respect from certain sections of the community and the street wardens will have even less. Indeed, the police were recently called out to rescue them from an unpleasant incident.
I should like to know how the recruitment of special constables is proceeding. Two specials were on the exercise that I attended and it was interesting to hear their views. One WPC said that she was happy in her usual job, but going out with the specials at the weekend was the highlight of her week. The sergeant who was with her was working hard to recruit her for the regulars

105WH
and I hope that that works out. That must be a good way to get people into the force so that they can see what it is really like.
I make one plea, which I have made before, on behalf of a Cinderella part of the Metropolitan police. The wildlife service investigates wildlife crime. Although that might seem insignificant, much of that crime involves unsavoury people and is often linked to organised crime. It does not sound as serious as the major incidents that we hear about, but the department must not be forgotten.
I hope that we do not divide ourselves into suburbia and central areas and that we fight hard together, whatever Government are in power, to ensure that we get more funding for the Metropolitan police and more police officers on the beat who are visible to our constituents.
11.49 am
Mr. Andrew Dismore: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on securing this important debate. I should declare an interest in that the Police Federation is a client of my law firm; however, the views I express may not coincide with its policy, as I have not discussed them with the federation.
I agree with the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall): we should not turn this into a suburbs versus inner-city debate. I hope that my remarks will be seen in the context of needing more police officers in London as a whole, as well as the resources to pay for that. To some extent, the changes to the resource allocation formula have been a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. I shall focus on that aspect.
I was pleased with the original draft of the resource allocation formula, because it would have resulted in a significant increase in the number of police officers in Barnet—the original allocation approached 600. I am therefore horrified that the net result has been, in effect, a transfer of the proposed increase in numbers from Barnet and other suburbs to inner-city areas, no doubt after special pleading from the two MPs for Westminster, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster and my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). The formula has not dealt fairly with inner and outer London. Under the "pure" RAF formula, Westminster would have had 1,410 officers, but under the "no losers" formula, which rigs the system, it ends up with 131 more officers than it is justified in having, and those officers to some extent come at the expense of outer London.
I emphasise the capital city formula, which includes an extra 360 officers for Westminster and 50 for Kensington and Chelsea but does not prevent demands being made on outer-London boroughs for additional police officers to support special operations. My chief superintendent told me this morning that only last night, at the drop of a hat, local police were asked to provide one sergeant and six constables from the late turn—one third of the officers available for patrolling in our borough—to support special operations. Given all the additional officers they have received, it is a bit rich for other forces to expect us to provide even more for special operations.
106WH
I am pleased that the number of officers available in Barnet is to increase by 50 from a low of 485 in April last year. With a target of 535, we now have 522.79 officers. My borough commander took some trouble to explain to me how it is possible to have 0.79 of an officer; I am still not sure I understand, but I am sure that there is a logical reason. None the less, with the police college in Hendon full to the seams with recruits, it is somewhat irksome that the patch in which it is situated is short of police officers. I also question the use of the commissioners' judgment formula, which strikes me as a bit of a fiddle. It seems that numbers are just thrown up in the air, and decisions are made on the final outcome, irrespective of analysis.
The net result is two-tier policing in London. I have experience of policing in Westminster and in my Hendon constituency. If I call the police from my Westminster flat, they will arrive in two or three minutes if the call is urgent; if I make the same call from my flat in Burnt Oak, I am lucky to get a turnout within half an hour. That is not an unusual result from a comparison between outer and inner-London. It is wholly unacceptable that such two-tier policing is developing.
Mr. Mark Field: Might that have something to do with the fact that the hon. Gentleman was more respected as a councillor in Westminster than he is as an Member of Parliament in Hendon?
Mr. Dismore: That may be so, but I dispute it. I never plead rank when I call any of the emergency services, and it would be wholly improper to do so. I doubt that the person who answers the 999 call knows me from Adam.
When the hon. Gentleman talks about the threat of terrorism, he ignores reality. I believe that Hendon has suffered more bomb attacks than any other constituency. Last year, there were two bomb attacks in Hendon. Recent years have witnessed the bomb attack that blew up the flyover at Brent Cross and one on Mill Hill barracks. To suggest that terrorism is confined to inner London is wrong. Resources to fight terrorism should be allocated more fairly across the city.
We must bear in mind the geography of outer London compared to that of inner London. The central activity zone of Westminster covers about half a square mile—an area that would fit into a polling district in my constituency. The whole of Westminster would fit into two of my wards, yet we have only a third of the number of police officers to police the same area with twice the night time population. Geography creates serious problems for officers trying to get from one end of the borough to the other. That, too, leads to two-tier policing.
It is important to examine the reforms that are to be made. Auxiliaries are an interesting and welcome idea which builds on the neighbourhood warden services which are growing throughout London. The hon. Member for Uxbridge commented on his local service, but I have nothing but praise for the system introduced by the London borough of Barnet. We have a growing neighbourhood warden service, which has been well received by the local community, at a price of 14p a week on the council tax. The service works well with the Metropolitan police and has already scored some remarkable successes, even though it has been going for only a few months.

107WH
We should consider the extent to which jobs done by uniformed officers could be carried out by civilians. Those civilian workers should be paid properly. I have been told by my local police station that there is a freeze on recruitment of civilians. That is a false economy. We should also examine the issue of long-term sickness and recuperative duties. This morning, my chief superintendent told me that 50 of her officers—10 per cent. of the total officer force potentially available to her—are currently either long-term sick or on recuperative duties.
I welcome the decision in the short term to transfer traffic officers to the boroughs for front-line policing, but I hope that in the long term it will be possible to replace those officers on traffic duties. Perhaps we might establish a traffic police force, building on the traffic warden service, using people who are traffic wardens but training them properly to carry out more traffic enforcement activities, which are an important task. I do not want people to have to consider whether it is better to be mugged than to be run down by a speeding motorist, which is the sort of decision that we might have to make.
A traffic police force might be a welcome long-term development. All of us have been told by police officers that when they catch someone for speeding they are often asked, "Why aren't you out catching burglars?" A traffic police officer could respond, "It's not my job to catch burglars. I catch speeding motorists."
We should also examine police service shift patterns. I know that a lot of work has been done in that respect lately. Negotiations are under way with the Police Federation and the Metropolitan police to ensure that police are on the street at the times they are needed, not at the times the shift pattern dictates they should be there.
We must recognise that the police cannot do everything. We impose unreasonable demands on our police service, whether through people making daft 999 calls, or expecting them to investigate trivial crimes to the nth degree. Barnet police service has taken wonderful strides to target policing and concentrate on crime hot spots, and it has reaped dividends from an intelligence-based approach. We expect too much from our police, and not only in the light of resources, although more resources are needed throughout London. We must be realistic and fair about what we expect them to do.
In closing, I pay tribute to Chief Superintendent Akers, my borough commander, who has worked hard to build links with the local community and ensure that local police priorities reflect the needs and demands of the community. I also pay tribute to her hard-working and overstretched officers, who provide an excellent service despite all the demands on them, which, in some cases, are somewhat unreasonable.
11.58 am
Mr. Edward Davey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on securing this helpful debate. I also congratulate Sir John Stevens and his team at New Scotland Yard: whenever I have had dealings with them, they have been both courteous and extremely helpful. Finally, I congratulate Commander Brathwaite, who
108WH
leads the Kingston division. I have met and spoken with police officers in my area and I am amazed by how overstretched they are. They have to make difficult decisions and fine judgments. My conversations and meetings with them fill me with admiration for their work. That is why debates such as this, and their tenor, are welcome.
The debate has focused on resources for the Metropolitan police. There are two sources: the Home Office and council tax payers in London. I want to have a pop at the Home Office, because I do not believe that its grant to the Metropolitan police authority is sufficient.
I suspect that all hon. Members would agree that there is a case for a larger Home Office grant. Under the Conservative Government in 1995, an adjustment was made to the formula between the different constabularies. I hope that the Minister can assure us that we will not see the like of that again. There is supposed to be one more round of transitional adjustment to implement that 1995 decision, which would work against London, but I hope that the Government will cancel it and reconsider the issue. London's share of the overall cake is not sufficient.
In speculating about how that problem has come about, I wondered whether it was because London has only one voice on the Association of Chief Police Officers, and whether the greater number of chief constables in other parts of the country has outgunned Sir John Stevens and his predecessor, good though they may be at arguing London's case on that body. Will the Minister ensure that in future we do not allow that weighting against London on ACPO?
The evidence from the front line is that London is under-policed, and I am sure that that is felt in all our constituencies. I sometimes wonder whether there is greater inefficiency in constabularies in other parts of the country.
I am delighted that we now have a Metropolitan police authority that can argue London's case. That is an important development, but the authority needs to work with London Members to ratchet up the call for a better deal for London.
In my intervention on the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), I mentioned the MPA's bid to the Home Office for another £97 million for 2002–03 to take account of the extra activities that are having to be undertaken to deal with the terrorist threat. The MPA is still waiting for an answer from the Home Office, even though it must set its budget as soon as the middle of February. It would be nonsense if the Government could not give the MPA an answer on that, and I hope that they will agree to that bid in full, so that London has the Home Office support that it needs to deal with that threat.
Other issues relating to the Metropolitan police could do with proper funding from the Home Office. Negotiations on pay are taking place, and we do not know how that will work through. There is a legacy of Home Office inefficiency with regard to the MPA. It is interesting talking to colleagues on the MPA and the Greater London Authority. When they began to scrutinise what has been going on in the Metropolitan police service, they discovered the inefficiencies and inadequate accounting practice that were allowed to continue when the Home Office was in charge.

109WH
The Home Office should be careful when it decides whether to give the MPA less money, because it should apologise for its lack of scrutiny of the Metropolitan police service and its failure to get greater efficiency. At least in the short term, while the MPA is doing its job of scrutinising the service, the people of London should not lose out due to long-term Home Office inefficiency in managing the Metropolitan police service's budget.
I am concerned about how the Government are sorting out the funds for front-line policing. There was a 6.1 per cent. increase in the police budget from the Home Office, but police authorities across the country are getting 2.8 per cent., so a lot of money is being held back centrally. We see that in public service after public service. That does not create stability or get money to the front line, and it results in little pots of money that police authorities and other public services have to bid for, which is a terribly inefficient way of delivering those services.
The Minister may tell me that I am factually wrong, which would go against what police officers have told me, or, like his colleagues in other Departments, he may now see the error of his ways. He should ensure that the money is out there and not put in a central pot for that inefficient bidding process.
Council tax receipts make up the other side of the resource equation. People in my area say that they pay more and get less. That is a real problem. I shall deal with the resource allocation formula in a second, but if people are asked to pay more by the Mayor and the Greater London Authority, they want to get more as a result.
The Mayor's budget proposals are being analysed by the GLA and the MPA. I have sneaked a look at the report. We will discover what the different parties on the MPA say about the proposals. I was concerned about what happened last year when the GLA had this debate. To try to get a lower council tax precept, Conservatives on the GLA voted against £48 million for the Metropolitan police service budget. I hope that they will not do that again this year. As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster rightly argued, the MPS needs extra resources.
Simon Hughes: Will my hon. Friend join me in adding further issues to the list of items that the Government should consider? For boroughs such as his and mine, there will be no increase in numbers next year. A system in which people pay considerably more of their local tax through council tax undermines their willingness to contribute towards better policing in London. That problem needs to be examined.
There is a list of matters for which the Government have principal responsibility in addition to those that my hon. Friend has mentioned. They include whether forces such as the Metropolitan police that train a huge number of people who then leave within 10 years should be able to recuperate a training levy for doing all the work. The latest figures show that about 40 per cent. leave to go to another force.
Before we debate the police reform legislation, we should consider the general formula for allocating resources around the country, and decide whether to
110WH
revisit the division between what is expected to come from the council tax and what from the Home Office allocation. As my hon. Friend said, there was a 6.1 per cent. increase for policing, but less than 3 per cent. of that was allocated.
Mr. David Amess (in the Chair): Order. This intervention is turning into a speech.
Mr. Davey: It was an exceptionally good intervention, and I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said.
Reform of the resource allocation formula has taken up a lot of my time and that of other hon. Members. Although the process could have been improved, the reforms have resulted in a more transparent formula that has enabled us at last to ask some intelligent questions about how the police cake in London is carved up. I hope that the new resource allocation formula will be revised fairly soon. I am told by people on the MPA that that may come in the next two years. From my constituents' point of view, it could not come soon enough. Significant mistakes have been made, which I have brought up with the people in charge on the project board.
PA Consulting, which was hired to do the research, based its weighting and its results on a regression analysis. It is all in the report. When I raised this matter at a seminar with the analysts who carried out the research, they said that I had a good point. My point was that the data that they used in a least squares regression analysis was for one year. They used one year's data to work out the relationship between crime in different boroughs and police officer allocation. One does not need to be Einstein or a great mathematician to work out that one year's data in one regression analysis is not a strong basis on which to build a case for a formula. We must seriously examine that analysis on which so much weight has been placed to see whether it is stable over time and sensitive to changes in the data. I doubt that it is, and am concerned that the whole resource allocation formula debate is based on inadequate analysis.
Another major concern about the resource allocation formula, as it relates to my constituency, is the new and welcome opening-the-shop component, which recognises the fixed costs involved in providing the police service. In small boroughs such as Kingston, Richmond, Sutton and one or two others, those fixed costs can take a significant slug of the resources for policing. The opening-the-shop component is supposed to recognise that, but unfortunately it is far too small. When that formula is revised in two years' time, that component will need to grow.
My second point about the resource allocation formula and the review process is that it considers only territorial police officers, so large parts of the Metropolitan police service budget are not taken into account. Who decides how many police officers go into the territorial force and how many come out of it? That fact did not emerge from the review. I hope that the MPA will look at that division, because the centrally provided services may well be getting too many officers, some of whom could go to the front line. As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, Sir John Stevens almost admitted that when he decided last

111WH
week to transfer officers from the traffic police to other duties. I think that the results would be better if that decision-making process were closely scrutinised.
The hon. Gentleman's point on retention is crucial. We have to solve the retention problem, and on that point the current debate on police reforms is important. The proposal to reduce overtime pay may well affect London officers more than those in any other area. Their pay could fall steeply, which could severely undermine efforts to improve retention. While the Government are in debate with the police negotiating board, the Police Federation and other bodies, they must bear it in mind that their proposed pay reforms could have different effects in different parts of the country. Given that London has a huge retention problem, can the Minister assure me that any reform of overtime pay will not hit London as badly as I fear that it might?
12.11 pm
Mr. James Paice: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster on securing this debate, which I understand is his second in two weeks; he obviously has a knack that has eluded me. He addressed many important issues and raised the spectre of dispute between London boroughs. Several hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have referred to the need to avoid that, and as I do not represent any part of London, I have no intention of entering into any dispute.
Angela Watkinson: On that point, does my hon. Friend recognise that certain outer London boroughs, such as Havering, have specific problems? Havering comprises three constituencies, including Romford, which has the highest concentration of nightclubs in the entire Metropolitan police area, excluding the west end. The police in Havering face great demands, and that leaches manpower from Upminster. Often on Friday and Saturday nights, there are no police at all on duty in Upminster. That situation should be reflected in the resource allocation to the London borough of Havering.
Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is right, and I am sorry that she did not have the opportunity to make her points more fully.
There are big question marks over the resource allocation formula. I do not feel competent to enter into the detail of how it needs changing, and I certainly do not intend to do so in the short time that is left. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) emphasised parts of the formula that need to be reconsidered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) mentioned the problems of the police requirement where there are many nightclubs, and I suspect that when the police reform Bill is introduced we shall debate whether there should be a mechanism for charging for a private sector activity that places huge demands on the police. We have introduced such a mechanism in football, and some senior officers demand that we consider charging for policing in areas with a high concentration of nightclubs or similar establishments.
112WH
I know that many hon. Members will want the Minister to respond fully to the debate, so I do not want to take up too much time. We must reflect on what the Home Secretary has said in the past few months. Listening to him, one would assume that the whole of Labour's first term in government had been wasted as far as policing and crime are concerned. There is ample evidence of that in London, where there have been huge increases in crime. Robbery has increased by 56 per cent. and violent crime by 23 per cent. since 1998–99, when the method of calculation changed.
In the most recent year, up to November 2001, just two months ago, the figures are even more stark. The total number of offences has risen by 9.2 per cent., and robbery has increased by 50 per cent. In only one London borough was there a reduction in robbery in that year; other boroughs recorded increases in robbery of more than 100 per cent. There is a serious issue to be dealt with, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, according to those up-to-date figures, a Londoner is five times more likely to be the victim of violent crime than somebody who lives in New York, despite the Prime Minister's assertions to the contrary last week.
Unsurprisingly, the trend in police numbers is the converse of that in the number of crimes. Police numbers are down, and before the Minister chides me for ignoring boundary changes, I point out that even when one allows for the notional reduction of 887 in the Met establishment because of boundary changes, there are nearly 1,000 fewer officers than there were in 1997. As my hon. Friend rightly reminded us, even the 1997 figure is lower than those from earlier in the 1990s.
In March 1997, there were 356 officers per 100,000 head of population in the Met, but by last September, that figure was down to 353.5. That was an improvement on the situation a few months earlier, which is welcome, but it is still lower than the figure with which we started under the present Government. At the end of November, only four boroughs had experienced an increase in the number of officers.
I am sure that the Minister will refer to the fact that the Mayor is now primarily responsible for funding. No doubt he will seek to blame the man who in many Labour circles is considered a rogue mayor. However, the Minister should not be too quick to blame the Mayor because to his credit—I am not one to give the Mayor credit often—he has set out to try to increase police numbers. He has asked the MPA to budget for an extra 1,000 officers a year. In the past four years, expenditure on the police in London has gone up by 20 per cent., but the council tax element of that expenditure has gone up by 141 per cent. There has been a clear shift to the council tax payer, even though there has been only a very small increase in funding. As someone said, we are paying more and getting considerably less.
I am sure that the Minister will want to respond to those figures. He needs to understand, however, that it is not inputs that matter to people. They do not listen to how many millions or billions of pounds are being put into a service—that does not mean much to the average person. What matters to them is outputs—what is being achieved by that money. We are considering police numbers, but we are primarily looking at crime and

113WH
people's experience and perception of it. It is clear that there has been no improvement; indeed, the situation is worsening.
Only yesterday, a senior police officer told me that the police periodically have to decide not to arrest people who are committing crimes on a large scale, during festivities for example, because if they did they would denude the streets of officers, who would all be back in the station doing the paperwork. Although the Home Secretary has made many noises about paperwork and set up another taskforce, he seems to have ignored the fact that a Cabinet Office report on that subject, called "Making a Difference", was published two years ago. We are told that the Cabinet Office will publish another report this year. It is time that we stopped commissioning reports and started reducing paperwork so that police officers can stay on the streets and do their job more effectively.
Bob Spink: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Mr. Paice: No, I am sorry, but I want the Minister to have his full allocation of time.
There is no doubt that reform of the police is necessary not only in the Met area but throughout the country. Opposition Members will support many of the proposals in the White Paper, but there are others against which we will argue most strongly. We welcome the increases in officers that are beginning to occur, even though most of those increases are a promise rather than a reality. The clear message from hon. Members of all parties in this debate is that the Government have a great deal more to do if the Metropolitan police are to be able to deliver the service that the people of London want and, perhaps more importantly, are increasingly being asked to pay for.
12.19 pm
The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on securing this useful debate. The odd element of partisanship has crept in, but it can generally be described as a pro-London and pro-police debate, which all contributors will welcome. Depending on the business managers, there will be an opportunity in the not too distant future for the annual debate on the police funding settlement as a whole, but we have had a useful chance to look at the situation in London.
I took comfort from the widespread recognition, implicit and explicit, that the Government have got to grips with the situation and are turning things round after many years of decline. Everyone has been honest enough to acknowledge that the decline in Metropolitan police numbers began a long time ago, back in the early 1990s under the previous Administration. During the period in which the Conservatives were in power, crime nationally doubled. So far, the present Administration have achieved significant falls in recorded crime as measured by the British crime survey which shows that the chance of being a victim in England and Wales is the lowest since the survey began. There have been falls in
114WH
crime in London in recent years. Recorded crime in London fell by 2.2 per cent. in the year to March 2001, and burglary alone came down by 3 per cent. in 2001 compared with 1998. Of course, we have a problem with street crime and robbery, which we have acknowledged in recent weeks and to which I shall return. Our response is under way, but more needs to be done.
Harry Cohen: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Denham: Will my hon. Friend allow me to continue for a moment?
We need more police officers. As I have said, we are increasing police force numbers in England and Wales, and London as well. Recruitment is going well, as I shall explain. We need to ensure that resources are used in the most effective way. I shall not get involved in the borough by borough debate that we have had, but everyone will accept that it is important to deploy police officers where they will be most effective in catching persistent offenders, and in tackling and reducing crime and the fear of crime. To do so, we need to make the best and most effective use of the increasing number of police officers; that is what police reform is all about. It is about cutting bureaucracy and red tape, enabling people to spend less time in the police station and making better use of civilian staff, both in patrol duties and in police stations.
Bob Spink: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Denham: I shall finish dealing with this issue, then give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) and the hon. Gentleman.
Police reform is about improving performance. Everybody accepts that if one compares basic command units within London with those in other parts of the country, performance varies from one place to another. The new standards unit is finding out what works most effectively in tackling crime and making sure that standards are raised everywhere. Police reform is about tackling long-term intractable problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) spoke about long-term sickness; it is for precisely that reason that we need a national occupational health strategy in the police force so that people do not suffer long-term sickness and can be helped back into policing duties. Police reform, in London and elsewhere, will help to underpin the changes that need to be made.
Harry Cohen: The Minister mentioned the problem of street crime and the need to tackle it, for example in our high streets. Will he comment on the impact of closed circuit television? The Government have had an important programme of boosting CCTV installation. Can we have a renewed programme for CCTV concentrated mainly in city centres, but in other areas of London as well? Will he press for tax incentives for small business and shops to install CCTV? Can it also be installed on the underground and bus and rail stations in London?
Mr. Denham: In looking to expand the CCTV programme, I am sure that my hon. Friend has in mind areas such as Leyton and Wanstead.

115WH
We have allocated £36 million to about 80 schemes in London in the past couple of years; some of those cameras are in place and others are being installed. They play an important role in tackling a wide variety of crimes, including street robbery, especially where their use is well co-ordinated with targeted police activities. The funding for next year's safer communities initiative is still being worked on, but there are opportunities under the communities against drugs funding to use CCTV in a wide range of crime prevention. I can therefore tell my hon. Friend that there are already opportunities in the system worth exploring, but we are obviously looking at future streams of funding.
Bob Spink: The Minister has been characteristically generous in giving way. He mentioned bureaucracy. No doubt he accepts that 20, 30 or 40 per cent. of police time could be released if bureaucracy could be cut, enabling the police to get on the streets and do what the public want to see them doing. Is he aware that the Government promised IT computer systems to help cut police bureaucracy? Those systems are now years overdue and chief constables are anxious to get hold of them to help cut bureaucracy. When will they be available?
Mr. Denham: Systems such as case and custody, which are being tested now, are an important part of custody and bureaucracy. We are anxious to roll them out to the police force, but want to do so when we are confident that they will deliver what we have promised they will deliver. However, I recognise the importance of the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Turning to funding, last year, overall expenditure on the police increased by 10.1 per cent and in the coming year it will increase by 6.1 per cent. That comprises money that goes to police authorities as police grants; in the unique case of London, it forms part of the overall funding to the Greater London Authority for all its services. Overall funding for GLA services increased by just over 4.1 per cent, although it is not necessarily expected that the police will receive that; that is for the GLA to decide. As part of the increased grant, there are allocated sums of money for expenditure on front-line services, most importantly the crime fighting fund, which funds the cost of additional recruits and police officers who are trained out on the streets. The fund is
116WH
earmarked, and clearly delivers front-line services; £43 million will be paid into it this year, and there will be an increase next year of £19 million.
Although yet to be announced in detail, additional capital funding will be made available to police authorities, including the Metropolitan police authority. A further element is the special payment in the Metropolitan police service grant allocation in recognition of national and capital city functions, which has increased from £151 million in 1998–99 to £191 million in 2001–02; the year after, it will be £197 million. The funding of the Metropolitan police is more complex than that of other police authorities because decisions have to be taken by the GLA and the Metropolitan police authority about the overall allocation of funding to different services. However, there is no doubt that there has been a much more significant increase in Government funding for the police service in London, both last year and next year, than was the case under the previous Administration.
Mr. Mark Field rose—
Mr. Denham: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I have already given way a couple of times.
The MPS is recruiting strongly and on track to take on the full allocation of crime fighting fund recruits this year. Indeed, it is sufficiently successful for me to agree that the Metropolitan police can bring forward to this year 50 recruits for whom it had been allocated funding next year. That is a measure of the Metropolitan police's success in recruitment.
Retention is an important issue and one reason why this Administration have significantly increased the allowances payable to officers in London and support for travel costs. While it has always been the case that some officers leave London to work elsewhere, it is equally true that others migrate to London, especially from neighbouring south-eastern areas. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said that we need to look at exactly why people leave. Where there are management issues rather than other issues, we need to make sure that they are effectively addressed.
We are delivering extra resources and extra police numbers. Police reform will ensure that those officers are used effectively and, as the commissioner has recently set out, well supported by the deployment of civilian staff.

Under-age Drinking
12.30 pm
Ms Gisela Stuart: Although the full title of the debate is "Measures to reduce the incidence of under-age drinking", that is not primarily what I intend to discuss. I shall explain why.
I could pretend that I had extraordinarily good foresight and wisdom, that I had anticipated the news at the weekend about Prince Harry and his rather unfortunate exploits, and that with great timeliness I had chosen the debate. As nice as that would be for the press, it is not true. I hope that that will be the first and last reference to the young man.
I asked for the debate following a meeting I had with the midland counties Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association just before Christmas. A number of concerns were expressed, but the two main ones were reform of licensing law and proof of age cards. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who will reply to the debate, may want to comment on the reform of licensing law, but the important matter is proof of age cards.
The west midlands brewers outlined their involvement in a group of interested organisations including the British Retail Consortium, the Trading Standards Institute, and CitizenCard, among many others. They asked for standard information criteria that would include a colour photograph, a hologram PASS logo—PASS stands for proof of age standards scheme—and the date of birth and/or the age of the holder. Their request seemed reasonable.
I wanted to explore in detail whether the Government planned to introduce a national proof of age card scheme, which the industry wants and which it thought the Government supported. At this point, the fun began. I wanted to table a question. The Table Office told me that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had assumed responsibility for the matter. I was somewhat surprised, but bowed to the superior wisdom and greater experience of Table Office staff. By and large, I have found that when I have had doubts about advice from the Table Office, they were right and I was wrong.
My question was referred to the Home Office and a reply duly arrived on 29 November 2001, in which the Minister responsible, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs, stated:
"The Government have no plans to develop a standard format for a proof of age card or to introduce a single national proof of age scheme. The Government welcome the recent initiative by the British Retail Consortium proposing to develop agreed standard design criteria and methods of accreditation for the various proof of age cards which currently exist so that retailers can be assured of the status of the cards presented to them."—[Official Report, 6 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 485W.]
That was entirely in line with an answer given by Lord Bassam on 16 November 2000, in which he stated:
"We have no plans to introduce a national proof of age card and so no plans to pilot one. But we are looking at the possibility of incorporating a proof of age function in the proposed Connexions card; and we support the use of industry-based credible proof of age cards such as the Portman Card and Citizen Card, which are already widely available across the country."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. WA 44.]
I wanted to initiate a debate about why the Government have no plans to introduce a proof of age card scheme, so I went to the Table Office and asked for
118WH
an Adjournment debate on proof of age cards. The reply was, "Sorry, that cannot be done. As the Government have no plans to introduce such a scheme, there is no Minister with responsibility for it. Therefore, a debate under that title is not possible." Hence, my diversionary tactics in the choice of title for the debate. Proportionately, proof of age cards probably have a larger effect than any other measure on under-age drinking.
Bob Spink: I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing such an important subject to the attention of the House. She will no doubt mention the Portman Group proof of age card, but is she aware that legislation on under-age drinking came into force in 1997? It deals not only with under-age drinking, but with the supply of alcohol on the street to people who are under age by people who are of age, who would have a proof of age card, get the alcohol and supply it to their friends on the street. The legislation allows the police to deal with that, thereby keeping youngsters out of trouble and stopping them becoming a nuisance to themselves and the community. It has been used successfully throughout the country. Will the hon. Lady urge police forces around the country to consider using existing laws?
Ms Stuart: I strongly support the hon. Gentleman's views, and I recognise that various agencies already have a willingness and a great number of means to address the problem, but the journey that I described to secure the debate highlights one of the problems that must be recognised: we will deal with problems such as under-age drinking only through a variety of agencies working together and using their existing powers in a co-ordinated fashion. Even in the House, it is sometimes difficult for us to co-ordinate Government activities to address the issue.
No single agency will be able to resolve the problem; they must all focus on it. On under-age drinking, drug abuse and other issues concerning young people, agencies ranging from schools to law enforcement agencies and the health service must all work together. For all of them, such issues are on the edge of their other responsibilities. If a police force is required to deal with a robbery and, at the same time, an 18-year-old providing drinks to younger people, there is always the danger that the under-age drinking problem will be seen as peripheral. I am trying to find a way of moving it closer to the centre, making it easier for everyone concerned to focus on it. Rather than asking for new measures, I am trying to achieve a more co-ordinated framework.
I finally managed to table a request for a debate on under-age drinking. At first, the debate was referred to the Department of Health. I assured my colleagues there that a Health Minister was not the right person to reply. It was then referred to the Home Office, which did not want to take it. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I cannot imagine a situation in which I would rather not see him-he is one of the more delightful people whom I can think of meeting on such an occasion. I hope that he understands my reasons for saying that. I hope that

119WH
he will reassure me that I am lobbying the right Minister for the introduction of a proof of age card. If he is not, I hope that he will help me to reach the right Minister to take up the matter.
As we have discovered, the debate is wide ranging. Proving one's age is difficult, and it is impossible to decide whether a young person is 15, 16, 17 or 18. However, there are many occasions when the precise differentiation between a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old is important—for example, for buying cheaper rail fares, hiring a video or buying alcohol.
Retailers of age-restricted products need a system whereby they can verify a person's age. Cinema seats, gambling, lottery tickets, glue and knives are part of a long list of such products. I take the opportunity to congratulate the Portman Group on its work in this regard. It introduced a card scheme called "Prove It", which was successful in allowing 18-year-olds to prove their age, but of course that did not address the problem of 16 and 17-year-olds.
To highlight the important work of the Portman Group, it may be useful to draw attention to its current campaign, "I'll be Des". I have seen the advertisement, which is extremely attractive. "Des" is short for designated driver, and the campaign is intended to encourage young people who go out in a group to designate one person to drive and therefore not to drink. It was a positive message, but it was not delivered in an authoritarian way. It was not the kind of thing that their middle-aged parents would tell them to do. It was jokey and funny, and I believe that it will be successful, like the campaign against drink-driving.
The Portman Group has been very helpful. Its work shows that, by and large, retailers and people in the drinks industry—not least the larger organisations—are willing to stay within the law. I simply want to make it easier for them to do so. As I said, the problem with the "Prove It" card is not merely that it addressed only the 18-plus group, but that it declined in popularity when photographic driving licences were introduced, as they were an easy means by which youngsters could prove their age.
Another Department then came into play. In June 2000, the then Department for Education and Employment announced in a press notice what it called a multifunctional smart card for teenage students, entitling them to a variety of discounts and containing curriculum vitae information about the holder. The card was scheduled for national launch in autumn 2001 and its roll-out in England should be completed by autumn 2002. Again, the card applies only to England, although the problem is nationwide. Furthermore, the Connexions card is not a dedicated proof of age card, but is intended to encourage young people to remain in some form of learning and personal development, although it carries the holder's name and date of birth and can therefore serve as a proof of age card. I hope that it will be included in the proof of age standards scheme. If Government forecasts are correct and the roll-out works in the anticipated way, it is likely that a total of 1.8 million cards will be in circulation by 2003. My main objection, however, is that the card serves a purpose other than that of proving age. Although I welcome the scheme, I must point out that if a card entitles youngsters to all sorts of benefits, they may be
120WH
reluctant to take it with them when they want to go out for a night's entertainment. We lose cards, but youngsters lose them even more.
I should put it on record that, in my experience, the vast majority of retailers want to stay within the law. We are very much aware of rogue retailers. I accept that they exist, but I do not subscribe to the idea that the vast majority wish to circumvent the law. For reasons that I accept and understand, the Government have not opted for compulsory identity cards. Personally, I have never had any problem with identity cards and would have no problem with carrying such a card, but I realise that the vast majority of people in the country do have problems with the idea. I accept that the Government have decided not to introduce a compulsory card. I do not propose that it should be compulsory for 16 to 18-year-olds to carry cards that prove their age.
Bob Spink: I think that the majority of people in this country would welcome identity cards.
Ms Stuart: In that case, this is yet another occasion on which I would dearly love to be proved wrong.
Why are we shying away from making it easier for everyone to stay within the law? I do not believe that young people would resist carrying cards that prove their age. Many youngsters look older than their age, but just as many look younger. Somebody who is 18 but appears to be 16 should not be denied the opportunity to buy a pint in the pub. I do not think that youngsters would resist carrying such a card.
Ideally, I would like the Government not only to support the PASS scheme, but to provide a national overall framework, as the huge variety of cards makes it difficult for retailers to deal with them. For example, a framework of colour-coded cards in which orange signifies an age of 16, green signifies 17 and red 18 would be easily recognised and verified. However, I am a realist, so I know that I may not get a firm commitment on that point. Failing that, the Connexions card is another way forward. If it could be used effectively as a proof of age card, that would be an important step. As I said, my reservation about the Connexions card is its confusion between a variety of purposes. If a card provides access to other services, kids will get confused. Why cannot we have a card that is very simple, can be used for purchases in relation to which age is important and is easy to use for retailers? The Government should provide the framework for a nationally recognised scheme that will allow young people and retailers alike to stay within the law. Surely, that is something that we should all be able to support.
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Dr. Kim Howells): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) for raising this very important issue. She has long been concerned with the welfare of children and these matters are vital for all hon. Members. I know that she has been raising them in her constituency for a long time and that they cause a great deal of anxiety in all our constituencies. I am sorry if she believes that she has got the wrong Minister in this debate.
As my hon. Friend said, proof of age cards are within the remit of the Home Office, but she is wrong to assume—I am not saying that this entirely describes her

121WH
position—that such cards are a panacea for solving this very complex problem, which I believe will be best addressed by a review of the whole licensing system, as well as—dare I say it?—the culture in this country, about which we at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are very concerned. However, if I may, I shall try to deal with proof of age cards, as our Department has something to say about them. After all, tenuous though this point may be, I am a member of the Government.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will recall that when we came to power in 1997 we promised to tackle the problem of alcopops. She was at the forefront of those expressing concerns about the problem, which was perceived to be very serious. I certainly worried about it a great deal. Alcopops were an issue of great concern to many parents and there was a worrying trend in their use, not least as the original alcopops began to be replicated across the whole range of alcoholic drinks. Working closely with the Portman Group, we called on producers and suppliers of alcohol to discharge their social responsibilities with regard to the problem of under-age drinking. A range of additional controls within the Portman Group's code of practice was introduced and had a significant impact on the merchandising and packaging of alcoholic drinks. I pay tribute to the manufacturers and retailers for their work. The number of complaints made to the Portman Group's independent panel about the marketing to children and packaging of alcohol has now dwindled to almost nothing, which is a significant step forward.
In 1999, we gave our wholehearted support to the private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell). I think that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) was referring to that Bill, which was introduced in 1999 and not 1997.
Bob Spink: I was referring to the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Bill—a private Member's Bill that I introduced in 1996–97 with all-party support.
Dr. Howells: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I assumed that he was referring to the later Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey following the tragic death of his 14-year-old constituent, David Knowles, and which became the Licensing (Young Persons) Act 2000.
The 2000 Act closed a loophole in the main licensing statutes that had allowed some staff in licensed premises to sell alcohol to children without fear of prosecution or conviction. The Act also introduced for the first time a new offence that prevented adults from hanging around off-licences and buying alcohol on behalf of under-age persons outside. In April 2000, we announced a raft of measures to tackle under-age purchase and consumption of alcohol in the White Paper "Time for Reform: Proposals for the Modernisation of our Licensing Laws". My hon. Friend has urged us to implement the reforms at the first opportunity, and we will do so. I know that many in the House would have liked us to move more swiftly on reform in general, but we cannot be criticised for any delay on the measures regarding children, whom we have always put in the forefront of our concerns.
122WH
The White Paper proposals tackle under-age drinking in several ways. They were given priority before general reform and included in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. Three crucial measures have been brought into force since the general election.
On 1 December last year, the test purchasing of alcohol was put on a statutory footing for the first time, bringing it into line with the arrangements for tobacco. Trading standards officers can now send minors into licensed premises to attempt to buy alcohol—a valuable deterrent that has heightened the risk of detection and prosecution for unscrupulous traders who make a profit out of causing physical harm to our children. They are a minority, but there is no doubt that they exist.
The 2001 Act also placed a new positive duty on licensees and their staff not to sell alcohol to children. The defences that can be mounted against prosecutions have been amended, and it has been made easier for enforcement agencies to secure convictions. Retailers now know that in the case of any doubt about age, they simply should not make the sale. I shall consider that in more detail shortly because it is not a matter of one-way traffic. I shall try to prove that although a proof of age card may help in some circumstances, it is not a panacea.
The Act has also made it easier for local authorities to designate areas in their towns and cities where alcohol may not be consumed publicly by under-age drinkers or those who can buy and consume alcohol legally. We have expanded the powers of the police to confiscate alcohol that is carried by children in those areas.
I recognise that licensing law can be only one element in a much wider strategy. Data from research sponsored by the Portman Group strongly suggest that children are obtaining a great deal of cheap alcohol from unlicensed individuals who peddle smuggled alcohol. That is serious; it is a cynical trade with little regard for the consequences for the young and, indeed, for parents. The Government have stepped up their campaign to defeat the bootleggers. The Treasury is providing more customs officers dedicated to detecting those involved.
Our wider strategy includes the vital work of the Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Health and the Portman Group in providing more health education resources for children and parents about sensible drinking. Most of the alcohol obtained and consumed by minors is provided by parents, and public education to change some of our entrenched attitudes is essential.
A great deal has been done and a great deal is happening in the public and private sectors in licensing, health and education, but there are no easy or quick fixes for under-age drinking. Most hon. Members know that; it is a difficult matter.
A Government proof of age card is often portrayed as a panacea. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will want to weigh all the evidence before agreeing to the introduction of such a card. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston to consider why no Government since the second world war have introduced such a card. The test is whether proof of age cards would significantly reduce the amount of under-age drinking. Neither the Government nor previous Governments have been convinced.
The problem is not only adequate proof of age. Professor Paul Willner of the University of Wales conducted test purchasing studies, using

123WH
13 and 16-year-olds, which were published by the Alcohol and Education Research Council in August 2000. Each of the children held a valid and well known proof of age card showing his or her correct date of birth. In 80 per cent. of cases—the figure was higher for girls—16-year-olds successfully made a purchase, despite showing the cards. Almost a third of the 13-year-olds were successful. As many as 60 per cent. of the 16-year-olds were not even challenged for proof of age. Worse, many retailers who demanded to see valid cards went on to make the sale despite seeing a card that confirmed that the child was under age.
Ms Stuart: Let me turn the Minister's test around. Instead of asking, "Why introduce a card?", we should ask, "Why not?" Such a card could cover a range of products; we do not need to isolate alcohol. For example, it could apply to purchasing lottery tickets. Every retailer would then know about such a straightforward and simple system. The industry would support it if the Government provided the framework. Why not introduce such a card?
Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend asks a good question and I shall try to give a good answer. All Governments must decide whether such actions will be cost-effective. Until now, they believed that the considerable money and resources necessary for such a large, bureaucratic arrangement could be better spent elsewhere. I am not convinced that introducing such a card is the best use of taxpayers' money. I am sure that that also applies to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but perhaps he will be convinced of the argument for a card. I dealt with such matters as a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry and as an Education Minister, and I remain unconvinced.
That does not mean that the range of cards available, such as Validate UK, Connexions, CitizenCard or the Portman card, are not good and valuable. They contribute in a small way and, in some cases, a large
124WH
way, to reducing the problem. However, a card is not a panacea or necessarily the best way of tackling the problem.
We may learn more about the potential impact of such cards from the introduction of the Connexions card, which my hon. Friend described. It has a proof-of-age function for those enrolled in higher education between the ages of 16 and 19, and has begun to be introduced nationally. She is right that the speed of roll-out, to use an awful expression, remains to be seen.
I acknowledge that we can do much more in the general reform of licensing. Our licensing laws are archaic and incomprehensible to many parents. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has taken over responsibility for licensing from the Home Office. Until I became a Minister in the Department, I did not know the law on children drinking in pubs or what happened when people took their children into a pub. I am sure that hon. Members will be amazed to discover that although minors cannot purchase alcohol in pubs and nightclubs, children as young as five can lawfully consume alcohol in pub gardens and some family rooms. Consumption is prohibited only in the area of licensed premises known as "the bar". Only the landlord knows what constitutes the bar. It is a dotted line on a map.
That means that children over four can drink alcohol freely in a licensed restaurant that has no bar. We should not be fooled by the counter from which drinks are supplied. That is often not a bar as understood in law. It is no wonder that most parents find all that utterly confusing. We intend to sort it all out in the general reform of licensing law. A Bill will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time permits.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important matter. I hope that a good, proper and robust study of the use and effectiveness of proof of age cards will continue to be conducted. If I am proved wrong, I shall go along with the results. Until then, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept at least some of the arguments that I have tried to present in response to hers.

Suez Veterans
12.59 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a serious failing of successive Governments to put right an injustice that has existed for 50 years. It concerns the recognition of almost a quarter of a million men who served their country in the Suez canal zone between 1951 and 1954.
A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have been concerned about this issue, and have written to Ministers about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid—Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) is present and hopes to speak in this debate. She has my permission and that of the Minister to do so briefly.
I am particularly grateful to Lieutenant-Colonel Ashley Tinson, retired, and to Charles Golder for the excellent briefing that they have provided, and for keeping me up to speed on this issue. I also want to pay tribute to the work of other hon. Members, particularly the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) and for Wentworth (John Healey), who have pursued this question in a variety of ways for some considerable time. The Minister will know of the strength of feeling behind this matter. A petition of 20,000 names was presented in 1998, and during the last five years there have been two Adjournment debates and many hundreds of letters from MPs on behalf of constituents.
The emergency in the Suez canal zone began on 8 October 1951 when the then Egyptian Government sought to abrogate its treaty agreement that British troops and airmen could be stationed in the canal zone. British armed forces and installations came under attack soon after that abrogation, and for three years our armed services faced a series of terrorist and paramilitary attacks.
The scale of the deployment to counter the terrorist threat and protect British citizens in the canal zone reveals the seriousness of the events. After the first attacks, the British garrison was increased to 80,000 troops, and possibly as many as 250,000 troops were stationed in the area during the period. In his book "The Regiments Depart", Gregory Blaxland said that the deployment was
"the swiftest build-up ever achieved by the British Army in peacetime, and included the air despatch of 6,000 men, 170 tons of stores, and 330 vehicles in a matter of ten days."
The scale of military operations was significant, and the deprivations suffered by the service personnel and their families were considerable. For example, in January 1952, the Lancashire Fusiliers supported by tanks and armoured cars stormed the police barracks. In that action alone, British casualties included four killed and 10 wounded. During the three years, 54 service personnel were killed in action and more than 300 died from all causes, many of whom would have survived had they served in the UK. This is the eighth highest incidence in the table of British casualties since the second world war.
Still there is no formal recognition. There is no Suez medal. The question appears to turn on whether the Army Council ever formally considered the request made by the Commander-in-Chief, middle east forces,
126WH
General Sir Brian Robertson, in January 1952 for the general service medal to be awarded to his troops serving in the canal zone. This matter was, therefore, being raised 50 years ago.
In 1999, further papers came to light. The Army historical branch considered the papers and came to what I consider to be the surprising conclusion that they contained nothing to justify an approach to the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals. I, too, have examined those papers. They deal almost exclusively with the question of operational gallantry awards, military medals and the like. The only mention of a general service medal is in the January 1952 reply from the Military Secretary, Lieutenant-General Sir Euan Miller, to General Robertson, in which he says that he will "sound out" the Adjutant-General. The later—February 1952—memo from the Military Secretary to the Army Council, which included the Adjutant-General, deals exclusively with operational gallantry awards, and contains no mention of a general service award.
On 20 February 1952, the Military Secretary wrote to General Robertson in response to a letter that he had written on 2 February about an award to Brigadier Exham, who had led the assault on the Egyptian police barracks of which I spoke earlier. Again, the exchange related exclusively to operational gallantry awards, and to the need for those matters to be put to the Army Council before going to the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals. The Military Secretary went on to say:
"I had no sooner done this than the King's death took place, which led to everyone concerned in the A.G.'s department becoming extremely involved in ceremonial."
I wonder whether that understandable distraction might have led to this matter being overlooked? In March 1952, the Military Secretary wrote to General Robertson to inform him that the Army Council had decided that
"the scale and the scope of the operation do not justify the granting of purely operational awards."
Again, there was no reference to a general service award.
Angela Watkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman share the concern of my constituent, Mr. R. T. Wilson, who represents the Havering Suez Veterans Association, who was advised by the Ministry of Defence to go and buy a general service medal from a medal dealer for £50?
Mr. Burstow: If that was the case, it was clearly a callous and thoughtless thing to say, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will have taken it up with the appropriate authorities.
Between 18 January and the 7 March 1952—the period during which these matters are supposed to have been considered—the available documentary evidence confirms that only operational gallantry awards were considered. There appears to be no documentary evidence in any of the relevant files held by the Public Record Office to show that the Army Council gave the request for a general service medal any formal consideration. It is this missing link that should give rise to fresh consideration of the original request, and to a submission to the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals.

127WH
Looking through past written answers and ministerial correspondence on the Suez emergency deposited in the Library of the House, I notice that a recurring theme is that the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals has a long-standing policy of non-retrospection. However, if no evidence can be found to show that the original request was properly considered—no evidence has been presented—that policy should be set aside to allow the case to be considered on its merits. Indeed, I understand that, last June, the Prime Minister said that the chairman of the committee was carefully considering the matter. Will the Minister tell us whether Sir Richard Wilson has reached any conclusions?
The emergency in the Suez canal zone is unique in that it is the only major post-1945 campaign not to have been recognised by the awarding of a medal. Given the events of the time, and set against the standards of the period, it is hard to fathom why no medal was granted. Looking back over 50 years of history, it is even harder to understand. So, what evidence is required? In March last year, the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), then the Minister with responsibility for the armed forces, in reply to an intervention from the hon. Member for Wentworth, said:
"Evidence relating to, for example, the Army Council could persuade me to alter my position."
He went on to say:
"Evidence relating to whether the case was considered properly in terms of procedure might constitute grounds for reconsideration."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 14 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 302WH.]
Given the meticulous way in which records are kept, the fact that the Department is unable to turn up conclusive evidence that the matter was ever properly considered should be sufficient grounds for the matter to be reopened. If the evidence that I have put to the Minister today is correct—that, apart from some informal soundings about a general service medal, the matter was never progressed—a great injustice has been done to many troops. I hope that, in those circumstances, the Minister would feel that he could use the powers of his office to ask the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals to give the matter further formal consideration.
Further careful reading of the evidence can lead only to a single clear conclusion. I am not asking the Minister to rewrite history; rather, I am asking him to right a wrong that has remained on the Department's books for far too long, and to find a way to recognise those veterans who served their country in Suez between 1951 and 1954 and who have not been recognised.
1.8 pm
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing the debate, and thank him for allowing me to speak. I pay special tribute to the Suez veterans who, individually and through their organisations, have kept up the fight for recognition of the part that they played in our history, and also to the many MPs who have raised these issues over a long period of time.
As a new Member, one of my first surgery appointments was with Mr. John Friberg, the Dorset representative of the Canal Zoners, who described the
128WH
situation to me. I must confess that I knew very little about the activities of our troops in Suez between 1951 and 1954. Most of my generation can just remember 1956, but we do not know much about those earlier years. Perhaps that highlights why it is so important to redress this injustice. My fear is that, rather than be remembered, "they will be forgotten", as one service man said on a recent television programme. He went on:
"All we've got is egg on our faces; we are swept under the carpet".
But why?
There is no doubt that conditions were dangerous and unpleasant and that troops were on declared active service. As my hon. Friend said, 54 men were killed in action and it is claimed that there were 613 casualties during the period. A recent letter says:
"I had a brother killed, Jan 19th 1952, age 18. We have a wreath sent every year, November 11th. It would be wonderful to receive a medal on this anniversary—50 years this coming November—to pass on to our next generation. We believe Arthur was guarding water tanks and a bomb was in a barrel of oranges—Arthur and another boy got blown to bits."
The veterans have many stories of armed attacks, sniping and even mutilations. Since 1945, life has been lost in at least 16 conflicts around the world involving this country, but service in only this one appears not be to recognised. The negative replies to requests for recognition over the years represent a vicious circle. Put simply, a case was not established at the time, so one cannot be considered now. Round and round we go. My hon. Friend ably argued that there is no evidence that the case for a general service medal was ever considered, which I hope is sufficient to break that circle and lead to a positive outcome.
I am heartened by last July's letter from the Deputy Prime Minister's office, to which my hon. Friend referred, which states that
"the possibility of some kind of recognition is currently under consideration by Sir Richard Wilson in his role as Chairman of the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals".
In the week preceding Remembrance Sunday, the BBC showed in the south a documentary entitled "Suez—the Forgotten Campaign". I have a video copy to present to the Minister if he did not see it. The programme contains the observation that, last year, the Suez veterans were invited to march to the cenotaph for the first time. There was no Suez medal to wear, of course.
Veterans point out that a medal is wanted not only to recognise those who survived, but primarily for the dignity of those who died. My constituent, Mr. Friberg, wrote to me:
"I shall continue to campaign until I draw my last breath against the injustice done by my country in not giving us just a small token of gratitude for services rendered."
I urge the Minister to facilitate a positive reconsideration of a unique case in the Queen's golden jubilee year.
1.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing the debate and I assure him that I listened carefully to his points and those made by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole

129WH
(Mrs. Brooke). I can make no specific comment on the intervention of the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) as I am completely ignorant of the matter, but if she writes to me I promise that we shall look into it.
This subject is one on which I have corresponded with many hon. Members and it was debated here early last year. Circumstances have not changed recently and I am afraid that I must repeat much of what has been said before. It is well known that very little contemporary correspondence about a campaign medal for service in the canal zone in the early 1950s survives. For the sake of brevity, I shall not go into the details of the various correspondence between senior military commanders at the time, but it is clear that there is no definitive record of events and it appears that consideration of an award was at least mooted.
Canal zone veterans and their supporters have been particularly active over the past 12 years or so. During that time, there have been a number of reviews by successive Adjutant-Generals, two Chiefs of the General Staff have interested themselves in the case and in 1998 my predecessor instigated a full review of all available documents, including those held by the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Public Record Office. Other documents found in the Ministry of Defence or offered by veterans or their supporters have also been carefully studied.
None of those reviews has given us any reason to think that the matter was insufficiently or improperly dealt with 50 years ago or provided us with the necessary material to make a case for submission to the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals. The committee has a long-standing policy that it will not consider instituting awards and medals for service given many years earlier. It will not look back at claims for medals if the operation concerned finished more than five years previously. That is because it feels that if no contemporary claim was made, it cannot second-guess why those in a position to ask for a medal to be awarded decided not to do so.
Claims rejected at the time, either by the Ministry of Defence and its predecessors or by the committee, were based on contemporary evidence. Those who rejected them had access to the full facts and would have had valid reasons for rejection. That policy has been in force since the end of the second world war, but no retrospective institution of medals has occurred since the 19th century.
Mr. Burstow: The Minister's argument does include points made in the debate last year, but is he telling the Chamber that the burden of proof rests with the veterans? Have they to come to him to show documents that the Department cannot find to prove that the matter was not considered? I have presented evidence today showing that only operational gallantry awards were considered. Why not accept that the evidence to support the Government's position is not there and allow the matter to be reconsidered?
Dr. Moonie: The unfortunate fact is that there is no evidence either way. What exists neither confirms nor
130WH
denies either position. There are two points at issue: the contemporary record and the policy of the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals. In the Department's opinion, both in themselves constitute sufficient grounds for not proceeding to review the case.
I return to the question of why no case was put to the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals in the 1950s. The evidence suggests that the Army Council simply did not think the operation to be of sufficient scale or scope, but that is not to denigrate in any way the sacrifice made by those involved. It is merely a reflection of how the campaign was viewed at the time, in the shadow of the second world war.
A number of more sinister reasons have been suggested over the years. One is Foreign Office "interference" in the procedure. I should make it clear that the Foreign Office would have had a legitimate interest had a case gone to the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals. After all, service deployments are part of a foreign policy, which covers diplomatic, economic and military aspects.
The Foreign Office was represented on the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals, as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is now, but no evidence has been found of any consultation on the subject between the War Office and the Foreign Office and there is no record of the Foreign Office expressing a view. Furthermore, there are two suggestions why the Foreign Office might have intervened, and they conflict with each other. One is that the Foreign Office did not want to upset the Egyptians by admitting that we were, in effect, at war. The other is that awarding a medal would have pleased the Egyptians by conferring the status of military operation on what was in fact terrorist activity.
However, the views of opposing nationals clearly did not prevent the award of medals for contemporary or near-contemporary security operations in places such as Palestine and Malaya and neither argument about the effect on the Egyptians would have carried any weight when the further opportunity to make a case arose in 1956.
As well as embarrassing the Foreign Office, for whatever reason, it has been claimed that a case for a medal would have embarrassed the War Office. If we try to look at the operation from the viewpoint of the Army of 50 years ago, it is difficult to see why the War Office might have felt embarrassed. Troops were deployed in the canal zone to ensure the safe passage of shipping and protect a limited British presence, which existed by treaty with the Egyptians. That they did conscientiously and successfully, without unnecessary use of force, and there is nothing discreditable about it.
Had the War Office been embarrassed, the Military Secretary would not have taken the steps, which we know that he did, to ensure that those stationed in the canal zone received a good share of the awards in the 1952 birthday honours list. A similar allegation is that the War Office was influenced by the strength of public and political opinion against the operations. Opinion was in fact divided and we have no reason to believe that the War Office was swayed either way. The Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Field Marshal Sir William Slim, is widely acknowledged to have been the finest

131WH
"soldier's general" since Wellington and it is very unlikely that he would have been deterred if he thought that a good case existed.
It is also claimed that the members of the Army Council in 1952 were unaware of the conditions in the canal zone. That is not so. The Secretary of State for War had visited the area and spoke about it at a meeting of the Army Council. It is inconceivable that the most senior officers in the Army were ignorant of the situation in what was the biggest British forces base in the eastern Mediterranean and middle east, or that they did not understand the implications. They had all been operational commanders at a high level. It was known then, as we know now, that the canal zone was unpleasant and, at times, dangerous, with an oppressive climate and sparse living conditions. In those days, however, British troops were stationed in many overseas garrisons where conditions were harsh.
Moving on from what are claimed to have been the factors that influenced decisions fifty years ago, I should like to look at some of the arguments that have been put forward recently in support of making a case for a medal now. The first is that troops were on declared active service. That is perfectly true, but it is not an argument for a medal. Declarations of active service are made when, for example, it is necessary to introduce greater disciplinary powers.
The declarations of active service made by the General Officer Commanding British Troops Egypt between 1950 and 1954 state:
"It is emphasised that this is a purely administrative decision in order that the status of British Troops in Egypt regarding Courts Martial shall remain unchanged".
There is no automatic connection between active service and campaign medals. The British garrison in Berlin was on active service from 1945 to 1990 because of its status as an occupying power, but received no medal. Conversely, members of the armed forces who serve in Northern Ireland are eligible for the general service medal but have never been placed on active service.
Much has been made recently of the number of British deaths in the canal zone during the period from 1951 to 1954. One of the veterans' organisations claims that the total is in excess of 600. A more modest figure of 54 was attributed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in remarks supposedly made by him in November 2000 when he announced proposals for a new memorial to service personnel who have been killed since the second world war. I understand that the first figure was provided by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and relates not to the number killed on duty, but to the number of graves in cemeteries in Egypt maintained by the commission.
The second figure was not included in the announcement but appeared in some newspaper commentaries on it; we are unaware of its origin. The official total of troops killed during the period of unrest
132WH
from October 1951 to May 1954, provided by the Adjutant General's statistics branch in 1955, was 40, with a further six missing and 75 wounded. We have no reason to doubt these figures.
It is often claimed that service in the canal zone was the only action after the second world war for which a clasp to the general service medal or a separate medal was not awarded, and that medals were awarded both at the time and subsequently for operations that were on a much smaller scale and had a lower casualty rate. The latter point is made particularly in relation to medals for present day deployments. The first point is, in fact, incorrect. From the mid-1940s to the mid-1950s, there were more than a dozen internal security deployments for which no medal was issued—for example in Libya, Burma, Singapore and Hong Kong.
On the matter of the scale of the canal zone operation in relation to others, I have already mentioned that the Army Council did not think that the situation in the canal zone warranted operational awards. We must remember that the second world war had ended only six years previously. Even more recently, during three years of internal security operations in Palestine, about 260 service men had been killed and 700 wounded. The Korean war was still in progress. I do not believe that comparison with present day deployments is relevant. Policy on medals changes over the years, and different views are taken at different times.
Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way for a second time. I invite him to look again at the chronology of the correspondence during the period in 1952 about which we are talking. He should reflect upon that and upon this debate, as the correspondence and the debate show that only operational gallantry awards were considered, and not the general service medal. If he finds that to be the case, as I have, will he refer the matter on again?
Dr. Moonie: I shall certainly look at the chronology again, although I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I have looked at it on several occasions and I do not take the same view of it as he does. With regard to the Cabinet Secretary's investigation of the general procedure, his inquiries are still on-going and have yet to reach a conclusion.
To sum up, the War Office did not submit a case for a medal at the time of the canal zone deployment or shortly after, and we have no good reason to believe that that was a result of improper or inadequate handling. There have been successive reviews over the last twelve years but no evidence has come to light that demonstrates that the War Office got it wrong. The circumstances have not changed and our position remains clear.
Documents do turn up, and have done during the intervening 50 years. Should anything further turn up that gives a different slant on proceedings, we will look at it. At present, there is no evidence that such contemporary background material actually exists.

National Missile Defence
1.26 pm
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Mr. Amess, it gives me great pleasure to be here for this debate under the fixity of your pensive gaze. I preface my remarks by making it clear that if I refer to "the Americans", I am speaking not about the American people—for whom I have a great deal of affection and regard and who remain warm and generous of spirit—but about the American Administration.
National missile defence, as it used to be known, is, I would argue, one of the biggest—if not the biggest—threats to global stability that we face in contemporary times. It unravels a whole series of treaties on the basis of unproven and undeveloped technology, an improbable threat and a huge financial cost, both materially and politically. I would also argue that it is against the interests of the United Kingdom, despite repeated Government denials that that is the case.
What is national missile defence? First, it no longer exists; it has been renamed missile defence. The reason for that is that the new title suggests that, in some way, it is a transportable system, appropriate to more than the defence of the continental United States. But as Southampton university's Mountbatten centre for international studies has argued:
"It is highly debatable whether or not missile defence can be transferred to a British or European context."
Quite simply, it is important that we put on the table what missile defence is, as it is a piece of jargon for the average elector and, I would argue, possibly for the average hon. Member. "Missile defence" is the notion that missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction can, if they are in small numbers, be knocked out of the sky by other missiles. It has been likened to a bullet hitting a bullet at a combined speed of 15,000 mph.
It is further argued that it is important that this notion be embraced because there is a small group of rogue nations that might very well attack the United States using intercontinental ballistic missiles. Missile defence supporters say that this arguable threat needs to be met with a layered defence, giving the United States options to take out the rogue missiles at different stages in a putative attack.
Finally, the present American Administration argue that missile defence is entirely consistent with the legitimate interests of other powers in the world, including Russia and China.
I would aver that none of this is true, as I hope to demonstrate. Moreover, I think that our Government have hitherto been economical with the truth on these matters and are, in my view, failing to act in the British national interest.
I shall take hon. Members through some of the fallacies underpinning the American Administration drive for missile defence. The first general area of doubt about the efficacy of these proposals is the technology itself that is required. Ever since the ill-fated strategic defence initiative under President Reagan, trillions of dollars have been spent in researching missile defence. One of its prototypes was the Patriot system, which was devised by the Raytheon Corporation and deployed in the Gulf war. I am sure hon. Members will recall that we
134WH
were told a great deal about its success in downing Iraqi Scud missiles. However, the House of Representatives noted that
"the claims of success were false."
The then Administration and their contractor, Raytheon, misled the public and Congress. Those are the words of a reputable Committee of the House of Representatives.
What has changed with the current research and promises of success? Not a lot. If people doubt that, they should read the Scientific American of August 1999, which contains an article entitled "Why National Missile Defence Won't Work", written by three authors. One of them is Theodore Postol, who developed the Trident 2 missile system. He is not a peacenik or naive about such matters, but he felt compelled to write to the White House and to contribute to the article to express his concerns about the distorted test results used to argue in favour of missile defence.
Even more convincing is a letter sent to the Republican and Democrat leaders in both the Senate and the House of Representatives on 12 November 2001, if for no other reason than that it was signed by 50 American Nobel laureates, each one an eminent scientist in his—there were no women—field. The letter stated:
"America faces security needs far more substantial than a technically improbable defence against a strategically improbable Third World ballistic missile attack."
That is aptly put. After all, the test flights that have been successful so far have been so only because a homing device was placed inside the target rocket and—as Theodore Postol demonstrated—a decoy was placed on the opposite side of the incoming extra-atmospheric kill vehicle, or EKV, which is one of those marvellous pieces of jargon associated with the Dr. Strangelove world of missile defence.
The tests in December were also delayed by inclement weather. Missile defence would appear to be a technological miracle that requires a homing device in the target, decoys on the right side of the rocket and fine weather before the intercepting missiles can be used.
I am humble enough to recognise that those technical problems might be overcome, but to what end? The standard response is to counter the rogue states, which appear to be defined as those which refuse to recognise US hegemony. Admittedly, many are nasty regimes—North Korea, Iran and Iraq, for example—but so are many American and British allies. The key might lie in what constitutes a threat.
The US Administration appear to rate as a threat those states which they know or suspect to be developing such missile technology. Traditionally, in this country and in Europe we have not restricted implied threat to capability but have linked it to intent to use the technology. Why should one of the three states that I have mentioned seek to threaten the US with an ICBM, in the knowledge that the retaliation by the US to an attack with weapons of mass destruction would be terrible and total? The events of 11 September demonstrate that there are far more devilish ways to wreak havoc than using an ICBM, without attracting the national annihilation that would surely follow such an attack.

135WH
The cost of missile defence is soaring exponentially. The Pentagon has claimed a cost for the life cycle of missile defence of $43 billion. Others place the true cost at anywhere between $60 billion and $120 billion. The cost of just one component—the space-based, infra-red, missile-heavy satellites, the eyes in the sky for the system—have increased already from $10 billion to £23 billion. That gives some idea of the way in which the cost of the technology is racing ahead of all the computations. The emergency funding remitted to the US Executive after 11 September was $40 billion, $20 billion of which has already been spent in Afghanistan, so I wonder how sustainable those huge costs will be.
The British Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Michael Boyce, commented on 28 July 2001:
"There is no way I'm in a position to suggest we can pay for any missile defence from within the existing budget".
As always, he was being remarkably frank. What would our Chancellor have to say about a British commitment to spiralling expenditure on missile defence? I raise that point because it is not only an American issue. If anyone doubts that, I refer them to the legislation sponsored by Representative Allan in the House of Representatives, entitled the Missile Defence Burdensharing Act 2001, which seeks hefty compensation from allies for any extension of missile defence to cover their countries to meet the purchase and research and development costs of missile defence.
It is remotely possible that we could overcome the challenges of technology and cost, but what of the politics and the alleged destabilising effects of missile defence? We must consider those issues in the context of the present US Administration's unilateralism and, in particular, its military application. The US Department of Defence issued a document entitled "Joint Vision 2020" on 30 May 2000, which stated:
"The label full spectrum dominance implies that U. S. forces are able to conduct prompt, sustained and synchronised operations with combinations of forces tailored to specific situations, and with access to and freedom to operate in all domains—space, sea, land, air and information."
That is a statement of intent for total and unbridled American power. Many people will go along with that and I can understand the Americans wishing to do so, but I question whether it is in the British national interest. For example, is it in our interest to see the militarisation of space?
We should set that declaration against America's actions in a wider context under the present Administration. For example, they have announced withdrawal from the anti-ballistic missile treaty; brought the biological weapons convention review conference to a halt; renounced international efforts to negotiate a verification protocol to the biological weapons convention; abandoned Kyoto; refused to reconsider the comprehensive test ban treaty; rejected the International Criminal Court; discarded the convention on the prohibition of land mines; gutted the United Nations conference on small arms; dismissed the UN convention on the rights of the child; boycotted the comprehensive test ban treaty review conference in New York; supported a continuing unilateral embargo on Cuba; and have now announced plans to place weapons in space.
136WH
Is it any wonder that China is set at least to quadruple its force of ICBMs and equip it with multiple warheads, as reported by the CIA? Is it any wonder that Russia is feeling peeved and let down after the American admission that instead of negotiated weapons removal, the weapons will merely be mothballed? That is the context—the background for the decision. America is embracing the concept of missile defence in the context of a rapidly fading credibility as regards its commitment to any international agreements.
I ask hon. Members not to take only my word on these matters.
"President Bush has dismissed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty as a relic of the Cold War. He's right. The treaty was signed in 1972 by President Nixon and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev—names from another time, another world. Unfortunately, Bush's idea of an anti-missile defence system is even older than the treaty that he is trying to kill"—
those are not my words but were part of an editorial in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on 13 December 2001.
On the same date, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch stated:
"Thus the President has created several bad outcomes: abandoning yet another international agreement at a time when the US is relying on world-wide coalition against terror; making Russia, which sees the ABM treaty as the last vestige of its superpower days of glory, very upset; making its NATO allies nervous, and setting the US on a course to spend anywhere from $60 billion to $200 billion in the next 10 years on a missile defense system."
Again, those are not my words but those of a very sensible middle America and they are coming through strongly.
The key question for us is where does the UK stand? My argument is simple. We disingenuously await a formal approach from the US to use Fylingdales and Menwith Hill as part of the system, although we know that they are already being used under previous agreements. However, to use that as an excuse for avoiding debates such as this one is disingenuous.
We are giving slavish support to the US Administration, much to the consternation of our European allies—with all that that means for us in the short, medium and longer-term future. Perhaps more critically for most people in this country in this rather improbable doomsday scenario of rogue states launching missiles against the United States, we become a front-line target in a way that beggars belief.
We knowingly defy the sound logic of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. For 50 years, that logic has been based on three tenets: deterrence, multilateral arms control and national security. Missile defence actually turns those three tenets on their head. The silence of the Government on this issue hitherto can be interpreted only as a wish to curry favour with that most ideologically driven of American Administrations—an Administration who are, unfortunately, locked in a rather paranoid view of America's place in the world.
I have the greatest regard for the Minister of State. He knows that my remarks are not personal; I am making a necessary and legitimate political argument. Will the Minister, on behalf of the Government, act as America does and put our national interest first? I do not object to America putting its interests first. I have no locus in American politics, but we all have one in the politics and national interest of this country.

137WH
Missile defence is an offensive, not a defensive, system. It will lull not only Americans but Europeans and many others into a false sense of security. There is a strong view among strategic thinkers that missile defence makes a first-strike policy more rather than less likely.
If we have a special relationship with the United States, we should be using it to tell the Americans what we really think. We should tell them how they are wrong. We should be critical friends of the Americans; we should point out that NMD is not in the American interest and that they are using the wrong strategy against the wrong enemy at the wrong time, especially post-11 September.
I ask my right hon. Friend not to forget about one Labour Government who were under great economic pressure from the United States, but managed to stay out of the fold when they felt that the involvement of the British people was inappropriate. I refer of course to Harold Wilson when he came under that pressure during the Vietnam war. Harold Wilson resisted that pressure in far more parlous times—politically and economically—than the British Administration face at present.
With all humility, and with the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend, I point out that, although Harold Wilson was no angel, only fools rush in where angels fear to tread; angels would very much fear to tread along this path.
1.45 pm
The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): I certainly do not speak as an angel but as a Minister. I do not know whether angels have ever been Ministers—after a long, hard search, historians might find one.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) on securing the debate, and I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to set out the Government's position on this issue. I take his point that his remarks were not aimed at me personally, because our friendship goes back a long way. We have shared the same political enemies, but I distance myself from his hypercritical comments about our closest ally—the United States. The tenor of my speech will touch on some of those points.
The potential threat from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which include ballistic missiles, and their means of delivery is widely recognised and accepted. Since the events of 11 September, the possibility that terrorists could use weapons of mass destruction against the UK or our allies has understandably been a cause of particular concern. Many people say that the world has changed since that day, and I share that general view.
However, that certainly does not mean that we should relax our vigilance against other dangers, including the danger that could be posed by ballistic missiles. The events of 11 September show us that there are people who will seek to threaten the US, its friends and allies with all available means—in future, that could include ballistic missiles.
138WH
I do not want to be alarmist. Our assessment remains that there is currently no significant threat to the UK from ballistic missiles. Indeed, the threat from ballistic missile attack has diminished considerably since the end of the cold war. Furthermore, I can assure hon. Members that we continue to monitor developments closely. We are conscious, however, that the UK often deploys its armed forces to areas of the world where ballistic missiles are available to our potential adversaries, and where such weapons have been used previously. In parts of the world where tensions remain high, it is a cause of concern that some states are trying to develop or acquire ballistic missile capabilities of increasing range.
We need to tackle that potential threat. It is important to do so with a comprehensive strategy that encompasses diplomacy, arms control, export controls, counter-proliferation, conflict prevention, intelligence co-operation, deterrence and defensive measures. We are already working hard in all those areas with our allies, partners and friends. We must look to do more where we can. Furthermore, we must consider new elements for inclusion in that comprehensive strategy.
Before I turn to the detail of missile defence, I make it clear that the US agrees with us on the need for such a comprehensive strategy. There is no difference between us on that point. Missile defence is not a substitute for other measures as a response to the proliferation threat. I remind my hon. Friend that last February the Prime Minister and President Bush agreed in a joint statement that:
"We need to obstruct and deter these threats with a strategy that encompasses offensive and defensive systems, continues nuclear arms reductions where possible, and strengthens weapons of mass destruction and missile proliferation controls and counter-proliferation measures."
It is of course right that diplomacy should form a central strand of our response to missile proliferation—as for any security issue. Work on conflict prevention and resolution can reduce tensions and increase stability, thereby removing the conditions in which proliferation thrives and the use of ballistic missiles becomes more likely.
It is for that reason that the UK remains strongly committed to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the biological and toxin weapons convention and the chemical weapons convention. We want all nations to sign up to those regimes but, more important, to implement them.
Specifically on missile proliferation, the UK has played a key role in working towards an international code of conduct on ballistic missiles. Once established, this will be the first step towards a set of international norms in the field of ballistic missiles.
However, the fact is that implementing non-proliferation and arms control agreements, and seeking to enforce them, is simply not enough. While those mechanisms continue to play a vital role in slowing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, they have not stopped such proliferation. That is the harsh reality that has to be faced up to, and it is why the UK and our allies also need to be able to deter and defend against these threats.
My. hon Friend raised the issue of the threat level and the relationship between capability and intent. Threat consists of capability and intent, and it is important to

139WH
take that into account. However, we must recognise also that the development of ballistic missile capabilities is a fact, and that intent can change rapidly. We must therefore take the potential threat very seriously indeed.
It is against that background that the US missile defence proposals have to be judged, based upon the world as it is, not as we would wish it to be.
Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Ingram: No, as I wish to consider a wide range of issues. I shall do my best to allow my hon. Friend to intervene a little later, but I want to deal with the issues raised in the debate.
The US has made clear its commitment to deploying limited missile defences against emerging threats. That is one element of its response to the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
For our part, we have consistently made it clear that we understand the role that missile defences can play. We welcome the US continuing commitment to consult with NATO allies, Russia, China and others on this important issue. That shows that the US is not proceeding in a unilateral manner. We will continue to engage actively and constructively in these discussions as close allies with common strategic interests.
The US has made clear its intention to conduct an intensive programme of research, development, testing and evaluation of a wide range of missile defence options. Some of those options are prohibited under the terms of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. That is why the US announced in December that it had given Russia six months' notice of its intention to withdraw from that treaty, as it was entitled to do under the terms of the treaty. The ABM treaty is essentially a bilateral issue for the US and Russia, and its future is a matter for them.
I shall develop that point a little further, as it is important to recognise that the strategic context is changing even as the process that I have just described continues. We have all seen in recent months the emerging strength and stability of the new relationship between the US and Russia, which I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton will warmly welcome.
President Bush and President Putin have stressed their desire to work together to establish a new strategic framework based on openness and mutual trust rather than on enmity. Both recognise the need to focus on tackling today's emerging threats, including international terrorism and the proliferation of ballistic missiles, and both have made it clear that this new relationship is strong enough to withstand disagreements on individual issues.
The Government welcome the fact that the US and Russia have committed themselves to significant reductions in their levels of operationally deployed nuclear weapons, and that they will this year continue discussions on future arrangements for transparency and verification of their nuclear arsenals. We see no reason why the process of nuclear arms reduction should not continue.
It has been suggested that US missile defence proposals could cause a new arms race. That is simply conjecture; it is not a proven case. I would argue that, in
140WH
debating this matter, we have to distinguish between cause and effect. I recognise the view taken by my hon. Friend and others, but I would ask him to consider the opposite point—that missile defence can be viewed as a response to an existing proliferation problem, not as a cause of that problem.
Improved defences against ballistic missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction may indeed help to tackle proliferation by reducing the perceived value of pursuing such programmes for any state that has not yet renounced weapons of mass destruction capabilities, or which is seeking to acquire them in contravention of its international legal obligations.
We should not underestimate the extent to which proliferators—rogue nations and others—have been trying for many years to get hold of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, nor how great have been the efforts to prevent those weapons' non-legitimate use. We will continue to face that challenge, regardless of how the US decides to proceed with missile defence. The current context of world events shows that the threat will remain.
I would also point out that we understand the US argument that missile defences might actually reinforce deterrence. Not only would any attempted ballistic missile attack by an irresponsible state on the US meet with a powerful response, but defences would make a potential aggressor unsure whether his attack could succeed at all.
There is a wider point here. We need to get away from the idea that the concept of mutually assured destruction is relevant to deterring all the threats of the future. It has been argued that mutually assured destruction, or the balance of terror, was a logic which, although deeply unpleasant, led to stability between the two superpowers in the bipolar cold war world. The thousands of warheads aimed at each country's territory threatened the destruction of each country.
The cold war is over, and Russia and the US are no longer enemies. It is hard to see how the logic that applied to their cold war relationship is relevant to the future deterrence of multiple limited threats to the US. It is indeed ironic that many of those who vigorously opposed the deterrence logic of the cold war now object to the US seeking to explore alternative ways of deterring and defending itself against ballistic missile attack in a changed and changing strategic environment.
My hon. Friend raised questions about the efficacy and cost of the US missile defence proposals. He quoted extensively from expert witnesses to the effect that the system would not work. I could ask my hon. Friend what he is worried about: if the expert opinion is that the system will not work—and those eminent people seem to know better than anyone else—why is he worried about the US proposals?
Mr. Kilfoyle: The answer is simple. I believe that the money could be put to better useߞin the military sphere, or in terms of aid or peacemaking. The amount of money involved is inordinate, given that the experts say the system will not work.
Mr. Ingram: I was coming to that point. The efficacy of certain US systems is, first and foremost, a matter for

141WH
the US. That does not mean that my hon. Friend cannot comment on it, but it is a matter for the US and its people. Too much tends to be read into the success or failure of any given test. I am sure that my hon. Friend and his expert witnesses would accept that these are long-term programmes. They will need to be judged on final results, rather than on the smoothness of progress along the way. Indeed, I think that my hon. Friend recognised in his contribution that the experts may have got the matter wrong.
It is also up to the US Administration to decide how they spend their money, and to determine their relative priorities. Of course, as I recognised earlier, there are other means of delivering weapons of mass destruction, but it is wrong to think there are either/or choices here. Responsible states should consider their options for defending against all such possible forms of attack.
My hon. Friend commented on the view of the Chief of the Defence Staff. In that context, I should like to set out briefly the UK's own position on missile defence. We believe that it would be premature to decide now about acquiring such a capability, either for deployed
142WH
forces—for which we already have considerable capabilities for passive force protection against weapons of mass destruction—or for the defence of the UK.
However, our options for the future remain open. We continue to assess the threat posed by ballistic missiles, and to assess ballistic missile defence technologies, which are evolving rapidly. As well as this national work, we fully support the ongoing NATO theatre missile defence feasibility studies, and we have a long-standing technical dialogue with the US on the subject.
Let me make it clear that it also remains the case that the US has not decided what sort of missile defence system it will ultimately seek to deploy. As I have said, it is currently considering a range of options. These include sea and air-based systems, as well as the land-based system that was at the heart of the thinking of the previous US Administration.
The simple fact is that the US has not yet asked us for facilities. Clearly, we will consider such a request if, and when, it is made.
As I said at the outset, the Government welcome this debate. It has allowed me to touch on some of the important issues that have to be addressed. I recognise that my hon. Friend has strong views on this subject—
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what body formally employs the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. [27002]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is an Officer of the House. Her employer is the House of Commons Commission.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what arrangements are in place for monitoring the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. [27003]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  Since the appointment of the first Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in 1995 it has been recognised that the formal appraisal arrangements for senior Officers of the House are not appropriate for the special circumstances of the post. Both Commissioners have discussed their work from time to time with the Speaker and the Clerk of the House. In addition, Standing Order No. 149 (1)(b) provides that the Committee on Standards and Privileges shall oversee the work of the Commissioner.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, when(a) the Commission and (b) the Chairman last held a formal meeting with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. [25691]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Commission has not held a formal meeting with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The Speaker last held a meeting with the Commissioner on 14 January 2002.

  Euro
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if the Commission will ensure that the House canteens, refreshment outlets and gift shops will

  Maintained secondary schools: Pupils with a Statement of Special Educational Needs (SEN), as at January 2001

  School name

  LEA name

  Parliamentary constituency

  Number of pupils with statements of SEN

  Brierton School

  Hartlepool

  Hartlepool

  24

  Dyke House Comprehensive School

  Hartlepool

  Hartlepool

  26

  High Tunstall Comprehensive School

  Hartlepool

  Hartlepool

  13

  Manor College of Technology

  Hartlepool

  Hartlepool

  15

  The English Martyrs School and Sixth Form College

  Hartlepool

  Hartlepool

  17

  300W
  accept euros from 1 January 2002, and that those Members who wish it will be entitled to be paid in euros from 1 January 2002. [24957]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: With regard to the acceptance of euros by the House of Commons Refreshment Department, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) on 9 January 2002, Official Report, column 876W. As for the question of paying Members' salaries in euros, this is a matter for the President of the Council.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Returners' Bonus
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers were paid the returners' bonus by 31 October. [24889]

  Mr. Timms
  None. Up to 31 December, 17 local education authorities and one non-maintained special school had submitted claims in respect of payments made to 36 teachers. The bulk of claims will not be made until later this year.

  Teacher Vacancies (Kirklees)
  Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there were in Kirklees metropolitan council area each month from January 1997 to December 2001 in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools. [26245]

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

  Vacancies for full-time teachers in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in Kirklees local authority, in January of each year from 1997, were as follows:

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  1997

  1

  1

  1998

  0

  6

  1999

  2

  1

  2000

  0

  3

  2001

  5

  5

  Special Educational Needs
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils there are with SEN statements at each of the secondary schools in(a) Teesside area and (b) the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency. [26736]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is shown in the following table.
  301W

  Maintained secondary schools: Pupils with a Statement of Special Educational Needs (SEN), as at January 2001

  School name

  LEA name

  Parliamentary constituency

  Number of pupils with statements of SEN

  Hall Garth School

  Middlesbrough

  Middlesbrough

  32

  King's Manor School

  Middlesbrough

  Middlesbrough

  17

  Langbaurgh School

  Middlesbrough

  Middlesbrough

  14

  Ormesby School

  Middlesbrough

  Middlesbrough

  69

  Coulby Newham School

  Middlesbrough

  Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland

  46

  Keldholme School

  Middlesbrough

  Middlesbrough

  21

  Acklam Grange School

  Middlesbrough

  Middlesbrough

  10

  Brackenhoe School

  Middlesbrough

  Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland

  19

  St. Anthony's RC School

  Middlesbrough

  Middlesbrough

  15

  The Newlands Catholic School FCJ

  Middlesbrough

  Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland

  3

  St. David's Roman Catholic School

  Middlesbrough

  Middlesbrough

  5

  Eston Park School

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Redcar

  42

  Laurence Jackson School

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland

  24

  Huntcliff School

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland

  10

  Bydales School

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Redcar

  23

  Gillbrook Technology College

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Redcar

  15

  Nunthorpe School

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Redcar

  13

  Rye Hills School

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Redcar

  13

  West Redcar Community School

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Redcar

  23

  Saint Peter's Roman Catholic Comprehensive School, South Bank

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Redcar

  8

  Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Comprehensive School

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Redcar

  4

  Thornaby Community School

  Stockton on Tees

  Stockton South

  55

  Egglescliffe School

  Stockton on Tees

  Stockton South

  8

  Conyers School

  Stockton on Tees

  Stockton South

  8

  Northfield School

  Stockton on Tees

  Stockton South

  6

  The Norton School

  Stockton on Tees

  Stockton South

  30

  Bishopsgarth School

  Stockton on Tees

  Stockton South

  55

  Blakeston Community School

  Stockton on Tees

  Stockton South

  50

  Grangefield School

  Stockton on Tees

  Stockton South

  16

  Billingham Campus School

  Stockton on Tees

  Stockton South

  30

  St. Michael's Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided Comprehensive School

  Stockton on Tees

  Stockton South

  5

  Our Lady and St. Bede RC School

  Stockton on Tees

  Stockton South

  15

  St. Patrick's RC Comprehensive School

  Stockton on Tees

  Stockton South

  2

  Ian Ramsey Church of England Aided Comprehensive School

  Stockton on Tees

  Stockton South

  14

  Source:

  DfES 2001 Secondary school performance tables.

  Teacher Vacancies (Hillingdon)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there were in the London borough of Hillingdon local education authority at(a) January 2001, (b) September 2001 and (c) January 2002 in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools. [26943]

  Mr. Timms
  The numbers of full-time vacancies for teachers in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in Hillingdon in January 2001 were as follows:

  Number of vacancies

  Nursery and primary

  16

  Secondary

  30

  The sample survey conducted by my Department in September 2001 did not collect vacancy data by local education authority. The results of the January 2002 survey of teacher numbers and vacancies will be published in April, in the normal way.

  Overseas Teachers (Hillingdon)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many overseas teachers were working in the London borough of Hillingdon local education authority at December 2001 in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools, broken down by country of origin. [26944]

  Mr. Timms
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Teacher Vacancies (Chesham and Amersham)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there are in local education authority schools in Chesham and Amersham. [27123]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department only collects teacher vacancies at local education authority level. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on 19 November 2001,Official Report, columns 59–60W.

  Revenue Funding
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total amount of revenue funding per pupil available for children in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in (i) Staffordshire, (ii) Hertfordshire and (iii) England has been in each of the last five years. [27259]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  £ per pupil

  Primary

  Secondary

  Cash

  SSA

  Grants

  Total

  SSA

  Grants

  total

  Staffordshire

  1997–98

  1,930

  30

  1,970

  2,530

  30

  2,560

  1988–99

  2,040

  40

  2,070

  2,650

  30

  2,680

  1999–2000

  2,150

  90

  2,250

  2,760

  60

  2,820

  2000–01

  2,240

  250

  2,490

  2,880

  200

  3,080

  2001–02

  2,330

  410

  2,740

  3,000

  310

  3,310

  Change1

  390

  380

  770

  470

  280

  750

  303W

  £ per pupil

  Primary

  Secondary

  Cash

  SSA

  Grants

  Total

  SSA

  Grants

  total

  Real

  1997–98

  2,070

  30

  2,110

  2,710

  30

  2,740

  1998–99

  2,120

  40

  2,160

  2,760

  30

  2,800

  1999–2000

  2,190

  100

  2,290

  2,810

  60

  2,870

  2000–01

  2,240

  250

  2,490

  2,880

  200

  3,080

  2000–02

  2,270

  400

  2,670

  2,930

  300

  3,230

  Change1

  200

  370

  570

  210

  270

  480

  Herfordshire

  1997–98

  2,130

  30

  2,170

  2,790

  30

  2,810

  1998–99

  2,260

  40

  2,300

  2,930

  30

  2,960

  1999–2000

  2,370

  100

  2,470

  3,020

  70

  3,090

  2000–01

  2,240

  250

  2,720

  3,170

  190

  3,640

  2001–02

  2,610

  430

  3,030

  3,330

  310

  3,640

  Change1

  470

  390

  860

  540

  280

  830

  Real

  1997–98

  2,290

  30

  2,320

  2,990

  30

  3,010

  1998–99

  2,350

  40

  2,390

  3,050

  40

  3,090

  1999–2000

  2,410

  100

  2,510

  3,080

  70

  3,140

  2000–01

  2,470

  250

  2,720

  3,170

  190

  3,360

  2000–02

  2,540

  420

  2,960

  3,250

  300

  3,550

  Change1

  250

  380

  640

  260

  270

  540

  England

  1997–98

  2,130

  30

  2,160

  2,780

  30

  2,810

  1998–99

  2,250

  40

  2,290

  2,920

  40

  2,960

  1999–2000

  2,370

  110

  2,490

  3,030

  80

  3,110

  2000–01

  2,470

  290

  2,760

  3,180

  230

  3,410

  2000–02

  2,590

  500

  3,090

  3,310

  380

  2,690

  Change1

  460

  370

  930

  530

  350

  880

  Real

  1997–98

  2,280

  30

  2,320

  2,980

  30

  3,010

  1998–99

  2,340

  50

  2,390

  3,040

  40

  3,080

  1999–2000

  2,410

  120

  2,530

  3,080

  80

  3,170

  2000–01

  2,470

  290

  2,760

  3,180

  230

  3,600

  2001–02

  2,520

  490

  3,010

  3,230

  370

  3,600

  Change1

  240

  450

  700

  250

  340

  590

  1 Change since 1997–98

  Notes:

  1. The figures reflect Education SSA (primary and secondary blocks respectively) plus all school related revenue grants in DfES's DEL relevant to pupils aged 5-10 (primary) and 11-15 (secondary).

  2. The primary and secondary grant figures include notional allocations for those grants in support of more than one sector.

  3. Pupil numbers underlying the £ per pupil figures are those underlying the SSA calculations (primary and secondary sub-blocks respectively).

  4. Real terms figures are calculated using GDP deflators published by the Treasury 20 December 2001.

  5. 2001–02 figures are provisional as decisions on some funding allocations have yet to be finalised. The figures are thus liable to be revised later on in the year.

  6. Figures rounded to the £10. Difference figures may not sum due to funding.

  Teacher Training
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to ensure a percentage of teacher training places are available to schools and graduates in North Staffordshire. [27380]

  Mr. Timms
  In allocating college-based and employment-based initial teacher training places, the Teacher Training Agency gives priority to high-quality provision. In allocating college-based places the agency also has regard wherever possible to the need for a balanced geographical distribution.

  Graduate Trainee Programme
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria are set for(a) schools and (b) graduate applicants in respect of a successful application to the Graduate Trainee Programme. [27381]

  Mr. Timms
  All entrants to the Graduate Teacher Programme (GTP) must meet the general requirements both for admission to postgraduate courses of initial teacher training laid down in my Department's Circular 4/98 and for admission to employment-based teacher training prescribed by the Education (Teachers' Qualifications and Health Standards) (England) Regulations 1999, as amended. Decisions on which applications to approve are taken by the Teacher Training Agency, which administers the programme on my Department's behalf. The criteria which the agency applies to reach those decisions are published in the booklet "How to Apply for the Graduate and Registered Teacher Programmes in England", a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Ofsted
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Ofsted inspections have been carried out in schools in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997. [27768]

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

  Early Years Excellence
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 9 January 2002,Official Report, column 934W, on Early Years Excellence, (1) when she expects to announce the results of the assessment of the interests of Somerford Infant School; [27726]

  (2) by what means her Department plans to follow up interest in Somerford Infant School; [27727]

  (3) whether the further guidance issued on 5 October 1991 was sent direct to Somerford Infant School; and if she will make a statement. [27728]

  Margaret Hodge
  The additional guidance issued on 5 October 2001 was not sent to Somerford Infant School, but to Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships, local authorities and others who received the February 2001 guidance, in response to which the school submitted its expression of interest in joining the programme.

  Officials provided feedback to Somerford on their proposals in June 2001, and will shortly further follow up Somerford's interest in the programme by contacting the headteacher of the school in the first instance.

  Following expressions of interest, the Department announces only the names of newly designated Early Excellence Centres. Such announcements are made periodically.

  School Meals
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how the funding for the national food in schools programme has been allocated; and if she will make a statement. [20501]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  The majority of funding for the food in schools programme has not yet been allocated. We are working with the Department for Education and Skills to develop proposals that cover the breadth of opportunities for food in schools. The programme will aim to bring together all food related initiatives in schools and after-school clubs to improve both health and learning, and ensure consistent information is given about health and nutrition. Following an advisory forum meeting in the summer, proposals are being put together into a series of pilot schemes that can be tested throughout the country. This includes assessing existing initiatives as well as new ones to ensure that the programme builds on and supports existing work in schools by a number of organisations.

TREASURY

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the level of contingency reserves in(a) departmental expenditure limits and (b) annually managed expenditure in (i) 2002–03, (ii) 2003–04 and (iii) 2004–05. [26994]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government's latest view of the planned DEL Reserve and the forecast AME Margin are given in tables B16 and B13 respectively of the pre-Budget report (Cm 5318), up to the final year for which public spending plans have been published (2003–04).

  Local Authorities' Capital Receipts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what statistical assessment he has made of the effect of the release of local authorities' capital receipts on the public sector borrowing requirement. [27449]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The release of local authorities' capital receipts is taken into account in the published forecasts of public borrowing.

  All-party Parliamentary Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many all-party Parliamentary groups have received funding in each of the last four years; and how much was received in each year by each group. [27478]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Four all-party parliamentary groups have received funding from the Treasury in the last four years. They are the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), the British American Parliamentary Group (BAPG) and the British-Irish Parliamentary Group (BIPG).

  The amount of grant in aid paid to each of the groups in each of the last four years is set out in the table.
  306W

  £

  IPU

  CPA

  BIIP

  BAPG

  1998–99

  785,000

  888,750

  149,000

  82,124

  1999–2000

  785,000

  868,300

  201,700

  73,350

  2000–01

  853,000

  2,498,683

  218,000

  84,600

  2001–02

  0

  93,750

  95,000

  85,420

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the criteria which his Department applies in awarding grants to all-party parliamentary groups. [27479]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  There are no fixed criteria. Grants in aid for all-party parliamentary groups are financed from the Treasury's Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit, on the basis of an assessment of competing pressures.

  Public Services Productivity
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 769W, on public services productivity, how many seminars have been held on the paper; on which dates these seminars have occurred; who attended the seminars; and if he will make a statement. [27615]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  No seminars have been held on the paper.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the increase in public expenditure in real terms in each of the last three years. [27467]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The increases in total public spending (Total Managed Expenditure—TME) and Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL) after inflation for each of the last three years on the previous year are given in the table. These figures are consistent with figures published in the pre-Budget report 2001.

  Financial year

  Percentage real increase in DEL on previous year

  Percentage real increase in TME on previous year

  2000–01

  3.4

  3.7

  1999–2000

  3.2

  0.8

  1998–99

  2.8

  0.2

  Tax Evasion
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was lost to the Inland Revenue in each of the last 10 years as a result of tax evasion. [27926]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No such figures are available.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each local authority in East Lancashire the most recent take-up rates for working families tax credit and the last available take-up rates for family credit. [28180]
  307W
  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to produce reliable estimates of take-up rates for each local authority.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many households in South Tyneside have benefited from the working families tax credit. [28064]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of recipients of working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit in each local authority and in each constituency are shown in "Working Families' and Disabled Person's Tax Credit Statistics. Geographical analyses", copies of which are in the Library and on the Inland Revenue website, www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk, under "Statistics".

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employers have been(a) fined and (b) prosecuted for wrongly calculating employees' entitlement to working families tax credit. [27466]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None.

  Tax and Underwriting Commission
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the proceeds were from the tax and underwriting commission in each of the last four years. [26233]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is not available.

  Tax Forms
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax forms have been sent to pensioners in(a) this financial year and (b) 2000–01; how many forms have been incorrectly sent; and what is the estimated cost of sending one million tax forms. [26283]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue holds no details of the number of ITSA Returns sent to pensioners.

  The estimated cost if one million pensioner style ITSA Returns were sent is £300,000.00.

  Independent Taxation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the reduction in income tax liability has been as a result of the introduction of independent taxation over the last 12 years for(a) higher rate taxpayers, (b) basic rate taxpayers and (c) the bottom 10 per cent. of earners. [26267]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It would be possible to provide an answer only at disproportionate cost.

  Maintenance Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many divorced and separated partners there are where the partner in receipt of maintenance payments has an income that falls below the tax threshold and where the partner making the payments pays tax at the(a) basic rate and (b) higher rate; and what the total amount was of tax relief at present granted on maintenance payments made by separated or divorced partners at basic rates and higher rates. [26205]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total cost of administering the national insurance contributions system in(a) 1980, (b) 1990, (c) 2000 and (d) 2000–01 in (i) current prices and (ii) historic prices, broken down by (A) the cost of collecting contributions, (B) the cost of paying contributory benefits and pensions and (C) all other costs of recording and administering the national insurance system. [26863]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The cost incurred in administering the national insurance scheme in 1980, 1990 and 2000 is detailed in the National Insurance Fund Accounts for Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

  These are published in White Paper Accounts and are available from the House of Commons Library.

  The 2000–01 accounts are currently being audited by the National Audit Office.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated full year revenue effect of abolishing the upper earnings limit for employees' national insurance contributions. [26228]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 135W.

  Higher Rate Taxpayers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many higher rate taxpayers there are in 2001–02. [26264]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to "Inland Revenue Statistics" table 2.1, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The latest version can be accessed on the Inland Revenue website www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/it_t01-1.htm.

  Dividend Income
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in each of the last four years reported dividend income to the Inland Revenue. [26232]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of taxpayers who reported dividend income to the Inland Revenue, between 1997–98 and 2000–01, are shown in the table.

  Number of taxpayers who reported dividend income to the Inland Revenue

  Number (millions)

  1997–98

  2.6

  1998–99

  3.0

  1999–2000

  3.1

  2000–01

  3.2

  The estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the pre-Budget report 2001.

  Incomes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax units will be on incomes, including unearned income, in excess of(a) £30,000 (b) £50,000, (c) £75,000 and (d) £100,000 in 2001–02. [26203]
  309W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of taxpayers by range of total income in 2001–02 is shown in the table.

  Range of total income—lower limit

  Number (millions)

  £30,000

  2.9

  £50,000

  0.7

  £75,000

  0.2

  £ 100,000

  0.3

  These estimates are based on the 1999–2000 Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the November 2001 pre-Budget report.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax units will be on income in excess of(a)£100,000, (b) £250,000, (c) £500,000 and (d) £1 million in 2001–02. [26210]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of taxpayers in 2001–02 with income in excess of(a) £100,000, (b)£250,000, (c) £500,000 and (d) £1 million are estimated in the table.

  Income in excess of:

  Number of taxpayers (thousand)

  £100,000

  301

  £250,000

  61

  £500,000

  18

  £ 1,000,000

  5

  The estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the pre-Budget report 2001.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide an estimate of the number of those who will pay income tax in 2001–02; and how many people paid income tax in each of the last four years. [24815]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to Table 2.1 of Inland Revenue Statistics. The latest version can be accessed on the Inland Revenue website http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/it_t01-1.htm.

  Transport Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the planned expenditure on transport as a percentage of gross domestic product in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [26213]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  In 2001–02, total transport expenditure is estimated to be 0.91 per cent. of GDP. In 2002–03, it is estimated to be 1.02 per cent. In 2003–04, it is estimated to be 1.14 per cent.

  Contingency Reserve
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by department the sums of money that have been allocated in this financial year from the contingency reserve. [26271]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 6 December 2001,Official Report, column 524W.

  Definitions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the Government adhere to the national accounts definitions of capital and current expenditure except in respect of the treatment of depreciation; [26135]

  (2) what the Treasury definition of capital expenditure is for the purposes of the golden rule. [26099]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government's fiscal rules are defined in terms of statistics from national accounts. Performance against the golden rule is measured against the surplus on the current budget which is equal to public sector current receipts less public sector current expenditure including depreciation, all as measured in national accounts. Total managed expenditure (TME)—the Government's measure of total public expenditure—is public sector current expenditure plus capital expenditure as recorded in national accounts.

  At present for national accounts, ONS estimate depreciation for the whole of Government using an economic model. As part of the introduction of resource accounting, each central Government Department now calculates its own depreciation directly. ONS plan to start using this new data source for most of central Government in national accounts later this year.

  Geoffrey Spence
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what role he has given to Geoffrey Spence relating to PPPs; and if he will make a statement. [17674]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Geoffrey Spence's role at Partnerships UK is to provide the Treasury with a dedicated senior professional resource to advise on the development and implementation of PPPs.

  European Accounts System
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the changes in the national accounts resulting from the new European system of accounts which will affect general Government expenditure; [27448]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of changes in the national accounts resulting from the European system of accounts on general Government expenditure. [27446]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  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 parliamentary questions concerning the list of changes in the national accounts resulting in the new European System of Accounts which will effect general government expenditure and what assessment has been made of the effect of these changes. I am replying in his absence. (27446, 27448).
  These questions cannot be answered fully, partly because general government expenditure is not defined in the European System of Accounts (ESA) and is no longer published and partly because differences between the old and latest versions of the ESA are no longer estimated.
  Several publications in 1998, when the UK introduced the 1995 version of ESA, documented the changes made to the national accounts. One of these was the November 1998 Pre-Budget Report

  311W
  (pages 123 to 125) which gave a full quantified description of the effect of introducing ESA on some of the common measures of public expenditure. Details were also given in the Office for National Statistics Blue Book and other publications published on 24 September 1998 and in an article in the July 1998 edition of Economic Trends. All these publications are available through the Library of the House.

  Prospectus Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he proposes to the draft European Union Prospectus Directive. [27487]

  Ruth Kelly
  The most important areas where we are proposing changes can be listed as follows:

  More appropriate definitions of "home state", "qualified investor", and "public offer";

  Clarification of the scope for private and institutional placements under the directive;

  Voluntary shelf registration and annual updating;

  More appropriate disclosure requirements for professional products, SME issued securities, and third country based issuers;

  An expanded list of exemptions; and

  A more effective passport for pan-European issuers.

  Public Service Agreement Target
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will commission independent research into the appropriateness of his Department's chosen public service agreement target. [27468]

  Ruth Kelly
  No.

  Euro
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assistance has been made available to local authorities to issue the payment of bills or services in euros; and what plans he has to review the limit set for local authorities regarding collection of their income in non-sterling. [27664]

  Ruth Kelly
  Details of the Government's preparations for the introduction of euro cash in the euro area from 1 January 2002 are contained in the Fifth Report on Euro Preparations. There are no plans to issue additional guidance to local authorities at this stage.

PRIME MINISTER

  Terrorism
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with President Bush concerning the campaign against terrorism. [25667]

  The Prime Minister
  I am in regular contact with President Bush on a wide range of issues.

  Lord Birt
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the projects worked upon by Lord Birt, pursuant to his recent appointment. [27534]

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Birt provides me and other Cabinet Ministers with long-term internal strategic analysis and policy thinking.
  312W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 819W, what qualities he identified in Lord Birt that led him to appoint him to analyse the country's transport problems. [27524]

  The Prime Minister
  As I said in my earlier answer, I appointed Lord Birt as unpaid strategy adviser because of his extensive experience of strategy formulation in both the public and private sectors.

  Overseas Visits
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many days in each month in 2001 he was out of the country other than on holiday; and on how many days he indicated to the Deputy Prime Minister that he would be abroad. [27525]

  The Prime Minister
  In 2001, I made the following overseas visits:

  29 January—Germany

  9 February—Anglo-French Summit, France

  21-22 February—Canada

  22-24 February—USA

  22-24 March—European Council, Sweden

  13 June NATO summit, Belgium

  14-16 June—European Council, Sweden

  20-22 July—G8 Summit, Italy

  29 July-3 August—Jamaica, Brazil, Argentina and Mexico.

  For overseas visits since 11 September, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) on 14 January 2001, Official Report, columns 87–89W.

  It is my practice to inform Cabinet colleagues about my overseas engagements.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Paramilitary Violence
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many punishment beatings, shootings and expulsions have been administered by the Provisional IRA over the last six months; and if he will make a statement. [25594]

  Jane Kennedy
  In the period 1 July to 31 December 2001 there were 146 paramilitary style attacks. Loyalist groups were responsible for 96 of these attacks (41 assaults and 55 shootings) and Republican groups for 50 attacks (15 assaults and 35 shootings). It is not always possible to attribute these attacks to any specific groupings.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the number of terrorist incidents and beatings in the last six months. [25647]

  Jane Kennedy
  Terrorist activity during the past six months has remained at a significant level. The table provides a breakdown of the security related incidents during the last six months compared to the same period in 2000.
  313W

  Security situation statistics—number of terrorist incidents July-December 2001

  July-December 2000

  July-December 2001

  Number of death as a result of the security situation

  13

  9

  Number of shooting incidents

  188

  186

  Number of bombing incidents

  95

  229

  Number of casualties as a result of paramilitary style assaults

  64

  55

  Number of casualties as a result of paramilitary style shootings

  74

  90

  Police Co-operation
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the co-operation between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda Síochána. [25595]

  Dr. John Reid
  On 13 December, the Government issued a timetable for the implementation of Patten's recommendations on north/south policing co-operation. The British and Irish Governments have been working closely together to make progress, building on the existing good co-operation between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda Síochána. The practical benefits of joint operations can be seen in a recent example of co-operation between law enforcement agencies on both sides of the border which resulted in nine people being charged with offences relating to the smuggling and laundering of fuel.

  Security Situation
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he plans to meet Sinn Fein's hon. Members to discuss the security situation. [25596]

  Jane Kennedy
  We hold regular meetings with all the political parties in Northern Ireland in which a range of issues including security matters are discussed. Any request for a meeting from Sinn Fein will be considered like any other request received from a political party.

  Police Ombudsman
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many investigators employed by the police ombudsman have experience in the investigation of terrorist-related crime. [25599]

  Dr. John Reid
  The police ombudsman has advised that 17 of the investigators employed by her office have experience in the investigation of terrorist-related crime.

  Golden Jubilee Medal
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many serving police officers in Northern Ireland will be entitled to receive the Golden Jubilee medal. [25600]

  Dr. John Reid
  It is estimated that 9,423 police officers will have completed five years' service on 6 February 2002 and will be eligible to receive the Golden Jubilee medal.

  Policing
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Assembly in respect of policing. [25601]

  Dr. John Reid
  I have not held any discussions with the NI Assembly on policing, which at present remains a reserved matter.

  The policing situation in Northern Ireland is a tri-partite arrangement involving the Northern Ireland Policing Board, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and myself under detailed provisions set out in the Police (NI) Act 2000.

  As Secretary of State, I am responsible for setting the statutory framework for policing and the long-term objectives for policing in Northern Ireland. The Policing Board, which is made up of democratically elected Assembly Members chosen by three of the parties and independents appointed by myself, has responsibility for holding the police to account and for monitoring and evaluating the service provided. The Chief Constable is responsible for the operational direction and control of the police service in Northern Ireland.

  Belfast Agreement
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what definition he uses of the phrase parity of esteem in the Belfast agreement. [25602]

  Dr. John Reid
  I define the phrase parity of esteem with reference to its meaning in the Belfast agreement—which is of equal respect for the identity and ethos and aspirations of both communities in Northern Ireland.

  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the Belfast agreement to be implemented in full. [25648]

  Dr. John Reid
  We have already made significant progress in implementing all aspects of the Belfast agreement. However, it is neither possible, nor helpful, to speculate about when this process will be completed. The agreement itself represents a process, not an event, and the British Government will continue to work with all the parties to ensure that the implementation process continues.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress with the Belfast agreement. [25653]

  Dr. John Reid
  Much has been achieved since April 1998. Progress has been made on all elements within the Belfast agreement including human rights and equality of opportunity, normalisation, the reviews of policing and criminal justice, decommissioning and the establishment of the devolved institutions. We still have some way to go before the agreement is implemented in full and the British Government are committed to working with the political parties to ensure that progress continues on all fronts.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the sale and use of fireworks in Northern Ireland. [25603]
  315W
  Jane Kennedy
  Having become increasingly aware of the many problems associated with the misuse of fireworks, not least in public order situations, I announced on 12 October 2001 that my officials, working closely with the police, prosecuting authorities and other interested bodies, would be undertaking a review of the situation to see if these problems could be resolved by strengthening the existing law.

  That review should be completed within the next two months and it is my intention to produce proposals for public consultation.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the terrorist weapons which have been decommissioned. [25604]

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what reports he has received from the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning on the level of arms and explosives put permanently beyond use. [25605]

  Jane Kennedy
  The IICD reported on 23 October 2001 that it had witnessed an event, which it regarded as significant, in which the IRA had put a quantity of arms completely beyond use.

  Also, on 18 December 1998, the Loyalist Volunteer Force decommissioned what the IICD described as a "small but significant" consignment of weaponry.

  The Commission listed the arms as follows:

  2 Madsen 9 mm sub-machine guns

  1 Sten 9 mm Mark 2 sub-machine gun

  1 modified Lanchester 9 mm Mark 1 sub-machine gun

  1 Steyr 7 mm rifle (1904)

  1 homemade .22 calibre rifle

  1 sawn-off double-barrelled 12 gauge shotgun

  1 FN Browning 9 mm semi automatic pistol

  1 FN 7.65 mm semi-automatic pistol

  31 12 gauge magnum 00 buckshot shotgun shells

  23 .38 calibre semi wad-cutter cartridges

  45 .556 calibre cartridges

  280 9 mm cartridges

  5 electrical detonators

  2 pipe bombs

  2 weapons stocks

  5 assorted magazines.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date he expects the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives to be completed. [25608]

  Jane Kennedy
  Future decommissioning events are a matter for the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and the representatives of the various paramilitary organisations.

  Decommissioning is only one part of the Good Friday agreement of which we can now say that implementation of every aspect is under way. Full implementation of the Good Friday agreement in all its aspects is a task that will take some time to accomplish.
  316W
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in decommissioning; and if he will make a statement. [25650]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) today,Official Report, columns 281–82W.

  Electoral Fraud
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what use is made of national insurance numbers to combat electoral fraud. [25606]

  Mr. Browne
  National insurance numbers are not currently used to combat electoral fraud in Northern Ireland.

  I am looking carefully at the arguments which have been made for the inclusion of a person's national insurance number as one of the items of personal information required on an application to the electoral register in Northern Ireland. I am discussing with the Department for Work and Pensions how national insurance numbers might be used effectively in the electoral process and whether their use would help to combat electoral fraud.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent assessment he has made of the level of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland; and what measures are being taken to reduce it. [25646]

  Mr. Browne
  Following the 7 June elections, an independent research company was commissioned by the Northern Ireland Office to investigate all aspects of elections in Northern Ireland. The research findings were placed in the Library of the House on 16 October 2001.

  The measures contained in the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill will tackle electoral abuse in Northern Ireland effectively without disadvantaging honest voters.

  Police Recruitment and Retention
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on police recruitment and retention. [25609]

  Jane Kennedy
  Two recruitment competitions have now been launched for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which together have attracted over 12,000 applicants, of whom over 36 per cent. were Catholic. Recruitment competitions to the Royal Ulster Constabulary which were held on an approximately annual basis attracted on average 3,000 applicants; the highest proportion of Catholic applicants in any single competition was 22.3 per cent.

  During the period January to December 2000, 208 Regular and 166 Full-Time Reserve officers left the RUC under natural wastage.

  The voluntary severance came into operation in January 2001 and in the period January to December 2001, a total of 1,069 Regular officers and 129 Full-Time Reserve officers left under the terms of the scheme. In the same period, a further 149 Regular and 166 Full-Time Reserve officers left under natural wastage.

  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve will receive priority in applying for full-time employment in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. [25651]

  Jane Kennedy
  All those who apply to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland are required to achieve a fixed standard of merit when tested in nine separate policing competencies. Candidates are thereafter selected on a 50 per cent. Catholic, 50 per cent. non-Catholic basis. No priority is given to members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve or any other police service.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost to date is of the Saville inquiry. [25652]

  Jane Kennedy
  The cost of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry to the Northern Ireland Office, as at 7 January 2002, is £52 million. This does not include costs to other Departments such as the Ministry of Defence.

  Terrorist Crime
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to tackle the financing of terrorist crime in Northern Ireland. [25654]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government's strategy for tackling terrorist crime in Northern Ireland is two-fold. First, the police must have available to them robust legislative powers. The Terrorism Act 2000 contains a number of financial provisions for seeking information and restraining assets. These powers were supplemented by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, passed in the wake of the events on 11 September.

  Second, in September 2000, the Government established an Organised Crime Taskforce for Northern Ireland. The taskforce brings together the agencies operating in Northern Ireland to agree crime types for concerted multi-agency action. The taskforce has published an assessment of the threat to Northern Ireland society from serious and organised crime, which assesses that approximately half of the organised crime gangs in Northern Ireland have links with the paramilitaries.

  Real IRA
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the sources of(a) political and (b) financial support for the Real IRA. [25656]

  Jane Kennedy
  A clear distinction needs to be made between the expression of political attitudes, opinions and beliefs and the actual commission or instigation of terrorist crime. The Real IRA remains a proscribed organisation. The Government believe that the Real IRA and the 32 County Sovereignty Movement are inextricably linked. However, on the basis of the evidence currently available, the Government assess that the 32 County Sovereignty Movement is not concerned in terrorism.
  318W
  Any assessment of the financial support for the Real IRA would inevitably rely on intelligence. It is the Government's policy not to comment on such matters.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Bangladesh
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Bangladesh regarding the policy towards people trafficking. [24269]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  On 3 December 2001, our high commissioner in Dhaka encouraged the Bangladeshi Home Minister to pursue Bangladeshi signature of the UN Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime and its associated protocols on human trafficking and people smuggling. We raise wider human rights concerns with the Bangladesh authorities on a regular basis. When Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed human rights with the then Bangladeshi Home Minister during a visit to Dhaka in September 2000.

  British Deaths Abroad
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens have been murdered abroad in each year since 1995; in which countries; and in how many cases the perpetrator has been brought to justice. [25882]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The table gives details of where and how many British nationals were murdered overseas since 1996 when we started collating this data. The cost of producing the information requested about the number of perpetrators brought to justice would be disproportionate.

  Murders of British nationals overseas: 1996–2001

  Country

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20001

  Angola

  1

  —

  3

  1

  —

  —

  Antigua and Barbuda

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Argentina

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Australia

  5

  3

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Austria

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Bahamas

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Bahrain

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bangladesh

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Belgium

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belize

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Botswana

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Brazil

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambodia

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Canada

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  China

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Colombia

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Comoros

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Congo

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cyprus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Czech Republic

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Denmark

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Egypt

  —

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  France

  1

  1

  1

  4

  1

  3

  Germany

  1

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  Gibraltar

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greece

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Guatemala

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Guyana

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Honduras

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  India

  2

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Indonesia

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Iraq

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  319W

  Murders of British nationals overseas: 1996–2001

  Country

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2000
  1

  Israel

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Italy

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Jamaica

  1

  —

  2

  2

  3

  2

  Kazakhstan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Kenya

  2

  —

  3

  —

  —

  2

  Kuwait

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Madagascar

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Malawi

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Malaysia

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Mexico

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Mongolia

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mozambique

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nepal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Netherlands

  1

  3

  2

  —

  1

  1

  New Zealand

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Nigeria

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  Pakistan

  1

  1

  1

  9

  —

  —

  Panama

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Papua New Guinea

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Philippines

  2

  1

  —

  3

  1

  —

  Poland

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Portugal

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Russia

  1

  —

  3

  1

  1

  —

  Rwanda

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Saudi Arabia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Somalia

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  South Africa

  8

  8

  3

  3

  8

  4

  Spain

  4

  2

  1

  4

  7

  6

  Sweden

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tajikistan

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Tanzania

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Thailand

  2

  1

  2

  1

  3

  —

  Togo

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Turkey

  —

  —

  2

  1

  2

  1

  Uganda

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  Ukraine

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  USA

  7

  2

  8

  7

  5

  267

  Uzbekistan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Vietnam

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yemen

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Zambia

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Zimbabwe

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  Total

  65

  50

  54

  56

  51

  196

  1 Final figures for 2001 for all countries are still in the process of being collated. This figure may therefore increase.

  2 This figure includes those British passport holders who were killed/reported "missing presumed dead" as a result of the terrorist attacks in the USA on 11 September.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what protocols are in place to help relations of British citizens killed abroad; and if he will make a statement. [25881]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The FCO does all it can to help the families of British nationals murdered overseas. There are no specific protocols—the needs of each family are different. We also give families leaflets published by the FCO on "Victims of Crime Abroad" and "Death Overseas" and put them in touch with relevant agencies in the UK who may be able to help them.

  Terrorism (Subcontinent)
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received linking the Lashkar-e-Toiba group to the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament building on 13 December. [25682]
  320W
  Mr. Straw
  The Indian Government have made public information which points to the involvement of Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed in the attack on the Indian Parliament. As Home Secretary, I proscribed both these groups in February 2001 because of their clear involvement in terrorist activities.

  Colombia
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in raising concerns about the situation in Barrancabermeja, and Magdalena Medio with the Colombian Government. [25906]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on 9 January 2002,Official Report, column 921W.

  British Prisoners Overseas
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK nationals, domiciled in Scotland, are held in prison in foreign countries, broken down by(a) country of imprisonment, (b) gender of prisoner and (c) nature of the offence. [25911]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Figures for the numbers of British nationals in prison overseas are compiled quarterly. These were last compiled as at 1 November 2001, when there were 3,485 British nationals in prison overseas. The next quarterly figures will be available at the end of January 2002.

  We do not routinely compile data on UK prisoners overseas' according to their domicile in the UK or by gender, nor by nature of offence. Gathering the requested data in this format would incur disproportionate costs.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last spoke to the President of Botswana concerning the situation in Zimbabwe. [26619]

  Mr. Straw
  My noble Friend, Baroness Amos, discussed Zimbabwe with President Mogae on 10 January. I discussed the situation in Zimbabwe with the Botswana Foreign Minister, Mompati Merafhe, on 20 December 2001.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made of the number of Zimbabwean residents who are planning to leave that country for refuge in the UK. [27427]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We cannot be certain how many Zimbabwean residents may wish to seek refuge in the UK. As at 14 January 2002, there were 25,054 British nationals registered with the British high commission in Zimbabwe. There is no requirement for British nationals to inform our high commission if they plan to leave Zimbabwe, when they actually leave, or their destination.

  Kashmir
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy objectives are in respect of Kashmir; and if he will make a statement. [27375]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are very concerned over the current tensions between India and Pakistan. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken frequently to his Indian and Pakistani counterparts in recent weeks, and has secured close co-operation between international partners. We continue to press India and Pakistan to resolve the issues between them through dialogue.

  EU Events
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  February

  6-7

  Valladolid

  Ministerial Seminar on Democracy and Development

  9-10

  Brussels

  Gymnich1

  11

  Brussels

  Eurogroup2

  14

  Brussels

  Education and Youth Council

  14-15

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council1

  18-19

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  18-19

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  22-23

  Brussels

  Telecoms and Information Society Council1

  28

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  March

  1

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council2

  1

  Brussels

  Internal Market, Consumers and Tourism Council

  4

  Brussels

  Eurogroup2

  5

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  7

  Brussels

  Employment and Social Affairs Council

  11

  Brussels

  Research Council

  11-12

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  15-16

  Barcelona

  European Council

  18-19

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  21

  Brussels

  Environment

  23-24

  Brussels

  Defence Ministers Meeting1

  25-26

  Brussels

  Transport and Telecom Council

  27-28

  Monterrey, Mexico

  Financing and Development Conference

  April

  5-6

  Luxembourg

  Migrations Council1

  8

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  13-14

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN1

  15-16

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  22-23

  Valencia

  Euromed Conference

  22-23

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  25-26

  Luxembourg

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  27-30

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council2

  May

  3-4

  Brussels

  Tourism Council2

  6

  Brussels

  Eurogroup2

  7

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  9

  —

  Europe Day

  13

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council with Defence Ministers

  17-18

  Madrid

  EU-LAC Summit

  21

  Brussels

  Internal Market, Consumers and Tourism Council

  23

  Brussels

  Culture and Audio-visual Council

  24-26

  Brussels

  Environment Council1

  27-28

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  30

  Brussels

  Development Council

  30

  Brussels

  Education and Youth Council

  31-1 June

  Brussels

  Transport Council1

  322W
  Union for January and also the major European Union events for the period between 31 January and June 2002. [28333]

  Peter Hain
  Following is the information:

  January

  10—Brussels—Fisheries Council

  17—Brussels—Budget Council (evening)

  21—Brussels—Eurogroup (evening)

  21-22—Brussels—Agriculture Council

  22—Brussels—ECOFIN

  25-26—Brussels—Meeting of Employment Ministers (ministerial informal)

  28-29—Brussels—General Affairs Council.

  The following are the principle events in the EU between 1 February and June 2002 (certain relevant events are also included: the list is based on the information available at the date of issue).
  323W

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  June

  3

  Brussels

  Employment and Social Affairs Council

  3

  Brussels

  Eurogroup2

  4

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  6-8

  Brussels

  Foreign Affairs Council4

  6-7

  Brussels

  Industry and Energy Council

  10-11

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  10-11

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  11

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  13-14

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  17-18

  Brussels

  Transport and Telecom Council

  17-18

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  21-22

  Seville

  European Council

  24

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council5

  24-25

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  25

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  26

  Brussels

  Health Council

  1 Ministerial informal

  2 Evening

  3 ASEM ministerial informal

  4 ASEM Ministers

  5 Possible

  China
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise the question of human rights abuses in Tibet on the occasion of the forthcoming visit of the Chinese Foreign Minister. [27519]

  Mr. MacShane
  We continue to have serious concerns about the human rights situation in China, including Tibet. I take every opportunity to raise these with the Chinese authorities and will seek to do so with the Chinese Foreign Minister.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the human rights situation in(a) Tibet and (b) China. [27528]

  Mr. MacShane
  The human rights situation in Tibet shows no signs of improvement. We are concerned in particular about reports of arbitrary detention, torture and the "re-education" of monks and nuns. We raise Tibet with the Chinese authorities at every suitable opportunity.

  The overall human rights situation in China continues to be a matter of serious concern. There has been considerable progress in many aspects, for example in the ability of individual citizens to manage their own lives, engage in business, travel freely and own a home. China has also shown an increased willingness to engage with United Nations human rights mechanisms. But severe restrictions remain on the enjoyment of civil and political rights, especially the freedoms of expression, religion and association.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the reductions in human rights abuses in(a) Tibet and (b) China that have resulted from his policy of (i) constructive and (ii) critical engagement. [27529]

  Mr. MacShane
  The dialogue process has enabled us to raise our concerns direct with the Chinese Government at senior level, and to press for change. It has facilitated 324W
  a programme of projects in China addressing such issues as the rule of law, legal and judicial independence, child rights and human rights awareness.

  The dialogue is aimed at encouraging long-term, fundamental change in China. It has taken place in an increasingly open and frank atmosphere, and has been accompanied by increased co-operation with international human rights mechanisms, including ratification in February 2001 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and a programme of co-operation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps he has taken to determine the fate of the Panchen Lama; and what assessment he has made of the authenticity of the recent photo alleged to be of the Panchen Lama. [27530]

  Mr. MacShane
  We take every suitable opportunity to press the Chinese authorities to allow access to Gedhun Choekyi Nyima (the Dalai Lama's choice as Panchen Lama) by an independent and respected figure to assess his health and living conditions. It was last raised at the seventh round of the UK/China human rights dialogue held in London last November. The Chinese maintain that the parents of the boy do not want him exposed to international attention.

  We have been unable to authenticate the photo released on the internet last October.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 206W, on China, what the purpose was of the proposed visit of the Chinese delegation to the BBC World Service; when this visit took place; and if he will make a statement. [27509]

  Mr. MacShane
  The visit to the BBC World Service by the Chinese delegation on 21 November 2001 took place in the margins of the seventh round of the biannual
  325W
  UK/China human rights dialogue: one of the themes of this round of the dialogue was "the role of the media". The programme was organised by the BBC.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Botswana
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the Botswanian Government regarding the Botswanian Government's plans to withdraw water from the Sanbushaman of the central Kalahari at the end of January. [26882]

  Clare Short
  Our high commissioner to Botswana has discussed issues relating to the San with the Government of Botswana at both ministerial and local authority level. In December 2001, together with two other EU heads of mission, he visited Ghanzi where the district council is responsible for the provision of basic services to the San living in the central Kalahari Game Reserve. The group had discussions with local officials and NGOs involved with the San and visited some San settlements. Our high commission continues to monitor the situation.

  Departmental Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will commission and publish an independent report on the reasons for the level of sickness absence in her Department. [26968]

  Clare Short
  The average rate of sickness absence in DFID in 1999 (the latest year for which published figures are currently available) was 7.31 days per staff year. This compares with a civil service-wide average of 10.1 days.

  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.

DEFENCE

  Military Bases
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what environmental impact assessment he carries out when considering the closure, move or expansion of a military base. [26345]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is the Ministry of Defence's policy to carry out environmental policy appraisals of all new or revised policies and equipment acquisition programmes and environmental impact assessment of all new projects and training activities. The strategic environmental appraisal of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) was carried out to examine the potential environmental effects of the programmes and plans therein. High-level environmental assessments were also carried out on the SDR proposals for both the built and rural estate.

  Environmental impact assessments are carried out when considering specific proposals for the closure, move or expansion of a military base. A wide range of factors are also taken into account including location, alternative
  326W
  uses and planning issues, land quality assessment, asset condition, historic buildings, legal constraints and non-MOD facility sharing. The scope of the assessment depends on the potential environmental impact of the proposal. Full Environmental Impact Assessment Reports and Environmental Statements are produced for developments that would fall under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations but for Crown exemption, and Appropriate Assessments carried out for developments and activities for sites designated under the Conversation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations.

  Cyber Attacks
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the protection of MOD defence computer networks from potential cyber attacks since 11 September. [26634]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Manual of Security mandates the baseline security requirements which must be met before Communications and Information Systems (CIS) are allowed to handle official information: these requirements have already been framed with the protection of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) computer networks from potential cyber attacks in mind.

  The MOD is continuously reviewing and seeking ways to improve the security of CIS. Since 11 September, MOD has:

  Instituted a review of all its systems to ensure compliance with security regulations;

  Speeded up the existing programme for deployment of Intrusion Detection Systems on key elements of the CIS infrastructure; and

  Established the Joint Security Co-ordination Centre as a 24-hour focal point for MOD's alert, warning and response capability.

  International Security Assistance Force
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many non-EU troops have been committed to the International Security Assistance Force; and if he will make a statement. [26643]

  Mr. Hoon
  The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) has been authorised by the United Nations, and enjoys wide support among the international community. In addition to the UK, which has agreed to serve as lead nation for the ISAF's initial three months, some 17 countries are contributing assets to the force. The ISAF will be about 5,000 strong, with the UK contributing around 1,800 personnel (together with an additional 300 airfield enablers to assist in activating and running Kabul international airport). Although separate from operations being conducted in support of the campaign against international terrorism, it deploys with the full support of the United States and enjoys very close relationships with US Central Command (which has deployed a liaison team to Major General McColl's headquarters).

  In addition to the substantial contribution being made by European Union nations, ISAF will comprise troops from New Zealand, Norway, Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey. It is too early to be specific about precise numbers, since national contingents are still being finalised.
  327W
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the nations which have offered to contribute to the International Security Assistance Force; and if he will make a statement. [26644]

  Mr. Hoon
  The international community responded swiftly and generously to our request for contributions to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), with over 20 nations initially expressing an interest in contributing. In the event, following detailed discussions and planning, we have been able to take up offers from 17 nations: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and Turkey. 15 of these have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to participate in the ISAF, and we expect Belgium and Bulgaria to do so shortly. In addition, the US have provided a liaison team.

  Warships
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work has been carried out on HMS Ocean at Devonport Dockyard; if there has been work additional to that set out before its arrival at Devonport; how much the work will cost in total; and if he will make a statement. [26710]

  Mr. Ingram
  Details of the work planned to be undertaken during HMS Ocean's Assisted Maintenance Period (AMP), and the estimated cost, were provided in the answer I gave the hon. Gentleman on 9 November 2001,Official Report, column 433W.

  The opportunity has been taken to undertake some limited additional work during the AMP, although some of the work originally planned will now be undertaken during the reprogrammed Docking Period. The total cost of the AMP will remain within the limits previously stated.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects HMS Invincible to be surplus to Royal Navy requirements; and if he will make a statement. [26709]

  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).

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on(a) the overhaul of HMS Invincible to prepare her for the new Merlin helicopters and (b) other work on HMS Invincible; and if he will make a statement. [26713]

  Mr. Ingram
  The refit of HMS Invincible is expected to cost in the order of £70 million with approximately £9 million of this required to prepare her for Merlin. These figures excluded Ministry supplied equipment, and associated naval staff training and trials costs.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the work being carried out on HMS Ocean at Devonport Dockyard to be completed; when he expects it to return to service; and if he will make a statement. [26712]
  328W
  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Ocean is currently undergoing an Assisted Maintenance Period (AMP) at Devonport. The AMP is scheduled to complete in early February following which she will be available for operational tasks.

  Iraq
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people have been killed and injured as a result of bombing raids on Iraq since 1991 and what discussions have been held with the UN co-ordinator in Iraq about the documentation and verification of the casualty figures. [27174]

  Mr. Ingram
  The coalition only ever targets, in self-defence, Iraqi military facilities that pose a threat to its forces carrying out legitimate patrols of the no-fly zones. The coalition goes to exceptional lengths to ensure civilian casualties are kept to the absolute minimum possible, including the employment of very carefully controlled targeting procedures and precision guided munitions.

  In practice, it is extremely difficult to give estimates of civilian casualties, despite the painstaking battle-damage assessment (BDA) that the coalition routinely carries out every time ordnance is released. The Ministry of Defence has no objective means of verifying Iraqi claims of civilian casualties; I am not therefore in a position to provide the information requested by my hon. Friend. However, we can demonstrate categorically that many of the Iraqi claims of civilian casualties are either exaggerated or wholly untrue.

  On a number of occasions the Iraqis have claimed that coalition aircraft have caused civilian casualties when allied aircraft have not released any munitions, or even been flying. On 19 June 2001, for example, it seems very probable that the civilian casualties, which the Iraqis claimed were caused by coalition activities, were in fact caused by an Iraqi munition. No ordnance was dropped by the coalition on 19 June. There have also been many instances when the Iraqis claimed civilians have been killed, where our BDA has clearly indicated that only military facilities were attacked.

  There have been no discussions with the UN Co-ordinator in Iraq about the documentation or verification of civilian casualties. The UN Co-ordinator in Iraq is responsible for implementing the humanitarian programme under the UN Oil for Food arrangements. He has no role in the no-fly zones.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions during 2001 the UK was involved in missions that involved(a) bombing and (b) firing into Iraq. [27173]

  Mr. Ingram
  During 2001, the coalition responded in self-defence against the Iraqi air defence system on 44 occasions. Of these, UK aircraft released precision guided munitions on 14 occasions. In the majority of the remaining 30, UK aircraft provided indirect support to other coalition aircraft but did not release weapons.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost of enforcing the no fly zones in Iraq since the war officially ceased. [27172]
  329W
  Mr. Ingram
  Information is not recorded separately that identifies expenditure incurred in maintaining the no fly zones. However, the table sets out the overall additional expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Defence as a direct result of operations in the Gulf from 1992–93 onwards.

  £ million

  1992–93

  551

  1993–94

  179

  1994–95

  58

  1995–96

  14

  1996–97

  6

  1997–98

  16

  1998–99

  35

  1999–2000

  28

  2000–01

  25

  2001–021

  222

  1 Estimate

  2 Calculated on a Resource Accounting basis; all previous figures are cash-based

  Wind Turbines
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of(a) the potential and actual interference of radar by wind turbines and (b) the obstruction that wind turbines represent to low-flying aircraft; how long the assessment has taken; and when the results will be published. [27275]

  Dr. Moonie
  The RAF has carried out two trials, one in 1994 and one in 1997, both of which found that if a wind farm is in direct line of sight to radar it can have an extremely detrimental effect upon radar performance as the rotating blades can be a source of interference. The turbines can appear as genuine aircraft targets that could either mask aircraft responses or desensitise the radar within the sector containing the wind farm. Shadowing of aircraft at similar radar to target elevation angles as the wind farm may degrade radar performance even further which could be potentially hazardous to air traffic and impede an air defence control situation.

  The Ministry of Defence recognised the need for further research and is currently assisting with a DTI sponsored study that is being undertaken by QinetiQ into the effects of turbines on radar systems. This study began in September 2001 and is due to be completed in September 2002.

  Military low flying training takes place within the UK Low Flying System below 2,000 ft for fixed wing aircraft and 500 ft for helicopters. Fixed wing aircraft are permitted to fly down to within a Minimum Separation Distance of 250 ft from the ground or any other obstacle, and helicopters are permitted to fly down to ground level. The presence of wind turbines in most areas of the UK would present no difficulty to low flying aircraft and these and other naturally tall structures are taken into account as part of route planning.

  In some circumstances, the presence or proliferation of wind turbines may pose a hazard to, or interfere with, military low flying training to such an extent that the training value is negated. The height of the turbines is often in excess of 70 m (approximately 220 ft) to turbine tip. Within the Tactical Training Areas aircraft can be flown at 100 ft above ground level, which is significantly
  330W
  lower than the 250 ft minimum that applies to the rest of the UK low flying system. Therefore, for the safety of members of the public and aircrew it is imperative that any hazards to low flying aircraft are minimised, especially those that exceed 100 ft in height.

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the SBIRS radomes at RAF Menwith Hill are expected to come on line. [27532]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 16 July 2001,Official Report, column 6W.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for 1999–2000 28 Defence what the purpose is of the further radome at RAF Menwith Hill for which a planning application has been made. [27531]

  Mr. Ingram
  The proposed new antenna and radome at RAF Menwith Hill would update equipment currently in use at the base.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received on the implications for low flying on wind power developments within designated training areas; and if he will make a statement. [27729]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence regularly receives queries from the wind energy industry, members of the public and Members of Parliament regarding the siting of wind power developments within the Tactical Training Areas.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 22 March 2001, Official Report, column 296, to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) which states the MOD's policy towards wind turbines in areas where operational low flying takes place.

  Expenditure (Dumfries and Galloway)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much MOD expenditure there was in Dumfries and Galloway region; and what his assessment is of the spin-off benefit to the regional economy in the last 12 months. [27731]

  Dr. Moonie
  I regret that data on defence expenditure as a whole are not available by region and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, I draw the hon. Member's attention to the recently published document, "Defence Statistics 2001", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Table 1.9 contains data on defence expenditure on equipment by region and nation.

  Service Deployment
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what United Kingdom forces are deployed abroad, giving in each case(a) location, (b) nature of operation, (c) the end date for the deployment and (d) a statement of Government policy on the deployment. [24989]

  Mr. Hoon
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Nancekuke
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 11 July 2001,Official Report, column 518W, what was the origin of the substance pralidoxime mesylate which was deposited into the sea off the north Cornish coast when Chemical Defence Establishment Nancekuke was decommissioned. [26628]

  Dr. Moonie
  Pralidoxime mesylate is used to treat individuals who have been exposed to a range of organophosphorous materials, including nerve agents.

  Between the years 1972 and 1997, 54.36 tonnes of pralidoxime mesylate were manufactured on site at CDE Nancekuke. Most of this was supplied to a pharmaceutical company for formulation into standard therapeutic tablets for issue to the services. Any reject or shelf-expired tablets were subsequently returned to Nancekuke for recovery or destruction.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records there are of the origin of chemicals used at the chemical defence establishment, Nancekuke. [26199]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no surviving records which detail the origin of the chemicals used at the chemical defence establishment, nancekuke.

  However, the records of the technical programme undertaken at Nancekuke indicate that many chemical compounds were manufactured on site from chemicals which would have been purchased from commercial suppliers.

  Additionally, it is known that some chemicals were transferred to Nancekuke from the Ministry of Defence facilities at Sutton Oak, which closed in 1953, and the War Department factories which were situated at Randle, Valley and Springfields. Also chemicals, such as CS, would have been transferred to Nancekuke from other military establishments for destruction.

  RAF Bases
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints he has received from local residents about(a) low flying, (b) aircraft noise and (c) night flying at (i) RAF Brize Norton and (ii) RAF Lyneham in the last five years. [26342]

  Dr. Moonie
  This information is not held in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what penalty would be payable on the cancellation of the Armington Homes 100 year contract for married quarters at RAF Lyneham. [26344]

  Dr. Moonie
  Current Government policy does not envisage repurchasing the properties sold to Annington Homes Ltd. (AHL) in 1996 and underleased back to the Ministry of Defence. Properties are initially underleased for 200 years and any that are identified as surplus to service requirements are released to AHL in accordance with the sale agreement.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from his Canadian counterpart regarding the deployment of Canadian troops in Afghanistan; and if Canadian troops will be deployed as a part of the International Security Assistance Force. [26645]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have been in close political, diplomatic and military contact with Canada throughout our operations in Afghanistan. I spoke to my Canadian counterpart on 21 December about the possibility of Canadian troops participating in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). We were keen for a company of Canadian engineers to participate from the beginning and hoped that these might be augmented by an infantry battalion to replace 2 Battalion the Parachute Regiment in due course. In the event, the Canadian Government have decided not to contribute to the ISAF, but will instead support operations around Kandahar. We welcome Canada's contribution. Canada may wish to participate in the ISAF at a later date.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his(a) NATO, (b) EU and (c) US and (d) Canadian counterparts regarding the deployment of armed forces to Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [26642]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been in regular contact with my EU and NATO colleagues concerning the deployment of forces to Afghanistan.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role international peacekeepers will have in securing routes for aid convoys and deliveries within Afghanistan. [26877]

  Mr. Ingram
  The role of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is to help the Afghan Interim Administration provide security and stability only in and around Kabul; it will therefore not be involved in providing security for aid convoys. The responsibility for establishing and maintaining security across all of Afghanistan lies with the Interim Administration.

  Essential to the building of peace and stability and the securing of aid routes is the defeat of the remnants of the al-Qaeda and Taliban. The international coalition against terrorism's operations against these groups, while distinct from the ISAF, will help ensure humanitarian aid is delivered where it is needed in Afghanistan.

  Departmental Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will commission and publish an independent report on the reasons for the level of sickness absence in his Department. [26973]

  Dr. Moonie
  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.

  RAF Shawbury
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 15 October 2001,
  333W
  Official Report, column 1141W, on RAF Shawbury, if he will make a statement on the success of achieving alternative employment for staff made redundant by FB Heliservices Ltd. [27286]

  Mr. Ingram
  As a result of the planned closure of the Wessex helicopter repair line at RAF Shawbury, near Shrewsbury, the contractor, FB Heliservices Ltd. issued formal dismissal notices to 26 staff on 10 January 2002. FBS continue to seek employment for these staff and some may be able to take up alternative posts with the contractor.

  In their pursuit of alternative employment for the staff involved, the company is continuing discussions with the Ministry of Defence about the possibility of transferring work from other locations to Shawbury to alleviate the situation.

  Reconnaissance Regiment
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when the reconnaissance regiment will move in to Bovington; [27723]

  (2) what plans he has to base a reconnaissance regiment at Bovington; and if he will make a statement; [27719]

  (3) when building work will commence at Bovington in pursuit of his proposals to base a reconnaissance regiment there; [27721]
  334W
  (4) what the cost is of his proposals to base a reconnaissance regiment at Bovington. [27722]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Missile Defence
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will submit requests from the US authorities to use RAF bases for the purpose of national missile defence to the House for prior approval. [27533]

  Mr. Hoon
  President Bush has made it clear that he has not yet decided what sort of missile defence system he will ultimately seek to deploy. We have received no request from the US for the use of sites in the UK for missile defence purposes, and it remains premature to indicate how we would respond to any specific request.

  Service Personnel
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel working in the armed forces are married to other persons serving in the armed forces. [26128]

  Mr. Ingram
  The total number of service personnel currently recorded as married to other service personnel is 6,270.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Staff (Benefits)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will estimate the number of individuals in(a) her 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. [26324]

  Ms Hewitt
  The number of individuals whose annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeded either £100,000 or £200,000 in each of the last four years are estimated for(a) the Department and (b) related Agencies in the tables:

  As at 1 April

  (i) More than £100.000

  (ii) More than £200,000

  (a)

  1998

  4

  0

  1999

  4

  0

  2000

  5

  0

  2001

  8

  0

  (b)

  1998

  0

  0

  1999

  0

  0

  2000

  1

  0

  2001

  1

  0

  With regard to estimations for related non-departmental public bodies, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 29 January 2002, Official Report, column 253W.

  Annual remuneration including benefits in kind covers basic salary, allowances and bonuses. It does not include overtime payments or pension contributions.

  Euro
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she will take to ensure that retail outlets accepting euro-denominated notes and coins offer customers fair exchange rates. [26007]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: Consumers should not be misled about additional costs imposed for paying in euros. Consumers are protected by price marking legislation which requires prices to be clear and legible—including exchange rates and any commission charged for using foreign currencies.

  It is a commercial judgment for those retail outlets which accept euro-denominated notes and coins what exchange rate they charge.

  While we recognise that there are some costs involved in handling foreign currencies, retailers who do not offer customers a fair deal should remember that consumers have long memories. Consumers will vote with their feet and the contents of their wallets.

  Catering-ware Exports
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what negotiations are under way in the WTO to reduce the tariff on catering-ware exports to the USA; and if she will make a statement. [27374]
  336W
  Ms Hewitt
  On 14 November 2001 at Doha the members of the World Trade Organisation launched a new round of multilateral trade negotiations. This will include negotiations aimed at reducing and where appropriate eliminating tariffs on industrial products. A reduction in the peak US tariffs on catering ware will be a priority for the UK in those negotiations.

  Mail Deliveries
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of Christmas post, posted on or before the last posting date announced by Royal Mail, failed to be delivered before Christmas Day. [26564]

  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 statistics on quality of service for the Christmas period, when Royal Mail handled around 2.1 million items, will not be published until later this month.

  Acquired Rights Directive
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Government intend to take action to ensure recompense for those affected by the UK breach of its Community obligations under the 1977 acquired rights directive. [27273]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government have admitted that, until the TUPE Regulations were amended in 1993, the acquired rights directive was not implemented correctly, and that this was a sufficiently serious breach of the UK's EC obligations to give rise to a liability for damages, where anyone suffered losses as a result. The Government are therefore prepared to compensate anyone affected provided that they can show that they suffered loss as a result of that breach. 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.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to offer payments to sub-postmasters in compensation for giving up the right to offer post office services. [27630]

  Mr. Alexander
  In line with the Performance and Innovation Unit's report, my Department has agreed in principle to support the compensation package, negotiated between Post Office Ltd. and the National Federation of Subpostmasters, for sub-postmasters affected by Post Office Ltd.'s proposed restructuring programme for the urban network. Discussions on the overall funding of the restructuring programme are continuing.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of sub-post offices which are economically viable. [27631]

  Mr. Alexander
  These matters were addressed in the PIU report in 2000, and in line with its recommendations, the Government are working on a range of measures
  337W
  with Post Office Ltd. and the National Federation of Subpostmasters to Modernise and strengthen the viability of the network.

  Petroleum Licensing
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) of 20 July 2001,Official Report, columns 609–10W, what decisions she has made on Out-of-Round Offshore Licence awards. [28191]

  Mr. Wilson
  I will offer licences to Tuscan Energy (Scotland) Ltd. and Acorn North Sea Ltd. for Block 30/24, which includes the former Argyll, Duncan and Innes fields, and to ATP Oil and Gas (UK) Ltd. and CalEnergy Gas (UK) Ltd. for Part-Blocks 42/25a and 43/21a.

  These awards, in their different ways. are good signs for the future of the United Kingdom Continental Shelf. They demonstrate some of the new approaches and working arrangements that PILOT has been pressing for over the past three years.

  Argyll was the UK's first producing offshore field, but it was abandoned as uneconomic back in 1992 when less than 40 per cent. of the oil had been recovered. Tuscan/Acorn now hope to use the latest technology to reopen it and extract more of the oil left behind. Subsequently they should be able to reopen the old Duncan and Innes fields too, both of which were abandoned at the same time as Argyll. Tuscan and Acorn are two small new British companies, taking a fresh and imaginative look at the opportunities in the North sea and introducing a productive new alliance with the North sea's supply chain in the shape of Schlumberger and ABB.

  ATP is one of the new entrants that DTI has been working hard to attract to the UK to bring work to our Fallow Discoveries. Their focused, high-efficiency approach, developed in the Gulf of Mexico, will allow them to develop the 43/21a discovery and other Fallow Discoveries, which others may not see as economic.

  However, I do not intend to allow any of this valuable acreage to run to fallow. Accordingly the licences will be individually tailored to match the companies' plans. Tuscan/Acorn will receive four licences, three of which each cover one of the former fields while the fourth covers the rest of the block. Each licence will expire at an early date if the companies fail to meet their work commitments, so that if necessary each asset will individually be made available for relicensing. ATP's licence also has an early expiry date in the event that it is not progressed by then.

  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what opportunities there are for companies to acquire petroleum licences over unlicensed acreage in the North sea. [28192]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am today inviting applications for petroleum licences over a large number of blocks in the southern, central and northern North sea which will form the 20th round of offshore petroleum licensing. The blocks made available for licensing are close to existing petroleum developments and infrastructure.

  This is the first North sea licensing round since blocks were awarded in the 18th round in December 1998. As such, I anticipate that there will be significant demand
  338W
  for licences from companies keen to acquire exploration opportunities in proven petroleum play areas. While there has been a great deal of oil and gas exploration on the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) since North sea drilling started in 1964, there are still many geological horizons that have yet to be fully tested. The recent 'Buzzard' discovery is evidence that there is still significant potential for further large discoveries in the North sea.

  In deciding which blocks to make available for licensing, I have considered the results of the Strategic Environmental Assessment covering a large swathe of the North sea undertaken by my Department on which consultation closed in December. After considering the assessment and the responses to the consultation, I have decided to take a precautionary approach and not offer for licence parts of four blocks in the central North sea because of the need to undertake further scientific analysis of a number of 'pock mark' features which were highlighted by the environmental assessment.

  Any licences awarded in the round will contain conditions to protect environmental interests and the interests of other sea users. In addition, activities carried out under the licences will be subject to a range of legislation which is designed to protect the marine environment, including regulations which apply the Environmental Impact Assessment and Habitats directives to offshore oil and gas activities.

  The licences will also contain provisions to ensure that licensees either undertake exploration work within a relatively short timescale or relinquish the licence at the earliest possible opportunity so that other companies are able to take forward exploration of the area. These requirements support PILOT initiatives to remove barriers to activity on the UKCS.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress with the public service agreement target on the overall international ranking of the science and engineering company base in terms of quality, relevance and cost-efficiency. [23171]

  Ms Hewitt
  The most recent measurements of the international ranking of the Science and Engineering Base (SEB) in terms of quality, relevance and cost-effectiveness indicate that the UK continues to maintain its position relative to other G7 nations. The details are as follows:The quality of the science and engineering base is measured by the UK's world ranking in terms of citations of published papers. Over the period 1981–2000 the UK received a 9.1 per cent. share of the citations in the international Science Citation Index, second only to the US. The UK was second in 'citation shares' for 15 out of 20 scientific fields with the lowest placing being fifth.
  One measure of relevance is the UK's world ranking in terms of the proportion of university research funding from non-governmental sources. For the latest year for which data are available (1997), the UK was again ranked first among the G7 countries.
  Cost-effectiveness is measured by the UK's world ranking in terms of the number of papers published per £1 million of public expenditure on science. In 1990, 1993, 1996 and 1999, the UK was the leading country in the G7. For the latest year (2000) the UK was again ranked first.
  339W
  These measures were put in place at the time of the Comprehensive Spending Review and were continued for the period of the 2000 Spending Review (2001–02 to 2003–04).

  While the public service agreement targets described here provide a valuable indication of the strength of the UK science base relative to our competitors, other indications are also available. The results of the latest Research Assessment Exercise were published on 14 December and show that, since 1996 when the last study was carried out, many university research groups have significantly improved their performance.

  Departmental Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will commission and publish an independent report on the reasons for the level of sickness absence in her Department. [26995]

  Ms Hewitt
  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.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  London Boroughs (Funding)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the category and amount of each item of funding outside the revenue support grant which his Department made available to(a) Westminster city council and (b) Kensington and Chelsea in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02. [26248]

  Ms Keeble
  The information requested is, as far as possible, given in the table:

  £ million

  Type of grant

  2000–01

  2001–02

  London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  Income from non-domestic rates

  47.167

  48.566

  Housing Investment Programme1

  16.305

  12.855

  Housing Revenue Account

  20.212

  26.195

  Neighbourhood Renewal

  n/a

  0.054

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  1.521

  2—

  Disabled Facilities Grant

  0.090

  0.055

  Invest to Save

  0.225

  3—

  London Borough of Westminster

  Income from non-domestic rates

  61.301

  62.783

  Housing Investment Programme1

  25.499

  17.107

  Housing Revenue Account

  31.149

  46.109

  Neighbourhood Renewal

  n/a

  0.748

  ERDF Funding

  0.173

  40.451

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  2.221

  2—

  Estate Action

  2.687

  3.828

  Disabled Facilities Grant

  0.114

  0.239

  1 Basic Housing ACG

  2 Now administered by Transport for London

  3 Figure supplied represents Invest to Save grant available for drawing down during 2000–01 or 2001–02.

  4 Figure supplied represents payments thus far in 2001–02. Another claim is forecast for March although the grant amount is as yet unknown.

  Housing
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many development schemes have been funded by English Partnerships and have secured redevelopment on sites formerly occupied by sub-standard housing in each of the last five years; and at what locations. [26747]

  Ms Keeble
  During the five years to 31 March 2001:

  (a) the CNT (Commission for the New Towns) side of English Partnerships funded no such schemes.

  (b) the URA (Urban Regeneration Agency) side of English Partnerships does not record "sub-standard" housing in the form requested.

  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress being made in(a) house clearance and (b) redevelopment through the Housing Corporation pilot grant scheme. [27115]

  Ms Keeble
  The Housing Corporation's "New Tools" pilot is currently operating in six areas across the north-west and north-east. The pilot programme is investigating housing associations' contribution to the redevelopment of low demand areas.

  Progress on funding the pilot acquisition and demolitions in 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02 are as follows:

  North-west

  North-east

  1999–2000

  0

  £2,107,000

  —

  130 units cleared

  2000–01

  £610,000

  £156,000

  27 units cleared

  11 units cleared

  2001–02

  £820,000

  0

  to clear 40 units

  —

  The 2002–03 allocation is currently being finalised and will include allocations in three additional pilot areas in Merseyside.

  The programme is being evaluated by the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies at the University of Birmingham, and the final report is due this summer.

  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many English Partnerships funded projects have involved housing development in the last five years in(a) Telford and (b) the west midlands. [26749]

  Ms Keeble
  During the five years to 31 March 2001:

  (a) the CNT side of English Partnerships spent £12.3 million on site infrastructure in Telford, predominantly to promote housing development. In the same five year period, 125 hectares of land in Telford was sold to the private sector for housing development. In the wider west midlands area, CNT spent around £1 million on site infrastructure, some of which went towards promoting housing development. 7.4 hectares of land was sold for this purpose.

  (b) the URA side of English Partnerships approved no projects in Telford during these five years. In the wider west midlands, 12 projects were approved under the Partnership Investment Programme, committing £16.6 million towards

  341W
  projects facilitating the provision of housing. (Since 1999–2000, such projects were approved in conjunction with Advantage West Midlands).

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what policy was adopted in publicising and disseminating the consultation document: "Change to the Decent Home Definition"; what agencies other than local authorities were invited to comment; from which of these agencies responses have been received; and if he will make a statement. [26129]

  Ms Keeble
  The consultation document was disseminated widely using the usual mechanisms—through placement on the Department's website and through direct mailing. All English and Welsh local authority chief executives and housing directors received copies directly, as did chief executives of Registered Social Landlords with more than 250 units of housing stock. Copies were also sent to a number of national organisations such as umbrella housing organisations and academic organisations. Bodies with a specific interest in energy efficiency issues were alerted to the consultation.

  We received 140 responses to the consultation. The table shows the number of responses received from the different types of organisations:

  Organisation

  Number of responses

  Local authorities

  82

  Registered Social Landlords

  34

  Housing Umbrella organisations

  8

  Building surveyors

  4

  Energy efficiency organisations

  9

  Other

  3

  Total

  140

  An announcement regarding the outcome of the consultation will be made later this month.

  London Underground-Numbers of trains scheduled in the busiest quarter hour in the morning peak, by line

  Line

  Number of trains per quarter hour

  Bakerloo (measured at Oxford Circus)

  Sevenin each direction

  Central Line (measured at Liverpool Street)

  Eight westbound and six eastbound (from 13 October 2000)

  District and Circle (measured at South Kensington)

  Eight in each direction

  East London Line (measured at Rotherhithe)

  Three in each direction

  Jubilee (measured at Waterloo)

  Five westbound and six eastbound

  Metropolitan, Hammersmith & City and Circle (measured at King's Cross)

  Eight in each direction

  Metropolitan (measured at Finchley Road)

  Seven in each direction

  Northern (measured at Charing Cross)

  Five in each direction

  Northern (measured at Moorgate)

  Five in each direction

  Piccadilly (measured at Hyde Park Corner)

  Seven in each direction

  Victoria (measured at Oxford Circus)

  Seven in each direction

  Waterloo & City (measured at Waterloo)

  Five in each direction

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the latest date is by which he estimates that the Modernisation investment programme for London Underground will have begun. [26294]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground is responsible for managing the competition for the contracts to Modernise

  English Partnerships
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total annual budget is for English Partnerships' investment activity; and what proportion is allocated in(a) Telford and (b) the west midlands in the current financial year. [26748]

  Ms Keeble
  In line with all my Department's non-departmental public bodies, English Partnerships is controlled by net expenditure limits in accordance with the principles of resource accounting and budgeting. These are divided into separate limits for the Commission for the New Towns and Urban Regeneration Agency to reflect EP's twin statutory base. In 2001–02, the net Capital Expenditure Limit for the URA is £112.6 million and that for the CNT is —£80.5 million.

  However, in cash terms, EP's total budgeted capital expenditure in 2001–02 is £203 million. Of that, £4.3 million (2 per cent.) is allocated to Telford and £16 million (8 per cent.) to the wider west midlands.

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many trains run on the busiest sections of each line of the London Underground during(a) the busiest hour and (b) the busiest quarter hour during weekdays. [27662]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: This is an operational matter for London Underground who have provided the information:

  (a) For the busiest hour, I refer the hon. Member to the figures for 2001 in the answer I gave him on 19 December 2001, Official Report, column 505W. However, on the Central Line. the new timetable introduced on 13 January 2002 will mean an increase in peak frequencies in the morning peak hour to 30 trains per hour westbound and to 24 trains per hour eastbound.

  (b) The number of trains currently scheduled to run in the busiest quarter hour in the morning peak for each line is set out in the following table.

  the tube infrastructure. I understand that, subject to bids representing value for money and to consultation with the Mayor and Transport for London, London Underground expects to be able to sign contracts before the end of the financial year. Provided the safety arrangements are accepted by the Health and Safety Executive, the contracts would take effect, and the Modernisation programme commence, as soon as possible thereafter.
  343W
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future funding plans for the London Underground. [27836]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on 11 May 2001,Official Report, column 379W.

  Planning Appeals (Listed Buildings)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he last met the Chief Executive of English Heritage to discuss the planning appeal system involving listed buildings. [25964]

  Conducted

  Pass rate (percentage)

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Car

  Bradford (Eccleshill)

  3,380

  3,569

  3,444

  43.7

  44.6

  45.0

  Bradford (Heaton)

  5,736

  5,302

  5,591

  41.8

  39.7

  39.4

  Halifax

  3,551

  3,144

  3,197

  47.8

  43.2

  43.3

  Heckmondwike

  5,007

  5,346

  5,248

  32.6

  31.5

  31.6

  Huddersfield

  5,974

  5,536

  5,445

  35.8

  31.9

  34.5

  Keighley

  965

  1,812

  1,710

  50.3

  50.2

  51.2

  Leeds (Horsforth)

  5,568

  4,785

  4,608

  37.9

  36.1

  36.5

  Leeds (Harehills)

  7,190

  7,472

  7,599

  31.3

  28.1

  30.4

  Wakefield

  4,756

  4,519

  4,142

  31.4

  32.4

  32.5

  Motorcycle

  Bradford (Eccleshill)

  616

  526

  323

  58.6

  54.0

  62.3

  Halifax

  816

  853

  772

  67.0

  64.6

  57.2

  Leeds (Horsforth)

  922

  939

  842

  54.4

  49.8

  54.6

  Note:

  Wakefield has recently become a testing centre for motorcyclists, but there is no data series.

  The number of car and motorcycle theory tests conducted, and the associated pass rates, at test centres

  Conducted

  Pass rate (percentage)

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Car

  Bradford

  11,778

  11,389

  11,585

  57.08%

  55.12%

  56.66%

  Huddersfield

  5,766

  5,947

  6,736

  61.78%

  61.89%

  64.39%

  Leeds

  18,383

  17,720

  17,072

  64.48%

  63.92%

  65.54%

  Motorcycle

  Bradford

  69

  75

  137

  63.73

  54.50

  75.29

  Huddersfield

  38

  46

  131

  60.19

  65.97

  68.34

  Leeds

  159

  174

  395

  65.06

  62.63

  67.67

  The average waiting times at the practical driving test centres in west Yorkshire for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are shown in the tables. These data are not available for 1998–99.

  Waiting time for practical tests

  Weeks

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Cars

  Bradford (Eccleshill)

  5

  6.08

  Bradford (Heaton)

  8.82

  5.58

  Halifax

  2

  3.67

  Heckmondwike

  7

  6.33

  Huddersfield

  4.36

  4.25

  Keighley

  1.82

  4

  344W
  Ms Keeble
  My right hon. Friend has not met the Chief Executive of English Heritage to discuss this issue.

  Driving Tests (West Yorkshire)
  Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate the(a) number of driving tests taken per year conducted at each centre in west Yorkshire over the last 10 years, (b) pass rates for written and practical tests at each of these test centres in the last three years and (c) waiting time for each practical test at each centre in the last three years. [26241]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of car and motorcycle practical tests conducted, and the associated pass rates, at test centres in west Yorkshire for each of the last three years are shown in the tables. These data are not available for previous years.

  in west Yorkshire for the same period are shown in the tables.

  Waiting time for practical tests

  Weeks

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Leeds (Horsforth)

  7

  6.17

  Leeds (Harehills)

  6.91

  6.75

  Wakefield

  5.45

  4.33

  Motorcycles

  Bradford (Eccleshill)

  4.91

  2.5

  Halifax

  2.82

  2.5

  Leeds (Horsforth)

  3.18

  2.33

  Note:

  Wakefield has recently become a testing centre for motorcyclists, but there is no data series.

  Powering Future Vehicles
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will give details of the Government's consultation on "Powering Future Vehicles", referred to on page 124 of the pre-Budget report. [26430]

  Mr. Spellar
  The consultation draft "Powering Future Vehicles" strategy was published on the 3 December. Copies of the consultation were placed in the House Library. Responses to the consultation were invited to be submitted by 1 March.

  The Government will publish the final strategy taking account of the responses received.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what has been the total Government spending to date on the upgrade of the West Coast Main Line. [26723]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government have not incurred any expenditure directly on the West Coast Main Line Modernisation. However, to date Railtrack has spent around £1.8 billion on the project.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the projected total Government spending is on the upgrade of the West Coast Main Line. [26722]

  Mr. Spellar
  The scope and options for taking forward the project, if powers are granted under the TWA (Transport and Works Act 1992) Order, are currently being considered with Railtrack, the Strategic Rail Authority, Virgin and the other passenger and freight operators on the route. Until the final outputs are agreed, a meaningful estimate of the full cost of the upgrade cannot be given.

  Starter Home Initiative
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assistance is available to key workers who are unable to top up their maximum borrowing potential to an amount sufficient to obtain a mortgage for a property in London under the Starter Home Initiative; and if he will make a statement. [26917]

  Ms Keeble
  The Starter Home Initiative will supplement the amount which key workers are able to borrow in order to help them purchase a home. In their bids for SHI funding, scheme managers set out the household incomes they will be targeting for SHI assistance, the range of property prices to be purchased and the amount of SHI funding required. SHI will be provided only to potential purchasers who can demonstrate that they can sustain the long term costs of home ownership. SHI will not benefit those who are unable to raise the other resources necessary for house purchase.

  Planning Applications
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement in respect of third-party rights of appeal in relation to planning applications. [26937]
  346W
  Ms Keeble
  As indicated in our Planning Green Paper, published on 12 December, a third-party right of appeal against the grant of planning permission could add to the costs and uncertainties of planning, which we could not accept. We believe that the right way forward is to make the planning system more accessible and transparent and to strengthen the opportunities for community involvement throughout this process. Proposals to achieve this were set out in the Green Paper.

  Social Landlords
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will bring forward legislation for a register of social landlords to be held and administered by local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [26769]

  Ms Keeble
  No. The Housing Corporation has a statutory duty, under section 1 of the Housing Act 1996, to maintain a register of social landlords. This is open to inspection at all reasonable times at the head office of the Housing Corporation and is also available on its website http://www.housingcorp.gov.uk/index.htm.

  M5 Avonmouth Bridge Road
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who approved the employment of the road surfacing contractor in the recently completed road surfacing of the M5 Avonmouth Bridge Road; and what their previous record of experience was with this type of work. [27228]

  Mr. Spellar
  The specialist subcontractor who carried out the surfacing and waterproofing of the Avonmouth Bridge was employed by the main contractor for the strengthening works.

  The main contractor has a contractual responsibility to the Highways Agency for the quality of its works and it is for it to decide which subcontractors are appropriate for the job.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which local authorities are subject to a ceiling in the local government finance settlement; how much money is forgone by each of these authorities; what the average reduction to all local authorities would be if the ceiling had not been introduced; and if he will make a statement. [27453]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The table shows the local authorities subject to ceilings, together with the difference between the increase produced by the standard spending assessment formula and the increase payable at the ceiling, for each of these authorities:

  £

  Local authority

  Difference

  Bedfordshire

  33,103

  Bexley

  145,509

  Camden

  1,224,637

  Enfield

  848,239

  Hertfordshire

  3,333,544

  Hillingdon

  1,666,837

  Kensington and Chelsea

  8,596,545

  Kingston upon Thames

  593,416

  347W

  £

  Local authority

  Difference

  Sutton

  441,053

  Westminster

  3,986,471

  Dertyshire Police Authority

  355,410

  South Hams

  47,845

  South Somerset

  134,073

  Figures quoted in the table are based on data provided to local authorities on 28 December 2001. These are subject to change, and the final data will be announced with our final settlement proposals in late January or early February. The money raised through the ceiling helps to finance the cost of the floor. The average reduction to each authority is therefore not relevant.

  Contract Letting
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which division in his Department is responsible for ensuring compliance with regulations to the letting of controls; and what information they hold on contracts let by other divisions in his Department. [27326]

  Mr. Byers
  The Department has within its Commercial Directorate the Procurement Services Division which is responsible for purchasing procedures.

  The Procurement Services Division maintains details of contracts that it has let on behalf of Directorates who do not hold a delegation to award contracts. Other Directorates that have a delegation to award contracts are expected to maintain their own records. There is currently no central record of all contracts let by the Department.

  Smoke Alarms
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many council houses in Buckinghamshire have smoke alarms that are(a) mains powered and (b) battery powered; and in the case of battery powered alarms how many are powered by (i) a one-year life replaceable PP3 battery and (ii) a 10-year life sealed unit lithium battery. [27776]

  Dr. Whitehead
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Planning and Transportation Initiatives
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list those policy initiatives his Department or its predecessor Departments have made in the field of planning and transportation since 1997 which have affected parish and town councils. [R] [27654]

  Ms Keeble

  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: Planning Policy Guidance note 12: Development Plans (1999) states that local authorities should consult parish councils about development plans. Guidance on Full Local Transport Plans (2000) states that local authorities should work closely with parish councils in drawing up and implementing their local transport plans.

  The 2000 Rural White Paper "Our Countryside: the future" announced measures to strengthen the role of town and parish councils, including the establishment of
  348W
  Quality Town and Parish councils, about which we have issued a consultation paper. The Rural White Paper also set out proposals for supporting the preparation of town and village plans, the design and land-use aspects of which can be adopted by the local planning authority as supplementary planning guidance.

  The Planning Green Paper "Planning: delivering a fundamental change", issued in December 2001, proposes that local authorities' existing development plans should be replaced by local development frameworks which would include action plans, principally for areas undergoing change. Action plans may include neighbourhood, village or parish plans.

  M5
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the latest forecast of the Highways Agency is of the future congestion levels around junction 25 of the M5 in(a) one year, (b) three years, (c) five years and (d) 10 years; and what plans he has to implement a separate junction on the M5 between junction 24 and junction 25. [27493]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: There are no current predictions of future congestion on either the M5 at junction 25 or on the local roads, but the Highways Agency is developing, with Somerset county council, a traffic model for the Taunton area. This will include this junction and the surrounding roads which are the responsibility of the county council. I shall let the hon. Member know when the work is complete.

  There are no current plans for an additional junction on the M5 motorway between junctions 24 and 25 but the London to South Wales and the South West Multi-Modal Study is looking at problems on the main transportation corridors in the study area, including the M5 at Taunton. I cannot speculate on the conclusions of the study, which is due to report in the spring.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason a TR110 statutory notice has been served on Taunton Deane borough council by the Highways Agency in connection with a planning proposal near junction 26 of the M5. [27491]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: A direction, under Article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, was served by the Highways Agency on Taunton Deane borough council to allow the agency time to assess the traffic impact on junction 26 of the M5 of a proposal to erect industrial units on land adjoining Chelston Business Park.

  The direction was withdrawn on 3 January this year after the developers had demonstrated that the proposal would not adversely affect the junction.

  External Advisers and Consultants
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the budget of his Department is for the current financial year for the use of external advisers and consultants. [27327]
  349W
  Mr. Byers

  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: Expenditure on external advisers and consultants is monitored at a local level. The Department does not have a single budget for this type of expenditure.

  Village Shops
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received from Tandridge district council concerning the Department's Consultation Paper on Changes to the Designation of Rural Areas for purposes of the Village Shop Rate Relief Scheme; and what response his Department has made. [27838]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Tandridge district council responded to the consultation paper on 29 November 2001 expressing concern that three rural settlements in their area would lose their designated status if what was proposed was implemented. A significant number of other local authorities expressed similar concerns about settlements in their areas.

  We had proposed that the current designations based on listed parishes be replaced by one based on maps. But in response to the concerns expressed by councils in their reply to the consultation paper, we have maintained the existing designations in addition to the new maps, to ensure that all areas previously designated continue to be so, while we review the reasons for the discrepancies between the previous list and the new maps. Officials have discussed Tandridge's concerns with the council. All councils were informed of our decision to have a dual system in response to consultation in our business rates information letter 13/2001 of 10 December.

  Roads (South-East)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if she will set out traffic levels on(a) British roads, (b) roads within the Government office for the south east region and (b) roads within East Sussex for each year from 1997 taking the 1997 levels as 100. [27522]

  Mr. Spellar
  The available road traffic figures are shown in the table. Estimates prior to 1999 are on a different basis from more recent data.

  Road traffic

  Billion vehicle kilometres

  Great Britain

  GOSE region

  East Sussex1

  1997

  452.5

  —

  —

  1998

  459.2

  79.9

  —

  1999

  467.0

  82.1

  —

  1999

  466.0

  82.6

  2.62

  2000

  467.7

  83.3

  2.58

  1 Major roads only

  Local Councils
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to make local councils more autonomous. [27828]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government set out our new vision for local government in the recently published White Paper, "Strong Local Leadership-Quality Public 350W
  Services." It contains a range of proposals to give local councils greater freedom to enable them to innovate and respond to the needs of their communities.

  M6/M74
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the M6 motorway extension to the M74 will be completed. [27428]

  Mr. Spellar
  Proposals to upgrade the A74 to motorway standard between Carlisle and Guardsmill were added to the Government's targeted programme of improvements in March 2000.

  Following the completion of surveys and economic and environmental assessments, the public were consulted last autumn on the options and we hope to announce a preferred route this spring. Progress thereafter will depend on how swiftly we can complete the necessary statutory procedures. The aim is to complete the scheme within the next five to six years, although we will better that if we can.

  Local Strategic Plans
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance the Government office for the south-east has given to county councils concerning their(a) participation in and (b) initiation of local strategic plans. [27680]

  Dr. Whitehead
  National Guidance to local authorities on preparing community strategies under the Local Government Act 2000 was issued in December 2000. No additional Guidance has been issued by the Government office for the south-east but GOSE has been involved in discussions with individual local authorities on the setting up of community strategies. For example, GOSE attended a meeting with Hampshire county council to discuss how the county intended to take forward a county-wide local strategic partnership and a county-wide community strategy.

  In respect of plans prepared by local planning authorities under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, no specific guidance has been given by GOSE to county councils concerning their participation in or initiation of local plans. In addition, guidance has been published by central Government on local transport plans which are prepared by highways authorities under the provisions of the Transport Act 2000, but no separate advice has been issued by GOSE.

  Train Services (Punctuality)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will continue publication of monthly train punctuality figures. [27037]

  Mr. Spellar
  Train operating companies will continue to publish four-weekly Passenger's Charter performance statistics.

  Air Travellers (Deep Vein Thrombosis)
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what
  351W
  assessment he has made of the need for an inquiry into air travellers' thrombosis with specific reference to the death of Alayne Wake during a return flight from Singapore on 20 December 2001. [26896]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government are aware of the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of Alayne Wake and agree that there is a need to investigate the incidence, extent and causation of deep vein thrombosis among air travellers. The Government are planning to participate in the study being set up by the World Health Organisation that will cover these issues, which also will consider interventions that reduce the risk of a DVT.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will set up an inquiry into the incidence, extent and causation of deep vein thrombosis among air travellers. [26895]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government are planning to participate in a study of the incidence, extent and causation of deep vein thrombosis among air travellers currently being set up by the World Health Organisation. The Government therefore see no need to set up a separate inquiry.

  Government Grants (Rochford)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he advised Rochford council that its grants were to be increased by 5.5 per cent.; and what is the actual percentage increase. [27505]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The provisional Local Government Finance Settlement data for 2002–03 were notified to all local authorities on 4 December 2001. Revised information, to take account of basic credit approvals, which were issued on 13 December, and updates to some supplementary credit approvals, final council tax base figures, revised Learning and Skills Council allocations and updated domestic visitor nights, was issued on 28 December.

  The final data will be notified to local authorities immediately after the draft Local Government Finance report has been laid in the House for debate. This is expected to be around the same time as last year, that is late January or early February.

  Disabled Facilities Grants
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will announce the allocations to local authorities for disabled facilities grants in 2002–03. [28375]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department is today announcing an £88 million programme of support for the payment of Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG), by local authorities in 2002–03. This programme pays for 60 per cent. of all DFG expenditure with the remainder being found from the local authorities' own resources. We will shortly be writing to each local authority in England to inform them of their allocation.

  I have today placed tables showing the DFG allocation nationally, regionally and for each local authority in the House of Commons Library.

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy
  Jon Cruddas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the allocation of housing revenue account subsidy for housing authorities in England for 2002–03. [28374]

  Ms Keeble
  Further to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on 26 November 2001,Official Report, columns 621–22W, I can confirm that, in the light of responses received to consultation, we decided to confirm our proposals for Housing Revenue Account subsidy for 2002–03, subject to incorporating later data where necessary. The HRA subsidy and Item 8 determinations were issued to authorities on 21 December. Copies of the determinations and supporting material were placed in the Library of the House, and are available on my Department's website.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate has been made of the total amount owed to(a) creditors and (b) the Government by Railtrack plc on (i) 7 October and (ii) 7 December; and what the projected figures are to the end of March 2002. [25743]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the administrator.

  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 496W, if the reference to Railtrack being unable to meet its debt liabilities refers to debt due to be raised under its business plan. [26440]

  Mr. Spellar
  No.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  South East Arts
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the policy is of South East Arts for making grants to small theatre companies promoting greater understanding of Shakespeare for young people. [25770]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 10 January 2002]: South East Arts funds a wide range of theatre projects involving young people through its open application grants schemes. All applications are assessed against published criteria which include a clear commitment to education and promoting greater access to and involvement in the arts.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the grants of £50,000 or less paid out by South East Arts to organisations in the South East in(a) 2001 and (b) 2000. [25769]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 10 January 2002]: Information supplied by South East Arts for the financial years to 31 March 2000 and 2001 will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  National Anthem
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans the Government
  353W
  have to encourage the British Broadcasting Corporation to reinstate the playing of the National Anthem at the end of the day. [26457]

  Dr. Howells
  It is not the role of Government to intervene in detailed issues of programme content and scheduling. The BBC's governing instruments, the Royal Charter and Agreement, place broad obligations on the corporation in respect of the number of its television and radio services and objectives. Within this framework, detailed decisions on programming and scheduling are a matter for the BBC, reflecting its editorial independence.

  Libraries
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the Heritage Lottery Fund's policy is on(a) funding retrospective conversion projects and (b) providing information on and increasing access to British cultural heritage in UK libraries. [26577]

  Dr. Howells
  The Heritage Lottery Fund's policy is that(a) where a project involves conversion of information about collections into electronic forms, the Fund expects applicants to address the conversion of catalogues and other finding aids before digital imaging of collections and (b) to support documentary heritage projects from libraries of historical importance which run programmes of public benefit, and to support projects to widen access to collections, particularly those of non-national institutions. There is a separate policy for support of library and archive acquisitions; the Heritage Lottery Fund does not fund public lending library services.

  ENSEMBLE
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for what reason funding for the ENSEMBLE retrospective conversion bid has been made dependent on the development of the BiP web interface. [26576]

  Dr. Howells
  The ENSEMBLE bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) for a programme of retrospective conversion of holdings of printed music to electronic format has been withdrawn on advice from HLF. HLF has decided to put off further decisions on bids from the Consortium of University Research Libraries (CURL), of which ENSEMBLE is a sub-set, until the educational objectives for the website have been achieved through the Britain in Print project. The proposed website will be the foundation for delivering future CURL projects to the public. The decision rests with the Trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, which administers the HLF, as Ministers do not intervene in Lottery applications.

  Channel 5
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to extend the Channel 5 signal to all parts of the UK. [27113]

  Dr. Howells
  Channel 5 services are available on all television platforms: terrestrial, satellite and cable. I do not expect the availability of analogue terrestrial Channel 5 services to be increased because the priority is to use available spectrum for developing digital terrestrial television (DTT). As part of the Digital TV Action Plan, Government and industry are considering the extension 354W
  of DTT coverage. We commenced a three-month consultation on 11 December, inviting views on the basis on which we should plan the use of spectrum for DTT, including the level of coverage required for public service broadcasting and for pay-TV services.

  Analogue Switch-Off
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the proposed date is for the total analogue switch off. [26705]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are committed to ensuring that terrestrial analogue broadcasting signals are maintained until: everyone who can currently get the main public service broadcasting channels in analogue form can receive them on digital systems; switching to digital is an affordable option for the vast majority of people; as a target indicator of affordability, 95 per cent. of consumers have access to digital equipment. Our target is to complete digital switchover by 2010.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what criteria sheltered housing complexes must meet to be exempt from payment of a television licence. [27167]

  Dr. Howells
  No sheltered housing schemes are exempt from payment of the television licence fee. However, under the Accommodation for Residential Care concessionary licence scheme, a special licence, at a fee of £5 per unit of accommodation, is available for residents in sheltered housing schemes which:

  (a) form part of a group of at least four dwellings within a common and exclusive boundary (though up to 25 per cent. of units in a scheme can be properties purchased under the 'right to buy' legislation);

  (b) are provided for occupation by disabled persons, mentally disordered persons or retired persons aged 60 years or more;

  (c) are provided or managed by a local authority, a housing association or a development corporation; and

  (d) have a person (for example a warden) whose function is to care for the needs of the residents and who either lives on site or works there for at least 30 hours a week.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many households in Angus(a) pay the full television licence, (b) pay a reduced licence fee and (c) receive a free television licence. [27168]

  Dr. Howells
  TV Licensing, which administers for the BBC as Licensing Authority the concessionary arrangements, including the free licence scheme for the over-75s, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of licences issued. However, estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that, out of approximately 76,000 people living in the Angus constituency, about 5,700 were aged 75 or over.
  355W
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many households in the Uxbridge constituency(a) pay for a television licence and (b) receive a free licence. [27264]

  Dr. Howells
  TV Licensing, which administers for the BBC as Licensing Authority the free television licence concession for the over-75s, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that, out of approximately 76,100 people living in the Uxbridge constituency, about 4,800 were aged 75 or over.

  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many residents of the London borough of Havering are in receipt of free television licences. [27222]

  Dr. Howells
  TV Licensing, which administers for the BBC as Licensing Authority the free television licence concession for the over-75s, is not able to provide details of the number of free licences issued by local authority area. However, 1991 Census figures indicate that there were approximately 14,200 residents of the London borough of Havering aged 75 years or over.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many households in Chesham and Amersham(a) pay a television licence and (b) receive a free licence. [27121]

  Dr. Howells
  TV Licensing, which administers for the BBC as Licensing Authority the free television licence concession for the over-75s, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that, out of approximately 88,900 people living in the Chesham and Amersham constituency, about 5,900 were aged 75 or over.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many households in south Tyneside(a) pay for a television licence and (b) receive a free licence. [25924]

  Dr. Howells
  TV Licensing, which administers for the BBC as Licensing Authority the free television licence concession for the over-75s, is not able to provide details of the number of licences issued by local authority area. However, 1991 Census figures record 64,173 households in the metropolitan borough of south Tyneside, of which 8,199 included a person aged 75 years or over.

  Children's Hospices
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what level of funding was given to each children's hospice in the last year by the New Opportunities Fund. [27250]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to him of 6 November 2001,Official Report, columns 170–71W. We expect the first New Opportunities Fund awards for palliative care for children to be made in spring of this year.

  Gambling
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects to implement the recommendations of the committee headed by Sir Alan Budd on gambling. [27591]

  Mr. Caborn
  We published the report of the independent Gambling Review Body in July last year. We are now considering all the comments which we have received on it since then, and we will announce our conclusions within the next few months. I cannot at this stage forecast an implementation timetable.

  Lottery Grants
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what her Department is doing to ensure a more equitable regional distribution of Lottery grants; [27282]

  (2) what her Department is doing to encourage applications for Lottery grants from economically deprived areas; [27283]

  (3) what action her Department will take to improve Lottery funding allocations in constituencies, in the bottom 25 constituencies in terms of value of awards. [27284]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government were keen to see all areas receive a fair share of funding. Reforms introduced under the National Lottery Act 1998, the revised policy directions issued to Lottery distributors in the same year, and targeted programmes introduced by distributors are designed to reduce disparities between the regions and there has been some improvement.

  We recognise, however, that there is still more to be done and that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 27 June 2001 a new £150 million initiative to target funds at some 50 areas which are both deprived and have received less Lottery funding than other parts of the country. The scheme, which is UK wide, will begin later this year.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will reply to the letter of 19 October 2001 from the hon. Member for Totnes enclosing one from Mrs. Christine Ashworth of Rattery, South Devon, which was acknowledged by her Parliamentary Correspondence Unit on 1 November 2001. [27040]

  Dr. Howells
  I replied to the hon. Gentleman on 16 January 2002.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Escapes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target for low level escapes from prison and Prison Service escorts. [17072]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Public Service Agreement target on escapes was published in "Public Services for the Future: Modernisation, Reform, Accountability". The
  357W
  target was to maintain existing performance of no escapes by high risk (category A) prisoners; and the overall rate of escapes from prison to be no higher than 0.17 per cent. of average prison population; and to establish a baseline for the rate of escapes from prison escorts and set a target for contracted-out escorts by April 1999.

  Performance on escapes from prison and Prison Service escorts for the period 1999–02 is listed in the table.

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  12001–02

  Escapes from prisons and Prison Service escorts expressed as a proportion of the average population (percentage)

  0.06

  0.03

  0.02

  Number of escapes from prisons and Prison Service escorts

  38

  19

  14

  1 Performance for the year 2001–02 is for the period April 2001 to October 2001. These data are provisional and subject to change.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued to date. [27642]

  Mr. Denham

  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: A recent review of the total number of antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) issued up until the end of September 2001 (latest available) was 466. Further work is being undertaken to rectify the under-reporting that has occurred based on the results from magistrates courts committees.

  Child Curfew Orders
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many child curfew orders have been issued to date; and if he will make a statement. [27641]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: No applications have been received to impose child curfew schemes under section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Sections 48 and 49 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which took effect on 1 August 2001, extended the upper age limit to 15 and allowed the police, as well as local authorities, to initiate schemes. Local areas are assessing the implications of these changes.

  Unenforced Deportation Orders
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the number of persons resident in the United Kingdom who are the subject of an unenforced deportation order; and if he will make a statement. [27032]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: I regret that there is no estimate of the number of persons resident in the United Kingdom who are the subject of an unenforced deportation order. This is because it is not possible to determine the number of persons who leave voluntarily without informing the Home Office of their departure.

  Prison Education
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of funding for prison education is provided from(a) Department for Education and Skills budgets and (b) Home Office budgets; what
  358W
  proportion of funding (i) goes directly to prisons from Government Departments and (ii) goes to prisons from the Prison Service; what proportion of funding is ring-fenced; what plans he has to change arrangements for prison education funding further; and if he will make a statement. [27638]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: Prison education funding is now entirely ring-fenced and administered jointly by the Home Office and Department for Education and Skills (DfES). Resources are transferred from DfES to the Prison Service via the Home Office, or in the case of juvenile establishments via the Youth Justice Board. Once transferred, the budget cannot be spent on other services. However, governors may direct resources for other activities towards education at their own discretion.

  The Prisoners' Learning and Skills Unit based in DfES will be conducting a review of the funding, delivery and procurement arrangements for prison education with a view to ensuring more equitable funding arrangements across the estate.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in the last year for which figures are available were studying Open university courses; and how many and what proportion of those prisoners were studying level 1 Open university courses. [27639]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: The main thrust of education in prisons is to provide opportunities for offenders to attain a range of nationally recognised qualifications up to level 2, which will enhance their employability on release. The Prison Service supports provision which is also made for those with higher levels of ability, for example through distance learning and Open university.

  However, information on take-up of Open university courses by prisoners is not held centrally.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 27 November 2001 from the hon. Member for Walsall, North regarding a constituent, Ref: 2123411. [27312]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: A reply was sent to my hon. Friend on 16 January 2002. I am sorry I was not able to reply sooner.

  Asylum Seekers
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of asylum seekers from Zimbabwe since 1 January 2000(a) have been granted asylum, (b) have been deported and (c) are awaiting determination of their case. [27527]

  Angela Eagle
  The number of Zimbabwean nationals who have applied for asylum since January 2000 and have subsequently been granted asylum or removed is not readily available, and could be obtained only by examination of individual case records at disproportionate cost.

  There were 2,235 applications for asylum from Zimbabwe nationals from 1 January 2000 to 30 September 2001, inclusive. The number of asylum and Exceptional

  359W
  Leave to Remain (ELR) grants made in the same period is shown in the table. However these initial decisions do not all relate to applications made in the same period. A proportion of applications which received an initial refusal result in an appeal being lodged.

  Initial decisions1,2,3January 2000-September 2001, nationals of Zimbabwe

  Number

  Percentage of decisions4

  Total initial decisions

  2,035

  —

  Of which considered under normal procedures:

  Granted asylum

  85

  4

  Granted ELR

  40

  2

  Refused

  1,865

  94

  Of which considered under Backlog Clearance Exercise5:

  Granted asylum or ELR under backlog criteria

  35

  89

  Refused under backlog criteria

  5

  11

  1 Levels rounded to the nearest five, and are provisional. Excludes dependants.

  2 Information is of initial decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  3 Decisions figures do not necessarily relate to applications received in this period.

  4 Percentages for cases considered under normal procedures and those within the backlog clearance exercise are calculated separately.

  5 Cases decided under measures aimed at reducing the pre-1996 asylum application backlog.

  Comparable information on the numbers of Zimbabwean asylum seekers removed over the same period is not available.

  The number of Zimbabweans who have applied for asylum since 1 January 2000 and are currently awaiting an initial decision on their asylum application, and the number awaiting the outcome of appeal determinations, is not available, and would be available only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case files.

  Information on asylum applications, initial decisions and removals are published quarterly. The next publication will be available from 28 February 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uklrds/irnmigrationl.html.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contingency plans are in place for accommodating future refugees from Zimbabwe. [27426]

  Angela Eagle
  Although an influx of individuals seeking asylum from Zimbabwe is not expected, contingency arrangements exist for responding to such a situation should it occur. These arrangements are being updated as necessary by the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate in liaison with relevant organisations.

  Asylum and Immigration Policy
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy that country assessments in relation to asylum and immigration policy are undertaken by an independent body; and if he will make a statement. [27843]
  360W
  Angela Eagle
  The country assessments are compiled from a wide variety of sources, including reports from media and non-governmental agencies, and advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, its high commissions and embassies. All the source material is cited throughout, and the vast majority is readily available in the public domain.

  We have commissioned an evaluation of the contents and accessibility of country information in the asylum process. This work includes an assessment of whether the information provided by the Country Information and Policy Unit, including the country assessments, meets the needs of users. The finalised report will provide systematic, additional evidence on which to base decisions whether any further mechanisms might prove useful.

  Firearm Officers (Suspension)
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firearm officers serving in police forces in England and Wales were suspended from duty in 2000; and what was the average length of time from suspension to re-instatement or discharge. [26961]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not held centrally and it could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Immigration Detainees
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he expects to meet his target that no immigration detainees will be held in prisons by the end of January 2000. [27732]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) on14 January 2002,Official Report, column 97W.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will provide substantive answers to questions 14618, 14619 and 14622 following his holding answers on 14 November 2001. [27041]

  Mr. Denham
  I replied to the hon. Member on 15 January 2002,Official Report, column 178W.

  Young Offenders
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the numbers of children aged 10 to 16 years in young offender institutions and secure units. [26859]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government believe that juveniles should be sent to custody only as a last resort. That is why we have greatly strengthened and expanded the range of non-custodial sentencing options available to the courts. These include the Reparation Order, the Action Plan Order, the Parenting Order, the Supervision Order, and Curfew Orders with electronic monitoring for 10 to 15-year-olds.

  In July last year the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales launched the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP). This £45 million scheme provides courts with a robust alternative for 2,500

  361W
  persistent juvenile offenders who would otherwise face a custodial sentence or remand. ISSP brings together intensive supervision with unprecedented levels of surveillance, aimed at protecting the community while tackling offending behaviour. Each juvenile has an individually tailored package of reparation, training and education measures and courses to tackle specific issues such as drug addiction or anger management, and may be electronically tagged or, in some cases, voice verified, as part of the intensive surveillance.

  For some young people the seriousness and/or persistence of their offending may mean that a custodial sentence is the only appropriate response. We are therefore working with the Youth Justice Board to help ensure that custodial penalties are served in facilities which provide a positive and constructive regime focused on preventing re-offending.

  People Trafficking
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the agencies(a) in the UK and (b) abroad involved in the interception and prosecution of people who traffic in human beings. [26906]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  People trafficking is recognised worldwide as a heinous crime which requires concerted national, European and international effort. Project Reflex is the multi-agency response to organised immigration crime, including people trafficking. Led by the National Crime Squad, Reflex brings together all the key agencies involved in the interception and prosecution of people who traffic in human beings into the United Kingdom. The main agencies are the Immigration Service, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the security and intelligence agencies, Europol, Customs and Excise and key police forces including the Metropolitan police, Kent and the British Transport police.

  Under Reflex, the United Kingdom has co-operated with law enforcement agencies in several other European Union member states and countries further afield, such as the Balkans, Hong Kong and Australia, to intercept and prosecute traffickers. The UK law enforcement agencies have also worked with Europol on its Organised Crime Situation Report which makes reference to the problem of people trafficking across Europe.

  We have established an international network of Immigration Liaison Officers (ILOs) in the key countries through which the traffickers transit en-route to the United Kingdom. Their purpose is to encourage and support action to disrupt the activities of criminal gangs and develop a joint intelligence structure.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what relationship his Department has with Interpol; and what discussions have taken place in the past three months about the trafficking of human beings. [26905]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Home Office's relationship with the International Criminal Police Organisation—Interpol—is primarily through the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS), which is home to the London bureau of Interpol. Interpol has its headquarters in Lyon, France and has 179 member countries, each with a bureau in the capital city. The London bureau is one of the 362W
  world's busiest with approximately 65 staff handling over 12,000 new cases each year. NCIS Director General John Abbott also sits on the Interpol Executive Committee.

  NCIS has been a major contributor to a far-reaching project managed by Interpol HQ in Lyon concerning the illegal trafficking of human beings. This is a multi-national, multi-agency project aimed at improving the collection and sharing of information on organised crime groups involved in illegal immigration and the trafficking of people.

  As Director General of NCIS, John Abbott is also a member of Project Reflex, a multi-agency task force which co-ordinates anti-trafficking operations and develops the intelligence and strategic planning to support them.

  Visas
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications were made for visa renewal in each year since 1997; and what was the(a) average and (b) upper decile time taken to determine applications in each year. [25997]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: Statistics on the number of general and settlement applications for further leave to remain received and the upper decile time taken to determine applications are not available.

  Information on the number of applications decided, 1997 to 2000 is given in the table.

  The average time, in days, to decide applications for further leave to remain in the United Kingdom was 46 in 1997 and 49 in 1998. This includes applications decided on the day in the Public Enquiry Offices and excludes asylum-related decisions. Comparable data for later years are not available.

  Decisions on applications for an extension of leave to remain1 in the United Kingdom and settlement2, excluding EEA nationals 1997–2000

  Total decisions

  1997

  166,580

  1998

  160,080

  1999

  178,810

  2000

  249,920

  1 Excludes dependants of principal applicants, asylum related decisions, the outcome of appeals and withdrawn applications.

  2 Excludes 'in line' dependants and the outcome of appeals.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to investigate the delays in processing the visa application Ref. N1048443, date of birth 15 May 1972; if he will set up an inquiry into the reasons for the delay; and if he will make a statement. [25635]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 10 January 2002]: This case has been reviewed by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND), the result of which is set out in my reply of 16 January 2002 to the hon. Member's letter of 19 December 2001. I apologise to the hon. Member and his constituent for IND' s mishandling of this case but as the circumstances have been established I see no grounds for setting up an inquiry.
  363W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend the time span for visas for those studying in this country. [26783]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: Students who have been accepted for a course of study will normally be granted leave to enter or remain to cover the whole duration of the course, unless there is any reason not to do so. Subject to the requirements of the Immigration Rules being met, students on courses of one year or more that finish in the summer will be granted leave until 31 October following the end of the course. For courses that do not follow the standard autumn to summer pattern, an additional two months leave is added to the end of course date. These extra months give students the opportunity to plan the next step of their career. Information regarding the length of leave to enter or remain to be granted to students may be found on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate website in the Immigration Directorate Instructions (Chapter 3).

  Family Visitor Appeals
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will respond to the Citizens Advice Bureaux service's response to the inter-departmental review team's discussion paper on family visitor appeals; and if he will make a statement. [26938]

  Angela Eagle
  The discussion paper on family visitor appeals forms part of the review of those appeals announced by the then Home Secretary in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on 11 January 2001,Official Report, columns 610–11W. As part of the consultation process I met representatives from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux to discuss their response to the paper. Their response and the other responses to the paper will be fed into the final report of the review team, together with the results of the independent research project commissioned by the team. We will consider all responses to the discussion paper in the context of the review as a whole and will publish a response.

  Immigration
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to decide on the application of 29 September by Mr. Abdul Majid of Westcliff-on-Sea, Home Office reference M 612263, seeking leave to remain in the United Kingdom. [24285]

  Angela Eagle
  Mr. Majid and his family already have leave to remain in the United Kingdom. A further application is currently being considered and they will be informed of the outcome shortly.

  Travellers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to prevent occupation of public parks, sports grounds and open spaces by travellers, and for their immediate eviction. [25917]

  Mr. Denham
  Legislation is already in place, under section 70 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which allows a council, on application from police and with the consent of the Secretary of State for the 364W
  Home Department, to impose a banning order preventing trespassory assemblies on land to which the public have no, or limited access.

  Under section 61 and section 77 of the same Act police and local authorities have discretionary powers to evict travellers from land when the appropriate statutory requirements are met.

  The effectiveness of legislation is kept under regular review.

  Anti-terrorism Arrests
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests have been made under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. [25824]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) on 19 December 2001, Official Report, columns 483–84W.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the names of those detained under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001; and if he will make a statement; [25789]

  (2) if he will list the names of those he has detained under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001; and if he will make a statement. [25209]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer my hon Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) on 19 December 2001, Official Report, columns 483–84W.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further action he proposes to take in respect of Abu Hamza al-Masri and the two other men arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. [25208]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: The individuals in question were released without charge from detention under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 in March 1999.

  The police are constantly investigating matters of alleged terrorism, and will continue to do so.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been detained under the provisions of Part IV of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001; how many have subsequently been released; when he expects SIAC to complete its review of those detained; and if he will list the names of those in custody. [26119]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Eight people have so far been detained under these provisions. None have been released, but one of those detained has left the United Kingdom voluntarily. The conduct of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) proceedings is a matter for the commission itself. As I made clear on 19 December, I shall not disclose the names of those detained unless they or their authorised representatives first do so.

  Hertfordshire Constabulary
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the recruitment of police officers to the Hertfordshire Constabulary. [25304]
  365W
  Mr. Denham
  Under the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) recruitment initiative, Hertfordshire Constabulary has been allocated a total of 107 additional officers, over and above the force's previous recruitment plans for the three years to March 2003.

  The force was unable to recruit any of its CFF allocation of 40 officers in 2000–01, but was allowed to carry-over the allocation into 2001–02. This carry-over brought the force's total allocation from the CFF for 2001–02 up to 70 officers. The force has asked to defer just five of its allocation for this year into 2002–03.

  Hertfordshire officers appointed since 1 September 1994 and not in receipt of housing allowance benefit from an allowance made to officers serving in a number of forces in the south-east. This allowance is £2,000 per annum and has been payable since 1 April 2001.

  All police forces, including Hertfordshire, benefit from the national recruitment advertising campaign. The campaign was launched in August 2000 and the latest phase began on 1 January 2002.

  Phone Tapping
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether hon. Members and peers have their office and home telephone conversations(a) recorded and (b) listened to on the instruction of the Home Office. [25006]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 366W.

  Dual Criminality
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will define the test of dual criminality. [26604]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The issue of dual criminality arises mainly in the context of extradition. Under the Extradition Act 1989, dual criminality will ordinarily be established where the fugitive's alleged conduct discloses an equivalent offence under United Kingdom law which would be punishable in both countries with a prison sentence of 12 months or more. For cases arising under schedule 1 to this Act where the request is made under a bilateral treaty, the conduct must also be found on a list of offences set out in the treaty. In the case of the backing of warrants scheme which governs our extradition relations with the Republic of Ireland, the conduct must be punishable in both countries with a prison sentence of six months or more.

  If the appropriate test for dual criminality is not satisfied, the extradition fugitive must be discharged under existing legislation.

  There is also a test for dual criminality in respect of a limited number of requests for mutual legal assistance. This is where an incoming request involves the exercise of search and seizure powers or the special investigation powers of the Serious Fraud Squad in cases of serious or complex fraud. Again, if the crime alleged on the request is not a crime in the United Kingdom, there is no dual criminality, and the request cannot proceed.

  Medical Pensions
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have been awarded medical pensions, and what these figures are as a percentage of their local force broken down by(a) each year since 1997 and (b) force, giving the average age of those receiving such a pension in each force for each year. [25441]

  Mr. Denham
  The figures on numbers of medical pensions are given in the tables. Ages of retiring officers are not centrally available.

  MIC matrix of indicators 1997–98

  Average police strength

  Police medical retirements

  Medical retirements (Percentage of force

  England and Wales

  125,950

  1,811

  1.4

  Avon and Somerset

  2,976

  66

  2.2

  Bedfordshire

  1,086

  23

  2.1

  Cambridgeshire

  1,297

  12

  0.9

  Cheshire

  2,078

  21

  1.0

  City of London

  869

  6

  0.7

  Cleveland

  1,494

  8

  0.5

  Cumbria

  1,166

  20

  1.7

  Derbyshire

  1,772

  51

  2.9

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,929

  22

  0.8

  Dorset

  1,287

  10

  0.8

  Durham

  1,486

  17

  1.1

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,007

  11

  1.1

  Essex

  2,959

  29

  1.0

  Gloucestershire

  1,123

  9

  0.8

  Greater Manchester

  6,930

  199

  2.9

  Gwent

  1,245

  15

  1.2

  Hampshire

  3,471

  30

  0.9

  Hertfordshire

  1,750

  17

  1.0

  Humberside

  2,056

  27

  1.3

  Kent

  3,285

  18

  0.5

  Lancashire

  3,344

  27

  0.8

  Leicestershire

  2,020

  25

  1.2

  Lincolnshire

  1,194

  28

  2.3

  Merseyside

  4,322

  80

  1.9

  Metropolitan police

  27,028

  406

  1.5

  Norfolk

  1,451

  15

  1.0

  Northamptonshire

  1,182

  18

  1.5

  Northumbria

  3,437

  95

  2.8

  North Wales

  1,396

  11

  0.8

  North Yorkshire

  1,375

  22

  1.6

  Nottinghamshire

  2,341

  40

  1.7

  South Wales

  2,884

  69

  2.4

  South Yorkshire

  3,194

  29

  0.9

  Staffordshire

  2,258

  66

  2.9

  Suffolk

  1,189

  20

  1.7

  Surrey

  1,642

  10

  0.6

  Sussex

  3,063

  23

  0.8

  Thames Valley

  3,820

  40

  1.0

  Warwickshire

  933

  18

  1.9

  West Mercia

  2,036

  27

  1.3

  West Midlands

  7,194

  81

  1.1

  West Yorkshire

  5,215

  41

  0.8

  Wiltshire

  1,167

  9

  0.8

  1998–99

  Average police strength

  Police medical retirements

  Medical retirements (Percentage of force

  England and Wales

  125,695

  1,642

  1.3

  Avon and Somerset

  3,012

  24

  0.8

  Bedfordshire

  1,041

  27

  2.6

  Cambridgeshire

  1,295

  17

  1.3

  Cheshire

  2,111

  22

  1.0

  367W

  1998–99

  Average police strength

  Police medical retirements

  Medical retirements (Percentage of force

  City of London

  790

  6

  0.8

  Cleveland

  1,471

  14

  1.0

  Cumbria

  1,160

  18

  1.6

  Derbyshire

  1,777

  21

  1.2

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,946

  20

  0.7

  Dorset

  1,303

  16

  1.2

  Durham

  1,552

  15

  1.0

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,044

  8

  0.8

  Essex

  2,936

  35

  1.2

  Gloucestershire

  1,113

  14

  1.3

  Greater Manchester

  6,913

  179

  2.6

  Gwent

  1,250

  13

  1.0

  Hampshire

  3,470

  26

  0.7

  Hertfordshire

  1,752

  8

  0.5

  Humberside

  2,021

  15

  0.7

  Kent

  3,269

  16

  0.5

  Lancashire

  3,331

  18

  0.5

  Leicestershire

  2,037

  24

  1.2

  Lincolnshire

  1,171

  20

  1.7

  Merseyside

  4,373

  42

  1.0

  Metropolitan police

  26,566

  510

  1.9

  Norfolk

  1,426

  13

  0.9

  Northamptonshire

  1,167

  17

  1.5

  Northumbria

  3,854

  52

  1.3

  North Wales

  1,416

  20

  1.4

  North Yorkshire

  1,360

  18

  1.3

  Nottinghamshire

  2,248

  48

  2.1

  South Wales

  2,989

  64

  2.1

  South Yorkshire

  3,165

  19

  0.6

  Staffordshire

  2,279

  18

  0.8

  Suffolk

  1,195

  29

  2.4

  Surrey

  1,680

  9

  0.5

  Sussex

  2,962

  21

  0.7

  Thames Valley

  3,822

  40

  1.0

  Warwickshire

  925

  24

  2.6

  West Mercia

  2,033

  24

  1.2

  West Midlands

  7,250

  37

  0.5

  West Yorkshire

  5,053

  49

  1.0

  Wiltshire

  1,169

  12

  1.0

  1999–2000

  Average police strength

  Police medical retirements

  Medical retirements (Percentage of force

  England and Wales

  119,570

  1,232

  1.0

  Avon and Somerset

  2,992

  40

  1.3

  Bedfordshire

  1,040

  18

  1.7

  Cambridgeshire

  1,271

  10

  0.8

  Cheshire

  2,101

  17

  0.8

  City of London

  766

  11

  1.4

  Cleveland

  1,449

  15

  1.0

  Cumbria

  1,116

  20

  1.8

  Derbyshire

  1,783

  12

  0.7

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,896

  20

  0.7

  Dorset

  1,306

  10

  0.8

  Durham

  1,579

  8

  0.5

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,047

  12

  1.1

  Essex

  2,877

  51

  1.8

  Gloucestershire

  1,128

  8

  0.7

  Greater Manchester

  6,853

  132

  1.9

  Gwent

  1,277

  25

  2.0

  Hampshire

  3,479

  20

  0.6

  Hertfordshire

  1,772

  10

  0.6

  Humberside

  1,979

  11

  0.6

  Kent

  3,236

  18

  0.6

  Lancashire

  3,249

  17

  0.5

  Leicestershire

  2,006

  22

  1.1

  Lincolnshire

  1,131

  10

  0.9

  Merseyside

  4,175

  45

  1.1

  Metropolitan police

  26,566

  289

  1.1

  368W

  1999–2000

  Average police strength

  Police medical retirements

  Medical retirements (Percentage of force)

  Norfolk

  1,403

  12

  0.9

  Northamptonshire

  1,140

  5

  0.4

  Northumbria

  3,832

  43

  1.1

  North Wales

  1,366

  15

  1.1

  North Yorkshire

  1,319

  25

  1.9

  Nottinghamshire

  2,252

  21

  0.9

  South Wales

  2,972

  52

  1.7

  South Yorkshire

  3,183

  24

  0.8

  Staffordshire

  —

  3

  —

  Suffolk

  1,177

  15

  1.3

  Surrey

  1,782

  14

  0.8

  Sussex

  —

  16

  —

  Thames Valley

  3,784

  19

  0.5

  Warwickshire

  912

  9

  1.0

  West Mercia

  1,982

  27

  1.4

  West Midlands

  7,402

  28

  0.4

  West Yorkshire

  4,916

  45

  0.9

  Wiltshire

  1,078

  8

  0.7

  2000–01

  Average police strength

  Police medical retirements

  Medical retirements (Percentage of force)

  England and Wales

  123,476

  1,209

  I%

  Avon and Somerset

  2,994

  42

  1%

  Bedfordshire

  1,034

  18

  2%

  Cambridgeshire

  1,296

  11

  1%

  Cheshire

  2,011

  22

  1%

  City of London

  703

  9

  1%

  Cleveland

  1,424

  9

  1%

  Cumbria

  1,048

  24

  2%

  Derbyshire

  1,823

  12

  1%

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,934

  15

  1%

  Dorset

  1,354

  12

  1%

  Durham

  1,595

  8

  1%

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,057

  14

  1%

  Essex

  2,894

  34

  1%

  Gloucestershire

  1,170

  7

  1%

  Greater Manchester

  6,910

  110

  2%

  Gwent

  1,274

  16

  1%

  Hampshire

  3,435

  17

  0%

  Hertfordshire

  1,922

  13

  1%

  Humberside

  1,911

  20

  1%

  Kent

  3,318

  29

  1%

  Lancashire

  3,255

  30

  1%

  Leicestershire

  2,033

  28

  1%

  Lincolnshire

  1,202

  4

  0%

  Merseyside

  4,081

  47

  1%

  Metropolitan police

  24,935

  225

  1%

  Norfolk

  1,419

  10

  1%

  Northamptonshire

  1,159

  8

  1%

  Northumbria

  3,857

  28

  1%

  North Wales

  1,444

  31

  2%

  North Yorkshire

  1,312

  37

  3%

  Nottinghamshire

  2,276

  16

  1%

  South Wales

  3,108

  76

  2%

  South Yorkshire

  3,175

  30

  1%

  Staffordshire

  2,120

  9

  0%

  Suffolk

  1,133

  14

  I%

  Surrey

  2,066

  18

  1%

  Sussex

  2,855

  16

  1%

  Thames Valley

  3,706

  20

  1%

  Warwickshire

  925

  15

  2%

  West Mercia

  1,951

  28

  1%

  West Midlands

  7,420

  29

  0%

  West Yorkshire

  4,815

  44

  1%

  Wiltshire

  1,120

  5

  0%

  Police Conduct
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he is proposing to the procedure whereby officers can resign when they are subject to sentence for criminal offences. [25442]

  Mr. Denham
  Conviction for a criminal offence is a breach of the police code of conduct. Where there is reason to believe that a police officer has breached the code, the chief officer of the force concerned may suspend the officer where it is in the public interest to do so. An officer who is suspended may not resign unless the chief officer agrees. Current procedures therefore enable chief officers to ensure that, in appropriate cases, officers do not resign to avoid misconduct proceedings. It is for the chief officer to determine whether a officer should be suspended.

  Where an officer is awaiting sentence for criminal offences and offers his resignation the resignation may be accepted because the maximum penalty a Chief Constable can impose is dismissal. That is a matter for the Chief Constable to decide.

  In relation to officers seeking medical retirement, the Government set out its position in paragraph 6.46 of the White Paper "Policing a New Century: A Blueprint for Reform" (CM 5326). That paragraph said:
  Regulations now allow for disciplinary hearings to go ahead in the absence of the accused, although the power is not used very frequently. The Government believe that it is wholly unacceptable for sickness or medical retirement to be used as a means of avoiding discipline. This requires strong support from the centre—which we will provide—and firm management action in using the existing power to proceed with hearings in all but the most exceptional cases. We will amend the central guidance and, if necessary, the statutory regulations to achieve this. Where medical retirement is at issue, the police authority should consider whether it would be right to exercise its discretion not to retire the officer where the public interest in completing the proceedings in a misconduct case outweighs the medical condition.

  We are still considering recommendation 56 of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry concerning the availability of disciplinary action after retirement.

  Brixton Police
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Brixton police were accepting reports of minor crime over the telephone between 24 December 2001 and 11 January 2002. [25939]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that Brixton police were accepting reports of minor crime over the telephone between

  Number of officers on patrol and in organisational support jobs

  Force

  Number of foot/car/beat patrol officers

  Number per 100,000 population

  Number in organisational support roles

  Number per 100,000 population

  Avon and Somerset

  1,604

  106.8

  35

  2.3

  Bedfordshire

  419

  74.5

  18

  3.2

  Cambridgeshire

  516

  71.2

  40

  5.5

  Cheshire

  944

  96.1

  54

  5.5

  Cleveland

  612

  110.1

  46

  8.3

  Cumbria

  584

  118.8

  18

  3.7

  Derbyshire

  826

  84.8

  74

  7.6

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,266

  80.6

  51

  3.3

  Dorset

  640

  92.4

  12

  1.7

  370W
  24 December 2001 and 2 January 2002 and between 8 January 2002 and 11 January 2002. For operational reasons, Brixton police were unable to accept such reports between the dates of 2 January 2002 and 8 January 2002.

  However, throughout this period the Borough Control Room, through which all allegations of crime are initially directed, was functioning as normal.

  Illegal Raves
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to police regarding illegal raves involving trespass; and if he will make a statement. [25937]

  Mr. Denham
  Guidance was issued to police on illegal raves in November 1994 and was contained in Home Office Circular 45/94. This Circular contained an introductory guide to provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers are available to police to take action against owners of generator vehicles used in illegal raves on private property involving trespass. [25938]

  Mr. Denham
  Powers available to police to deal with raves are found in sections 63-67 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

  These powers allow a police superintendent to direct those attending a rave to leave and take with them any vehicles or other property. If a person fails to comply with this direction or returns to the site within seven days, a constable may seize and remove their vehicle.

  Police Deployments
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statistics he collates on the number of(a) police officers on the beat and (b) police officers in administration jobs per 100,000 population in each police authority area. [24935]

  Mr. Denham
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary annually collects information from each police force on the numbers of officers deployed to different areas of police activity. The latest data available are for the position on 31 March 2001.

  The table sets out the number of officers deployed to foot/car/beat patrol and the number of officers in organisational support jobs (that is, members of staff whose primary role is to service the internal needs of the organisation) per 100,000 of population for each force in England and Wales.
  371W

  Number of officers on patrol and in organisational support jobs

  Force

  Number of foot/car/beat patrol officers

  Number per 100,000 population

  Number in organisational support roles

  Number per 100,000 population

  Durham

  741

  122.2

  24

  4.0

  Dyfed-Powys

  442

  91.9

  5

  1.0

  Essex

  1,442

  89.1

  22

  1.4

  Gloucestershire

  528

  94.0

  12

  2.1

  Greater Manchester

  3,663

  142.2

  60

  2.3

  Gwent

  619

  111.2

  12

  2.2

  Hampshire

  1,966

  110.4

  43

  2.4

  Hertfordshire

  1,043

  100.0

  18

  1.7

  Humberside

  1,040

  117.9

  48

  5.4

  Kent

  1,139

  71.7

  83

  5.2

  Lancashire

  1,528

  107.2

  68

  4.7

  Leicestershire

  923

  98.7

  20

  2.1

  Lincolnshire

  711

  113.2

  18

  2.8

  Merseyside

  2,109

  150.3

  84

  6.0

  Metropolitan police and City of London police

  11,292

  155.1

  774

  10.6

  Norfolk

  702

  88.1

  42

  5.3

  Northamptonshire

  537

  86.4

  33

  5.3

  Northumbria

  2,215

  156.1

  136

  9.6

  North Wales

  662

  100.6

  39

  5.9

  North Yorkshire

  705

  94.3

  22

  2.9

  Nottinghamshire

  1,237

  119.8

  21

  2.0

  South Wales

  1,659

  133.6

  67

  5.4

  South Yorkshire

  1,487

  114.1

  131

  10.0

  Staffordshire

  1,142

  107.7

  46

  4.3

  Suffolk

  625

  92.7

  7

  1.0

  Surrey

  872

  80.9

  48

  4.4

  Sussex

  1,062

  70.1

  58

  3.8

  Thames Valley

  1,681

  79.4

  48

  2.2

  Warwickshire

  398

  78.3

  7

  1.4

  West Mercia

  809

  71.0

  44

  3.9

  West Midlands

  4,375

  166.6

  137

  5.2

  West Yorkshire

  2,314

  109.4

  55

  2.6

  Wiltshire

  529

  86.7

  25

  4.1

  Unlicensed Vehicles
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives to police forces on the prosecution of individuals who do not have a current MOT certificate for their vehicles. [25136]

  Mr. Denham
  No specific guidance is given to the police. The requirement to have a current Ministry of Transport (MOT) certificate is backed up by some 320,000 roadside and other spot vehicle safety checks each year. The police work closely with the Vehicles Inspectorate in conducting these, and drivers or transport operators whose vehicles fail the most important standards are prosecuted as appropriate. In addition, the routine procedure of requiring drivers to produce their driving documents also identifies a large number of offences, including not having a valid MOT certificate. The police service is concerned for public safety in relation to this type of offence as many caught committing such an offence will be using unroadworthy and dangerous vehicles.

  From January 2003, information from the computerised MOT database will begin to be available to the police via the Police National Computer. This will significantly improve the ability of the police to enforce the requirement for vehicles to be covered by a current MOT certificate.

  Police (Sickness Absence)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the latest figures are for the number of 372W
  sickness days lost in UK police forces; what the latest costs are for ill-health early retirements in each police force; and what the latest figures are for the number of police officers taking ill health early retirement. [25107]

  Mr. Denham
  Figures for police forces in England and Wales during 2000–01 are shown in the table. Figures for early ill-health retirements are not available as distinct from overall ill health retirements. Figures for the cost of ill-health early retirements in each police force are not available centrally.

  Force

  Working days lost to sick leave

  Ill-health retirements

  Avon and Somerset

  40,147

  42

  Bedfordshire

  13,544

  18

  Cambridgeshire

  17,143

  11

  Cheshire

  27,513

  22

  City of London

  10,497

  9

  Cleveland

  18,955

  9

  Cumbria

  13,755

  24

  Derbyshire

  21,022

  12

  Devon and Cornwall

  33,034

  15

  Dorset

  13,485

  12

  Durham

  20,801

  8

  Dyfed-Powys

  12,191

  14

  Essex

  40,455

  34

  Gloucestershire

  12,261

  7

  Greater Manchester

  101,464

  110

  Gwent

  19,569

  16

  Hampshire

  42,184

  17

  Hertfordshire

  22,847

  13

  Humberside

  16,485

  20

  373W

  Force

  Working days lost to sick leave

  Ill-health retirements

  Kent

  38,148

  29

  Lancashire

  40,858

  30

  Leicestershire

  22,596

  28

  Lincolnshire

  13,236

  4

  Merseyside

  54,256

  47

  Metropolitan police

  278,933

  225

  Norfolk

  16,694

  10

  Northamptonshire

  11,416

  8

  Northumbria

  33,666

  28

  North Wales

  16,234

  31

  North Yorkshire

  17,000

  37

  Nottinghamshire

  25,460

  16

  South Wales

  49,043

  76

  South Yorkshire

  39,232

  30

  Staffordshire

  28,424

  9

  Suffolk

  12,179

  14

  Surrey

  24,715

  18

  Sussex

  32,437

  16

  Thames Valley

  53,659

  20

  Warwickshire

  12,472

  15

  West Mercia

  26,563

  28

  West Midlands

  96,800

  29

  West Yorkshire

  62,554

  44

  Wiltshire

  12,219

  5

  England and Wales

  1,516,146

  1,209

  Drug Offences (Immigration Control)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which countries refuse entry to those UK citizens who have a conviction for drug offences in the UK. [23305]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The information is not available in the format requested. Decisions to refuse entry to United Kingdom (UK) Citizens may depend on the type and date of any conviction and the reason for entry. Normal refusal may be overturned for compassionate reasons. The recommended action for travellers who have a drug conviction would be to check their admissibility with the UK embassy or high commission of the country they are planning to visit.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Rural Affairs Forum
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the terms of reference for the Rural Affairs Forum. [27658]

  Alun Michael
  The Rural Affairs Forum for England was set up to implement the Government's commitment in their Rural White Paper of December 2000 to establish a national sounding board so that Ministers "have regular and direct contact with the main rural groups so that they know what is going on and what countryside people think". It will be for the forum itself to define its priorities and agenda for action.

  The forum met for the first time on 9 January. Following extensive consultation with rural stakeholders, its members were chosen to represent a wide range of rural organisations, people, and perspectives, including
  374W
  economic, social and environmental interests. Each regional rural affairs forum will be represented on the national forum.

  The forum had a useful preliminary discussion of its work programme at its first meeting and it is clear that the forum will wish to identify issues of concern to rural people and businesses; to give views on proposed Government policies as they affect rural areas; to review the implementation of the Rural White Paper, and suggest where further policy development may be needed to deliver its objectives; and to review the quality of public services in rural areas and make recommendations for how they might be improved.

  The forum has agreed to some regular items of business, including consideration of the Countryside Agency's annual State of the Countryside report on its overview of Government Departments' reports on "rural-proofing" of their policies. It will also consider other issues that its members, Ministers or the rural advocate may raise. These may include matters referred to it by a regional rural affairs forum or by the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP) Consultation Group. Reports from the forum will go to Ministers and to the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Rural Renewal.

  Members agreed that the full forum should normally meet four times a year, and set up sub-groups as needed. These are likely to involve a wider range of stakeholders than those directly represented on the forum.

  Flood Insurance (Lewes)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress she is making in her discussions with the Association of British Insurers to ensure that residents of Lewes have access to flood insurance at reasonable cost. [27538]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government maintain close links with the insurance industry to help ensure continued availability of affordable flood cover. There is an agreement among Association of British Insurers (ABI) member companies that they will continue to provide flood cover, except in exceptional circumstances, for domestic properties and small businesses which they currently insure, during 2001 and 2002. Cases where there is an alleged breach of this agreement have been referred by the hon. Member to the ABI for investigation. However, it must be recognised that insurance companies need to take a commercial decision as to what risk they will cover and on what terms. Also, the insurance industry is a competitive one and customers may need to shop around to obtain the best deal.

  My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and I met the ABI on 5 September to discuss our mutual aim of ensuring that affordable flood insurance cover continues to be generally available after December 2002. There have also been further meetings between officials and I expect to meet the ABI again reasonably soon.

  Together with the flood defence operating authorities, we are reducing the risk of flooding and are communicating this to the insurance industry. We are reducing the risk through substantial increases in investment in flood and coastal defences (which now totals over £400 million a year). Flood defences are being repaired, renewed, maintained and improved. Flood

  375W
  warning arrangements are continually being improved. The Government have issued strengthened guidance to local planning authorities on control of development in flood risk areas, and are reviewing the financial and institutional arrangements under which the flood defence service is delivered.

  Refrigerators
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what arrangements are in place to allocate the adjustment to the Environmental Protective and Cultural Services block announced in the provisional local government settlement to cover the costs of storage of used fridges in England. [25715]

  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). The extra money has been added to the upper tier sub-block of the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services SSA. We are considering urgently what sums may be necessary in the next financial year.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  British-Irish Council
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what was discussed at the recent meeting of the British-Irish Council; and if he will make a statement; [25597]

  (2) what was discussed at the recent meeting of the British-Irish Council; and if he will make a statement. [25607]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  The main focus of the summit, held on 30 November 2001, was a discussion on drug misuse and how co-operation in this area might be developed within the British-Irish Council.

  In addition, each administration reported on progress that had been made in each sector of work.

  I have placed a copy of the joint communique issued after the meeting in the House of Commons Library.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Post Offices
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the value of benefits paid through the post offices was in each year since 1995. [25359]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The value of benefits paid in real terms through the Post Office in each financial year since 1995 is shown in the following table:

  £ billion

  Value

  1995–96

  64

  1996–97

  63

  1997–98

  60

  376W

  £ billion

  Value

  1998–99

  58

  1999–2000

  57

  2000–01

  54

  The figures provided are in respect of customers paid by order book and girocheque.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in(a) Stoke-on-Trent, North, (b) Staffordshire and (c) England he expects to receive a guaranteed winter fuel payment of £200 this winter. [25527]

  Mr. McCartney
  Winter fuel payments are available to most people aged 60 and over. Those people who are entitled to winter fuel payments and are in receipt of State benefits are paid automatically; others have to claim. The rate is either £200 or £100, depending on whether the individual lives alone or with another eligible person. The information in respect of this winter is not yet available, but details for last winter are shown in the table. We expect the figures for this winter to be similar.

  Number of people receiving a winter fuel payment in the Stoke-on-Trent, North constituency, the county of Staffordshire and England in 2000–01.

  Thousand

  All winter fuel payments

  Winter fuel payment of £200

  Stoke on Trent, North

  15.8

  7.7

  Staffordshire

  160.9

  74.5

  England

  9,526.3

  4,742.0

  Note:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to sampling error.

  Source:

  Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service Winter Fuels Payment 2000–01 exercise.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if a pensioner(a) in receipt and (b) not in receipt of income support in winter 2000 was eligible for the winter fuel payment in winter 2000; and if payment was automatic. [25259]

  Mr. McCartney
  Most people aged 60 and over in a specified qualifying week are entitled to a winter fuel payment. However, people living permanently in residential care homes or nursing homes who are receiving higher levels of income support are not entitled to winter fuel payments as they are already receiving public assistance with their care costs, which includes heating.

  In winter 2000–01, eligible people receiving income support in the qualifying week received payments automatically, without the need to claim, as did those receiving state retirement pension or other social security benefits (excluding housing benefit, council tax benefit and child benefit). Other eligible people needed to make a claim.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what has been the average time he has taken to answer written questions from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak over the past three months; and if he will make a statement. [25711]

  Maria Eagle
  The number of questions tabled has nearly doubled from the average for the period from October. It is not surprising, therefore, that the time to reply to inquiries has lengthened. The average time to answer questions from my hon. Friend is 17 working days.

  New Deal
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of each quarterly cohort on the full-time education and training option in the new deal for young people left the new deal with the qualification for which they aimed in each quarter since the inception of the new deal. [25986]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Information on qualifications gained is not available.

  Pensions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the single person's pension has been as a percentage of average earnings in each year since 1972. [26255]

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Women receiving a state pension on the basis of their own contributions (million)

  3.62

  3.76

  3.89

  4.03

  4.15

  Percentage as a proportion of all women in receipt of retirement pension

  53

  55

  56

  58

  60

  Note:

  Figures rounded to nearest 10,000 and nearest percentage point.

  Source:

  5 per cent. sample from the Pension Strategy Computer System at March of each year.

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  Estimate of women likely to receive a state pension on the basis of their own contributions (million)

  4.27

  4.42

  4.57

  4.72

  4.90

  Percentage as a proportion of all women in receipt of retirement pension

  62

  63

  65

  66

  68

  Notes:

  Forecast figures provided by Government Actuaries Department are for financial year.

  Figures rounded to nearest 10,000 and nearest percentage point.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what mechanisms he has put in place to enable individuals to receive combined pension forecasts giving both state and private pension details. [15795]

  Mr. McCartney
  Combined pension forecasts are an important part of our commitment to provide individuals with better information about their pension position and the options available to them, in order to enable them to save for their retirement. Individuals are provided with a forecast of both their state and current private pension together for the first time. The statement is issued on a voluntary basis by the private sector provider, using state pension information supplied by the Department.
  378W
  Mr. McCartney
  The information is contained in "The Abstract of Statistics for Social Security Benefits and Contributions and Indices of Prices and Earnings, 2000 Edition". The publication is available in the Library. The abstract is also available on the internet at www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how he proposes to assess pension credit for pensioners who receive a state pension based on contribution years that do not allow a full state pension. [27337]

  Mr. McCartney
  Our proposals for pension credit will ensure that all pensioners, including those with less than full basic state pension, will receive a guaranteed minimum income for single pensioners that will be around £100 a week and £154 for married couples.

  The savings credit will reward income from second pensions and savings above the savings credit threshold. The illustrative figure for the threshold is 2003–04 is £77 for a single pensioner which is also the illustrative amount of the full basic state pension in 2003–04 and £123 for married couples.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will(a) estimate the numbers of women claiming a state pension on the basis of their own contributions in each of the last five years and (b) give this figure as a percentage of all women benefiting from a state pension; and if he will estimate the (i) number and (ii) percentage over the next five years. [27338]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is in the tables:

  We have worked closely with a selection of private sector partners and conducted pilot exercises to inform the design and development of the service and learned valuable lessons on how best to present and support the service being offered to our mutual customer.

  The service has been designed to ensure that it provides the right information in a way which individuals can easily interpret, is provided with their consent and that the data shared between the private/public sectors occurs in a controlled environment which does not add unnecessary overheads to the parties involved.

  We have amended regulations to facilitate the transfer of data, agreed and designed the format of the information transfers, customer consent process and content of the

  379W
  new statement. The Department has also created dedicated roles to ensure that schemes and individual customers taking advantage of the service, receive the support required.

  Recruitment of pension scheme providers and employers with occupational schemes began at the Pensions Show on 17 October 2001.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the percentage of employees in each decile of employee incomes who were not members of(a) occupational and (b) approved personal pension schemes as of 1 April. [20899]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. The latest available data, drawn from the Family Resources Survey 1999–2000, are set out in the table.

  All employees earning above the lower earnings limit (£66 per week in 1999–2000) are members of the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) unless they contract out into a personal or occupational pension. Therefore "all" full-time employees and part-time employees above earning over the lower earnings limit (above decile four) are accruing pension rights in the SERPS and/or are members of a private pension.

  Furthermore, for 18 million low and moderate earners, carers and the disabled the introduction of the state second pension will significantly increase the amount of state pension they will become entitled to. This will boost the retirement income of approximately 65 per cent. of current full-time employees (those in deciles one to seven) and almost all current part-time employees above decile four.

  Percentage who are not contributing to:

  Decile

  occupational pension

  personal pension

  either personal or occupational pension

  Full-time workers

  Lowest

  86

  93

  79

  2

  71

  89

  61

  3

  62

  87

  50

  4

  54

  84

  40

  5

  48

  86

  35

  6

  42

  84

  28

  7

  35

  84

  22

  8

  28

  85

  16

  9

  25

  84

  12

  Highest

  25

  81

  11

  Part-time workers

  Lowest

  90

  98

  88

  2

  93

  95

  89

  3

  91

  95

  87

  4

  86

  95

  81

  5

  78

  94

  72

  6

  74

  94

  68

  7

  64

  92

  57

  8

  51

  91

  43

  9

  46

  92

  40

  Highest

  39

  90

  31

  Notes:

  1. Information is not recorded by the Family Resources Survey on those who have a pension scheme which they are not currently contributing to, nor which personal pension schemes are approved schemes. Therefore the figures show those not contributing to occupational or personal pensions.

  380W

  2. The deciles are calculated separately for full and part-time workers, and are of gross earnings. The separation between full-time and part-time workers is to make clear the behavioural similarities that exist between those in same deciles on the full-time and part-time scale, but who would be in different deciles were the data combined, due to their differing earning levels.

  3. The estimates are based on sample counts that have been adjusted for non-response using multi-purpose grossing factors that control for region, council tax band and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non-response. The information covers Great Britain.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1999–2000

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many employees in the(a) public and (b) private sectors had access to a final salary occupational pension scheme in Scotland in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2001. [24931]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is not available for 2001. The available information is in the table:

  April 2000

  Number of public sector workers in Scotland with access to a final salary occupational scheme

  480,000

  Number of private sector workers in Scotland with access to a final salary occupational scheme

  440,000

  Notes:

  1. The information is derived from the New Earnings Survey (NES) and the Labour Force Survey (LFS). The NES provides the percentage of employees with access to the final salary occupational pension schemes and the LFS provides information on the overall number of public and private sector employees. Due to its sampling frame, the NES probably under represents relatively low paid and part-time staff. The LFS, like any sample survey, is subject to sampling error.

  2. NES estimates are collected on a workplace basis, from the employer. The LFS collects information on a residence basis from individuals. Research into commuting patterns has indicated that net levels of commuting to and from Scotland are not significant.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the role of affinity groups in the promotion of stakeholder pensions; and if he will estimate the number of pensions sold through this route. [25320]

  Mr. McCartney
  Affinity groups perform an important and valued role in assisting the Government's aim to ensure that everyone has the chance to save for a decent income in retirement. Several affinity groups are registered as stakeholder pension providers. Around 173,000 stakeholder pensions have been sold by such groups.

  Income Distribution
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the income distribution was in each of the last five years in each region of Britain. [26275]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The latest such information available, relating to the financial year 1999–2000, can be found in the publication "Households Below Average Income 1994/5–1999/00", a copy of which is held in the Library. Results for earlier years are also in the Library. However, year on year comparisons of this information at a regional level are not advisable as any changes over time are likely to be small in relation to sampling variation.

  ONE Pilot
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many working age clients have made a claim for a benefit other than jobseeker's allowance in the ONE Pilot areas since the introduction of compulsory work-focused interviews; and what percentage have failed to take part in the interview. [26480]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: For the period 3 April 2000 to 28 December 2001 a total of 261,742 claims for benefits other than jobseeker's allowance were received in ONE Pilot offices. In 1.1 per cent. of these cases the person claiming has failed to take part in a work-focused interview.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) of 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 180W, on the Child Support Agency, how much money is owed to parents with care by non-resident parents in the UK. [27004]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from Mike Isaac to Mr. Frank Field, dated 14 January 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply.
  Mr Smith is unavailable and therefore I am writing to you on his behalf.
  You have asked pursuant to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Answer to the honourable Member for the City of Durham of 18th December 2001 Official Report column 180W on the Child Support Agency, how much money is owed to parents with care by non-resident parents in the UK.
  The amount of maintenance which is owed by non-resident parents as at the 31st December 2001 was £584.56 million of which £317.39 million is considered to be collectable. Although we don't hold the information in the format you have requested, we can give you an approximation of the amount owed to the parents with care as being £192.90 million. The remainder is due to the Secretary of State in lieu of benefit payments made to parents with care.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Pensioner Poverty
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how the Government are helping pensioners who live in poverty; and what percentage of pensioners in the Midlothian constituency are living in poverty. [27175]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government's first priority was to address the immediate problem of pensioner poverty today. That is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee (MIG) in April 1999 to provide money for the poorest pensioners as quickly as possible. We have made it easier for the poorest pensioners to claim MIG, by reducing the 40-page claim form down to just 10 pages, and by introducing a new telephone service.

  The Government have also introduced measures to ensure that all pensioners share in rising prosperity. From April 2002 the basic state pension will rise by £3 a week for single pensioners and by £4.80 for couples, on top of
  382W
  above-inflation increases last year. This is in addition to the introduction of winter fuel payments, and free TV licences for the over-75s.

  From 2003, the pension credit will reward those who have worked hard and saved hard by providing extra cash for those with savings, second pensions and earnings up to incomes of £135 a week for a single pensioner and £200 a week for couples.

  The other information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows. As at August 2001 there were 1,600 customers in receipt of minimum income guarantee in the parliamentary constituency of Midlothian.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, August 2001.

  Disability Benefits (Scotland)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in(a) Galloway and Upper Nithsdale and (b) Scotland are in receipt of (i) disability living allowance and (ii) disability vehicle subsidy. [27429]

  Maria Eagle
  There is no general subsidy on vehicles for disabled people. The table shows the total numbers of disability living allowance recipients, and how many of them use the higher rate mobility component of the benefit to obtain a vehicle on favourable terms through the motability scheme.

  Disability living allowance recipients and number with a motability vehicle at 31 May 2001

  Area

  Disability living allowance recipients1

  Number with motability vehicles

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  3,510

  2583

  Scotland

  248,665

  37,822

  1 Number of DLA recipients rounded to the nearest five.

  2 Includes some motability customers in the Dumfries constituency as postcodes DG2 and DG3 cover both constituencies and data cannot be separated.

  Source:

  ASD Information Centre: 100% data

  Benefit Payments (Lewes)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of pensioners in the Lewes constituency this winter qualify for old age pension, but not for help with winter fuel payments. [27526]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is not available. However, generally pensioners who satisfy the entitlement conditions for winter fuel payments are either paid automatically or through the claims process.

  Ministerial Transport
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he last used the railway service in connection with his official duties; what station he left from and what was the destination; and whether it is his intention to make greater use of the railways in future. [28088]

  Mr. Darling
  I last used the railway on Monday, travelling from Gatwick to London Victoria. I endeavour to use the railway for official travel as appropriate.
  383W
  Arrangements for official travel are made in line with the guidance set out in chapter 7 of the "Ministerial Code", and the accompanying guidance document "Travel by Ministers", using the most efficient and cost effective mode of transport, and bearing in mind security considerations.

  Unemployment (Telford)
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the trends in unemployment among under 25-year-olds have been in Telford since 1997. [13461]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  In November 2001 there were 401 unemployed claimants aged 18 to 24 in Telford, of whom 68 had been unemployed for six months or more. Total unemployment in this age group in Telford has fallen by 16 per cent. since November 1997 while six month plus unemployment has fallen by 40 per cent.

  Fuel Direct
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures the Government take to promote fuel direct; and what the uptake of fuel direct has been. [13899]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 12 November 2001]: Tackling fuel poverty is one of this Government's key priorities. A number of measures have been put in place to ensure that by 2010, no vulnerable household will have to struggle to heat their home when it's cold. These measures include the £200 winter fuel payment for households that qualified, cold weather payments, a cut in the level of VAT on fuel and radical improvements to the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme.

  The fuel direct scheme provides valuable, last-resort protection against the threat of disconnection for people in receipt of income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance who are in arrears with their utility bills. Fuel companies generally make customers who have fallen into arrears aware of the scheme.

  The latest available figures show that in May 20011 the fuel direct scheme was helping 55,900 people.
  1 Data taken from the Income Support Quarterly Statistical Inquiry, (May 2001) and the Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Statistical Inquiry, (May 2001).

  Social Fund
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the costs in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 of the Independent Review Service for the social fund. [19524]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Independent Review Service provides an impartial, independent review for people who are dissatisfied with the outcome of their application to the discretionary Social Fund.

  Expenditure on the Independent Review Service during 2000–01 was £3.2 million. The 2001–02 budget allocation is £3.7 million.

  Means Testing
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of people subject to means-testing in the(a) current and (b) 2002–03 financial years. [20996]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We estimate that there will be approximately 6.5 million people receiving an income-related benefit both this financial year and the next.

  Third-age Apprenticeships
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to develop third-age apprenticeships in the Wirral. [22180]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 358W.

  Age Diversity
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if the Government will make a response to the evaluation of the code of practice on age diversity in employment; and if he will make a statement. [23127]

  Mr. McCartney
  The voluntary code of practice on age diversity in employment was launched in 1999 and the evaluation of its impact has now been completed. This evaluation will inform future plans for legislation in this area.

  The report is the first comprehensive evaluation of employment-related age practices across Great Britain and the Government were pleased to publish it on 3 December 2001. Copies are available in the Library and have been made publicly available through the new website www.agepositve.gov.uk.

  The report has identified that much progress has been made but that we must not be complacent in the lead up to legislation in 2006. We are continuing our ongoing work with individuals, employers and expert groups, and looking how to increase the impact of the code on encouraging age positive practices in the light of the report's findings.

  Work-focused Interviews
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people attended work-focused interviews as a result of the Social Security (Jobcentre Plus Interviews) Regulations 2001 in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the constituency of Gordon in November. [23294]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  National roll-out of Jobcentre Plus will start next year. At present, only people of working age living within areas that are served by Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices or work-focused interview sites making new or repeat claims for benefit are required to attend a work-focused interview.

  4,9851 non-jobseeker's allowance customers attended a work-focused meeting at a Jobcentre Plus pathfinder site or Work-focused interview site in Great Britain between

  385W
  27 October and 30 November 2001. Social Security matters in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  1 This figure may be subject to change on validation.

  Bereavement Payments
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applications for bereavement payments have been refused in each year since 1995; and how many were refused because of late claims. [24062]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Our reforms of bereavement benefits introduced in April 2001 concentrate the help available where and when it is needed most—on immediate needs and on families with children. For the first time these benefits are available equally to both men and women. Immediate help with costs arising on bereavement is provided by a lump sum bereavement payment of £2,000—double the old widow's payment of £1,000.

  Out of a total of 9,327 applications for a bereavement payment, 3161 were refused during the period 9 April 2001 to 30 November 2001. Information is not collected separately on applications which do not succeed because of a late claim. Information on the number of applications for a widow's payment prior to 9 April 2001 which did not succeed was not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  1Source:

  Pensions Strategy Computer System 100 per cent. bereavement benefit data.

  Prince's Trust
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what advice is given to local jobcentres directing them to encourage young people seeking work to approach the Prince's Trust with a view to starting their own business. [24372]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Prince's Trust is one of a number of organisations with which the Employment Service (ES) contract to deliver business start-up help within the new deal for young people. The Department also supports the trust's youth enterprise programme which operates in England. This offers loans and grants to disadvantaged young people who want to set up their own business, but cannot access start-up capital from commercial sources.

  As with other similar providers, Jobcentres are encouraged to make young people aware of the support the Prince's Trust can offer, and to refer interested young people to the Trust in their local area. In practice, this means that Jobcentres are guided to:

  1. check whether potential participants fall within the required age group;

  2. explain to potential participants the range of financial assistance available from the Trust; and

  3. refer potential participants to the Prince's Trust and other appropriate providers.

  Foot and Mouth
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what changes were observed in the numbers 386W
  claiming (a) unemployment benefit and (b) income support in the areas affected by foot and mouth disease during the period of the outbreak. [24391]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Between March and October 2001, the Department received some 5,500 claims for jobseeker's allowance (JSA) in England, Scotland and Wales where people stated the outbreak of foot and mouth disease (FMD) was the reason for their previous employment ending. There is a normal monthly flow of people on to JSA of about 225,000. Over the same period there were 130 claims for income support attributed to FMD.

  During this period employment continued to grow and new vacancies remained high—providing job opportunities for people leaving employment whatever the reason. Unemployment continued to fall in Wales, Scotland and in all the English regions except London, where it rose slightly.

  On 11 April 2001, the Employment Service, together with the then Department for Education and Employment and learning and skills councils, established Rural Skills Action to help those affected by FMD retrain in other occupations. Rural Skills Action also helped people who had been laid off on a temporary basis to upgrade their skills.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recourse is open to individuals who have been allocated an incorrect national insurance number and have no record of contributions made over many years. [25137]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The procedure for issuing national insurance numbers has been tightened following the introduction of the enhanced national insurance number allocation process in April 2001.

  Any duplicate national insurance number that is identified on the computer systems of the Department for Work and Pensions and the Inland Revenue national insurance recording system is cancelled and the contributions record amalgamated on the single national insurance record.

  If my hon. Friend's question refers to a specific case he should write to me giving details.

  Claimant Advocates
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of claimants in receipt of(a) retirement pension, (b) the minimum income guarantee and (c) attendance allowance for whom he has appointed a third party who is acting on behalf of the claimant. [25319]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information for retirement pension and attendance allowance is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows. As at August 2001 there were 179,900 minimum income guarantee claimants in Great Britain who have an appointee acting on their behalf.
  387W
  Notes:

  Figure is based on a 5 per cent. sample and is therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  Figure has been rounded to the nearest 100.

  MIG claimants are defined as a benefit unit where the claimant and/or partner are aged 60 or over.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, August 2001

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action his Department takes in relation to illegal immigrants(a) to ensure social inclusion and (b) to deal with employment. [26730]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for immigration rests with the Home Office, which aims to remove those who have no basis to stay in the United Kingdom. Social inclusion and integration measures apply particularly to those who are given permission to stay.

  Subject to their status, illegal immigrants found working illegally will usually be subject to removal action. Those who employ illegal immigrants may face criminal sanctions.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Guardianship Office
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many complaints have been lodged in the last five years with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in respect of the Public Guardianship Office. [27109]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Forty-six complaints have been lodged with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in respect of the Public Guardianship Office since 1 January 1996. Of these nine have been, or are currently being, investigated.

  1901 Census
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations she has(a) had from and (b) made to the Public Records Office following the difficulties experienced by members of the public trying to access the 1901 Census on the internet. [26922]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Public Records Office has reported to the Lord Chancellor and myself that it has carried out its statutory duty of making the 1901 census returns available to the public, by providing microfiche copies to local public library and archive services throughout the country and access to a traditional microfiche service at Kew. It has also kept us fully and regularly up to date with the initial difficulties being experienced with the launch of the online service owing to the unprecedented level of demand experienced in the first few days, and the steps that the PRO and its partner QinetiQ Ltd. are taking to resolve these difficulties. A limited online service is already available at the Family Records Centre, the Public Record Office at Kew and some other local libraries and archives.
  388W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what penalty clauses for performance failure were included in the contracts for the construction, operation and support of the 1901 Census website; if she plans to invoke such clauses; and if she will make a statement. [26507]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The contract between the Public Record Office and QinetiQ Ltd. contains penalty clauses as is standard practice in this type of contract. The operation of these clauses, which are covered by commercial confidentiality, is a matter for the parties concerned.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if she will place in the Library copies of the contracts awarded for the construction, operation and support of the 1901 Census website. [26509]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This contract contains commercially sensitive information, which it would be inappropriate to put into the public domain.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate she has made of the cost to public funds of the additional work being carried out to allow the 1901 Census to be accessed online. [26508]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  No cost to the Public Record Office is involved in the additional work now being carried out. The contractor QinetiQ Ltd. is meeting the costs of this work.

  Government Documents
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what mechanism is used to determine which Government documents are(a) retained within a department, (b) sent to the Public Record Office and (c) destroyed; and what estimate she has made for the last year for which figures are available of the percentage of documents falling into each category. [27541]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The mechanism for determining which Government documents should be sent to the Public Record Office originates from the Public Records Act 1958. Under sections 3(1) and 2(2), public records bodies (which includes Government Departments) are responsible for selection of those records which are to be permanently preserved. This process is carried out under the guidance, supervision and co-ordination of the Public Record Office.

  The broad criteria governing selection are set out in the PRO's "Acquisition Policy", published in 1998, with more detailed criteria being set out in operational selection policies relating to particular themes or Departments. These are available on the PRO's website at www.pro.gov.uk/recordsmanagement/.

  Records not selected for the PRO may be deposited in other archives that have been approved by the PRO under the Act as suitable places of deposit for public records.

  The Public Records Act 1958 makes provision for Departments to retain records over 30-years-old for administrative purposes or other special reasons, subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor. The White Paper "Open Government" (Cm 2290, 1993) defines the

  389W
  grounds on which Departments may apply for permission to retain records. The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Council on Public Records assesses the applications from Departments. Where applications for retention seem, either to the Advisory Council or to officials at the PRO, to be inappropriate, the items are referred back to the originating Department for further investigation. Once the Advisory Council is satisfied, a schedule of retention applications is passed to the Lord Chancellor for his signature.

  Departments are responsible for destroying records which have not been selected for preservation in the Public Record Office or other places of deposit and which they do not require for continuing administrative purposes.

  It is not possible to calculate precisely the percentages of records retained and destroyed because Departments are not required to report the overall quantity of records created. A study of records storage and management in Government, conducted jointly by the Public Record Office and Cabinet Office in 1997 ("Records Storage and Management, a Scoping Study"), estimated that on

  £

  Parliamentary constituency

  Health authority

  2001–021

  2001–022

  Sedgefield

  County Durham

  730

  808

  West Chelmsford

  North Essex

  728

  674

  South-West Surrey

  West Surrey

  749

  671

  North-West Hampshire

  North and Mid Hampshire

  736

  615

  1 Allocation per weighted head of population

  2 Allocation per unweighted head of population

  Appointments
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) existing and (b) proposed NHS (i) national directors posts, (ii) commissions, (iii) offices, (iv) types of trust, (v) types of authority, (vi) groups, (vii) boards, (viii) committees, (ix) forums, (x) councils and (ix) bodies. [16613]

  Ms Blears
  [pursuant to her reply, 23 November 2001, c. 580w]: I regret that my previous reply contained an inadvertent error, in that the list of planned national health service bodies should not have included a tobacco regulatory authority, which we have no plans at the moment to establish. The full list should therefore read:

  National Bodies planned to be established

  Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals

  Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health

  Health Professionals Council

  NHS Shared Services Programme

  Nursing and Midwifery Council

  Medical Education Standards Board.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the additional funding to fast track the delivery of better mental health services has been spent; and where and when. [9511]
  390W
  average about 2 per cent. of Government records were selected for permanent preservation, the remainder being considered of no lasting historical interest.

HEALTH

  Health Care Funding
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 January 2002, how much funding for health care per patient there is in the parliamentary constituencies of(a) Sedgefield, (b) West Chelmsford, (c) South-West Surrey and (d) North-West Hampshire. [27035]

  Mr. Hutton
  The health authorities for these parliamentary constituencies, and their allocations per weighted head of population (provided on 8 January) and unweighted head of population in 2001–02, are shown in the table.

  It is more meaningful to show health authority allocations per head of population using weighted populations. This is because funding takes into account the relative needs of populations using a weighted capitation formula.

  Jacqui Smith
  Announced with the NHS Plan was additional funding to fast forward the National Service Framework. In 2001–02 £12.35 million revenue and £68 million for capital projects will be allocated. In 2002–03 an additional £93.5 million revenue and £79 million capital, and in 2003–04 £312 million revenue and £26 million capital will be allocated.

  In 2001–02 most of the revenue will be spent on improving services in the high security hospitals and in prisons. Revenue in 2002–03 to 2003–04 will be spent on crisis resolution, assertive outreach, early intervention, primary care workers, and services for women and carers. Capital funding will be spent on improving services in the high secure hospitals and in prisons.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what range of services is available to someone with severe mental health problems; how much is being spent on mental health services by his Department in 2001–02; and what plans there are to increase this amount. [25160]

  Jacqui Smith
  Our policy for England as set out in the Mental Health National Service Framework and the NHS Plan is to ensure that each person with a severe mental illness problem receives the range of mental health services he or she needs. Each person who is in receipt of specialist mental health services should have his or her health and social care needs assessed, and a written care plan should be agreed with him or her. A care
  391W
  co-ordinator should ensure that the necessary services are provided, and that the plan is reviewed as the person's needs change.

  The range of services available may include:

  support from a multi-disciplinary community mental health team;

  access to community-based outpatient and day-care services;

  intensive support from an early intervention team for a young person with a first episode of a psychosis such as schizophrenia;

  assertive outreach for a person with complex needs who tends to disengage from services;

  access round the clock to a crisis resolution team which can, if appropriate, provide home treatment until the crisis is resolved;

  timely access, if necessary, to an appropriate hospital bed or alternative bed or place, such as a crisis house, in the least restrictive environment consistent with the need to protect the service user and the public, and as close to home as possible;

  24-hour staffed accommodation in the community;

  supported housing;

  employment rehabilitation services;

  advocacy services;

  welfare rights advice;

  in-reach services for those in prison.

  The range of services currently available varies across the country. All areas in England have recently undertaken a comprehensive review of their mental health services, and are working towards full implementation of the National Service Framework and NHS Plan.

  In 2001–02 an additional £12.35 million revenue and £59 million capital will be made available. This funding is on top of the general allocations to health authorities. In 2002–03 an additional £93.5 million revenue and £70 million capital, and in 2003–04 an additional £312 million revenue and £17 million capital.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the(a) number and (b) proportion of people who suffer clinical depression (i) at any one time, (ii) during the course of the most recent year for which figures are available and (iii) during their lifetimes. [24529]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 8 January 2002, Official Report, columns 663–64W.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) Part VIII inquiries into child deaths and (b) inquiries into institutional abuse over the past four years have related to disabled children. [11411]

  Jacqui Smith
  Neither type of information is collected centrally. However, we are aware that children who are disabled and in particular children living away from home who are disabled are vulnerable to abuse, especially if their ability to communicate is impaired.

  We will shortly be publishing an overview report drawing out the key findings of a selection of case reviews from the last two years, and their implications for policy and practice. At the same time, we are developing a comprehensive database of all serious case reviews.

  Bed Blocking
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the basis on which he determined the relative allocations to tackle bed blocking to the social services departments of(a) South Gloucestershire Unitary Authority, (b) Bath and North East Somerset Unitary Authority, (c) Bristol Unitary Authority and (d) North Somerset Unitary Authority. [10801]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: All councils will receive additional funding, 55 councils received extra help. The decision on which councils received extra help was taken on the basis of the councils with the highest rates, and the most severe problems with delayed discharge. Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire councils all met these criteria, and have received extra help.

  The table shows the allocations for these councils for 2001–02 and 2002–03.

  £

  County council

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Bath and North East Somerset

  467,938

  985,350

  Bristol

  993,479

  2,080,468

  North Somerset

  551,831

  1,162,243

  South Gloucestershire

  468,324

  990,292

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when extra funding for the relief of bed blocking will be available to local authorities; and from when can local authority social services departments commit extra funding under this programme. [11623]

  Jacqui Smith
  Allocations in respect of 2001–02 were made to councils in the week beginning 19 November 2001. However, councils should have been committing the funding from 9 October, when it was announced.

  Allocations for 2002–03 were announced on 8 January 2002.

  Public Consultations
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many public consultations took place relating to the NHS last year; how many of these defined a preferred option; and in how many cases the preferred option was approved following consultation. [20526]

  Yvette Cooper
  There are many consultations each year in and about the national health service. Not all of these are initiated, or co-ordinated, by the Department. The Department is not necessarily even involved in consultations unless there is a significant challenge. Department of Health Headquarters and NHS regional offices do not routinely keep records about all NHS consultations. The information requested for 2000 could be collected only at disproportionate public cost.

  Residential and Nursing Home Beds
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential and nursing home beds were available in(a) Essex and (b) mid-Essex in March 1997; and how many were available at the latest date for which figures are available. [20913]
  393W
  Jacqui Smith
  Information is not available for mid-Essex. The table shows the number of places in residential care homes and the number of registered beds in nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics for Essex in 1997 and 2001.

  Registered residential and nursing care beds in Essex1area in 1997 and 2001

  At 31 March

  Residential home beds

  Nursing home beds
  2,3

  1997

  10,296

  4,588

  2001

  10,779

  3,447

  1 Information is presented for the area covered by the county of Essex prior to local government re-organisation on 1 April 1998. Figures for 2001 therefore include the new unitary authorities of Southend and Thurrock and the reduced county of Essex. For both years, nursing home figures are for the health authorities of North Essex and South Essex which make up the Essex area.

  2 Registered beds in general and mental nursing homes, hospitals and clinics.

  3 Information for 1997 relates to registered beds during the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997.

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual returns

  Aspergillus Fumigatus Infection
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what precautions are recommended to hospitals and other organisations to prevent the spread of aspergillus fumigatus infection. [22454]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Health Service Estates has written to all regional heads of estates, asking them to raise awareness of the potential of aspergillus fumigatus to cause infections within their Trusts. The letter gives advice on how to minimise the risk of aspergillosis, including detailed guidance on containment and reduction of spore numbers, particularly during demolition or extensive refurbishment. Guidance is given concerning those patients most likely to be at risk from aspergillus infection. Clinicians, infection control teams and estate teams are advised to undertake specific risk assessments and develop a co-ordinated strategy for ensuring that those at risk are not exposed to high levels of aspergillus, spores when any new or refurbishment building work is undertaken.

  This advice and guidance was reiterated in the publication "Quarterly Briefing", which is distributed to over 1,200 recipients, including chief executives of trusts and health authorities and trust estate directors.

  Examples of the precautions that may need to be taken are:

  Erection of barriers impermeable to aspergillus spores between patient-care and construction areas to prevent dust from entering patient-care areas.

  Prevention of dust accumulation, and regular cleaning of ceiling and air-duct grilles when rooms are not occupied by patients.

  Maintenance of negative pressure building work areas relative to adjacent patient-care areas unless there are contra-indications, clinical care or infection control requirements, for such pressure differential.

  Pedestrian traffic flow to be directed away from construction areas to prevent dust dispersion, entry of contaminated air or tracking of dust into patient areas.

  Air and environmental monitoring for fungal spores to be considered when building work is taking place adjacent to a high dependency unit.

  Beta Interferon
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Epsom and Ewell constituency suffering from multiple sclerosis have been refused treatment with beta interferon. [23434]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Cancer
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been(a) allocated and (b) spent on cancer prevention projects in (i) each of the financial years since 1990 and (ii) future years for which budgets have been set, broken down by regional health authority. [23382]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information is not held centrally in the form requested and could be gathered only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate how many hospital bed days could be saved annually if cancer(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients, who are transfused with blood, were given alternative treatments that would not require hospitalisation. [25029]

  Yvette Cooper
  It is not possible to calculate the number of bed days or day-cases saved through giving cancer patients alternatives to blood transfusions as many would still be required to attend hospital for other treatments linked to their illness. Further analysis of potential cost impact of alternative treatments will be produced shortly.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the NHS Cancer Plan in tackling smoking-related cancers; and if further measures are planned to address this cause of cancers. [27133]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: Smoking is the cause of a third of all cancers. The NHS Cancer Plan set a new target to bring down smoking rates among manual groups from 32 per cent. in 1998 to 26 per cent. by 2010, so that we can narrow the gap between manual and non-manual groups.

  It is too early to make an assessment of the effectiveness of the measures in the plan which focus on smoking. However the NHS smoking cessation services have already delivered some 100,000 quitters at the four weeks stage.

  As part of a response to the NHS Cancer Plan, we have already established a number of pilot projects focusing action on particularly hard-to-reach groups. The scope of the pilots will be extended in due course. We have also asked health authorities to focus their smoking cessation services on manual groups in line with the NHS Cancer Plan target. Each pilot project will be evaluated and in the light of those evaluations, and the practical lessons learned, we will be able to properly assess the impact of those measures and what further measures will be needed.

  Palliative Care
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been(a) allocated and (b) spent on

  395W
  palliative care in (i) each of the financial years since 1990 and (ii) future years for which budgets have been set, broken down by regional health authority. [23383]

  Yvette Cooper
  Between 1990 and 1994 funding was allocated to the health authorities in England specifically to support hospices and similar organisations. Funding allocated between 1990 and 1994 was as follows:

  1991–92: £17 million

  1992–93: £32 Million

  1993–94: £32.3 million

  1994–95: £35.7 million.

  The breakdown by regional health authority was as follows:

  Amount (£000)

  Regional health authority

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Northern

  1,124

  2,052

  2,090

  2,308

  Yorkshire

  2,276

  2,409

  2,454

  2,710

  Trent

  1,603

  3,109

  3,167

  3,498

  East Anglian

  672

  1,491

  1,520

  1,679

  NW Thames

  1,263

  2,094

  2,135

  2,358

  NE Thames

  1,478

  2,332

  2,376

  2,624

  SE Thames

  1,395

  2,582

  2,631

  2,906

  SW Thames

  1,102

  2,046

  2,086

  2,304

  Wessex

  979

  2,157

  2,197

  2,426

  Oxford

  774

  1,462

  1,491

  1,646

  South Western

  1,128

  2,493

  2,540

  2,805

  West Midlands

  1,798

  3,353

  3,416

  3,772

  Mersey

  890

  1,551

  1,582

  1,747

  North Western

  1,478

  2,592

  2,641

  2,917

  Since 1994 these resources have been built into general national health service allocations. NHS investment in specialist palliative care during 1999–2000 and 2000–01 was estimated at around £130 million per annum. We plan to invest an additional £50 million per annum by 2003–04. This total amount will match, on a national basis, the investment from the voluntary sector. The additional investment for specialist palliative care will be included in the overall increased investment for implementing the NHS Cancer Plan and will, therefore, be found from within health authority allocations. We will be monitoring the information from financial frameworks and cancer network service delivery plans to ensure that this investment occurs.

  Mixed-sex Wards
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mixed sex wards there are in NHS hospitals in each English region. [23806]

  Ms Blears
  The majority of hospital wards are mixed-sex wards, however these wards are usually subdivided into bays which are designated as male or female. Depending on the case mix and local need, the exact proportion of male to female bays will vary. It is therefore not possible to provide information at the level of the individual ward.

  Guidance on maintaining privacy and dignity was first issued to the service in 1997 and since then trusts have been working towards clear targets to promote privacy and dignity in hospital wards.

  These targets include the abolition of nightingale wards for older people and £120 million has been allocated over the next three years to make progress towards this.
  396W
  Schemes to modify 233 wards have already been approved to commence work this year and further schemes will begin in the next two years.

  Dentistry
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investment has been made to improve access to NHS dentists in Staffordshire since 1997. [24072]

  Yvette Cooper
  The table shows the expenditure on initiatives to improve access to national health service dentistry in the areas covered by North Staffordshire health authority and South Staffordshire health authority. Over £3 million has been invested in NHS dentistry since 1997–98 in both health authority areas, which includes the establishment of dental access centres.

  Expenditure on initiatives to improve access to NHS dentistry 1997–98 to 2001–02

  £

  North Staffordshire

  South Staffordshire

  Total

  Investing in Dentistry granted 1997–98 to 2000–01

  328,800

  107,700

  436,500

  Dental Care Development Fund 2000–01

  80,000

  50,000

  130,000

  Modernisation Fund 2001–02

  336,200

  364,100

  700,300

  Personal Dental Services 2000–01 to 2001–02

  Capital

  1,028,000

  630,000

  1,658,000

  Preparation

  55,000

  28,000

  83,000

  Total for PDS

  1,083,000

  658,000

  1.741.000

  Overall Total

  1,828,000

  1,179,800

  3,007,800

  Source:

  Department of Health Statistics

  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether referrals of NHS patients to the Dental Examination Board are based on the potential cost of the treatment. [22661]

  Ms Blears
  Currently, prior approvals are required from the Dental Practice Board, which was previously called the Dental Estimates Board, for proposed treatments costing in excess of £260. These arrangements are currently under review.

  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS patients were referred to the Dental Examination Board(a) in the UK and (b) in each nation and region in the last 12 months for which figures are available; [22506]

  (2) how many NHS patients referred to the Dental Examination Board were consequently assessed by the regional dental officer (a) in the UK and (b) in each nation and region in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [22505]

  Ms Blears
  In England and Wales 638,000 new referrals were made to the Dental Practice Board together with 77,000 re-submissions in the year ending March 2001. Separate figures for England are not available. Of these 33,948 were examined by dental reference officers, previously known as regional dental officers.

  The distribution between nations was:

  (a) England 32,212 (95 per cent.)

  (b) Wales 1,736 (5 per cent.).

  397W
  Information for Scotland is a matter for the devolved Administration.

  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average cost incurred by the NHS while the Dental Examination Board was considering a case which had been referred to them(a) in the UK and (b) in each nation and region of the UK in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [22503]

  Ms Blears
  There are no costs involved for the dentist while prior approval is being considered by the Dental Practice Board, formally known as the Dental Estimates Board. Should the patient's condition be such that urgent attention is required then the dentist can provide that treatment, before receiving prior approval.

  Information on costs of prior approvals work at the Dental Practice Board is not available as the work of dealing with prior approval applications is not accounted for separately from the other work of the Dental Practice Board.

  The Dental Practice Board acts for England and Wales; therefore the information for Wales is also not available.

  Information for Scotland is a matter for the devolved Administration.

  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average length of time NHS patients waited before their treatment resumed following their case being referred to the Dental Examination Board(a) in the UK and (b) in each nation and region over the last 12 months for which figures are available. [22504]

  Ms Blears
  93 per cent. of cases referred to the Dental Practice Board, previously known as the Dental Estimates Board, are approved for treatment without examination. The average length of time taken for such approvals is 3.7 days. For those patients examined by the Dental Reference Service, for the Dental Practice Board, before approval is given, the average time taken is 82 days.

  Information for Wales and Scotland are matters for the devolved Administrations.

  Eye Tests (Burton)
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many free eye tests were undertaken in Burton in each year since 1995. [24063]

  Yvette Cooper
  The table shows the number of national health service sight tests paid for in Staffordshire Family health service authority (FHSA) for 1995 and 1996 and in South Staffordshire health authority in the years 1997 to 2001. Figures for the number of sight tests in particular areas are not collected centrally.

  We extended eligibility for NHS sight tests to everyone aged 60 and over from 1 April 1999. There was an increase of 27,790 in sight tests for the year 2000 and a further 4,440 in the year 2001. It is fair to assume that the majority of these increases were due to newly eligible people aged 60 or over obtaining NHS sight test.
  398W

  General ophthalmic services: Number of sight tests paid for in Staffordshire FHSA for the years ending 1995 and 1996; and South Staffordshire HA for the years ending 1997 to 2001

  Total sight tests

  1994–95

  126,240

  1995–96

  125,530

  1996–97

  79,030

  1997–98

  83,940

  1998–99

  84,370

  1999–2000

  112,150

  2000–01

  116,590

  Note:

  Family health service authorities were re-organised into health authorities on 1 April 1996

  Funding (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding was allocated to the Buckinghamshire health authority in each year since 1997. [24851]

  Ms Blears
  The net revenue allocations made available to the Buckinghamshire health authority for the financial years 1997–98 through to the recently announced allocation for 2002–03 are as follows:

  Year

  £000

  1997–98

  265,389

  1998–99

  263,789

  1999–2000

  368,084

  2000–01

  399,503

  2001–02

  443,321

  2002–03

  493,959

  Asylum Seekers (HIV Status)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the health needs of asylum seeker mothers who are HIV positive. [24554]

  Yvette Cooper
  Asylum seekers and their families who apply to the Home Office for support under the arrangements that came into place from 1 April 2000 will be assessed and any medical information including HIV status will be taken into account. If eligible for a support package, which includes accommodation, they will be allocated to accommodation that suits their needs in an area where required medical treatment is available.

  Dual Energy X-ray Absorptionmetry
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when NICE will issue guidelines on dual energy X-ray absorptionmetry. [24603]

  Jacqui Smith
  Dual energy X-ray absorptionmetry is not currently on the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's work programme.

  Paediatric Intensive Care
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list expenditure on mobile intensive care provision for children in each of the last five years. [24573]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Smoking Cessation Services
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has collated on the number of people who gave up smoking on the quit date set during their participating in smoking cessation services who have continued to abstain from tobacco in the following 12 months. [24586]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is available in Statistical Bulletin 2001–32 "Statistics on smoking cessation services in England, April 2000 to March 2001", published by the Department on 5 December 2001, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Table 13 of the bulletin gives information about the number of people setting a quit date and successful in specialist services in the health action zones in 1999–2000 and follow-up at 52 weeks.

  Rural Health Services
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) hospitals and (b) other health care services, by category, there were in rural areas, broken down by (i) constituency and (ii) local authority for each year since 1990. [24898]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are more than 300 national health service trusts, and 164 primary care trusts that provide health care services. Many cover both rural and urban areas. While NHS bodies operate within geographic boundaries of most local authorities, they do not do so in all cases, and do not always follow constituency boundaries.

  Data collected by the Department do not identify the constituency or local authority boundaries, or whether they cover 'rural' areas. Therefore, the information is not available and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  GP Waiting Times
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting time to see a GP at present; and what the equivalent figure was in 1997. [24644]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: These data are not collected centrally.

  From September 2001 data are being collected quarterly on the lead time for the first available appointment with each general practitioner practice.

  The only data on patient waits to see a GP derive from the 1998 national patient survey. This showed that around a quarter waited four days or more (with 5 per cent. waiting over a week) for an appointment.

  Public-Private Partnership
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the public-private partnership in the NHS in 2001. [25161]

  Mr. Hutton
  Five major (more than £25 million in capital value) national health service hospital private finance initiative schemes worth a total of over £442 million and four medium (£10-25 million) sized schemes worth over £78 million completed construction and became operational during 2001.
  400W
  A consortium was selected on 5 December 2001 to deliver a state-of the-art electronic staff record system to all NHS trusts in England and Wales—worth £325 million over 10 years. The consortium will deliver the new system to all NHS trusts in England and Wales.

  Between April and September 2001 a total of 29,000 elective cases were commissioned in the independent sector under the framework of the concordat signed between the Department and the Independent Healthcare Association in October 2000.

  Work is currently being undertaken on a national framework agreement to build longer term relationships between the NHS and the private sector with a view to doubling the number of NHS patients treated in private hospitals from the start of this new year.

  European Hospitals
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which Continental European hospitals are in negotiation with his Department about the treatment of NHS patients. [24322]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: Officials in the Department and National health service staff in the three test-bed sites working to send NHS patients overseas have had meetings with several providers based in France and Germany and a provider based in Greece. There have been visits to France and Germany.

  A group of patients will shortly travel for treatment to Polyclinique de la Louviere in Lille, France.

  In addition, officials have corresponded with a large number of hospital providers, details of which will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Hereford County Hospital
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if all porters employed at the Hereford county hospital have the same pay and conditions of employment; and if he will make a statement. [25531]

  Yvette Cooper
  As part of the private finance initiative deal for the new hospital in Hereford it was agreed that all existing hotel services staff, including porters, should transfer their terms and conditions of employment under Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) Regulations 1981. However, new starters are subject to the terms and conditions offered by the owners of the new hospital.

  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions recently announced a review of best value in local government. One of the issues which the review will examine is whether a two-tier workforce has developed when services previously operated by the public sector transfer to a private provider and new staff are offered inferior terms and conditions than the workers who have transferred. The Department of Trade and Industry has already published a consultation document on the reform of TUPE with a view to enhanced employee protection.

  HIV/AIDS
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died from HIV/AIDS-related
  401W
  diseases aged (a) under 14, (b) 15 to 24, (c) 25 to 39, (d) 40 to 50 and (e) over 50 years, in each of the last 10 years. [25121]

  Deaths in HIV infected individuals in England and Wales 1991–2000 by age group
  1

  Age group

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20002

  Total

  Less than 15 years

  6

  18

  27

  18

  21

  26

  12

  11

  6

  5

  150

  15-24 years

  35

  36

  31

  57

  35

  38

  9

  6

  12

  5

  264

  25-39 years

  519

  563

  814

  794

  876

  726

  357

  217

  201

  171

  5,238

  40-49 years

  286

  338

  368

  487

  412

  341

  182

  131

  120

  120

  2,785

  50 years and above

  139

  176

  208

  198

  214

  193

  105

  84

  80

  76

  1,473

  Total

  985

  1,131

  1,448

  1,554

  1,558

  1,324

  665

  449

  419

  377

  9,910

  1 These data include deaths in HIV-infected individuals without reported AIDS.

  2 2000 is the latest year for which a full year's reports are available. The numbers of deaths are likely to rise as further reports are received. This particularly affects the most recent years.

  Source:

  Public Health Laboratory Service

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations his Department has received relating to the provision of digital hearing aids. [24397]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: The Department has received numerous letters and postcards on the subject of digital hearing aids. In addition a number of related questions have been answered and two early day motions have been tabled on the subject.

  Our substantial investment of £20 million for 2002–03 will mean that by the end of that year almost a third of England will have access to digital hearing aids.

  Worcestershire Hospital
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the adequacy of the proposed arrangements for car parking at the new Worcestershire hospital; and if he will make a statement. [26221]

  Yvette Cooper
  The car park requirements for the new Worcestershire hospital have been prepared by traffic consultants for the trust, using planning standards. Both Worcester city and Worcestershire county planning and highways officers have agreed the car park calculations for the site.

  At a meeting on 10 January 2002 the Worcester city council planning sub-committee approved the provision of 337 additional car parking spaces, bringing the total of available spaces on site to 1,322.

  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has made for the storage of patients' clinical records in the new hospital in Worcestershire. [26220]

  Yvette Cooper
  Arrangements have been made for storage of patients' clinical records at the new Worcestershire hospital as follows:Notes for current patients to be stored in a small library in the new hospital;
  Non-current notes to be stored in an off-site health records library, based in Droitwich. and operated by trust staff. Clear arrangements will be in place to facilitate the quick recovery of notes from the off-site library should they be needed.
  402W
  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Charging
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend charging for(a) clinical and (b) non-clinical NHS services; and if he will make a statement. [26912]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are no plans to extend charging for clinical and non-clinical national health service services.

  Children's Services
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to support the cost of local authority children's services in(a) Manchester and (b) the UK. [25778]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: Local authorities use their personal social services standard spending assessment (PSS SSA) funding to support children's social services as well as certain grants made available by the Department specifically for these services.

  Total Government funding for social services will be £11.2 billion in 2002–03, which is an increase of 6.5 per cent. Since 1996–97 total funding has increased by 20.7 per cent. in real terms which is an average of 3.2 per cent. a year.

  Manchester's PSS SSA increased from £111 million in 2001–02 to £114 million in 2002–03. It will also receive substantial increases in grants for social services from the Department for 2002–03, in particular, its children's services grant will increase by 11 per cent. to over £8 million following a 27 per cent. increase in 2001–02.

  Social Services
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the Local Government Association regarding financial pressures on social services. [25781]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: We have regular dialogues and meetings with representatives from the Local Government Association.
  403W
  I met the Local Government Association on 9 and 10 January to discuss the draft settlement paper which has been submitted by the Local Government Association.

  MMR Vaccine
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of infants received the MMR vaccine in the last 12 months. [26721]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information available about children immunised with measles, mumps and rubella is contained in the Statistical Bulletin "NHS Immunisation Statistics, England: 2000–01". A copy of the bulletin is in the Library and can also be found on the Department's website www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0121.htm.

  Health Action Zones
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the level of funding for health action zones will be in financial years(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04. [21989]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 12 December 2001]: The total health action zone budget for 2002–03 is £51.586 million, an increase of 2.5 per cent. on the last financial year. Of this £43.625 million is for programme and development funding and £7.078 million for specific innovation fund and employment pilot work, with the balance held for central support work. In addition HAZs will receive £10 million for national health service smoking cessation services and health authorities in HAZ areas will receive £111 million of the £148 million health inequalities adjustment funding. Decisions on funding for 2003–04 will be made as part of the Department's work on the 2002 spending review.

  Hospital Patients (Children)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many school-age children were resident in hospitals in each of the past five years in(a) the UK, (b) Teesside and (c) the constituency of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East; and if he will make a statement. [22491]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table shows the number of admissions to hospital (excluding day cases) of children aged 5 to 17 inclusive in England and in Tees health authority area. The same child may be admitted on more than one occasion and lengths of residence will vary. Figures are not available for the constituency of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East, since some hospital trusts located in the area additionally admit patients to hospital sites outside the area.

  England

  Tees health authority

  1996–97

  496,877

  9,708

  1997–98

  506,696

  10,258

  1998–99

  491,345

  9,907

  1999–2000

  486,552

  10,138

  2000–01

  481,874

  9,683

  Source:

  Hospital Episodes Statistics

  Social Workers
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department intends to introduce to recruit more social workers. [27235]

  Jacqui Smith
  On 19 October 2001, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a £1.5 million recruitment campaign which is designed to increase the number of people interested in careers in social work and social care work. The first phase of the campaign was very successful—with over 14,000 calls to the help line and over 11,000 visitors to the website. We are now working on the second phase of the campaign.

  As well as this action to tackle recruitment problems, the Department is also working with the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Social Services to help employers implement policies to improve recruitment and retention of staff.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures exist to allow his Department to(a) monitor and (b) appraise the work of social workers. [27237]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not monitor or appraise the work of social workers. Responsibility for this rests with individual employers.

  Contingency Fund
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what moneys are available in 2001–02 under his Department's contingency fund; how much has been(a) spent and (b) allocated; and for what purposes. [27015]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: The departmental unallocated provision for the national health service in 2001–02 was £350 million. Of this £300 million was additional money for the NHS announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his 2001 Budget. This money was made available specifically for boosting recruitment and retention, primary care incentives, capital investment in the Modernisation of nightingale wards and maternity services and in NHS trusts local Modernisation funds. The remaining £50 million departmental unallocated provision was to cover new priorities and pressures requiring capital investment.

  All of the departmental unallocated provision will be allocated in 2001–02. Draw down of the funds will be reported to Parliament in winter and spring supplementary estimates.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients attending the accident and emergency departments at(a) Brrighton general hospital, (b) Eastbourne district general hospital and (c) Princess Royal hospital, Haywards Heath in each September from 1997 to 2001 were seen within one hour; and how many were admitted or discharged within four hours [27521]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally.

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.

Airline and Airport Security
Lord Janner of Braunstone Lord Janner of Braunstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take further steps to increase security for passengers and crews of British civilian aircraft.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, we already have measures in place to deter the hijacking of passenger aircraft. They were substantially enhanced on and following 11th September. Following the attacks in the United States, the Cabinet Office commissioned through the Committee on Domestic and International Terrorism an urgent and wide-ranging review of aviation security. As a result, a number of issues have been identified that may well result in further additional security measures being imposed upon airports and airlines.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his answer. Is he able to give more details of the action the Government propose taking to give aircraft passengers a much greater sense of security and safety? Specifically, are the Government proposing to implement any new measures following last month's attempt by the shoe bomber on the flight from Paris to the United States? The attempt has given rise to very great apprehension.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, although it would be wrong for me to go into too much detail about the precise action being taken, the committee that I mentioned is considering matters such as systems to check passport validity, acceleration of work on security equipment, extended background checks on airport employees and revised aircrew security training. Those are only some examples.
My noble friend asked about the consequences arising from the shoe bomber incident. I should make it clear that we have both the physical and technical means of detecting whether a shoe has been modified, and those security measures are in regular use at UK airports. Since the incident, UK airports have been paying particular attention to footwear during the security screening of passengers.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, has any addition or alteration been made to flight deck security? As I have said previously, only on Israeli airlines is the door to
1066
the flight deck locked before departure and unlocked only after the aircraft lands. Consequently, if any terrorist sought entry, threatening, for example, to blow up the plane unless the door was opened, the threat would be ignored. Have we in place any proposals to improve the current situation in which there has been free and very liberal use by passengers of the invitation to visit the flight deck?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Civil Aviation Authority, with United States and European colleagues, is urgently examining the design of cockpit doors to determine which types of hardening and locking mechanisms are most compatible with safety standards. As an interim measure, the CAA issued a fast-track procedure to enhance in-flight security, allowing modifications to aircraft cockpit doors to be made to prevent unauthorised access without endangering aircraft safety. The CAA required all UK operators to lock cockpit doors with effect from 18th September. No visits to the flight deck are allowed.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of British Airways. As the Minister said, the CAA now requires all British aircraft to lock cockpit doors. Will the Government put their weight behind that and say that it is a statutory requirement?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, the current CAA guidance is clear to all who must follow it. As for the Government's position, the review to which I referred will advise us on its conclusions. Our position will subsequently he made clear.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, bearing in mind that those boarding transatlantic flights at Kennedy airport currently have to remove their shoes for inspection before entering the departure area, but that those boarding transatlantic flights at London Heathrow airport do not, will the Minister confirm that all inquiries have been made to ensure that the British security equipment is able in all cases to detect every known explosive or explosive device that could be concealed in a shoe without the shoe being removed and put through the X-ray machinery?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, one can never give absolute guarantees on security, and I would not seek to do so in any answer that I gave. As I indicated in answer to the initial Question asked by my noble friend, Lord Janner, we have the physical and technical means to detect modification, and guidance has been given. The implication of the noble Lord's question is that we are not doing as well as, for

1067
example, the United States. The advice I have is that we believe that such detection is more likely in this country than anywhere else.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is this not yet another argument in favour of the introduction of national identity cards which contain much data?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am reluctant to be drawn into that argument. It is a long step from bombs in shoes to identity cards.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, will the Minister tell us how many recommendations the Government have received from the Civil Aviation Authority and how many have been implemented? Do they expect to receive more recommendations from the CAA?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot give an answer as regards the number of such recommendations. However, I should make it absolutely clear that the CAA is engaged with government—that is exactly as it should be—in trying to identify what specific further measures should be taken in addition to those adopted in the immediate aftermath of 11th September and since 11th September. I shall write to the noble Viscount as regards the specific questions he asked.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, how good are the arrangements for checking heavy luggage carried in the hold? In the days before September 11th, if a passenger with checked-in luggage did not turn up for the flight great efforts were made to remove his or her luggage in case it contained a bomb. However, if certain passengers want to be blown up, that precaution is meaningless. Therefore, it is necessary to examine with great care luggage that is carried in the hold.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that important point about luggage is being considered by the committee to which I referred. I shall write to the noble Lord with details.

Euro: Economic Tests
2.44 p.m.
Lord Boardman Lord Boardman asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the latest estimates of Treasury expenditure in the financial year 2001–02 on assessing the economic tests on the advantages and disadvantages of joining the euro.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have said that they will complete an assessment of the five economic tests within two years of the start of this Parliament. The assessment has not yet started but the necessary preliminary analysis—technical work that is necessary to allow us to
1068
undertake the assessment within two years as promised—is under way. No separate budget allocation has been made for the preliminary and technical work for 2001–02.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, if the assessment of the economic tests indicates that joining the euro is not clearly and unambiguously to the economic advantage of this country, will the Government put off any question of a referendum during the lifetime of this Parliament?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we shall undertake a referendum only if the five tests are met so that there is a clear and unambiguous case for joining.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, assuming the economic tests still stand, does my noble friend accept that it is rare for two economists to agree on almost anything? Does he therefore accept that the final decisions will be made by non-economists; namely, the Cabinet?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can certainly confirm in response to the noble Lord's first point that the five economic tests set out in October 1997 are still in force. My objective in responding to these matters is to sound as far as possible like a "speak your weight" machine. As regards what economists and non-economists will do, the Treasury will carry out the assessment, the Chancellor will present that assessment to the Cabinet and the Cabinet will make a recommendation to Parliament. Parliament will then decide on a referendum so that the final decision is taken by the British people who are in the main not economists.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, would not government money be best spent on persuading British industry to adapt to the existence of the single currency? The Treasury must be well aware that major reorganisations have occurred among large companies on the Continent to adapt their strategies to the existence of, and the opportunities offered by, the new currency. Is there not a danger that by prolonging uncertainty the Government will again put British industry at a disadvantage, as happened when the Common Market was founded and similar large reorganisation took place on the Continent but not in Britain? The Prime Minister seems worried about the matter, but is it not a case that we shall never learn?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Treasury is not only well aware that British industry is preparing for the fact that the euro exists, but since 1997 has consistently encouraged that. We have published a series of national changeover plans to reflect the fact that it is, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, rightly said, in this country's interest to be fully prepared for the euro and to be prepared for it whether or not we are ourselves within EMU. That has been a consistent part of government policy from the outset.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, the EU says that we shall have to rejoin the ERM before joining the euro. The

1069
Government say that we shall not. Will the Minister give an undertaking today that after a "yes" vote in a referendum we shall not join the ERM before joining the euro?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have no intention of joining the exchange rate mechanism. Having said that, I think that the noble Lord is a little out of date. No doubt he quoted what an unnamed Commission official said yesterday about British membership of the exchange rate mechanism. However, I do not think that he has read today's Financial Times which points out that Commissioner Soldes has said that there is a margin for manoeuvre.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, will the Government's "speak your weight" machine say how long we have to wait before we can speak up in favour of the euro? Does my noble friend agree that political confidence in any economic project is a sine qua non of its success?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no intention of seeking to censor what the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, says. His comments constitute a valuable contribution to the debate. They always have been and, no doubt, will continue to be so.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, with regard to the so-called convergence test, will the Government take into account in particular the experience of the United States and Canada? For many years those economies might have been thought to be convergent and at one stage the Canadian dollar was worth more than the US dollar. However, had the Canadian Government agreed to go into a single currency at that point, the subsequent effect on the Canadian economy would have been utterly disastrous.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that that is one of the considerations that will be taken into account. I notice that contributions from the Opposition Benches always avoid actually taking a position on whether the Opposition are in favour of going into the euro. They have valuable points to make but they are peripheral.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, why do the Government continue to deceive the British people by pretending that the euro involves an economic project? The Commission and everyone else in Europe are quite open about the fact that it is a constitutional initiative, which is designed to cement together the emerging EU mega-state. What is the point of economic tests for a constitutional project?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord says that the Government are continuing to deceive the British people. If I were to respond to that, it would be like responding to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?", which my wife would not allow me to do. As to whether there are other
1070
considerations, we have always said that there are other considerations but that they can be applied only once the economic tests have been satisfied.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that economics is a universal science and that there is therefore no concept that could be meaningfully put forward about a decision that was not economic in nature? Those who suggest that the matter is all political are simply talking rubbish. This is an economic decision problem because all problems are economic decision problems.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not really one for academic discipline—I was a university fellow in economics but flunked out of that position when I discovered that I did not understand anything about it. However, my noble friend's response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is very worth while.

UK Beef Exports: French Ban
2.52 p.m.
Earl Peel Earl Peel asked Her Majesty's Government:
What practical steps they are taking to re-establish the market for British beef in France following the recent judgment of the European Court of Justice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government have made it clear that they expect France to lift its ban as soon as possible and the Commission to take further proceedings in the European Court of Justice if France does not do so within a reasonable period. We have also written to the Commission seeking a relaxation of the conditions of the date-based export scheme. Officials met the industry yesterday to discuss the way forward.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that robust Answer. In reality, are we not witnessing yet another case of a senior—indeed, a founder member—of the European Union flouting the rules in order to try to get advantages for its own producers? That makes a mockery of the whole concept of a "common" market. More importantly, will the Minister assure the House that he intends to make certain that the Commissioner imposes maximum sanctions on the French Government if they persist in refusing to take British beef—a market which represented about 46 per cent of our pre-1996 worldwide beef exports?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the export market to France before BSE was certainly very important for this country's livestock industry. By observing the new standards we could begin to restore that market once France has withdrawn its ban, as it is bound to do in view of the Court judgment. My right honourable

1071
friend the Secretary of State made it clear at the Agricultural Council just before Christmas that we expect the Commission to take action and that, within a reasonable timescale, we will press it to do so. I hope that the French comply. If they do not, I hope that the Commission will take the strongest possible steps, as the noble Earl suggested.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, what do the Government regard as a reasonable period in this context?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the next action rests with the Commission rather than the Government. As with similar cases, there is no set timescale but, as with cases in which a government have not complied with a judgment of the Court of Justice, the Commission has tended to take up the matter within two or three months.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not just farmers who think that the Government should be much more vociferous in protesting against a flagrant breach of European law and that they should do so publicly and privately using every possible occasion and every possible EU forum? Does he further accept that those of us who are most strongly in favour of the EU also feel most strongly that it is completely unacceptable for a country that regards itself as an advocate of further European integration to go flagrantly against the integration that is currently supposed to exist and to defy the rule of law, which is the foundation upon which the whole of the EU edifice has been built?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I and, I think, the whole House endorse that position. We have made our position clear both publicly and privately, directly and indirectly. We expect France to comply.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords—
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, shall we hear from the Cross Benches?
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of Honest Foods. The Minister may be interested to know that we are trying to organise a visit of 12 producers of British food to the game fair at Chambourg on 21st and 22nd June. What is the position of the several beef producers who have shown an interest? Will they be banned by the French? If so, what representations will the Minister make to ensure that appropriate demonstrations are made of British beef and that it is sold to the French?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, British beef producers, like other food producers, have every right to try to sell their wares in France. The British Government support them in doing so. I would hope that the French will have complied by June, although one has
1072
to bear in mind that there are certain domestic complications of an electoral variety in France at the moment, which may make that more difficult. I also believe that there are many people and companies within France who would welcome the restoration of British beef exports.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, what is the current position on BSE in this country and is there any BSE in the herds in France?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the number of cases of BSE in Britain is coming down very rapidly, whereas the number in France is increasing. There are more than 250 cases in France. In absolute numbers the incidence in Britain is still significantly higher than in France. Historically, we have had a huge number of cases—178,000—whereas France has had only a few hundred. The issue needs to be put in perspective. Nevertheless, our figures are going down and those for France are going up.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, first, will the Minister tell the House more about the discussions that were held yesterday? If I understood his response to an earlier question, he said that the French could hold out until June before fines were imposed. No; I see that he is shaking his head. Perhaps he will clarify the situation.
Secondly, how many discussions have taken place between Margaret Beckett and her opposite number in France in which there was an opportunity for her to lobby on behalf of this country? That would be in addition to the lobbying that has been going on with David Byrne, the Commissioner.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yesterday's discussions related mainly to the terms of the DBES. We have asked for some modification to that regime to enable more abattoirs to meet the standards that are required to restore British beef exports to Europe. On discussions at the European level, as I said in response, I think, to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, the Commission allows a reasonable amount of time—usually two or three months. The next move is for the Commission to take the matter to the Court of Justice for a ruling. I hope that within such a timescale the French could begin to comply. However, the complications to which I referred apply. As regards bilateral discussions, my right honourable friend had discussions in the margins on this and related issues, and made the point formally at the Agricultural Council in December.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the Minister has accepted the importance to beef producers here of the export market to France. But what is his comment on the fact that, according to figures produced by the Meat and Livestock Commission, imports of beef to Britain rose by

1073
another 14 per cent last year? Is he concerned at the ever-rising volume of imports, which are having a detrimental effect on our home market?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there has been a marginal increase in beef consumption within the UK and imports have met some of that demand. I believe it is reasonable to expect that there will be some increase in beef imports. Our concern is that we do not import illegal or diseased meat. We believe that we should be moving to freer trade, and our aim is to increase British exports to match that as well as competing at home.

Zimbabwe: Asylum Seekers
3 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will suspend all deportations of Zimbabwean asylum seekers to Zimbabwe.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the Home Secretary has decided to suspend removals to Zimbabwe until after the presidential election is held. We shall then assess the country situation and the risks faced by individual returnees and decide whether to resume removals. In the meantime, consideration of individual applications for asylum will continue.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am absolutely delighted that the Government have seen sense at last on this sensitive issue. But why did a spokesman say to the press as late as Saturday night that there would not be a suspension of removals at this point? Was that not calculated to arouse fear unnecessarily among Zimbabwean asylum seekers?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not accept what my noble friend says. It is not fair to blame a spokesman for what was said on Saturday night. At ten past live on Monday this week I made exactly the same statement. Until the policy changes, it remains in place.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is the reality; that is the way it is. On Monday I also made the point that we were not planning to return anyone on Monday evening. The policy has been under active consideration. It has not gone away over recent months and, contrary to what is said, we have not been working on old information. We have been assessing the situation on an almost daily basis.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I believe that we all appreciate this change of policy and the fact that the matter is under constant review and consideration, and so on. But is the Minister aware of widespread complaints That the Home Office assessments always
1074
run hopelessly behind the pace of events in Zimbabwe? Is it not disgraceful that politically vulnerable people have been deported and sent back to Zimbabwe when it has been widely known for weeks and months that the country is descending into a police state? That has been perfectly obvious even to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Is there no contact between the Foreign Office and the Home Office? If not, can such contact take place now so that this situation does not arise again?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, what the noble Lord said is not the reality of the situation. The fact that we publish the country assessments only twice a year in April and October does not mean that nothing happens between those times. Our case workers use the most up-to-date information available. When assessing an individual case, either they refer to extra bulletins which are provided following publication of the country assessments or they take advice from people inside the Home Office, the Foreign Office, our embassies and high commissions abroad, diplomats on the ground or others in the country of origin. Each case is judged on its merits. It is simply not the case that we use old information.
As everyone knows, the situation has deteriorated ever since President Mugabe began his attempt to introduce so-called "land reform". But we have constantly updated our assessments and, indeed, we received further advice from the Foreign Office on Monday this week. The policy was announced by the Home Secretary yesterday, but it will not alter individual cases. We shall continue to assess each case on its merits. We shall then assess the situation after the elections have taken place.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if the CIPU assessments are updated on a regular basis, why cannot they be published on the web so that advisers and adjudicators can see them there? Secondly, what are the Government intending to do about their arrangements following the decision by the Secretary of Slate yesterday? Will bail be granted automatically to anyone who has been through the appeal process and is now awaiting the presidential elections before the Secretary of State makes a decision on whether to send back that person? Will the Secretary or State now also reconsider the Oakington treatment, which is applied to all Zimbabwean asylum seekers automatically?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we are taking legal advice on the position regarding bail. As is known, detainees cannot be removed until after the election has taken place, when the situation will be reassessed. As we debated at length during the passage of the anti-terrorism Bill last year, a different legal situation arises if we know that we cannot remove a person. In such a case, we cannot normally detain that person. However, we are taking legal advice on that situation at present.

1075
So far as concerns the bulletins, I understand that they are available. They are not published in the way that the country assessments are published in April and October, but extra bulletins are indeed available. I cannot say how quickly they are put on to the web.
In relation to the question about Oakington, the answer is: no. We shall maintain the Oakington situation and I shall give noble Lords two good reasons why. Since the beginning of this year—it is now only the 16th of the month—there have been at least two cases, among others, of people arriving in this country from Zimbabwe. The two people in question—one arrived on 2nd January and the other on the 5th—went to Oakington for fast-tracking. They were interviewed on 7th and 9th January. Both were granted asylum. In other words, there is another side to the coin: people from Zimbabwe are passing through Oakington and being granted asylum. The idea that everyone is rejected is nonsense. The vast majority are rejected, but noble Lords may have heard the interview on the "PM" programme last night of the official on the ground from the MDC in Zimbabwe. He spoke about people—the vast majority of whom were not MDC activists—buying MDC letters and coming to this country. Thus, noble Lords will see that there are two sides to the argument.

Army
3.7 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow rose to call attention to the problem of overstretch and equipment failure in the British Army; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to crack on, so crack on I shall. This year I have been very privileged to be a member of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. That scheme was introduced to show Parliament how the Armed Forces function. Those of us who did National Service millions of years ago know a little about it, but most Members of both Houses—fewer in your Lordships' House than in another place—have little knowledge of how the Armed Forces function and work.
I joined the scheme because a million years ago I had been a rather unsatisfactory subaltern in Her Majesty's Life Guards. I believe that it is reasonable to say that the Army—or, as I jokingly call it, the "brutal and licentious"—is infinitely better than it was in my day. I qualify that remark only in one way—that is, they are much less smart than we were. The quality of the soldiers is excellent. Therefore, my criticisms are made because I want an excellent institution to be super-excellent; the criticisms are in that rather than another mode.
I start with Exercise Saif Sareea, which was the expedition to Muscat and Oman. We sent a half-armoured brigade there of 68 tanks, a half battery of guns and a battalion of motorised infantry. The object of the exercise was to get all those people half way
1076
round the world, land them in the desert and let them play soldiers for a while. They arrived, beautifully organised. The staff worked well and the supply worked well with one or two minor faults. But then none of the tanks worked. None worked because they did not have proper sand filters. If the staff had not known about that, I suppose that that would have been acceptable. But an appreciation of the situation was given to Whitehall which stated that, unless the tanks were desertified, they would not work in the desert. Someon—it may have been at political or army level, I know not—decided that too much money had been spent. Therefore, they crossed their fingers and hoped that the tanks would work. They did not. Seventeen tanks were sent back before the exercise started. That left 51. Fifty-one tanks of the Royal Dragoon Guards went out on a night exercise. Three arrived back in working order.
The Challenger 2 tank is probably the best tank we have had since the second battle of Arras when Haig broke through and caused Ludendorff to say that it was a black day for the German army. It is a smashing tank. The technology was there to make it right, but we did not allow it happen. That must be penny wise, pound foolish. The track pads were designed for swamp conditions in northern Europe. The Army had not realised that the desert is stony. All they would have to read is the book of Exodus, which tells us that the desert is stony. The right track pads were not put on the tanks.
Half a battery of guns were sent. The fire extinguisher on one of the guns did not work. The fire extinguisher on a gun works with explosive. Aircraft regulations state that explosives cannot be flown out in passenger aircraft. In wartime the fire extinguisher would have been sent by military transport. Because it was peacetime, it was not sent. The gun was sent half way round the world. It was left there while its gun crew sat in the shade playing poker, or doing whatever idle soldiers do; we all know what idle soldiers do. That was penny wise, pound foolish. The sadness is that so much of what was done was excellent. However, we must not allow such petty-minded accountancy to ruin the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar, if one can say that about the Army in the desert. That is what happened.
The Army decided, perfectly reasonably, to live in tents in the desert. What happened? The tents went out in one container; the tent poles in another and the tent pegs in a third. I do not expect the Ministry of Defence to learn from the failure of the French in the Franco-Prussian war when the same mistake—not over tents; I believe it was over rifles—was made. But at least the Army could have considered what happened to Lord Raglan in the Crimea when the right boots went out in one ship and the left boots in another. One ship was wrecked in a storm off the southern peninsular of the Crimea. The poor, wretched soldiers went, "Left, 'splock', left, 'splock'" because all their right boots had been sunk. Those were mistakes which should not have been made.
I shall touch briefly on the question of discipline. Courts Martial legislation has made minor military discipline difficult to enforce because the procedure is

1077
too complicated. A commanding officer said to me, "I am a little worried that 'behind-the-sheds thumping-up' is taking place instead of putting a soldier on a charge because that has become so complicated". I hope that the Minister will consider that.
We saw several extraordinarily efficient, competent young ladies at captain rank—
A noble Lord: And major.
The Earl of Onslow: And major, and probably colonel and lance-corporal. However, all such officers we saw had had unpleasant experiences of sexual harassment. In most cases, nothing had happened as a result. The officers concerned did not want to take action because that would have been embarrassing and difficult. One such case resulted in a court martial. It seemed that there were too many such incidents. I do not know what can be done about that.
Pay 2000 has also caused problems. One warrant officer was promoted on 28th March. Another was promoted on 1st February. Pay 2000 meant a difference of £45 per day in their pay. I believe that that was the figure. It was sufficiently large for me to notice. The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, who was present, will perhaps confirm or correct that figure. The differential in pay was considerable.
I turn to equipment. Bowman, the Army wireless system, is Heaven knows how far behind. Somehow, the system must be put right. It is intolerable that people should go into battle with wireless sets which do not work when the Dutch and Canadians all have perfectly workable systems which we could have bought off the shelf. The SA80 rifle used not to work at all. Everybody says that the new version is extremely good. Why was it not used? Because the Army said that it could not he got to the aircraft carrier. That excuse is not acceptable.
There are further problems with equipment. There is no Scimitar replacement. When I joined the Army there were Dingo scout cars and Daimler armoured cars, which were designed in about 1941. Subsequently, Saracens were used. I refer to the light cavalry reconnaissance vehicle. There seems to be a great problem with that replacement. I suspect that we are paying too much, unnecessarily, for the Eurofighter. I am told that the money spent on carriers—I totally support the carriers—is making a terrible hole.
We went also to Sierra Leone. That arose by accident. Ministers refused to make up their minds until quite late as to whether or not to intervene. Triumph was not present, so we went by air to the airbase. The sudden arrival of really professional soldiers threatened the various warring parties. They drew back and within minutes we were involved in a neo-colonial situation. That was welcomed beyond anything by the people who live there. At a reception at the High Commission, I asked the chief policeman, "How long would you like us to stay and advise you?" He replied, "Twenty-five years". Their experience of their own self-government has been catastrophically disastrous.
1078
I hope that the Government will ensure that the aim is clear. At present, our presence in Sierra Leone is based solely on bluff of an immensely high quality. I was in the jungle keeping my two colleagues awake and the animals away by snoring. I saw one of the soldiers, a mortar platoon corporal in the descendents of the Durham Light Infantry, in the pouring rain. I asked the soldier what he was reading. I am not normally totally lost for words, but he said that he was reading Homer's Odyssey. He then said that he interspersed it with Jackie Collins; a good intellectual mix.
My point is that we are in serious danger of getting into overstretch. Twenty-seven per cent of the Army is now committed. I know that the figure was 27 per cent when the present Government came into power because that is what Mr Hoon said yesterday. The Army hoped that the SDR would make it 20 per cent. It is making certain that one cannot have proper training, proper leave and proper rotation. Soldiers who like being soldiers want to do their job properly. They want to be soldiers. They do not want to be stuck in Catterick. But if one overstretches them—they are 8,000 people under-strength at the moment, so I am told—one will make retention of them difficult and he in danger of degrading our most wonderful asset. It is a stupendously good asset.
Mr Blair goes prancing around the Indian subcontinent, heavily disguised as Peter Sellers, without the accompaniment of Sophia Loren, with a magic carpet on his head. That may he a little unkind, but it is quite funny and I think reasonably accurate. Perfectly reasonably he has this wonderful machine with which he wishes to play. What are we doing in Afghanistan? I do not know. The Kyber Pass is blocked. The bridges over the Oxus are blown. We are under command of the Americans. The Americans do not want to do anything that we are doing in Kabul. We are not allowed outside of Kabul. This is an overstretched commitment. It goes too far. I do not know what it is there for.
I might have been a little unkind to Mr Blair; all Prime Ministers are prone to play with this lovely little toy, the British Armed Forces. I concede that if I was Prime Minister I could not resist the temptation. But, resist it they must, because if we overstretch them, if we make them do more than they can do—they will try their hardest—we shall destroy a quite exceptionally high-quality instrument. It is that with which I am concerned. I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I must apologise for arriving a little late to the debate. I apologise, not least to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, because the House and I certainly like to hear the noble Earl. I do not think that we should like to see him as Prime Minster; heaven knows what would happen.
The noble Earl brings to the House not merely his own experience of a historic kind, but the advantage of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, which he and my noble friend Lord Tomlinson enjoyed last

1079
year. It brings a refreshing relevance to the experience and quality of debate in both this House and in the other place.
I understand the noble Earl's anxiety about the commitments which our Armed Forces bear at the present time. Unlike the noble Earl, I am nowhere near so critical of them. That is partly because the rotation between overseas duty is now better than it was before the SDR. The present level of overseas service is that which was required or planned within the SDR. It commanded widespread approval. Nevertheless, it is a point that exercises Her Majesty's Government because we must ensure that our forces are not deployed overseas on tasks which may prevent them maintaining the high skills which must be retained by adequate training and exercise in the broad range of military duties.
I agree with the noble Earl when he referred to our Armed Forces as being of very high quality. That is undoubtedly an advantage to Britain. It undoubtedly also allows Britain to more than justify its place within the western alliance and its seat on the UN Security Council. We are obliged to punch our weight. It is sad that we have been punching more than our weight for a very long time. It is rather a pity that in the long years during which we were on the Opposition Benches, the then Government were far too tame in their attitude to our European neighbours, who were quite prepared to see us bearing a grossly unfair share of the security burden. One hopes that greater effort will be maintained by the present Administration to encourage our European partners to make the proper contribution which, in all fairness, their membership of the NATO arrangement requires.
The noble Earl referred to equipment. I do not think that the present Administration has any reason to be apologetic about their approach to the equipping of our Armed Forces. No one suggests that they are perfect. But the imperfections which they inherited were substantial and more than justified the approach which can best be described as Smart Procurement. I make no claims for the quality of that policy because a number of years will need to elapse before it can be properly assessed. When one considers the deficient Bowman system, and the year after year that passed while that grossly inefficient arrangement applied, one can only congratulate Her Majesty's Government on seeking to remedy that appalling inheritance of incompetence.
I hope that the Smart Procurement, which is an attempt to secure reasonably firm specifications, will not lead to such regular, frequent and multitudinous changes in specification which have delayed equipment to our Armed Forces year after year. The approach embodied in the policy has a great deal to commend it.
So far as concerns commitments of equipment for our Armed Forces, I do not know whether we would have seen the same degree of determination and resolution that has been shown with Eurofighter. When the present Government were elected, the Eurofighter faced very real question marks, not least
1080
because of the attitude of our German friends, who seemed to delay matters considerably. They have the same problem with regard to the future military transport. The Government have met that particular need for heavy lift by their arrangement with regard to the C-17 aircraft. We hope to see progress in the long-term provision of the future European large aircraft. But there are doubts about that. In the eyes of some noble Lords, that issue may not strictly relate to the Army, but if we do not have the heavy lift capacity, Her Majesty's Government are weakened in the response that they are able to make in international crises.
It is in the response to those crises that we have cause to congratulate Her Majesty's Armed Forces. They have borne an enormous variety of burdens. They exist, of course, primarily to defend the realm, to—if you—like shoot people where necessary in the defence of this country's interest. But a huge part of their endeavour has been in the service of humanity, in responding to catastrophe, famine, fire and flood. They have done so in ways which are of great advantage to this country and which can give a great deal of professional satisfaction to our Armed Forces.
It is a pity that the national press often seems to ignore the enormous contribution which our Armed Forces make to international humanity and stability. Often, they are looking to criticise and condemn without looking at the achievements and contributions which are offered. It is not quite the same with local newspapers. There we see regular reports throughout the length and breadth of this country. They deal with local people from units which are still associated with the locality, of their service here, there and indeed almost everywhere.
Those young men, and young women—
Baroness Jeger: Thank you.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Jeger for that comment. Those young men and women do more than just look after themselves, as a high proportion of that age group may do; they look after our interests. If we argue that trade follows the flag, it should redound to the economic advantage of this country.
I am most appreciative of this opportunity, and I hope that other noble Lords will offer the same commendation of our Armed Forces and the way in which they are led. In this situation, they deserve that.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, the debate goes to the heart of the question of the current deployment of our armed services. I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, on initiating it. I wish to associate those of us on these Benches with the encomium to our armed services given by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath.
I wish to raise two points about the risk of overstretch. The first relates to the situation in Northern Ireland. We all hope that the twin processes of decommissioning and demilitarisation will be fully

1081
implemented in fulfilment of the Belfast agreement. It was to be hoped that the restoration of the Executive and Assembly would make for further progress. That has been put in serious jeopardy by the antics of the Protestant paramilitaries over the Holy Cross school and the murder of a Catholic postman last weekend. Such incidents illustrate how fragile the situation remains and how easily it could quickly deteriorate.
If the security situation significantly worsens, are there enough reserves in the Army for it to be able fully to assist the police, were that to be deemed necessary? I am prompted to ask that for two reasons. It will be recalled that the British Army was initially called in at the start of the Troubles to assist in the protection of the Catholic community, which is again under siege. There is a danger that history will be repeated. Secondly, the police in Northern Ireland are undergoing an enormous transition from the old RUC to the new police service. They are therefore possibly less well positioned at the moment to deal with the current outbreaks of violence as effectively as they would wish, especially if the situation escalates, In other words, has the recent upsurge in violence and unrest in Northern Ireland been factored into current planning regarding the world-wide deployment of our troops?
My second major point relates to the pattern of overseas deployment. Troops are often vital to the process of re-establishing peace after the breakdown of civil society. However, peacekeeping and the remaking of a nation are a somewhat different matter. They are more a matter of policing than of soldiering. In any case, it is not the best use of professional soldiers, who are a scarce resource, for them to be deployed in protracted engagements in peacekeeping. Armies must be able to hand over as quickly as is feasible to an international police force specially trained for the purpose, which can, in turn, assist in the development of a regular domestic police force drawn from the citizens of the country in question.
I know that British police officers, including police officers from Northern Ireland, have often been seconded overseas to assist in the promotion of peace. However, the numbers have been quite small. Given the expanding role of the United Kingdom in peace missions abroad, I ask the Minister what thought has been given to increasing police involvement in peacekeeping, preferably on an international basis? Such a development would have merit in itself and would also release our armed services to concentrate on their core activities.
I realise that policing matters are primarily the responsibility of the Home Office and the armed services that of the Ministry of Defence, but there is a need for effective co-operation between them—and, indeed, between those two departments and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—if the United Kingdom is to perform its international peacemaking and peacekeeping roles effectively and economically.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for initiating this debate, because the British Army is indeed overstretched in a number of ways, although I wondered for a moment whether the noble Earl would ever get round to mentioning it. But in the preposterously short time available, I intend to concentrate on only one area—the state of the medical services.
How the sorry saga started is pretty well known. The defence costs study knocked the stuffing out of the Defence Medical Services and led to a mass exodus of specialists. That had two serious repercussions. First, it threw into question the ability of the medical services to support land operations overseas on a scale for which the operational troops had to be prepared and put a disproportionate reliance on the Territorial Army. Secondly, it made it almost impossible for those medical services properly to look after the service population in home stations. Servicemen and servicewomen had to wait so long for specialist appointments that there was an adverse effect on manning levels, leading to further overstretch over a wide field.
The present Government inherited the problem, but as they have been in power for over five years, they are under an obligation—which, I believe, they fully accept—to put things right and reverse the decline as a matter of urgency. But in this I hope that the Government will not display a degree of complacency and merely hope for the best.
In order to move in the right direction and perhaps assuage the increasing number of critics, the Government announced with some pride that they would be setting up, in partnership with the distinguished Birmingham teaching hospital, the Queen Elizabeth, a centre for defence medical excellence. That centre is now known as the Centre for Defence Medicine. The Government announced that they would allot £140 million of new money to the Defence Medical Services. It is not too clear what that £140 million was for. If it was to pay for the extra personnel that it is hoped to recruit, as a result of the Birmingham development, to fill the medical ranks, it has not yet been spent. The ranks have not yet been filled. The money should now be spent on other urgent things. If on the other hand the money has been spent, more money is badly needed.
I say this because, with other noble Lords, I had the privilege of visiting the new Centre for Defence Medicine at Birmingham, and I can tell noble Lords that so much more needs to be done. If the term "excellence" could be confined to the enthusiasm and dedication of the fairly small nucleus of teaching, research and clinical staff so far assembled there, that accolade would be fully justified. The people whom we met were absolutely splendid and were working their heart out. I would echo the words of the group captain in charge, who said that failure was not an option for them. How right he is. Indeed, it is not an option for anyone. If the new venture fails to attract and—more importantly—retain the right number of specialists

1083
over a significant period, it will spell disaster for the future of our Armed Forces, particularly the Army, as a usable force for good.
At the moment, at Birmingham the Centre for Defence Medicine has one surgical ward of its own and CDM personnel provide half the staff of the emergency and trauma ward—the accident ward. Linked with this, there is literally a handful of specialists in clinical research and teaching, none of them with any assistants or understudies and most of them under some sort of quite short notice to move somewhere overseas, whether it be to Sierra Leone, Kosovo or Kabul, to provide essential medical back-up. That is so because of the general shortage of specialists right across the board. For instance, there is only one cardiac specialist of consultant status in the whole of the Armed Forces. If one of the consultants at Birmingham is required elsewhere, that function of teaching or research or that clinical contribution would stop, putting back the whole reconstruction and building up operation.
No one in his senses could fail to see the great advantage of linking service clinical activity, research and training to those of the National Health Service, but the purely Armed Forces aspect must never be forgotten, if the aim is to be achieved. For one cannot maintain defence medical services with high morale, capable and ready to go anywhere and share in the hardships, dangers and separation of operational troops unless they have an ethos and an esprit de corps of their own.
At the moment, the right climate for that just does not exist. The military personnel seldom if ever wear uniform; they have no messes of their own and there are no proper nurses' accommodation or married quarters in close proximity to their work. Moreover, their X factor in no way compensates for the lack of overtime paid to their civilian counterparts—this applies in particular to nurses—or for the continual and lengthy separation from their families because of the overall shortage of trained staff. Yet, as far as I can judge, there is no money presently in the programme for these very high priority improvements.
This is no way to make a breakthrough and turn the corner. If these good ideas are ever to get off the launch pad and be more than a face-saving gimmick, and if they are to build up fully manned and respected medical services capable of supporting the Armed Forces in peace and in war, these things have got to be put right and funded as a matter of the greatest urgency. If not, the Government can forget about the Armed Forces, in particular the Army, being used, as I have said, as a force for good in what has been described as Britain's pivotal role. For without proper medical back-up, no extended deployment of military forces even in a humanitarian role, let alone in warlike operations, can be safe or can even be contemplated.
3.41 p.m.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I strongly support what was said by the noble and gallant Lord
1084
about the role that the British armed services can play as a force for good in the world. Furthermore, I support the Prime Minister in his belief that we have a priceless asset here which, if correctly deployed, properly trained and well equipped, can be a great force for good in appropriate circumstances. That is not to say that it will work in every circumstance that arises, because we cannot meet every circumstance, but it can do so on appropriate occasions.
I am deeply concerned about the present situation. I know that the Minister will give an effective and clear reply which will suggest, from the figures deployed, that the situation is satisfactory. However, I beg him to heed someone who had a degree of responsibility for these matters for seven years, first as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and then Secretary of State for Defence. During that time I saw the challenges and problems presented by trying to achieve the 24-month tour interval and the problems posed—in particular on the Army but also on the other forces—by the serious problem we face.
We know, even as we debate this matter today, that we are already falling behind the Government's avowed target of moving towards an increase in our Army capacity of 3,000. At present I believe that we are some 8,000 personnel short, a figure which constitutes over 10 per cent of the total. That shortfall has meaning. When I became Secretary of State for Defence and reviewed the situation with regard to the battalions. I found that we were willing to pretend that we had 55 battalions. However, when the strength of those individual battalions was assessed, we found that the real strength of the British Army was significantly lower. When the Minister, in his responsibility for the Armed Forces, is advised about which regiment to deploy and which unit should next be moved, and he is happy to recognise that he is dealing with a unit that has not been recently deployed overseas, he may well find that a considerable proportion of the members of that unit will have been transferred from other units to make up the shortfall of that particular unit. Thus the reality is rather different.
Overstretch is not a piece of elastic. The problem will not suddenly bust on the Government, but the strain will grow and grow. Many of the statistics advanced address the problem only in terms of pure recruitment. However, it is not only a question of recruitment, although that factor is important. The term covers the recruitment of the junior ranks as well as other ranks. The key issue here is the ability to retain the captains, the majors, the sergeant-majors and the sergeants—I cite the Army ranks—who form the absolute core. That problem may creep up on the Minister.
During the Gulf War, as in other campaigns, a certain excitement comes in when we deal with a new territory and a new adventure. At that time, retention improved; people were keen to join the Army and see the world, thus getting a little adventure out of it. That spirit still exists. But what happens when those commitments become a continuing obligation? It is at that point that families begin to complain. I recall talking to a sergeant-major posted to Northern Ireland

1085
and asking him, "Are you enjoying this tour? Have you been to Northern Ireland before?". He replied with a weary look, "This is my eleventh tour". That exchange took place some 15 years ago. I shudder to think, if that sergeant-major is still serving in the Army, how many tours he may have completed by now.
The reality is that our commitments are terribly difficult to shake off. The noble Lord who spoke from the Liberal Democrat Benches pointed out that we are still meeting commitments in Northern Ireland on a large scale, although many had hoped that the Good Friday agreement would have helped to alleviate the situation. However, we see British troops back on the streets trying to cope with the most unpleasant disputes involving Catholic schoolchildren and ensuring a safe journey to school. Troops are required to intervene in community disputes.
I myself was responsible for one of our present commitments. At the time it was referred to as "providing comfort" although I think the name has been changed. I refer to the no-fly zone in northern Iraq which we put in place at the time to protect the Kurds from persecution by Saddam Hussein's forces. That undertaking is still being met some 10 years later.
We must ensure that these concerns are properly represented to the Treasury and to the Prime Minister. This morning I heard the Secretary of State for Defence comment rather glibly that there had been no change from the time when the Conservatives were in office. I believe that he quoted figures of 27 per cent and 26 per cent as the percentage of forces meeting operational commitments. However, I have seen briefing notes which suggest that the basis of the statistics has changed since those figures were originally set up. I have great respect for this Government, but I am deeply suspicious and I do not ever believe in any figures they produce—a tradition I bring with me from another place—without first checking the small print and closely examining the situation. Whatever is the figure, I hope that the Minister will take a close look at what is really happening in the services at the present time by following the path of individual officers and sergeant-majors. He is entitled to ask for that information and to get it. It will give him a far better indication of what is really happening and whether the problem of overstretch is developing.
I say that because once overstretch takes a hold, although I said earlier that it is not like a piece of elastic that will snap, people begin to comment, "Well, I'm getting out because the family won't stand for this continual moving about". After that, the next person's wife complains because her husband then has to take on extra work resulting from the departure of his colleague. In that way overstretch can build very rapidly.
I repeat that I am extremely concerned. If we are to have good armed services, they must be well trained. On the evidence that I have seen, some 85 training exercises were cancelled last year. We simply will not be able to point to the priceless asset that is at present our Armed Forces, cherished by all parties in this
1086
House, unless we ensure that those forces are properly trained, given adequate rest and recreation and allowed time to spend with their families. They will then be able to make the commitment that is an essential part of the role that we look to them to play.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I am honoured to follow a former Secretary of State and a former Chief of the Defence Staff in this debate because they bring great knowledge of the situation to our deliberations.
The Statement made by the Secretary of State last Thursday, which we were unable to take in your Lordships' House because of the debate on the House of Lords White Paper, gave an indication of how serious the situation is. The Secretary of State admitted that,
"the … force will be about 5,000 strong. Putting it together has not been easy".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/02; col. 689.]
However, the Secretary of State insisted that it has been done without having any impact on our other operational requirements. Is that true?
The Afghanistan enterprise has had the most serious effect on regiments undertaking tours of duty, in particular in Northern Ireland, a point made by my noble friend Lord King. The Scottish regiments are particularly badly placed, with the Royal Scots currently serving in Northern Ireland more than one company deficient. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, warned on 17th December that the UK Armed Forces were dangerously over-committed.
We are told that recruitment is satisfactory and that the Armed Forces are, within reason, up to strength. But they are not. A simple headline figure does not answer the problem. While recruitment and staffing are just about adequate for present tasks, as soon as there is a crisis a breakdown will be inevitable. If Northern Ireland blows up again—and it very well may—we shall be in trouble.
Let me give some hard facts on the numbers. For the Army, probably the greatest problems lie with REME. At the last count, REME was 13.8 per cent under strength. REME has the people who make the toys work, and their skills are the most attractive to employers in civilian life who have other uses for these highly skilled people.
The figures in other areas are even more serious. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, pointed out the situation in the medical services. In March 2001, the RAMC was 14.2 per cent under strength and Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps 35 per cent. At that time, Headquarters Infantry was confident that the infantry-trained strength deficit, which was 1,348, would be reduced to 1,100 by September. Can the Minister say whether that target was achieved.
It would be wrong to confine the debate to overstretch in the Army alone. In this era of "jointery", we must talk about all three services. The RAF is desperately short of pilots—again a well known fact. The service is doing what it can to ensure that when it has a trained pilot it does not lose him to a civilian airline, but it is not easy.

1087
The Royal Navy lacks nuclear engineers as well as pilots, both helicopter and fixed wing. As we know, the Sea Harrier force recently offered a bonus of £50,000 to retain up to 16 pilots, and it seems that only 21 are combat ready. At the same time, the RAF has a shortfall of 42 combat-ready pilots from a total of only 230. The shortage of Royal Navy/Royal Air Force fast-jet fighter pilots is estimated to rise to 132 by 2005–06. If recruiting targets are being met, it is clear that improvement can come only from improved pilot retention.
The Government continue to promise the aircraft carriers, and the in-service date has not, at the moment, slipped. That is good news—but the carriers will be of no use if there are not the trained men to crew them and the aircraft they carry.
Yesterday's news about the compulsory call-up of elements of the Territorial Army is most significant. Apart from giving the defenders of the TA the opportunity to say, "I told you so", it is rather worrying that it should be necessary. Having said that, that is what the TA is for and we welcome it—but it cannot be ignored that this is the first time that there has been a call-up since Suez. At the moment, it is part of only one intelligence unit, but the Minister has made it clear that he expects that the concept will have to be extended.
The Secretary of State's Statement last week mentioned, in passing, that 17 countries will be deploying troops alongside the United Kingdom in the security force. That is very helpful for anyone who has to run it. One does not have to be a chauvinist to wish good luck to New Zealand, which is providing the headquarters staff for this mélange, assisted by the Turks.
I have concentrated on manning shortages and not on equipment. I shall touch briefly on the A400M. The Germans seem to be reneging—it looks as though they will be reducing their order from 73 to 40—and the Italians have, at the present moment, fallen out. If the A400M project dies simply because there are not enough orders, what will happen? How long can the Government maintain the C-130Ks? Their out-of-service date is 2004. It looks as though they will be needed for another six years. Dr Moonie has spoken about a slippage in the A400M in-service date from 2007 to 2010. That is an immense worry. What will the Government do about it?
3.55 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for introducing the debate, which he did in his usual amusing fashion but with the serious strategic content that one expects from a former subaltern in the Life Guards.
The noble Earl perhaps went over the top a little in his description of the equipment position. I know that there are many atrocity stories about tanks in the desert and different pieces of equipment going into different ships and so on, but, generally speaking, the
1088
Army is reasonably well equipped for its tasks. The Smart Procurement programme is likely to ensure that in the future it will be even better equipped.
The noble Earl made a much better point when he referred to overstretch and the fact that the resources of the Armed Forces are not sufficient to meet the commitments that they have to face. My understanding is that the Chiefs of Staff do not subscribe to this view. As I understand it, their view is that the Armed Forces are stretched and that they entirely agree with that. They believe that the Armed Forces should be stretched, but not overstretched. I understand that that is the kind of advice Her Majesty's Government are getting at the moment. But, like the noble Lord, Lord King, I remain deeply concerned about the situation.
After all, it is a matter of common knowledge, fact and observation that, at the moment, our Armed Forces have great and growing commitments. We have forces in Northern Ireland, Germany, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, the Balkans and so on. Indeed, we can look forward to even greater demands upon our resources in the future. There is to be the rapid reaction force under the European Security and Defence Initiative. We have heard from the Government that this will not require any extra manpower. Quite frankly, I find that a totally bizarre concept. Either it will require new manpower and new resources or there is no point in it at all. I subscribe personally to the second view. The suggestion that the rapid reaction force, to which we will supply forces when necessary, will not require any extra manpower is a bizarre concept around which I simply cannot get my mind. Perhaps the Government are better at it than I am.
We can also look forward to increased commitments in the war against terrorism. If the operations in Afghanistan are not to be the end of the war against terrorism—and they will not be the end, as the Government will be the first to agree—we have to look forward to deploying our forces wherever that commitment leads us, even if the deployment is of a short-term nature. The present commitments are—whatever may be the advice of the Chiefs of Staff—causing considerable concern among sergeants, sergeant-majors, pilots, soldiers and their equivalents in the other services. As the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said, it is significant that reservists have been made subject to a compulsory call-up to perform certain tasks.
If the Armed Forces were not stretched to the limit and perhaps beyond, there should be no need to call up reservists. The noble Lord said that is what reservists are for—and I agree. Perhaps the arguments that many of us have advanced in the past for more attention to be paid to the Territorial Army are coming home to roost. If reservists are necessary at this stage in military deployment, that must indicate that the regular forces are not sufficient to meet our commitments. Unless that is so, I do not understand the reasoning.
The Government must look carefully at the organisation of the Armed Forces. Are they organised in a way that will fit the requirements and commitments

1089
that they will have to meet in the next five, 10 or 15 years? Do we really need armoured divisions, tanks and heavy aircraft or a different kind of Armed Forces? Should the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force play a greater role if part of the aim is the distant deployment of military force?
Surely it all comes down to the fact that any government must, in the current circumstances, give the funding, equipment and resources of the Armed Forces a much higher priority. The Armed Forces must not come way down the list of priorities.
I remind the House that the noble Lord, Lord Healey—who is not in his place—once said in a slightly different but still relevant context that if one does not have proper defences, one does not have schools and hospitals but a heap of rubble. We should bear that in mind.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, the central point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, when opening the debate—when he clearly implied in the witty but serious kernel of his speech that Downing Street inexorably adds to defence commitments and the Chancellor of the Exchequer controls the resources. For all practical purposes, those resources have been fixed for many years.
My noble friend Lord King, a distinguished former Secretary of State for Defence, implied that the patience and abilities of our Armed Forces are being sorely stretched. Evidence of that is obvious. We have a shortfall of 8,000 men in the Regular Army—which is particularly felt among senior ranks and junior officers. I declare an interest as president of the Council of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations.
The Territorial Army is 40,000-strong and effectively provides the relief valve for the overstretch of the Regular Army. At any one time over the past few years, 1,000 reservists drawn from all three services have served in a voluntary capacity—infilling for regular forces around the world. Ten per cent of our forces in the Balkans are drawn from the reserve forces. The noble Earl will remember that Lord Kitchener's opinion of the Territorial Army in the First World War was not entirely complimentary. I am glad that General Mike Jackson takes a very different view and is most supportive of and grateful for the role of the TA in particular in infilling the ranks of the regular forces.
My noble friend Lord Burnham referred to Monday's important statement about the first compulsory call-up of reserve forces since Suez. We came close during the Kosovo conflict but Monday's announcement signals an important change. Dr. Moonie, the junior Under-Secretary of State, indicated that the use of compulsory call-up should become more frequent in coming years. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, indirectly referred to some of the implications. An advantage of compulsory call-up, which the Territorial Army welcomes, is that it shares the burden between the employer—who signs up to
1090
protect the employment of the TA soldier under bipartisan legislation that was satisfactorily amended by the present Government—and the family. It is not just a matter of a reservist saying, "I volunteer'. All his colleagues will be called up, so it becomes a patriotic, sensible and rational thing to do.
My noble friend Lord Burnham referred to the partial call-up of 3 (Volunteer) Military Intelligence Battalion. Some 140 of them will be going to Afghanistan, and we wish them well.
We must, however, watch carefully the cost implications for employers—who must be satisfactorily compensated for re-employing and re-recruiting staff—and for the Army reservists themselves. The compensation paid for serving in the Army compared with loss of earnings may not be at all equitable.
From my experience of talking to all ranks and officers of the Territorial Army, they would welcome the call-up in due course of formed units—perhaps as a company of a battalion. If reservists can train and work together and have loyalty to the TA, that would draw on its strengths. In doing so, the authorities must work with employers and give as much notice as possible—and reflect the specific strengths and skills of the solders called up.
Gone are the days of Dad's Army. The Territorial Army of today is not one of our dads but of our sons and daughters. We wish them well.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Onslow for choosing as the subject of debate matters that have been of concern in recent years, as is illustrated in previous debates and Questions in the House.
On overstretch, there have been concerns about the danger of taking on too many commitments for the present size of the Army. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response on that point. In the past two or three days, the press has reported the mobilisation of Territorial Army intelligence units and that some of their members, in their civilian jobs, have been working on government communications. Their work includes important tasks affecting security. Who is now doing their jobs? Is this not an example of overstretch, even if it is on the security side as distinct from the Armed Forces, in stretching the staff skilled in communications? I am glad to have this early opportunity of putting that question to the Government.
I turn to failures of equipment. This is worrying if it is happening, for example, to vehicles, especially tanks and weapons. In 1999 there were reports from Kosovo that the radios of British units were unreliable arid were breaking down. The subject was raised in debates in this House in that year, in which I took part. I had hoped that all the necessary improvements had been made since then. I can sympathise with the units and their soldiers where wireless communications are made difficult by inadequate equipment.

1091
That was a bugbear in World War II. Being a gunner and a field battery commander for three years, I was fortunate in having powerful radios. My 25-pounders could not otherwise have been used when they were needed. Fortunately, the Army gave priority to field artillery equipment for that reason. I often had to send radio messages for the infantry with whom I was operating because their radios were too weak to overcome interference which, of course, included that from enemy radios which happened to be on the same frequencies.
I understand that our tanks and field guns at present are of a high standard and reliable. Noble Lords will know that in World War II the British Army had to fight in tanks that were inferior to the enemy's in quality. Early in that war they broke down too often, especially in the desert. The late Lord Carver could have told us more from his experiences of that. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, paid an elegant and accurate tribute to him in our debate on 17th December. I would add that he was an outstanding commander of armour in action. I was not in the 4th Armoured Brigade, as was the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, but in the 15th Scottish Division, with whom that brigade, commanded by Lord Carver, operated in Normandy and later during the campaign in north-west Europe. We shall continue to miss him and I in particular, because he was a personal friend of mine since the 1940s.
There is no question of our preparing for a future war based on the methods and tactics of the last one. But the same general administrative factors tend to arise and lessons can be learned from the pass in that field.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, this is the first time I have participated in a defence debate in either the other place or in this House. I do so with some sense of trepidation. However, I begin by congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for giving us the opportunity to have the debate. As he mentioned, we were together in the Armed Services Parliamentary Scheme which requires of its participants heroic decisions. Mine was to share a tent with the noble Earl for a week during the Saif Sareea exercise. But, of course, my appreciation of the role of the Army was enhanced. My admiration for our servicemen and women was increased and my view consolidated of the imperative need to get a reasonable equilibrium between the human and other resources available to the armed services and the demands made on them.
When, in a Motion, words like "overstretch" are used so loosely, I believe that we are beginning to do a disservice to the needs of our Armed Forces. All too frequently when used loosely, the word becomes a political weapon rather than a piece of strategic analysis. If I regret any part of the noble Earl's speech, it was the aberration in it when he referred, I believe with unnecessary rudeness, to the role of the Prime Minister in international affairs, which is one I certainly appreciate.
1092
What is needed is a regular evaluation of the targets which were set in the Strategic Defence Review and of our successes and failures in meeting them, not to beat any government but so that we have the empirical basis of agreement on what improvements, if any, are needed and how we resource them. It seems to me, from the evidence, that when this Government came to power—we heard from the noble Lord, Lord King, of his doubts about the statistics at that time—26 per cent of our personnel were committed to operations. That rose dramatically in 1999 at the height of the Kosovo operations when the Army had 44 per cent of its personnel committed to operations. I have no reason to doubt my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Mr Hoon, when he said on Radio 4 today that the figure is 27 per cent. That does not seem like overstretch, but stretch: it is 26 per cent to 44 per cent to 27 per cent.
Through the process of withdrawing personnel from operations at the earliest moment, it strikes me that the Government are making a significant contribution to controlling and limiting the degree of stretch. Of course, there is a serious problem when events arise such as those of September 11th. In his foreword to the Ministry of Defence Performance Report for the year 2000–1, the Secretary of State said,
"We are looking again at the implications of asymmetric and unconventional threats in what will be a new chapter to the Strategic Defence Review".
I believe that that is a sensible way of dealing with problems which at the time of the review were not only unforeseen, but unforeseeable.
Despite September 11th, let us not forget that the Army's latest assessment of some of the targets in the Strategic Defence Review has been quite successful. The average time between unit tours is, I understand, around 28 months, which is the best figure for five years, and above the SDR target of 24 months. I am quite prepared to boast on behalf of the Government about that. But in doing so I also say that the average masks the fact that there are serious variations between units with some, especially infantry and light-role battalions, not achieving the 24-months interval. We need to approach the statistics not in order to beat each other with them but on the basis of making progress.
As regards overstretch it is too simplistic to say that we should give the Armed Forces more or get them to do less. The spending settlements for last year provided the Ministry of Defence with the first sustained increase in resources since the 1980s—again, not my words, but those of the Secretary of State in the performance review. There must be a continuation of the drive to maximise efficiency and value for money, not only as demonstrated by bodies such as the defence logistics organisation, but perhaps in more basic ways.
I was particularly interested to hear the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, speak about medical services. I wish to ask the Minister: is it not a fact that at any one time there are some 16,000 military personnel who are regarded as unfit for operational purposes because of illness, injury and, very significantly, bad dental health? I hope that the

1093
Minister can respond to that question. Would not a possible significant counter to the fears of overstretch be a reduction in the number of our servicemen who are presently unfit for operational purposes?
Time prevents my examining questions relating to equipment, as I should like to have done. However, I look forward to hearing from my noble friend on the specific matter I have mentioned.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I want to take a more general and strategic approach. The Government have learnt in the last four years that, while health and transport tend to present nearly intractable problems, the British Armed Forces constitute a peerless trump card. We are respected in Europe, in the US and in the world at large for our armed services and their mixture of courage, professionalism and resilience. That is despite 10 years of merciless attrition conducted by both parties and described as "the peace dividend". The Treasury sold the married quarters estate in the 1990s for far less than its market value and has reneged, through repeated delays, on its promise of money for early refurbishment of service quarters. It sold the drill halls, so that the TA footprint has largely gone, and it regularly reduces the MoD's estimates to suit the Chancellor's procrustean bed rather than the real cost of defence. I hope that resources will now begin to match the requirement.
Because the forces are both resilient and trained to act and make the best of things without complaint—soldiers have no trade unions—I believe that the Government are getting away with under-spending while constantly increasing the tasks of the forces. The SDR did not envisage Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Macedonia, Kosovo and Afghanistan all happening at the same time, while the situation in Northern Ireland becomes steadily more menacing, our commitment in Iraq continues, and there is a distinct likelihood of trouble in Cyprus as Turkey and Cyprus joust for position for EU entry. The EU's common position on Africa also envisages possible EU military intervention as a Petersberg task. One of the disturbing things about the ESDP remit is that it is global.
However closely the FCO and the MoD work together, as we are assured they do, there are real problems for planning the disposition of our overstretched forces when the political agenda constantly commits them to new military tasks, while the Government fail to provide the financial resources that are needed to implement them. We are constantly told by Ministers that all the MoD needs to do is to refocus its spending, not have more funds, and that this splendid formula has been warmly commended to our EU allies. There is at last some money for much-needed equipment and armament, but according to the report of the Capabilities Improvement Conference mounted by the EU—and relevant to NATO's parallel Defence Capabilities Initiative—of the 40 shortfalls listed, most are not scheduled to be met until what is called "the medium term", defined as 2007–2012. The ESDP, we are told by the Secretary of State for
1094
Defence, does not impose financial targets, no distinctions are made between conscript and professional forces and the intention of the action plan is to mobilise for the political commitments. Meanwhile, the EU is claiming to be ready to perform all Petersberg tasks, including armed intervention, by 2003.
The harsh fact is that only we, the French and eventually, potentially, Germany have both the professional forces and the experience to conduct and sustain a serious military operation. We were able to disengage from Macedonia after a brief and effective intervention, but we are still in Kosovo, in Bosnia, in Iraq and in Sierra Leone, and in every case tying up experienced troops so that a very real risk of skill-fade exists. That does not make for retention, and as we progress from one politically dictated intervention to another, we add to the instability of married life for the services, especially since men on these operations are necessarily unaccompanied. Their families are often still in poor quarters, their family life is regularly disrupted. Good NCOs begin to worry about the future, and extensive voluntary retirement at that level, as well as in the skilled trades, will mean that there will be no one to train new recruits.
In 2001, according to the IISS, our defence budget was the equivalent of 33 billion dollars; France's was 24 billion; Germany's was 20 billion; and that of Italy was 15 billion. After Spain, at 7 billion dollars, the Netherlands at 5 billion and Sweden at 4 billion, the other defence budgets in the EU added up to 13 billion dollars.
Defence in this country is still a poor relation compared to health, and it is more than time that a Government who largely owe much of their present international status to the successful use of their Armed Forces to enhance their political clout, should recognise that defence needs a larger share of our money, not just for equipment but for the really vital element—people: skilled, dedicated, effective people.
Of course it is right that our country should use its Armed Forces as the asset that they are, not as a talent to be buried but one to be used. The question is whether they are being accorded their proper value, and whether those who commit them politically are accountable and fully aware of what they are doing.
Military matters, defence and security are rightly regarded in the EU as intergovernmental, not to be decided by QMV and carefully co-ordinated with our NATO responsibilities. We only have one set of assets, however many the calls that are made on them. Are we, who are more likely than any other nation but one to have to pay the piper in terms of providing the troops, able to monitor decisions and ensure that Mr Solana, who is moving more and more issues, including those with military implications, into the domain of common strategies, where QMV does apply, can be monitored and observed, and perhaps controlled?
According to the arrangements under which, ever since Russia and the Ukraine were invited at Feira to take part in operations to carry out Petersberg tasks, Russia regularly talks to the Political Committee and

1095
to presidential troikas about European defence, security and arms proliferation—many of which are NATO subjects for which we have made provision for discussion under the umbrella of NATO. What will happen if Russia is incorporated into the committee of contributors which is set up when it is decided to launch an operation? Will it, like other countries which are candidates for accession, have the same rights and obligations in the day-to-day conduct of an operation? Russia could probably provide quite significant air-lift, for which the EU would otherwise have had to go to NATO; and Russia's potentially developing relationship with the EU at a military level in the context of the Petersberg tasks, which sounds so sensible, is nevertheless part of the game she is playing to render NATO irrelevant if she can. That is a major factor in the European balance of power.
I hope that we shall resist at a political level moves which would advance Russia's subliminal interests in the chess game rather than ours. We have the political will to commit our forces, very much less to support their claim to a proper share of our budget, and possibly none to resist moves against our interests in Europe and so become unpopular. In the memorable words of a Minister: "We try to get ourselves in a position where we are not the country holding things up".
4.27 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend on introducing the debate, and on his prescience in having done so within 48 hours of the call-up of TA Reservists—the first, as my noble friends Lord Burnham and Lord Freeman have said, for nearly 50 years. That is evidence, if ever I heard it, of at least incipient overstretch.
In the few minutes available to me, I want to address the single issue of the frequency with which members of the Armed Forces are being asked to serve on overseas emergency six months' unaccompanied tours, and with that the associated issues of pay and rations and an update on the life assurance position.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, reminded us, the existing guidelines on overseas unaccompanied tours are that there must be 24 months between tours—24 months between the end of one tour and the beginning of the next. Anyone understands that from time to time such agreements will undoubtedly be infringed, particularly at times of national emergency. However, there is a widespread view that, since the Berlin Wall came down, there have been persistent breaches of this agreement. This affects all soldiers, but in particular it affects the technical branches—signallers, engineers, helicopter mechanics and petroleum specialists. We are frequently told, and many speakers have made the point, that the Army is short of such specialists. Well, if they are badly treated, we must expect that they will vote with their feet and move to civilian careers where their skills are better appreciated and better remunerated.
1096
The Government—sparing the blushes of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson—have been extraordinarily coy about accepting that there is a problem in this regard. In February last year, I tabled the parliamentary Question:
"If no soldier were required to serve more than one six-month emergency tour in each 24-month period, how many soldiers would now be available for deployment [overseas]?".
The noble Lord, Lord Burlison, on behalf of the Government, said:
"We do not hold the information requested centrally".—[Official Report, 13/2/01; col. WA 29.]
He went on to give various other statistics that were an attempt to wriggle off the hook.
A month later, on 15th March, I tried again. This time I asked the Government to confirm whether a central record exists of overseas tours of Army personnel; if not, why not; and at what levels such records are maintained. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, gave a lengthy reply in which her key argument was:
"To put together such a record would, therefore, entail a disproportionate cost".—[Official Report, 15/3/01; col. WA 104.]
Apparently, it would entail disproportionate cost to keep a record of what our soldiers are doing overseas to ensure that we are complying with the obligations that we have freely entered into. If the Government really mean that, it betrays an extraordinarily cavalier attitude to the undertakings that they have given to the Armed Forces. I hope that the Minister will provide a proper reassurance when he winds up.
At the same time, I hope that the Minister will be able to explain how, as the Government pursue their world role and take on ever more responsibilities in areas of tension, they are going to avoid ever more frequent infringements of the agreement. I share the view of my noble friend Lord King about the dangers of commitment creep. We have gone into Sierra Leone, we have gone into the Balkans and we are now going into Afghanistan. Where are we coming out of?
My second issue is pay. Members of the Armed Forces are excluded from the provisions of the national minimum wage. I have asked the Government on occasions what the financial impact would be if the national minimum wage applied to a private soldier serving on an overseas emergency tour. The Government, again through the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, have not been prepared to give a figure. Instead, the noble Baroness referred to the "X-factor"—currently 13 per cent of basic pay—which is,
"added to reflect the overall balance of advantages and disadvantages experienced by members of the armed forces"— [Official Report, 29/11/00; col. WA 133.]
I leave it to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, to argue whether 13 per cent is the right figure. That is all very well, but the amount is paid throughout a soldier's career, whether he or she is guarding Bagram airport, driving an armoured personnel carrier in the Balkans or driving a desk in Whitehall. If the Government are determined to continue with their global programme of commitments, with all the

1097
pressures that that entails for those involved in the Armed Forces, they surely must consider some special arrangements for those who undertake increasingly frequent emergency deployment at the sharp end.
Then there is the issue of life assurance, on which there were extensive reports in The Times and other newspapers late last year. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us reassurances about how that is being developed and the answers that are being found to the problem.
In replying to a debate on Afghanistan last year, the Minister rightly reminded us of the duty that we all owe to the members of our Armed Forces. We need to ensure that the Government do not make the mistake exemplified by the famous Kipling line:
"O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Tommy, go away';
But it's 'Thank you, Mister Atkins', when the band begins to play".
4.33 p.m.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for raising this subject for debate and to my noble friend Lord Tomlinson for taking part in it. I hope that he is slightly ashamed of the fact that it was his first contribution to our debates on these subjects. I hope that we shall hear a great deal from him on these issues in the future.
I was very concerned about the noble Earl's reference to cases of sexual harassment during the recent exercise in Oman. That was news to me, although of course I accept what he said. Having told us what had happened, the noble Earl seemed merely to shrug his shoulders and wonder what could be done about it. There is something that we can do.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I drew the issue to the attention of the House—and to the attention of the assistant chief of staff this morning—because I find it extraordinarily unattractive. I was laying the issue on the table in the hope that somebody would take it up. I do not take the issue in any way other than very seriously.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for making that clear. I am sure of the good faith of Ministers of this Government and previous Governments of either complexion in wanting this evil to be rooted out, just as Ministers have always been adamant and firm against cases of racial harassment. However, we have a lot to learn about what to do about it. It is clear that we shall not deal with these issues fundamentally unless we make it clear to the colonels and the sergeant-majors that their careers will be affected if there are incidents of that sort in units for which they are responsible. That is where the responsibility should lie. It should be made clear to those with such responsibilities that any incidents will go in their record and their career will be prejudiced. I draw your Lordships' attention to what happened in the United States at the time of the Tailhook scandal. Shortly after that, no less a personage than the chief of naval operations, the wholly admirable Admiral Kelso, resigned. It is worth considering whether we
1098
should require the personnel of the various service boards to consider their position if matters of that sort are not attended to and brought to an end forthwith.
I regret to have to say that I endorse every word that the noble Earl said about the Challenger tank. I am just grateful that it was not raining in Oman, or we might have had to complain about the windscreen wipers as well.
I take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend the Minister on burying what I hope was my worst mistake in my last tenure at the Ministry of Defence—the Tracer programme. I thought that it was complete nonsense and I am ashamed that I allowed it to continue even to development stage. I confess that I should not have been as innocent as I was. The British Army told me that we had to have it because the Americans were insisting on it. I was mug enough not to ask any more questions until I got to Washington, when I found out that my opposite number, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said that he had been told by his Army that they had to have it because the British were insisting on it. I hope that my noble friend can learn from my naivety.
I hope that my noble friend can also give me some assurances on a couple of bits of equipment that are not strictly Army equipment, but have a great effect on the Army. I am particularly concerned about the next generation fast jet trainer, the Hawk—or whatever the new Hawk is called; I can never remember the initials but I am sure that my noble friend has them at his fingertips. It would be unthinkable if the order for the new fast jet trainer was not to be placed with BAe Systems for the Hawk. It is getting pretty close to scandalous how long it is taking for the decision to be made. That is having a serious effect on defence sales. Quite apart from the capabilities of the Royal Air Force, it is also having industrial implications, of which I am sure my noble friend is aware.
My noble friend will not be so happy with my next comment. I am afraid that I do not share the enthusiasm of my noble friend Lord Hardy or the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, for the A400M. I shall not detain your Lordships with all the reasons why I think that it is a complete waste of money. The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said that we ought to have the A400M as soon as possible as a replacement for the C130K. The C130J should be with us by now, although we have had a lot of birthing pains with it. In any case, the A400M is intended not as a tactical lift aircraft, but as a strategic aircraft. As such, it is in competition with the wholly admirable C17 aircraft, which is now in place. The decision should be taken on objective grounds. Rather than just trying to ensure jobs in Europe for a plane that does not exist and has specifications that are hugely inferior to those of the C17, which is already successfully in service in two air forces, we should be trying through OCCAR—I ask your Lordships to forgive me for all these initials—to secure European agreement with Boeing to build the C17 in Europe. That would be a major contribution to Europe obtaining the strategic airlift capability that it requires.

1099
My final point reverts to questions of the Armed Forces. I very much hope that my noble friend can give us assurances that the welfare arrangements for the troops in Afghanistan have been properly considered. I am sure that my noble friend will say yes. But the Ministry of Defence is very bad at looking into such matters.
I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for saying this, but I can recall a private conversation with the current Permanent Secretary not so long ago—or perhaps it was his predecessor, I cannot remember—who commented what a poor show we made of this. I can remember going back to Kuwait where the troops did not receive their chip frying machines, or their telephone-to-home call arrangements. Moreover, the mail arrangements were inadequate. Time after time we say that it will not happen again; but it does. These are not frivolous matters. They are extremely important welfare matters, as I am sure my noble friend accepts. I hope that he can confirm that such matters are being monitored closely, and will give us an assurance that he will look into them as soon as possible.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, what a privilege it is to follow the opening remarks of my noble friend Lord Onslow. He referred to one or two interesting incidents during his career; and, indeed, some that happened recently in the desert. It was 44 years ago when I, too, was a young national serviceman. On 14th July 1958, your Lordships might remember there was a Nasserite putsch in Iraq. My battalion, the First Battalion Scots Guards, which was then serving at Windsor, was warned for duty. The commanding officer, who many noble Lords may remember, my late noble friend Lord Cathcart, needed a training area. "Very good", he was told, "you may have a training area, but you can't have Oman". So, as there was nothing in Scotland, the battalion was then sent to Dartmoor, where we had not one, or two, but three times the normal rainfall. Having trained one platoon, I arrived back at Windsor to be told by the company sergeant-major, "You're very lucky, you're to train Mr Keswick's platoon". So I went back and there was even more rain.
Things have not necessarily changed over the past 44 years. But, through the visits that I have made on several occasions with the House of Lords defence group in the company of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, I have been delighted to see that, very simply, there is nothing that the British Army cannot do; and that there is nothing that the defence forces of the United Kingdom are unable to do. Last night I heard a very interesting address from a senior source in the Ministry of Defence, who referred to certain terms. As far as he was concerned, "stretch" was fine, but what he called "overuse" seemed to him to present a problem. I thought that that was a clever way of putting it.
This morning, I was also interested to hear political representatives in another place—namely, the shadow Minister and the Minister—referring to various
1100
percentages. I should be glad to receive some clarification in this respect. Last night, the same senior source to whom I referred said that the percentage of personnel on operations was 26 per cent or 27 per cent. However, he also referred to the percentage of 6 per cent, which I believe relates to further personnel who are committed to operations. As I understand it, that means that such personnel would be placed on short notice in readiness to move on operations, or would be used in other ways as a back-up for those already on operations. Can the Minister say whether this is a rising or a falling trend?
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, referred to a visit that both he and I made to the Defence Medical Services in Birmingham. I confirm every word that he said this afternoon. I have some personal knowledge of the Territorial Army and of the medical operatives who serve with the TA. Indeed, I reiterate everything that my noble friend Lord Freeman said in that respect. I was interested to note that 10 per cent of the Armed Forces in the Balkans are from the TA. I am sure that the Minister will accept that we are grateful for that help, especially in the technical and medical areas to which reference has been made. The effect of our forces in the Balkans, and elsewhere, would be seriously diluted without that assistance.
In the case of the medical services, can the Minister give both the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and myself encouragement as regards what are called "parenting and messing" arrangements? As I understand it, "parenting" is the ability of personnel in such places as Northallerton, which I have visited on a previous occasion, and Birmingham, to carry out their necessary training as soldiers: in other words, the opportunity to use their weapons and undertake the necessary physical training. I believe that that can be achieved without disrupting the other duties and training commitments that they have at the hospital.
I should like to emphasise a point that the noble and gallant Lord did not have time to mention. I have in mind the extraordinarily forthright commitment of all the young men and women at what I believe is called the University of Central England, which is attached to the Defence Medical Services. It provides a marvellous three-year course for medical operatives of the future.
There have been one or two major successes. I was lucky to be in Docklands at the defence exhibition on 11th September. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Freeman was one of the first people I encountered, though I was not aware that he operated in that particular area. I found enormous enthusiasm there among the British Army team, but I also had the good fortune to visit HMS "Lancaster". I hope that the Minister, as well as noble Lords, will note the following. First, what a first-class ship it is; secondly, how very pleased the operatives and the people working with the new Merlin helicopter were with it; and, thirdly, the unbelievable enthusiasm of the sonar man on that helicopter. He suggested to me that one thing that your Lordships should do was to make a visit to see it. We shall try to do so. That seemed to me to be one shining success in a world event at the

1101
Docklands: it shows that there are at least some successes coming forward. Will the Minister please keep that rolling, as well as the other initiatives that no doubt he will be mentioning in his response?
In conclusion, I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, refer to something called Tailhook in Las Vegas. The noble Lord may be surprised to learn that I, too, have been to Las Vegas for just one night. I went with a group called the North Atlantic Assembly—NATO parliamentarians. I can assure him that what I read of what took place at Tailhook seems to me to be quite modest compared to what I saw. I do not mean to refer to the activities of members of the North Atlantic Assembly; indeed, I was certainly astonished at much of the moderation. But, possibly, such behaviour was not fitting and worthy for the United States Navy.
I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will bear in mind that decisions taken now as regards recruitment and retention will be what count in three, four or five years' time. It is excellent to say, "Oh, yes; what happened in Afghanistan was unexpected". I admit that operations in Macedonia turned out to be a marvellous success; namely, to achieve something and pull out within the time schedule. The whole history of the British Armed Forces is one of waiting for the unexpected. I repeat: such decisions must be taken slowly with the help of the defence logistics organisation, and of the Treasury. Then in three or five years' time, if noble Lords and the Minister are still here, we can expect success in future operations.
4.49 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I remind the House that I have an interest as a serving officer in the Territorial Army. I am grateful for the comments made by my noble friend Lord Freeeman about the TA. I wish I had time to follow up on the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Onslow regarding the issue of sexual harassment. I can only say that I do not recognise it as a problem of the present, although it was clearly a problem of the past. I should admit that it was a very difficult problem for me to deal with when I was in command of a TA unit, simply as regards determining the rights and wrongs of even a minor complaint.
I took part in Exercise Saif Sareea for about one month in a very humble capacity. Morale among the troops was very good. They enjoyed the exercise: they enjoyed working in a new, different and challenging environment. My noble friend Lord Onslow raised the issue of the SA80 rifle. The design is old. It was the first design of bull-pup rifle to enter service in an army. The Government have a refurbishment programme for it, but the cost is comparable to that of the new weapon. Moreover, about 10 per cent of the Army will be left-handed. Can the Minister confirm that the SA80 rifle can now be fired left-handed?
We undertook Exercise Saif Sareea for good political reasons, but did so within current MoD funding. Omanis at all levels were very pleased to see us, but that is particularly true of the Royal Army of Oman.
1102
There were, nevertheless, some problems. Because there was no extra money for flying hours, air transport was restricted throughout the year and there were fewer opportunities to use even individual members of the TA, let alone whole formed units on their annual camp. It is a sorely missed opportunity. I recall that, in the 1980s, my interest in the TA was maintained by the very large FTXs we engaged in in BAOR. If we had been able to deploy parts of the TA to Saif Sareea, it would have been a brilliant boost to retention. It would also have relieved pressure on some Regular Army units.
Several noble Lords have raised the issue of the Challenger 2 tank, and my noble friend Lord Onslow specifically addressed the track-pad issue, which was a problem in Sail Sareea. However, noble Lords have to understand that the rock over which the Challenger moved in the southern training area was unusually hard and sharp. Similar problems were not encountered in the Gulf War because those tanks were operating on a different type of ground. Nevertheless, perhaps the Government should consider developing desert track for Challenger so that we shall not experience the same problem if we want to deploy it in desert conditions.
Challenger 2 is optimised for Operations in a temperate climate, and there was no funding to "desertise" it for Exercise Saif Sareea. However, it is important to understand that a desertised Challenger 2 would have a significantly larger heat signature, thereby making it easier for the enemy to detect and engage it. Additionally, there would be a large increase in parasitic losses from the cooling system.
The good news is that the Challenger 2 turret systems, which caused so many problems when Challenger was introduced, worked well in Exercise Saif Sareea although the ambient temperature was well outside the design envelope.
Lessons were learned in Exercise Saif Sareea, but that is the point of having a field exercise rather than a computer simulation.
My noble friend Lord Onslow raised the issue of the Bowman radio system. We should thank God that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, has dispensed with the services of Archer Communications. I hope that the project is now under control.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister on Bowman. First, what is the planned in-service date for the first brigade to receive it? Secondly, when will the whole Army—the Regular and the TA—be equipped with Bowman? It is no use equipping only one brigade with the system as it will have to be used right across the Army.
Casualty evacuation is a vital part of all exercises and operations. The Staff place great emphasis on speedy evacuation within agreed timescales. Helicopters are frequently used in evacuations, but they are not always available, particularly in adverse weather and when dealing with a second, nearby casualty. In such circumstances, Landrover battlefield

1103
ambulances have to be used. The ambulances. however, are not fitted with radios. Moreover, their crews are usually too busy to play around with a radio.
What happens, however, if a battlefield ambulance is lost, crashes, is stopped by locals or attacked by the enemy? The headquarters simply does not know the situation, and the lines of communication can be very long. In Exercise Saif Sareea, for example, the distance between the traffic posts on the main supply route were about the maximum allowable. It is a pity that the TA was not available to reduce that distance.
Supermarkets—at least Safeway—do not have a similar problem because all their vehicles are fitted with a satellite-tracking system, enabling them not only to know the precise location of all their assets, but to send text messages. If we fitted such a system to battlefield ambulances, the headquarters would know the precise location of all ambulances in the area of operations and could communicate with them. The system would also automatically tell the headquarters whether an ambulance had stopped moving.
Not every battlefield ambulance in the fleet needs to be so fitted. However, I think that the system should be included in ambulances involved in exercises or operations overseas. I have not raised the issue before, but I hope that the Minister will consider it. I believe that service personnel deserve the best chance of surviving an accident whether it occurs on an exercise or an operation.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for initiating this wide-ranging debate which encompasses two issues rather than one, allowing the maximum number of your Lordships to address these important issues.
All noble Lords have expressed the high regard in which they hold our armed services, and I echo those sentiments. Our armed services are small but extremely professional. It is a source of pride that they are called upon to lead in many operations. Overstretch, however, is one of the main threats to the capabilities of our armed services. It is a perennial problem that will not be solved overnight. Nevertheless, recruitment and retention are the two main issues that will have to be addressed.
We on these Benches support the personnel levels set out in the SDR. However, undermanning is a serious problem. Many noble Lords have cited statistics; the ones I shall quote are dated September 2001. They show that the Army was short of 6,669 personnel; the Royal Navy of 1,358; and the RAF of 1,029, with a particular shortage of jet pilots, as the noble Lord, Lord Burnham said. Moreover, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall said, the shortages are not spread equally. There is a particular problem with the number of doctors and nurses. That undermanning will lead to operational overstretch.
Our commitments are not outside the parameters set by the SDR. Furthermore, as has been mentioned, fewer Armed Forces members were involved in
1104
operations during Christmas because the situation in Kosovo, in Macedonia and in Sierra Leone had improved. Nevertheless, some sections continue to experience problems caused by undermanning.
I believe that the Government are considering retaining the services of professional recruitment firms to help solve the problem. We support such moves. The firms will, however, have to present a positive view of the services. At a time of low unemployment, with pay levels high outside the armed services and no attendant risk or prospect of being sent overseas, the Army will face recruitment problems.
Retention is the other half of the problem. I am particularly concerned about the new proposals on service pensions. When there are difficulties with morale and retention, changes to current arrangements have to be handled with great care. I am sure that no noble Lord would support any measure that worsened the pension arrangements for service personnel.
The retention issue can be addressed by reviewing the formula used by the Armed Forces pay review body. Pay should recognise that service life is more dangerous and less stable and that it can restrict opportunities for partners to work. The use of a bonus system should be investigated.
The provision of high quality unaccompanied personnel and family quarters would he helpful. Change is needed to the "march in, march out" arrangements for the handover of married quarters. It should he replaced with a contracted out arrangement to prepare housing for new occupants. A review of moving and relocation allowances to ensure that total costs to service personnel are covered should be considered.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, referred to a matter of major concern; namely, family issues. Ensuring high standards of welfare for the families of service personnel is central to securing high levels of retention. The reason for departure most cited in the continuous attitude survey of service leavers is the effect of service on family life. It is imperative to the efficient running of our Armed Forces that social, educational and recreational facilities for service families are actively supported.
The Service Families' Task Force has done some good work in addressing issues outside direct MoD control such as schools' admission policy, access to the NHS and eligibility for benefits. There is no reason why the Service Families' Task Force should not also investigate and report on issues within direct MoD control such as the provision of on-base welfare services and service accommodation. A revamped Service Families' Task Force would need to meet more regularly, possibly on a monthly basis. The SFTF also needs to be open and accessible to service families with reports and conclusions of meetings made available at forces' bases and on the Internet.
We on these Benches would like to see a service families' charter applied at all bases requiring the delivery of consistent, standardised welfare services to a minimum specification. There would be annual

1105
reporting mechanisms and a families' officer on every base responsible for overseeing community development. A dedicated budget would be provided aimed at giving practical and systematic help to spouses, improving facilities for families and co-ordinating information supply on local job opportunities, housing choice, local amenities and local schooling. Families' officers need a standard job description so that they can rightfully demand resources and requisition facilities to fulfil the tasks set out for them. A review is needed of the support offered to forces' families welfare organisations by the MoD, including funding, to encourage best practice and avoid duplication.
I turn to equipment failure. Although I shall probably overshoot the time allocated to me, I wish to comment on a couple of issues. Like the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I ask whether the modified SA80 can be used by left-handed people. I am not left-handed but I have a particular loathing of the SA80. However, it is an excellent rifle as regards its sighting mechanism and it is accurate. The sling is an extremely useful piece of kit. However, the first time I fired the rifle I discovered that a large section of my thumb was missing. The dust cover of the modified version—I believe that it had been modified 125 times at that point—had the tendency to flip open and cut into the hand of the person firing the weapon. I very much hope that the modified SA80 has far fewer defects.
I am particularly concerned about boots. The standard issue combat "highs" occupy a particular place in the hearts of those who have worn them in that they can inflict incredible damage to the knees of serving personnel. Has any research been carried out on how many servicemen have been invalided out of the Army due to the effect of their boots? From an economic point of view it would be worth redesigning those boots and introducing a far more comfortable model which causes less friction on one's knees.
Finally, I wish to comment on the Bowman radio system. When I was an officer in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers I was told, "Don't worry about the Clansman, it is a useless piece of kit, but we shall have the Bowman very soon". That occurred a good 10 years ago. The target date for the Bowman's initial operating capability is March 2004. Is that date still on target? The procurement cost of supply and support of Bowman, including VAT, is £1.8 billion. Are we still on target not to overspend that sum, or is there a new estimate? The whole life programme cost is some £2.5 billion.
The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, said that the first compulsory call-up of Territorial Army personnel has just taken place for intelligence personnel. Having served in the Territorial Army, I know that its members are prepared to be called up. Many have served in Kosovo and the Falklands. However, I refer to the new provision of compulsory call-up which has not been used before. Will there be an ongoing assessment of that call-up in the short term as regards retention of TA personnel?
5.7 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend for bringing this debate to our attention today. In the defence White Paper of 1999 it was recognised that people give us the critical edge that leads to success, whether in high intensity conflict, peace support operations or defence diplomacy. To retain that edge and to resolve the deep-seated problem of overstretch, we need the right number of good quality, well trained and highly motivated people.
The MoD is to be congratulated on the recent initiatives it has taken to improve some of the personnel matters that have a direct bearing on retention and attract people to a service life. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, has been exceptionally helpful on many occasions and I am most grateful to him for that. The criticisms and points at issue that I shall raise are designed to be constructive and lead to further improvements for our men and women. However, both overstretch and equipment failure cause low morale in the Armed Forces of the Crown.
The main reason for overstretch and equipment failures is a continuous lack of resources in that insufficient funds are provided for the MoD budget, a theme which has been represented throughout this debate by your Lordships. Until more funds are made available by the Treasury, I can see little hope of rectifying this serious situation. In some cases overstretch occurs as a result of having too few units to meet certain commitments. In others it is a product of having too few individuals which arises from undermanning, which in turn fuels further overstretch, causes dissatisfaction and low morale, leads to retention problems and hence more undermanning in a vicious circle. The recent announcement of the compulsory call out—the first since Suez some 45 years ago—of 140 TA intelligence specialists confirms the alarming overstretch and illustrates the point well. There are two main ways of dealing with overstretch and undermanning: to reduce overseas commitments to a number that we can deal with or to increase recruitment and retention levels.
I should now like to draw your Lordships' attention to some aspects of overcommitment. Currently the United Kingdom has the Armed Services deployed in 28 different areas around the world and within those areas the Army has just under 31,000 deployed. It is undertaking operational deployments—in addition to Northern Ireland with just under 14,000 troops, which may well need reinforcement in the future—in Sierra Leone; Bosnia; Kosovo; and in the Falkland Islands.
The dangers of peace-keeping operations are that in many cases they result in open-ended commitments. There are already signs that that may be the case in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, there will probably be ground forces of some 1,800 and a Royal Navy task force of around 4,500, including Royal Marines. In March last year, prior to deployments to Afghanistan, the Army was 24.4 per cent—the figure is now some 26 per cent to 27 per cent—committed to operations. However, few people realise that that means an overall

1107
commitment of some 73 per cent to 81 per cent, allowing for those who are "preparing for" and "recovering from" those operations. The figure is too high to sustain.
In the past, when serving in the Armed Forces, I have welcomed operational deployments. Operations are an essential part of the ethos and morale of the services. They are what we train for and confirm whether the training for war has been correct. They must be sustainable without bringing dissatisfaction to those who are serving by the imposition of excessive separation, by restricting training and the quality of our military skills and by making retention more difficult. After all, men and women join up to serve their country and look forward to operations provided that they are not continuously over-committed.
I turn to undermanning, which results from taking in insufficient numbers of recruits and not being able to retain them once they are in the services. The Army has a trained requirement of some 108,000 but a trained strength of around only 96,000, according to UK Defence Statistics 2001, which shows a shortfall of just under 12,000. However, the MoD performance report for 2000–01 quoted a figure of 8,000. To those figures can be added some 9,000 medically downgraded personnel, which means that between 17,000 and 21,000 personnel are not available for operational deployment. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify the situation.
The estimated trained strength for 2004 is around 98,000, which is a marginal increase of only some 2,000 personnel. There is little hope of the Army approaching its trained-strength target by 2008. The total outflow exceeded inflow by 528 people, although that retention has improved by some 2,000 during the year 1999–2000. The Army needs an intake of some 15,000 new recruits each year just to stand still in terms of manning and an annual figure of some 25,000 if it is to meet its trained strength by 2008.
Despite all the determined efforts that are put into recruiting, the situation is deteriorating and a really radical approach must be adopted to improve recruiting figures as soon as possible. Many years ago, regiments relied on their own regimental recruiting teams; perhaps we should return to that system. An improvement to the system would be for experienced senior NCOs to be placed on a special list at the age of 45 and to continue their service, but not to count against the existing rank structure, which would ensure that that would not upset the promotion structure. They would be an invaluable force, particularly in the training of others.
I turn to retention. As I have already illustrated, that has improved over the past two years. However, there is more that can be done in that area if retention is to improve further and morale is to be kept high. There is no time to cover all those issues in any detail, but they are: lack of individuals creating double work loads, aggravating the poor manning situation; excessive separation, leading to many family break-ups; the still poor state of single and married accommodation, although some improvements have
1108
been made; the critical state of first and second line medical services, although some improvements have been made to fast-tracking procedures with the National Health Service; and the cancellation of training exercises, which has a large impact on the standard of our military skills. The Armed Forces rightly hold a special place in our society and political correctness must not impede in any way our fighting efficiency.
I turn to Army equipment, which I shall not cover in great depth because so many noble Lords have already identified equipment problems. I agree in the main with what has already been said. However, I will reinforce briefly some of the points that have been made. The Challenger 2 tank is a world-beating tank and the Royal Armoured Corps has great faith in it. However, its performance in Oman was abysmal. That was in no way due to the design of the tank. Had it been desertised with the appropriate air filters and track, as Vickers had recommended, it would have functioned just as well as the Omani Challenger 2 tanks.
It is unacceptable that additional funds for the desertisation of those tanks was not forthcoming. Would the Minister explain how that occurred? Could he explain why the new SA80 was not issued to the Royal Marines prior to their recent operational deployment, confirm that Bowman is on course and inform us of any other major equipment slippage dates? In addition, what was the reason for the cancellation of the anti-tank missile system Trigat, in relation to which £115 million had already been spent? Finally, are there any plans to reduce the equipment programme over the next four years by £1.2 billion?
This has been a very worthwhile debate. I agree with many of the points that noble Lords have raised. Regrettably, there is no time to comment on them. I hope that the Minister will record our concerns on the matters that we have raised.
In conclusion, I do not believe that there can be any solution to overstretch and over-commitment without either tailoring our Armed Forces to their capabilities or making a real and significant increase to the defence budget. As a start, what is known as the £500 million efficiency savings measures—in my opinion they are now defence cuts—should cease forthwith. A year-on-year programme of efficiency savings can only have a debilitating effect on all levels of command and can be destructive to the quality of life that will sustain retention in the Armed Forces.
Finally, as is customary in your Lordships' House, I pay great tribute to the brave and courageous men and women who serve their country loyally and with the utmost dedication to duty. This debate has drawn out matters that show that the Army is not as well equipped as it should be and that it is over-committed and undermanned. It is our duty to rectify those serious shortcomings as soon as possible. I repeat that the only solution to those problems is either to increase the defence budget significantly and to cease the annual requirement for the £500 million efficiency savings or to restrict our commitments to within our operational capabilities.
5.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for securing this debate. Whether he is someone with whom I should choose to go to the jungle—or maybe even the desert—I am not absolutely certain, but he would be a very enjoyable companion anyway.
Noble Lords will recall that, during our debates last year on international terrorism, the noble Earl raised concerns about some of the equipment that was issued to the Army. It is of course right that we should address the issue in more depth, as we have done today. I regret that we have not had a bit more time in which to do that.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon—they did so with great expertise—and experience—and welcome the tributes that have been paid to our servicemen and women. I must point out that this debate relates in particular to the Army. Although I shall do my best in the very limited time that remains to discuss the other services—particularly in terms of equipment—I am afraid that I cannot do justice to that subject today.
There will be complete agreement in the House when I say that we have the finest Armed Forces in the world. Their professionalism, self-sacrifice and determination has been shown time and again in such places as the Balkans, Sierra Leone and now in Afghanistan. Their actions and achievements continue to demonstrate their world-class quality. I believe that it is highly appropriate, therefore, that any misgivings about the equipment with which they are provided or the conditions under which they operate should be discussed arid considered in this House.
Let us, first, consider the term "overstretch". It is one which I happen to believe should be resisted. Overstretch is, by definition, that stretch to the system which is excessive. In this instance, it can be assumed that we would not engage in military activities beyond the limits that we are prepared to endure. Of course, pressure points exist in certain specialist areas, but one must consider those within the complexity of defence business. While the overall pace and number of commitments may be entirely manageable, some shortage categories may feel pressure.
I shall set out some of the measures that we have in place to address those issues. But let us be clear: the Armed Forces have not declined any operational commitments because of excessive stretch. And that is not because of political directives. As the House knows, whenever we deploy our forces, we do so with the full support of our senior military advisers; namely, the Chiefs of Staff and, above all, the Chief of the Defence Staff. Their important advice is based on their collective expertise and the best information on the availability and readiness of our forces. There is inevitably some risk in any deployment but we manage and minimise that risk.
It has been suggested that in order to reduce overstretch we should either reduce our commitments overseas or seek additional funding for the Ministry of
1110
Defence. The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, has, as always, been absolutely up-front and straightforward about which he prefers. I regret that the shadow spokesman on defence in the House of Commons was not so up-front this morning on the "Today" programme when he refused to answer a question about seeking additional funding for the Ministry of Defence. The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, is right. In this sense, we must either reduce our commitments overseas or seek additional funding for the Ministry of Defence. The Official Opposition must say where they stand because, having listened carefully to what they say, it is clear that they do not believe that we should reduce our commitments overseas. They supported the Government, for example, in the setting up of ISAF in Afghanistan. They also supported us in Kosovo. Are there any overseas commitments which the Opposition do not accept or believe that we should not be involved in? If there are, it is essential that they say so—I do not mean in the Chamber today, but at some stage in the near future.
I would argue that to do less in relation to operations overseas might mean that we do not complete the tasks that we set ourselves. That might result in additional commitments and additional stretch at a later stage. That is a matter that we must bear very much in mind in relation to Afghanistan. If we do not have a presence there now, shall we be faced with this problem in a much greater way in three to five years' time?
I must remind the House that the Government have increased the defence budget—certainly not sufficiently for some noble Lords' purposes. But, overall, the defence budget will have received about £1,250 million of new money between 2000–01 and 2003–04, even after inflation is taken into account. It is the first time that defence expenditure plans have increased in real terms each year for more than a decade.
Our underlying policy for our Armed Forces is to be found in the Strategic Defence Review. We remain committed to achieving a balance or commitments consistent with that document's assumptions. Decisions were taken in the SDR about the size and structure of the Army. Manning the Army to those levels will require an increase in its strength from current levels. The extent of the increase will depend in part on the outcome of ongoing studies into the best ways of delivering the military capability required of the Army.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, asked about Northern Ireland. I can assure the noble Lord that, as part of the Army's formation and readiness cycle, we have the necessary forces available to meet the requirements of military assistance to the civilian police—one of many roles that our Armed Forces undertake. We are addressing this problem in several different areas. In particular, we are focusing on trying to attract more high-quality potential recruits into the training organisation, reducing wastage during training and keeping retention levels steady. I am pleased to tell your Lordships that recruitment into training organisations has been good. Wastage rates

1111
during training have improved significantly during the past three years. But I add quickly that the Government are not complacent; there is a very long way to go.
We work on the principle that, on completion of their training, we aim to commit personnel to operations for no longer than is absolutely necessary to achieve the military aim. Personnel are withdrawn from operations at the very earliest opportunity, as was the case in Macedonia last year. We said that our forces would be there for 30 days, and 30 days it was. Similarly, we have set limits on our commitment to act as lead nation of the ISAF in Afghanistan.
Army tour intervals are currently assessed at an average of 28 months and are the best they have been for five years. We are above the SDR target that we set ourselves of 24 months. However—this must be said—there are differences between units within the Army, notably within the infantry and light role battalion. Not all make the 24 months figure; nor, possibly more importantly, do individuals. It is perfectly possible, for example, to conceive of a unit whose tour intervals are 24 months or more but within which certain individuals may well have tours inside that limit. We remain committed to tackling that issue, particularly in relation to specialisations where problems are most acute.
So far as concerns the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, I say briefly that recording separated service for all service personnel is now a key objective of the Armed Forces' personnel strategy. Its importance is reflected in our efforts to manage the operational tempo on the family lives of Armed Forces members. I hope that that goes some way towards dealing with the noble Lord's point. The illustration that I give to the House is that in comparison with the Kosovo operations in 1999, when 44 per cent of the Army's personnel were committed to operations, at present, the world-wide commitment is approximately 27 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord King, argued in a powerful speech that it is possible that the way in which the figures are calculated has changed. My best understanding—I asked about this point in particular—is that there is no difference in the way that the figures are calculated to give 26 per cent in 1997 and approximately 27 per cent now.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, the only information that I have seen is that since April 2000 the percentage of trained services committed to operations for each service has not included personnel preparing for operations but those covering operations or engaged in training. If the Minister is not able to reply now, perhaps he would confirm that later. However, that would of course make a significant difference to the percentages.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall certainly come back to the noble Lord following the debate. If I am wrong, I shall obviously want to say so. My understanding is that the figures are calculated in precisely the same way as they were four-and-a-half years ago.
1112
We recognise the need to support families, who face considerable pressure in the absence of their loved ones, as well as our personnel, and to determine the demands upon them. In parallel with other armed services, the Army is developing a system to measure the amount of separated service undertaken by its personnel. Electronic monitoring and recording of separated service for all service personnel is a key objective in the Armed Forces' personnel strategy, affecting its importance in our efforts to manage the effect of operational tempo on the family lives of our people. The information will be of great importance and value to the services in managing their people. However, it is in no way a benchmark for comparison with employment outside the services or even within the services.
We introduced a new and comprehensive package of welfare support into all theatres in April 2001. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, drew particular attention to that issue. The aim is to mitigate the demands made upon service personnel deployed on operations. Such support now includes a comprehensive communications package offering, among other things, 20 minutes of publicly-funded telephone calls per person per week and free airmail and Internet access. Our service personnel serving overseas are also provided with free books, videos, televisions and exercise equipment, and they have their own dedicated radio and television stations. They also have guaranteed post-operational tour leave and mid-tour rest and recuperation where appropriate. Learning from experience, we continue to develop those welfare support packages.
Before leaving this part of the debate I want to make one important point. Although separated service can be and is a strain on service families, deployments away from home should not always be seen as a negative factor. They are quite the reverse on occasions. The prospect of overseas deployment is a powerful attraction to potential recruits, as is shown by the fact that we rely on that for some of our recruiting literature. The vast majority of service personnel relish the opportunity to put their skills to use on operations and exercises, but we recognise the need to balance the needs of our Armed Forces as service personnel, family members and individuals.
In the course of the debate a powerful support for medical services was made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. I do not have time to deal with the issue as I would like to. However, their remarks have been taken on board. Their support for the Birmingham centre is appreciated. We all know that we have a long way to go before the position is satisfactory.
I turn to equipment. We are committed to the modernisation of our Armed Forces to ensure that they are structured and equipped to perform the most demanding tasks. We are investing in a number of new systems that will ensure that the Army's capability is maintained. I mention briefly in passing that plans for future equipment include the WAH-64 Apache attack helicopter; improvements to the range and accuracy of our artillery weapons through the indirect fire

1113
precision attack (IDFA) and the light mobile artillery weapon system (LIMAWS) projects; a fully-integrated fighting system for the infantryman, future integrated soldier technology (FIST); a new range of armoured fighting vehicles through the future rapid effects system (FRES); and new armoured engineering vehicles. We are planning to procure a number of systems to improve logistics and combat support, including the heavy equipment transporters (HET) and the recently-announced procurement of around 8,500 cargo and recovery vehicles and trailers.
However, that impressive package must develop from the current in-service equipment and legacy systems, some of which have had long-standing problems. The SA80 is a good example of where we have taken decisive action to rectify under-performance. When studies showed that the reliability of the weapon system could be substantially improved, necessary action was taken to modify it. The modified S.N80 A2 is now among the best assault rifles in the world, and demonstrates our willingness to take quick and decisive procurement action when required. As further evidence of the importance we attach to ensuring that our forces are well equipped for each Operation, the modified weapon has been distributed to those units deployed as part of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. There will soon be a decision on Hawk, as my noble friend Lord Gilbert mentioned. I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that as far as the A400M is concerned, the Germans still say that 73 is the number that they require.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, referred to Saif Sareea. He called it "playing soldiers", but I know that he did not really mean that. That was an important exercise. The objectives were to deploy and sustain a major joint force across long distances and to conduct combined war fighting training in a demanding environment. That was the first time that many new items of equipment had been tested in the desert under near-operational conditions. Lessons still need to be learnt. However, overall we should be pleased with the way that both our Armed Forces and their equipment overcame the many challenges posed by the exercise. It was a great success. The exercises allowed us to identify the challenges our forces might face when operating in testing conditions. We shall learn lessons from that.
As regards Challenger 2, I am delighted to hear the praise given to that weapon. It is a world-class, battle-winning tank. This is the second time that the noble Earl has described it as "smashing". He did so last year and has done so again today. However, problems were encountered. The decision not to fully desertise Challenger 2, which would have cost millions of pounds, was made following an assessment that the conditions in Oman during the autumn would be within acceptable environmental tolerances. Not least, I remind the House that this was an exercise, not an operation. As I have said, Saif Sareea was a test of our equipment under near-operational conditions. It was
1114
an exercise and a balance must he struck. I do not have time to go into the details of that matter. I am told that it is time for me to wind up.
Finally, I turn to Bowman. This is an important project for the Government and will be for all noble Lords who remember its sad and long history. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, the figure of £1.8 billion still stands. I met with the prime contractors last week. I am pleased to report that the project is making good progress. This is a project in which any slippage in the in-service date of March 2004 would be unacceptable.
I end by thanking noble Lords for their contributions. Perhaps we should be more proud of the fact that our forces are deployed in various countries around the world helping reconstruction, saving lives and maintaining stability. In other words, we are a force for good. This is a noble role for our country and one in which we should all take pleasure and pride. No one carries that out with more skill and commitment than our own Armed Forces.
5.37 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am relieved that I do not have to sum up the debate because there has been overstretch by those who have spoken. I am told by the Clerks at the Table that the average length of speeches was seven minutes rather than six.
I shall make two extraordinarily quick points. First, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that the rifle is now very good. However, to say that that improvement was made rapidly is not strictly accurate. Secondly, the definition of "overstretch" seems to be a question of degree. I believe the noble Lord says that it is "taut". I say that there is overstretch and that there are inherent dangers unless something is done. The Minister asks where I think that the commitment should be reduced. I have grave doubts that Afghanistan was not a commitment entered into for purely political reasons.
Having said all that, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, especially as it has been good-natured in the best traditions of your Lordships' House. It has been informed and constructively answered by the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Language Teaching in Schools
5.38 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel rose to call attention to the case for improving the teaching of foreign languages in

1115
schools following the recommendations of the Nuffield Languages inquiry report of May 2000; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I should leave time for a different cast of characters to appear on stage. My Motion follows the Starred Questions raised in this House after publication of the report of the Nuffield Foundation by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, on 6th June 2000 and 29th October 2001. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the mater then, and for pointing to its importance, perhaps as a trailer to a proper debate in this House. In return, the Government, in their response to Nuffield, rightly laid emphasis on the importance of the matter; to be precise, the teaching of modern foreign languages in our schools. I very much hope, therefore, that I shall not have to go into the point of principle. Everyone seems to agree on the end. What we are debating today is the means.
I am very happy to welcome a maiden speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Michie of Gallanach, to the debate. The noble Baroness has great expertise in this subject. I look forward to hearing what she has to say.
In introducing the debate, I shall try to do three things. I shall first summarise what seem to me to be the essential conclusions of the Nuffield report. Next I shall outline what seems to me to be the progress—or perhaps regress—since then. Finally, I should like to conclude by going to the meat of the matter: how to go from where we are now to where we would like to be. In doing so, I shall be asking some specific questions of my noble friend the Minister in the expectation—since I have given her prior notice—that the House will get serious responses.
The Nuffield inquiry, entitled Languages: the next generation, came to a number of pretty depressing conclusions. I shall not weary your Lordships by reciting them all but will pick out those that I think are particularly important.
First was the conclusion, if I may put it in headline terms, that "English is not enough". Although we may think that English has become something of a global language, we must recognise that other languages have their global place. For instance, and by way of illustration, we now know that there are more people accessing the Internet in non-English languages than in English. Moreover, the cultural problems that arise from the assumption that English, if shouted loudly enough, is understandable to everybody in whatever country are, I should have thought, alarmingly obvious.
Secondly, Nuffield pointed out that nine out of 10 children stop learning languages at the age of 16. They were without any motivation to pursue them. They were badly taught by teachers who had no enthusiasm for the subject they were teaching. No wonder they gave up.
Thirdly, Nuffield pointed to the lack of properly qualified language teachers. It was, Nuffield said, "acute and damaging". Quite so.
So, given all this, where are we now? True, the government response to Nuffield was, in its own way, encouraging. Further specialist language colleges were to be created. They were, in the words of the government response,
"to lead the way in a new drive to improve the foreign language skills of the nation".
But—and it is an important "but"—there was no suggestion that modern foreign languages were to become a key skill in the curriculum, and, with the best will in the world, there is no belief that the special language colleges can cover more than 10 per cent of pupils, leaving some 90 per cent in some kind of English language limbo.
Since Nuffield, the situation has got worse. The number of students taking A-levels in German and French has declined. This is equally reflected in GCSE. The European Language Year, such as it was, has passed us by. In all, and I apologise if this is a further depressing conclusion, we give to the outside world every appearance of drifting in a sea of English linguistic arrogance.
Having said that, I would add a rider. There are in fact some shafts of light. There are many schools, both primary and secondary, which have made important initiatives of their own to encourage their pupils to learn modern foreign languages. I do not want for a moment to denigrate their efforts. But we still seem to lack a clear sense of purpose, spreading across the whole primary and secondary system, which is necessary—I make no excuse for using the word "necessary"—if our children are to be given the opportunities in life which they deserve and to achieve the potential in life which we expect of them.
I turn now to the meat of the matter. First of all, let me clear away the argument about primary versus secondary and higher level schooling. There is, I believe, general agreement that language teaching should begin at primary level. It makes no sense to postpone the understanding and appreciation of foreign languages until a pupil's mind is—at least partially—formed. Primary level is of the utmost importance.
However, that is not to say that there should not be equal emphasis at the secondary level. To concentrate resources at the primary level to the neglect of secondary or university schooling is to deprive a whole generation of what, when they reach the age of entry into the job market, is a basic skill. It was, after all, the European Council in Lisbon which recognised that in the Europe of the future there should be emphasis on international skills, languages and lifelong learning. Following that, European Union Ministers of education agreed a specific programme: all sixth-formers should leave school with two foreign languages; all university students should study abroad for at least one semester; and, crucially, EU institutions and EU member state governments should pay special attention to language and other international skills when making appointments. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we are denying a generation of today's youth who are now in secondary schooling the benefits of such an agenda.
So what is to be done? The first, and relatively easy, measure it seems to me is to encourage student exchanges. Let us take Germany as an example. In the year 2000, some 13,000 German students were studying in this country. There were only some 2,600 British students studying in Germany. Furthermore, German students here are to be found in almost all subjects, ranging from natural sciences to humanities, whereas British students in Germany tended towards the study of only music and German literature. There is a massive programme there which I hope the Government want to endorse.
The second, and perhaps more difficult, measure is to encourage the introduction of an "international baccalaureate", which would enable school leavers to go to university or into the job market with an educational qualification—including that of foreign languages which would allow them to choose where in the European Union they want to work and live. That would be of enormous benefit. Why can that not be done?
The third measure—perhaps even more difficult—is to attempt to rectify the alarming shortage, which Nuffield identified, in the number of modern foreign language teachers, both at primary and secondary level. It is no good advocating greater emphasis on foreign language teaching without understanding that, yes, it will need money, but it is people who will make the whole thing work.
It is on that last point that I want to concentrate. I am always reluctant to go back to my own schooldays, but in this case I do so only to make a point. At my preparatory school I was taught French by a teacher whose mother language was French. At my public school, I was taught Italian and German by teachers whose mother languages were, respectively, Italian and German. I do not for a moment pretend that I emerged proficient in any of those languages. Nevertheless, I am now proficient in those languages, and I could not have become so without the basic skills that I was taught. To learn fluency, one must go to the country concerned—to smell the smells and learn the rhythm of the streets and the rhythm of the language, but I could not have done it without a grounding at school in the conceptual geography of the language.
It is for those reasons that I welcome the initiative of the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany, alongside his colleagues in the French, Spanish and other embassies here. The problem that they address—the same problem that I am addressing—is the shortage of teachers of modern foreign languages, not just generally but within a subset of teachers whose mother language is the language that they teach. It is a matter of fundamental importance if we are to improve the situation.
The proposal from the German Ambassador and his European colleagues, as I understand it, is quite simple. The teaching of modern foreign languages in primary schools—or, for that matter, secondary schools—does not require special qualification. Teachers need not be formally endorsed as "language teachers". But as I know from my own experience, they
1118
must be in total command of the language that they teach, either because it is their mother language or because they have spent enough time in the country or countries whose language it is to have smelled the smells and understood the rhythm of the streets.
The project put forward by the ambassador and his colleagues envisages a wide programme of teacher exchange between us and our European partners on the principle of reciprocity. They want to learn our language, and we want to learn theirs. It even goes so far as to suggest that any financial problems with such an exchange could be dealt with. For instance, the home authority of an exchange teacher would continue to cover all normal costs and any topping up for additional costs, but there is a clear recognition that that might not be enough. In particular, housing costs could be met by the host authority. If that is not enough, there is funding from the British and German business communities for meeting identified problems.
I welcome the ambassador's initiative in proposing such a programme, but I am unclear how far it meets with the approval of Her Majesty's Government. Nevertheless, I am not at all sure that it goes far enough. I cannot understand why we cannot recruit teachers from Germany, France, Italy or Spain to teach their own language in our schools. We seem to be able to recruit Spanish nurses for the National Health Service. Why cannot we recruit Spanish teachers for our schools, if it is true that there is no requirement for language teacher identification? What about German teachers? My evidence is that there are trained teachers in Germany who cannot find a job and would like to come here to teach German.
Do the Government endorse my general arguments? If not, I have put down several questions to my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland. It is more than simply a question of vocational training. I shall quote Goethe:
"Whoever is not acquainted with foreign languages knows nothing of his own".
If you do not know who Goethe was, that is your problem, not mine. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do know who Goethe was, and I agree with the quotation used by the noble Lord. I am one of those who do not know foreign languages. I have always found them extremely difficult to learn, possibly because, at school, I was taught by someone whose first language was English and who, on a school trip, managed to drop his pocket French dictionary into a garlic-infested lavatory and was totally panic-stricken that he would not be able to get round France without it.
I hope that we can all agree that languages are immensely important and that we are not nearly as good at teaching them in schools as we should he. Taking a long view, over 50 years or so, we would be a better, more competent society if we started teaching languages well now. That is an objective that all

1119
governments ought to have, and it is an objective that the Department for Education and Skills ought to have too.
Languages help with all sorts of things, including mobility and business. Business may proceed largely through the Internet and big international meetings may be conducted in English, but if one is going to do business with someone it helps a great deal if one can have a conversation with them after the meeting and share something of their culture and home life. That sort of relationship is still the foundation of a great deal of business and always will be. Knowing foreign languages adds immensely to the enjoyment that one can get from travelling to foreign countries and adds to one's understanding of the world as a whole.
The principal point that I take from this excellent report is that the primary school is where we must begin. That has been said for a long time, but it has never seemed possible to move in that direction. We do not have a core of teachers who are good enough at mathematics, let alone French. If we had to teach a foreign language in primary schools based on what teachers know, it would have to be French, which would make us polyglot only in a limited sense, as it is perhaps one of the least useful languages if one is going trotting around the globe. Many other languages would come first, if we were considering giving people a chance to enjoy the world and its cultures and, for the better linguists, use their languages in business.
I find it difficult to go down the road that the Nuffield report follows, in suggesting that we should put a lot of effort into trying to recruit more language teachers and put languages higher in the curriculum. I cannot see a sensible source of language teachers in the volume that would be required. I cannot see a source for the money that would be required to pay all those supernumerary teachers, who might be able to teach languages but would have nothing much else to do in a primary school structure that is largely based on class teachers. I cannot see that we will find ourselves in a position in which it would be practical or possible within the limits of a school budget to go down the route that the Nuffield report proposes.
I take a great deal of heart from what the Minister said recently. She waxed enthusiastic about the use of IT in schools. That is where the base should be. If we want to expose every child in primary school to a wide choice of foreign languages, we should use IT and distance learning. The techniques are beginning to appear. We can see the enormous success that Thomas Telford has had with its GCSE practical course. Several million pounds' worth of that technology has been sold, starting to bring distance learning into GCSE work in schools. We are not that far away from having the technology to bring it into primary schools.
The teacher in a primary school does not need a great deal of skill to guide a properly put-together system that gives exposure to a foreign language. At that age, children will absorb a language as if it were their own. One knows of children who speak nothing but French coming to English schools at the age of five and being fluent in English six months later. They are
1120
not being taught English; they are just being exposed to it. At that age, the process seems to be osmotic, and children just pick the language up. Once children have learnt that facility with language, it carries on into the later stages of their learning.
Therefore, I would recommend the Government to concentrate on what is going to be possible with new technology; concentrate on the early ages; and, as the Nuffield report states, keep a broad view of what languages should be. In bringing about the change, there is a great deal which the Government can do which it would be hard for other people to do. One needs the pump priming to make the programmes available—at least the first one—and to help schools take them on and experiment with them. I look forward to hearing from the Minister that there are commitments in that direction.
Perhaps I may make a few minor points. I have first-hand experience of the imbalance in students referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. There are a lot of Germans fleeing the German education system. We like to think that ours is in trouble but many Germans prefer our system to theirs. By and large, people do not go to Germany to study the general curriculum because we have a better state education system here.
As regards language education, we need to focus on the difficulty in moving from GCSE to A-level. Those who are going on to learn a language properly need a foundation in the structure and grammar of the language and they are not getting that at GCSE-level. It is difficult to move from one to the other and the fault lies in the GCSE. If there were more conversational exposure from primary school and through the early years at secondary school, it would be easier to introduce the more formal aspects in the examination syllabus. That said, I look forward very much to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Michie.
6 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, first, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for arriving in the Chamber a minute and a half or so after he had started his speech. There was no disrespect on my part because I have the greatest respect for his views on the subject. Indeed, I agreed with all the points he made. I am looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Michie, and I am sure that I will agree with everything she has to say.
I declare an interest as chairman of the English Speaking Union and therefore professionally committed to the promotion of English as a global language. Why, with that interest, should I have such a strong interest in foreign language learning in schools in this country? I want to explain that.
First, perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the extent of the current dominance, unprecedented and unparalleled, of the English language. Arguably, there are at present four world languages: Chinese, Hindi, Arabic and English. However, only English is growing because of its use as a second language. More people are learning English in China today than are speaking it in North America. That is an astonishing statistic.

1121
More surprisingly, perhaps, English has carried all before it in continental Europe. Some 70 per cent of all communications between European Community institutions and those institutions in the rest of the world is carried out in English. The European Commission's recent task force on skills and mobility proposed that all pupils in the European Union should master two languages in addition to their own, but that one of those two should be English. It argued that by 2005 the early acquisition of language skills should be attained by all eight year-olds.
English is the language of science, with 70 per cent of scientific theses now being published in English. It is the language of information technology, aviation and globalisation. Therefore, why should we be so concerned by the poverty of our own foreign language skills and those of the Anglo-Saxons more generally?
One of the reasons is the depth of that poverty. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to Nuffield's findings that nine out of 10 children in this country stop learning any foreign language after the age of 16. Eurostat's recent research shows that our foreign language skills are the lowest in the European Union; fewer than one in five people in this country say that they have any foreign language ability whatever.
Perhaps we can take comfort in the fact that the situation in the United States is no better, but we certainly cannot share the attitude of the perhaps apocryphal account of the American Senator who, giving evidence on the Hill explaining why he did not think that foreign language learning was important to the United States, said that if English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it was quite good enough for the United States.
Quentin Peel put a related point well in the Financial Times last year when he wrote:
"The English-speaking world has got itself into a dreadful bind. We think we understand what makes other people tick—but only if they tell us in English".
There are three overwhelmingly important reasons why we must make good the linguistic shortfall in our schools and also in our universities from where many of our teachers come. The first is that unless we act the situation will grow worse. A-level figures for the past decade show that the fall in the number of students taking qualifications in A-level German and English has fallen steadily—in the case of French by more than 30 per cent. The situation in the universities is equally worrying. The survey carried out last year by the University Council of Modern Languages, which looked at 30, universities saw that in 77 of those universities one or more of the language courses, or of whole languages, had been cut out of what they were offering. That is potentially a disaster. Samuel Johnson, who knew a lot about languages, said of them that they are the dress of thought and the pedigree of nations.
Our political and economic future turns on our ability to understand, to work with, to persuade, to listen, to live with and to sell to our colleagues in Europe. We must accept that, despite the 70 per cent of EU communications, linguistic pluralism is with us
1122
and, thank goodness, in Europe. If we ignore that reality, language not the mythical fog will isolate the Continent from us and us from the Continent. Seriously, I believe that our failure to play our full part in Europe during the past half century stems in substantial part from linguistic inadequacy. The reverse is also true: that linguistic competence opens up both career opportunities and economic success, as recent research has clearly shown.
So, what to do? The Government have responded to the Nuffield report by setting up a steering group. They have done a little more than setting up a steering group but not all that much more. The issue we must consider is that at the heart of the inquiry was the call for a national strategy on languages. Ultimately, we do not want a study group, a talking shop; we need a strategy. It needs to be a national strategy. It also needs to be able to plan across other departments of state. It is not an issue only for schools or even universities. It must cross all relevant departments of state; that is, the Treasury, the Home Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and so forth.
The Government also state in their response that in time—and they give a time—every child in every school between the ages of seven and 11 will have the opportunity to learn another language That is splendid, but what does "have the opportunity to learn" actually mean? Of course good schools will offer something to motivated children, or to children motivated by their parents, as private schools already do. But the crisis in our language capability means the curriculum; it means building it into the system. I would like to know where the Minister stands on that.
In conclusion, it is our great good fortune and our real advantage that in an age of globalisation English has become a global language. But if we use that as an excuse to allow our own foreign language abilities to wither away, if we do not have a strategic and national action to reverse the decline, an extraordinary irony will emerge: that in a world which speaks our language we will be increasingly isolated; that in an integrating Continent we will become more and more insular; and that in a global village we will be choosing to live on our own. I hope that we are not confronted with that irony.
6.1 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for introducing this debate and for giving us the opportunity to discuss an important report which raises serious issues for our whole approach to foreign languages. I am a graduate in French, have taught French and since have learnt Russian out of necessity and interest. I shall reflect on my experiences and later relate them to the current realities for young people today.
It seems to me that the successful learning of anything depends on opportunity, motivation and inspiration, often from good teaching and the organisation of the learning. That is unless, of course, you are born into it, Harry Potter-like, but I suspect

1123
that that is rarely the case. Good teaching is about love of the subject, wanting to transfer that love to others and having resources available to aid in teaching.
In my view, there are three major influences on the teaching and learning of foreign languages in schools: culture, motivation and the school curriculum. I shall say a little about each in the short time available. I have talked to teachers and head teachers in primary schools and comprehensive schools to inform me about this and there are some interesting thoughts and conclusions.
First, I shall talk about culture. When I was learning French in a small grammar school in the small, mainly working-class town where I grew up in the north of England, there were few windows on the world: little travel, little television, no Internet and few people from overseas. I learnt French and went on to study it at university because of two inspired English national teachers who taught French, and because I was good at it. The world has changed. I do not believe that there is any such thing as being naturally good at languages. Witness those children who are brought up to speak at least two languages. They may have parents of different nationalities, or they learn through necessity. The children of friends in the Netherlands have spoken English from an early age. I am told that boys in this country are deeply resistant to learning foreign languages. Perhaps, as has already been pointed out, greater use of IT would inspire them, as well as girls, to participate.
This is part of the problem. A second language around the world is usually English. That is due in part to our colonial heritage, but also to the strength of the American, Canadian and Australian cultures. Ambivalence towards Europe, let alone other parts of the world except perhaps the United States, may be giving our children messages that it is not important to learn languages other than English. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, also referred to this issue.
The culture in which the young people of today are growing up is obviously different from when I was at school. We may be convinced that young people need another language, but do we sufficiently integrate into our system the notion that learning another language is not for purely academic reasons any more, but for practical reasons such as business or tourism? It appears that the focus in schools is still on French or German. Surely for commercial and practical reasons the Spanish language would be of more use. What of Japanese, or a Chinese language?
Young people need to be strongly motivated to learn another language and they have to see its relevance. I learnt Russian because I was engaged in some work in the former Soviet Union. Diplomats frequently need to learn one or more sometimes incredibly obscure languages in a very short time before they are posted. How do we motivate and teach young people? In London and in other towns around the United Kingdom, I see young people from a variety of other countries serving in shops and bars, going to college, or working in business for a year or two to learn
1124
English. Do our young people do the same? If not, what is stopping them? Is it lack of interest in language?
I turn now to the curriculum. Given where we are in curriculum development, surely SATs should include a foreign language. This would affect both motivation and the curriculum. The curriculum is tricky. There are not enough teachers of foreign languages overall, and there are very few male teachers of foreign languages. If a school has no sixth form, it is difficult to recruit and retain language teachers. In primary schools where, as has already been pointed out, it should all begin, there are few specialists. Perhaps this is less of an issue where strong links are formed between primary and secondary schools, so that a language teacher can work in both.
I believe that reform at A-level in the delivery of modern languages has been unimaginative. We need to look towards a baccalaureate type of offering where language is integrated into other areas of learning. Lower down in the curriculum, resources still seem to encourage reading and writing in French and other languages, although I realise that speech is now included. Furthermore, topics still seem to focus on the home, shopping, pets, friends and a bit of football. Perhaps that does not motivate every child. The shape of the school day is often not conducive to the effective teaching of language. Language teaching needs regular short slots rather than an hour once or twice a week.
Young people and older people in this country can learn languages, and many do so. I cannot think that we are genetically resistant to foreign languages. I should like to ask the Minister where there are examples of good practice in the learning and teaching of foreign languages in this country and abroad. If there are good models, what are we doing to use them to our own advantage? I look forward to the following speech.
6.7 p.m.
Baroness Michie of Gallanach: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to make my maiden speech during this debate and to congratulate my noble friend on having secured it on the important subject of foreign languages in schools. I also thank him for his kind words, although I should let him know that I am no expert, and certainly no expert on the teaching of foreign languages in the English education system. I shall try to concentrate on one particular part of the Nuffield report.
First, may I tell your Lordships that I had the honour and privilege to represent Argyll and Bute in another place for 14 years. I should add that I stood down; I did not lose my seat. As many noble Lords know, it is a large rural area with 26 islands served by the famous Caledonian MacBrayne ferry company. It has more sheep than people and is quite the most beautiful constituency in the United Kingdom. I realise that there may be objections to that assertion. The people are kindly and hospitable. The weather is variable and the midges wear tackety boots. Despite the latter, I recommend it to all in this House as a

1125
holiday destination. Noble Lords can be assured of a warm and friendly Highland welcome, often a bilingual welcome.
Some noble Lords will recall that, on entering this Chamber, I repeated the Oath of Allegiance in Gaelic and I am grateful to the Procedure Committee for allowing me to do so. Thus I was following in the footsteps of my father, the late Lord Bannerman of Kildonan, who began his maiden speech in Gaelic, much to the astonishment of all. There is, unfortunately but understandably, no record of it in Hansard.
Many noble Lords were appreciative of hearing what is known—feadh na gaidhealtachd, throughout Gaeldom—as the language of Eden. I am grateful for that support. Not all noble Lords were happy, as reported in a certain London-based newspaper which has only a very limited readership north of the Border.
That brings me to my particular interest in this debate. While Scottish Gaelic is an indigenous language, the report of the Nuffield Language Inquiry devotes a whole chapter to the indigenous languages of the United Kingdom, which include Welsh, Gaelic, Irish and Cornish, and recommends that we should learn from, and draw upon the extensive and valuable experience of, bilingual education from nursery and primary schools to university and beyond. The report goes on to point out that there is much that can be extrapolated from their experience and applied to the teaching and learning of other languages in all parts of the country.
The report also draws attention to the influence of the media, which can and must play an important part—as it has in Wales. We in Scotland look with envy upon the dedicated Welsh language channel, S4C. Once digital broadcasting covers the whole country, we hope to have such a dedicated channel, particularly in the Highlands.
As has been mentioned, one of the universal problems is the chronic shortage of language teachers. This is highlighted in the Nuffield report. It states in no uncertain terms that the United Kingdom desperately needs many more of them.
Last year, on European languages day, a debate was held in the Scottish Parliament. The then Education Minister, Jack McConnell, now First Minister, indicated that over the next three years the Scottish Government would provide funding and support for the learning of foreign languages, including Gaelic, and for the professional development of language teachers.
The demand for entrance to Gaelic-only units in primary schools continues to grow, and that is good progress. There is also a great demand for Gaelic-only pre-school education. These groups are very often run by parents. There is no question of compulsion, but it is a hard battle which we are determined win to keep the language alive.
Since 1707 until fairly recently, for Gaelic it has been downhill all the way—proscribed, denigrated, ridiculed and forbidden in schools, even in playgrounds. So we await with some trepidation the
1126
results of the census which will reveal the numbers of Gaelic speakers in Scotland. Will they have fallen again?
To lose one of the oldest languages in Europe, so rich in literature, music, poetry and song, which has so enhanced our heritage, our culture, our traditions and values, would be nothing short of criminal. It would be a loss not only to Scotland but to the United Kingdom and, indeed, the whole world.
Finally, I have tried to demonstrate that those who are native Gaelic speakers, using their mother tongue and bilingual from an early age, with English their second language, have a head start when it comes to learning other languages. The same goes for Welsh. It is a way of trying to persuade people in this country that they should learn foreign languages. In the Highlands it now has economic as well as cultural benefits. There, people are well placed to learn, understand and appreciate others on the international and world stage.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Michie of Gallanach, and to congratulate her on an excellent maiden speech. She said that she is not an expert in language but clearly she is an expert, as evidenced by her passionate and understandable espousal of the cause of Gaelic. It is nice, too, that she is following in the footsteps of her well-known father, Lord Bannerman of Kildonan, who, sadly, was a Member of your Lordships' House for a relatively short time.
The noble Baroness is not only an expert on language but on many other issues, including practically every agricultural subject on the west coast of Scotland. In the past, we used to meet mainly in her beautiful constituency—from which she was not pushed but fell—in Oban and at events such as the Argyllshire Gathering. I do not think she ever took part in tossing the caber, but, in whatever equivalent pastime there may be in your Lordships' House, she will be an outstanding performer—as she has been already in making her wonderful maiden speech and in being, I believe, the first person ever to take the oath in Gaelic. Long may we continue to hear from her.
In congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, on introducing the debate, I should declare two interests—neither of which is financial. I am a chairman of the governors of a school in Scotland and I am a member of the Board of the British Council.
Let me start with a brief story. Not long ago, I was in Amsterdam, and in the early evening I went out for some exercise. I was going along a rather dark road beside a canal and I was accosted by a large, tough looking young man, who made some obvious demands of me in Dutch. I said that I did not understand Dutch, whereupon he repeated the request for financial assistance in English. I said to him, "I am terribly sorry, but when I am running in a tracksuit I do not normally have any money in my pocket". Whereupon I received the charming answer, "Oh well t hen, I do hope you have a nice evening".

1127
I am not trying to suggest that we should expect all muggers in Britain to be bilingual—let alone that we should train them to be so—but that story makes the obvious point that in much of continental Europe, particularly in countries such as the Netherlands, being bilingual is natural. Sadly, that is very far from true here.
One of the most striking statistics to come out of the Nuffield report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred, is the fact that less than one in 10 young people continue to study a foreign language after the age of 16. That is a horrifying statistic.
I do not wish to dwell for too long in a short time on European languages—many other noble Lords are far more qualified to do so than I am—except to make two points. First, it is not only highly desirable to learn a European language but it is significant in terms of jobs for young people. If two people—one from the UK and one from Europe—with the same kind of qualifications apply for a job, but the person from Europe speaks more than one language, it is obvious that the job will go to the person who speaks more than one language. It is an economic necessity.
Secondly, it comes out of the Nuffield report that, perhaps, we over concentrate on French—more people study French and more people become teachers of French and so on ad infinitum. Surely we need more people to study and then teach German and Spanish.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, also mentioned the fact that, contrary to what one might think, more people are now, surprisingly, using non-English languages to access the Internet. If one looks at that statistic—as the newspapers have pointed out and common sense suggests—one can see that, if not now then very soon, the majority of those people will be speaking and accessing the Internet in Chinese. There are some 1.3 billion people in China, of which some 300 million are studying English. How many people do we have here who are studying Chinese?
But it does not stop at the main oriental languages such as Chinese or Japanese, there is an important point to be made about the lesser used and lesser known languages. Surely this was emphasised to us all in the aftermath of the events of 11th September. It is a remarkable fact that the Foreign Office was able to bring out of retirement and produce as the Prime Minister's Special Envoy to Afghanistan someone who spoke Tajic, Uzbek, Farsi, Dari and, indeed, Russian—which is no mean feat. It is very much to the credit of the Foreign Office and some other departments that they continue with the teaching of these relatively unused languages. We never know when we are going to need them and we should continue to teach them. It may not be a main priority, but we need to do it.
There are rays of sunshine in the dark picture painted by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. They include good initiatives at various levels—some under the auspices of the British Council, whose reputable Central Bureau has been incorporated with the Council's Education and Training Group. Some 2,500
1128
foreign language assistants are teaching in UK schools. Thanks to substantial European funding through the Socrates programme, some 50,000 pupils are working on projects involving schools and colleges in Europe. The Leonardo Da Vinci scheme provides for 2,500 young trainees and workers to be sent abroad on placements.
As to the private sector, I am particularly impressed by the sponsorship of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation and the Department for Education and Skills in promoting the study of Chinese. It embraces some 30 schools in England, and 200 students and teachers went to China for intensive language study. I understand that there have been discussions to expand that scheme to Scotland, which I hope will happen.
It is good to encourage young people to take an interest in Chinese, even if they do not master it at school. It is fascinating for even a primary schoolchild to know that when the Chinese characters for woman and child are put together, it means good. If the character for the sun and moon are put together, it means bright. Even more fun, if one puts the character for a pig under that for a roof, it means family or home.
Much is going on at the moment but more needs to be done. We need a coherent strategy. The vision is there but we need to make it reality. I know from my inquiries that all that is close to the Minister's heart. I hope that when she responds, she will be able to assure the House that there will be provision to match the vision.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Radice: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Michie, who was a good colleague in the other place. I am glad that we are together again in this House and I congratulate her on her maiden speech. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Williams for arriving late; the debate started earlier than I expected. However, my noble friend gave me a preview of his speech, so I know what he said in the part that I did not hear.
My noble friend is a very able Member of the House and a fine cricketer. He is also a distinguished biographer of not only Bradman but, more relevant to this debate, his biographies of de Gaulle and Adenauer are arguably the best studies of their subject in the English language. My noble friend could not have written those works without his command of French and German. I am nothing like as good at languages as my noble friend or others who have spoken. Despite having an outstanding teacher, my German is still poor.
My French is better. I have even made a speech in French in the Assemblée Nationale, as has my leader. I admit that my accent is appalling and my grammar still erratic. All the same, it is one of the great pleasures of my life that I am able to communicate freely with the French on my frequent trips across the Channel.
There is a general consensus, reflected in the debate, that the teaching, learning and understanding of foreign languages is a national disaster area. We are

1129
caught in a vicious circle of declining A-level results, an inadequate number of teachers and a poor general grasp of language. That is a disgrace. It is bad for the country that only 25 per cent of British people are able to communicate in another language.
However, without a strong government lead that strong consensus will not result in decisive action. Because English is the major world language for the moment and the most common spoken within the European Union, there is not the political will to do anything serious about our poor record. If English was not the main language, we would have to do something—in the same way as have the Swedes and the Dutch. We continue to believe that provided we shout loud enough, the rest of the world—including our closest European neighbours—will understand.
That attitude helps to explain the Government's inadequate response to the devastating Nuffield report, which shows that we have the worst record in language teaching of any country in the European Union.
We all welcome the increase in specialist language schools, such as that attended by one of my grandchildren. There are more than 100 such schools and I hope that there will be more. I welcome the Government's promise to take the issue more seriously, but why have they not committed themselves to making the teaching of foreign languages obligatory at primary level—at least as a long-term objective? I have seldom read anything more depressing and defeatist than the report of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which advised against a statutory requirement. If French and German primary schools can observe one, why not British schools?
I accept that the shortage of teachers is a serious problem. I do not write it off, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. What about employing teachers from abroad, as my noble friend suggested? What about using teachers from the growing number of specialist secondary schools in primary schools for an hour a week? What about attracting retired teachers back to work? If we are serious, we must do something serious.
What are the Government doing about the fact that only 10 per cent of GCSE passes and only 4 per cent of A-level passes are in foreign languages? The A-level situation is deteriorating, which is a totally inadequate platform for ensuring that the nation is linguistically equipped for the modern world. Establishing more specialist schools is not a strong enough answer, although it is a good measure in itself. What are the Government doing to ensure that people can acquire a foreign language after the age of 16, where they have not had the chance before?
The Government must make a more serious response to Nuffield. Unless there is radical action on the lines proposed by my noble friend Lord Williams and other speakers, the situation will continue to deteriorate. That will be bad for UK citizens and bad for the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government will say something this evening that will put my fears at rest.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, it is good that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has so speedily followed up the European Year of Languages with this debate—in which I am happy to endorse most of the points made by most speakers, as I am to declare my interest as a past president of the Institute or Linguists and a current adviser to language providers and educational publishers.
In a series of articles in the Observer written nearly 30 years ago, I was already arguing that the relatively recent status of English as a world lingua franca was in danger of being to our disadvantage—making us think that we needed to learn no foreign language. Now, as more and more well-educated, bilingual youngsters from the Continent are snapped up by British employers in preference, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, has just pointed out, to our own monolingual youth, these disadvantages have become ever more apparent.
One of my Observer articles was entitled "English is not enough". The same words head the Executive summary of the Nuffield report which is the basis for this debate, as they have been repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Indeed, it is true to say that these words have become so familiar as to seem like a familiar mantra. Yet in many ways our institutions, industrial and commercial firms, tacitly ignore them as they rely on translators, foreign employees or, as the noble Lord, Lord Radice, has just said. on just shouting louder. How many invite statements about language qualifications in their job adverts? How many of their switchboard operators can cope with incoming calls even in such unexotic languages as French? How many of our ubiclitous news gatherers and reporters rely on interpreters for their "pretend" interviews even in Frankfurt or Paris? How many, indeed, of our politicians support the Government's welcome of the Nuffield report?
I ask that because I have with me a letter to a British educational publisher from a British parliamentarian—not, I hasten to say, a parliamentarian here in Westminster but one in the European Parliament. He had been asked how useful a knowledge of a foreign language was to him in that multilingual environment. I quote from his reply:
"The multilingual environment in which I work is, from my point of view at least, an English language environment".
Why, he went on, would he ever,
"seek to learn a foreign language",
since all the people that matter would before long be speaking English? Some MEP!
Given that the Government would heartily repudiate such parochial arrogance—and I echo the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Williams—I ask the Minister when can we expect a firm commitment to a national language policy as robust as that of France and Germany, our partners in the "Club of Three" meeting, held in London just two months ago.
As the Minister will know, Jack Lang has already implemented a policy whereby every child in France will begin a first foreign language at the age of six, take

1131
up a second language at the age of 11 and maintain both to the age of 16. Will the Minister endorse the words of her noble friend Lady Kennedy, spoken at that November meeting, that a foreign language should be introduced in every primary school and that pupils should have two foreign languages by school-leaving age?
Of course, I acknowledge, as other noble Lords have done, the progress we have made over the past dozen years; the introduction of one foreign language at least in the national curriculum and the recent surge in the number of specialist language colleges, many of which, although by no means all, are doing excellent work.
Of course I acknowledge too the problem of teacher recruitment. But this is an area, as several speakers have pointed out, with lots of scope for sharing resources with other EU countries, as the German Ambassador, Dr Hans-Friedrich von Ploetz, has been tirelessly repeating to various UK audiences up and down the country in the past year or so.
Perhaps I may say a word about the estimated 3 million in our midst who come from non-Anglophone countries. Dr Philida Schellekens was recently commissioned by the Department for Education to study the extent to which those 3 million were effectively excluded from employment through a poor command of English. She found, horrifyingly, that there might be as many as 1.5 million. Clearly, their English is a problem that has to be addressed urgently so that, for their sake as well as ours, these people can be absorbed into our institutional and economic life. But that is to address the downside of this issue.
But there is an upside of the issue that we in the UK have scarcely begun to appreciate. A poor command of English does not mean a poor command of language. More than any other country in Europe we have people in their hundreds of thousands with a perfect command of foreign languages for which there is an increasing need and which we could never supply starting from scratch even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, has pointed out, the Foreign Office, by its encouragement of special language schools, does a lot to maintain it.
How long would it take to teach a police officer enough Turkish for service in Wood Green? There are 70,000 Turkish speakers in London alone from whom such a police officer could be recruited. Staying with London, we have over 100,000 speakers of Hindi/Urdu, ditto of Bengali, ditto of Gujerati, ditto of Punjabi. We also have many thousands whose language is Arabic, Chinese and up to 300 other exotic languages, as we call them.
London is exceptional only in respect of numbers. A similar rich linguistic array can be found in cities up and down the country—in the Midlands and the North, as we know well. We should be eagerly and gratefully making use of these resources in firms, in the social services and elsewhere. I note that Lord Justice Auld, in his recent report on the criminal courts, deplored the serious shortage of interpreters in just
1132
such languages. The paradox of famine in the midst of plenty! I hope that this aspect of immigrant minority languages will be taken into account by the Minister in the language statement which I hope that she will make.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for drawing our attention to the Nuffield report and for providing a very useful and timely debate. I thank too the noble Baroness, Lady Michie, for a beautifully judged maiden speech. Looking back at my own maiden speech, I am full of envy. I wish to make reference to the heroic efforts of the European ambassadors, led by the German ambassador to this country, in trying to draw our enlightened self-interest to the problem that this debate highlights.
Most of my life I have spent making essentially cultural arguments. Today I restrict myself to the practical, and possibly the achievable, aspects of this debate. The opportunity to learn must, and I am sure, will be enhanced and improved at primary level. That is an essential component of whatever response the Government make today and in future.
I believe it is also true to say that motivation must be significantly improved across all areas of education, not just in primary, but in secondary and adult education. So more opportunity and far better motivation are the challenges that face us. Interestingly enough, my noble friend Lady Massey used the exactly the same words in her speech.
That said, I find myself in agreement with many of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—particularly in regard to the utilisation of ICT and its relevance and importance in the future, not merely across the broad spectrum of the curriculum but specifically in language teaching.
Today, I am almost a professional school visitor. I spend most of my life visiting schools, secondary and primary for the most part. I have, therefore, become hypersensitive to the realities as perceived at the chalk face. Foreign language ability is not a basic skill for students in this country, as they understand matters. To attempt to make such an argument does this debate, and our fairly well shared position, no particular favours.
Children are very smart. You cannot "con" them into something which, on a day-to-day basis, they know not to be true. A knowledge of foreign languages, for the most part English, is a core, or a basic, skill for ambitious French, German or other European students. They know it. But to pretend that there is a precise equivalence is wrong. As I say, I do not believe that we advance our case by taking that position. Frankly, our young people know better. Therefore, the real challenge is motivation—for the enhancement of their personal, cultural, and in many cases their professional lives by the addition of another language.
By way of doing my homework for the debate, I sought the help of the CBI, which was very supportive. Yes, more jobs require more languages. Yes,

1133
multilingual jobseekers are to an extent advantaged, and on occasions their pay mirrors that advantage—but marginally. The CBI did a quick snapshot over the past three days of international businesses. The response was fairly consistent. It can be summed up in a statement from a very large employer—a huge law firm—in this country. It told the CBI that it was important to emphasise that it does not look for languages in recruiting. The key skills that it looks for are,
"attention to detail, commercial awareness and dealings with others".
It states that it will invest in trainees' language skills as and when they are needed and as and when it finds the right candidates. In fairness, I imagine that much the same is true of the Foreign Office or even of the police force.
Young people know that language is not a core skill. But it is our job to make sure that they see it as a thoroughly desirable skill. In a desperately crowded secondary curriculum, we must make the point that language skills are very desirable. However, they fall some way short of the claim that they are "basic" skills. I believe that that will be one of the factors that will influence not only the Minister's response but, indeed, government action in years to come.
6.53 p.m.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for enabling us to have this debate. I declare an interest as chairman of the Nuffield Foundation.
The reason why we set up the inquiry was not that it was a new task. As the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, reminded us, there have been many endeavours to take a grip on the way in which languages have been taught, provided for and respected in this country. We turned to this somewhat Sisyphean task again because we thought that there might be one new way in which to look at it. We are grateful to the co-chairs of the inquiry, Sir Trevor McDonald and Sir John Boyd, for carrying this through.
The perspective and intention of the report was that it should not be a provider's forum, that we should not round up those who are keen on languages and those who teach languages—who would then indeed say that languages should be more widely taught. If you round up the usual suspects, you will get the reply, "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?". We also attempted to look at the demand side. That is why there were people on the inquiry drawn from business, banking and the Civil Service, and it is why we inquired widely of employers and of the tourist industry. Indeed, we received much evidence that is not entirely congruent with the evidence reported by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam.
This approach was taken not because we doubt, or doubted, the intrinsic educational worth of language learning, the importance of understanding the richness of more than a single literature, the importance of understanding other cultures, the deeper understanding that we all have of our own languages;
1134
nor was it simply because we know that economic arguments can cast long educational shadows. It was taken because we wanted to test the evidence for the claim that there is no demand for languages and language learning. We found that there was demand from pupils and parents and from employers and business.
It is hard to get the statistics together. It is a mark of the lack of seriousness with which we regard this matter that good statistics are not available. But there is an enormous amount of evidence of language learning at considerable inconvenience and expense to families outside the educational structures. What is spoken of as language provision in primary schools is all too often a French club—which is indeed an opportunity, but is voluntary; it is taken up by some children and not by others, and parents often pay for these kinds of activities. We also found a great deal of evidence that employers sought languages and could not recruit in this country. A good example was of airports being unable to recruit ground staff with elementary language skills and therefore recruiting people in Spain.
The inquiry's central recommendation, therefore, was that government should adopt a national languages strategy. Other noble Lords emphasised that need. In referring to a "strategy", the inquiry does not mean "aspiration" or "enthusiasm", although of course such ideas are not redundant. What we were looking at was a landscape of fragmentation and failure, which I fear are growing.
I have mentioned what is not happening in primary schools. We also know that language provision is fragmented and often discontinuous in secondary schools. There is a very large opt-out after GCSE. There is the fact that the new AS-level has led to only an 8 per cent increase in language enrolments. Had it been proportionate, assuming that people are going from three to four subjects, it should have been a 33 per cent increase. The figure for university entrants is down. That for PGCE entrants is down, and that for entrants into the teaching profession is down.
There is a thin ray of sunshine in the language colleges. But let us not over-estimate it. It may be bright, but it is reaching less than 2.5 per cent of the age group. That is not a strategy. The statistics are poor, and I cannot give more accurate ones than that. Also poor is the provision of accurate standards of measuring competence for those who are learning languages in a prosaic, useful and aspiring way.
We should remember that more people in the world are bilingual or multilingual than are monolingual. The noble Baroness, Lady Michie of Gallanach, reminded us that that is not unknown in these islands. Our report places great importance on the indigenous languages of these islands and on the community languages in our immigrant communities, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk.
Our young people are as talented as any. But they are being denied the opportunity, the encouragement and the basic provision. A child can be as keen as he or she may, but if the basic provision is lacking. nothing

1135
substantial happens. In consequence, children miss out at later stages on the valuable experience of working abroad in a way that their contemporaries elsewhere in Europe do not miss out. Furthermore, they may miss out on jobs at home. I have mentioned ground staff at airports. Similar evidence is coming in from call centres, from tourism and from the City. Not all these jobs are trivial. Home languages are not supported. People who are able to speak another language often receive no support for becoming literate in that language.
I know that the Minister is aware of many of these problems and I hope that she may be able to answer just a few of the questions that arise out of the report. The central question is whether the Department for Education and Skills is going to propose a national languages strategy. If so, when does the Minister expect a draft to be available? It would also be interesting to know whether such a strategy—if it is to be made available—will set targets for participation rates, not for opportunity. Other noble Lords have cast doubt on whether opportunity is the right currency.
How will the Government address the crisis of supply? Nothing can be done overnight, but meanwhile we are fiddling while Rome is burning. This is not just a schools issue. It is a matter that extends through our educational structures, through all stages of education and into employment. If anything is a matter for joined-up government, this is it.
7 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, learning to speak another person's language is not just about being able to exchange words directly with another individual, important as that is. It has an added value, because in learning a language one learns about the culture, history and traditions that make that other person tick. It is therefore vital not only for jobs, as we have heard, but in developing international understanding and good will. That is why English alone is not enough. I thoroughly endorse that finding of the Nuffield report.
We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for bringing this subject before us for debate today. Let us hope that what we have to say may help a little in the profile of language studies in this country.
I found a lot to agree with in the noble Lord's introduction to the debate and I have agreed with what many others have said, particularly those who are educational experts, which I cannot claim to be, in spite of my stint as a Minister in the Department of Education and Science, as it then was. I shall concentrate on the more general issue of motivation, which has also been touched on by many others.
I glanced at the Evening Standard last night and saw the headline, "Success—You're talking my language". The article went on to say that speaking another language automatically increases a person's job prospects and earning power. That is a good start. Can the Department for Education and Skills make a start
1136
by encouraging the Civil Service at least to request that applicants state on their forms their ability to speak other languages. On one occasion at the Department of Social Security I was horrified to discover that a young man who spoke fluent Japanese had been working in a social security office. I succeeded in getting him moved to the Department of Trade and Industry, which seemed a much more appropriate place for him. It would give an indication of the importance that the Government give to languages if the Civil Service considered putting it on its applications forms.
From my experience, the ability to speak languages—in my case French and Spanish fluently and just a smattering of German—has been of enormous value. I hesitate to say that I may not have been the best solicitor in the world, but I was rather more unique as a solicitor who also spoke Spanish and French fluently and was therefore able to work in those countries. My knowledge of Spanish also enabled me to obtain a fellowship to study in Latin America, which started my love affair with that part of the world. I also found it extremely useful as a Member of the European Parliament—unlike the example quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. Even now, I find that ability very useful as a member of the parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe.
As others have said, British children are not more stupid than, for example, Dutch or Swedish children, who seem capable of holding intelligent conversations in three or four languages at an early age. Children from many other countries do not seem to think about it; they just get on with it. However, British children seem capable of learning the language of IT—the language of the computer and of the Internet. I can speak some foreign languages with some fluency, but I am not much good in computerspeak. Why is that? It is because I have not knuckled down and learnt how to use a computer or its specialised terminology and I have not really practised. It must he brought home to children that a knowledge of foreign languages does not come out of the atmosphere, as one's mother tongue seems to do—it has to be learnt. Good teachers who motivate their pupils are vital to achieving that, as the Nuffield report and others have said. Information technology may be another useful tool, as my noble friend Lord Lucas and others have said.
We must bring home to young people how important the knowledge of another language can he to succeed in finding a job and for their future careers. One of the most useful suggestions so far in the debate about how languages are taught came from the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. She said that languages should be taught in frequent short slots rather than for two long periods in the week. I found that a novel suggestion, but it seems a good idea.
I have a special plea to make, at which many of your Lordships will not be surprised. I declare an interest as president of Canning House, the Hispanic and Luso Brazilian Council. The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, referred to, I think, five global languages. I have been brought up to believe that after English, the most spoken languages in the world as mother

1137
tongues are Spanish and Portuguese, with Arabic coming close behind Portuguese. Spanish and Portuguese are certainly not sufficiently taught in our schools. I have had the opportunity to lead trade missions to Latin America and it has been clear that the members of those trade missions, however interested they were in obtaining work and links in the various countries of Latin America, had no idea about speaking Spanish or Portuguese. I wholeheartedly agree with the Nuffield findings and with many who have spoken that the United Kingdom needs competence in many languages, not just in French.
The final point that I would like to pick up was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Michie, in her excellent maiden speech. She pointed out convincingly that those who are brought up bilingual have a head start in learning another language. Many children in this country have that head start—not just those whose mother tongue is Gaelic or Welsh, but those who speak Hindi, Gujarati, Urdu and all the other languages enumerated by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. We should not ignore that. Can the Government find a way to take advantage of it? I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, it is normal in this House for a speaker to congratulate the originator of a debate on its timeliness. I hasten to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, on bringing to our attention the important and disturbing report on language teaching sponsored by the Nuffield Foundation. It was of great value to have the chairman of that foundation to bring to our attention some of its salient points. However, I would not wish it to be thought that my commendation of timeliness extends to the Government's response to and handling of that report, which has been tardy and inadequate. I can only express the hope that the Government's words, and more importantly their actions, will from now on show a greater sense of urgency and commitment to remedy a situation that has continued to deteriorate since the report was issued.
The report rightly draws attention to the fact that the establishment of English as a—perhaps now trending towards the—global language is no adequate reason for the British to abandon all aspirations to linguistic competence in other languages. There is a paradox. The extent to which English is becoming the lingua franca—if that is not a contradiction—of the whole world is a huge asset to this country and one on which we need to capitalise to the greatest extent possible. It means that our universities are among the key service industries of the present and the future. It places added emphasis on the need to support the work of the British Council and the BBC World Service.
However, that spread of the English language—some references to that phenomenon err on the side of triumphalism—brings a risk that we will simply assume, like the MEP mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, that everyone who matters to us will be able to speak English anyway and we do not need to go to the trouble of learning any other language. Frankly,
1138
that is not the case. Our businessmen, our journalists, our academics, our diplomats and our military will simply not be able to function to full effectiveness if they are purely monoglot, if they turn their backs on and ignore the languages of the countries and the people with whom we need to work. We shall be progressively cutting ourselves off from huge resources of knowledge and information, and from the means of influence in any increasingly interdependent world; and we shall be doing so in a peculiarly selfish and arrogant way that will certainly arouse bitterness and, very probably, a backlash. One only has to look to see the sensitivities exposed by the present agonised debate in France over whether or not what is known as l'exception française has come to an end to get the flavour of that view.
So it really is important for us to de-couple in our minds the undoubted benefits that we derive from the spread of the English language and the need for a country like ours with global interests to sustain a substantial pool of people with linguistic knowledge that is not in any way diminished by the spread of English.
While we are on the utilitarian arguments for better language teaching and learning, there is another paradox of which most people seem to be unaware. It is one to which reference has been in this debate. Although statistics show that the employability of those who leave our schools and universities with language skills is very high, better, for example, than for computing, physical sciences, psychology or business studies—I am quoting from the 1998–99 Higher Education Statistics Agency figures—nevertheless, the numbers of those taking advantage of this employment-friendly trend is not increasing; it is decreasing. Perhaps that is not so surprising in a period of pretty full employment, such as we have experienced in the past. And perhaps the current slowdown in employment growth will affect it. But it is surely important that the Government and careers departments throughout the country draw full and frequent attention to the fact that language skills do help you get a job.
One of the most damaging consequences of the weakness of language teaching in this country and of the decline of A-level qualifiers in languages corning forward is the remorseless squeeze that this is putting on the language departments of our universities. Here I must declare an interest as pro-Chancellor of the University of Birmingham. As such, I was a member of a panel that reviewed the whole of our modern language provision in the university about a year ago. The situation is, indeed, a dire one. The supply of qualified students coming forward to study languages declines and, as it does so, the losses of the university's language departments mount and pressure comes on us to reduce the spread of languages that we offer. On that occasion, we at Birmingham were able to resist that pressure.
There is much that universities must do, in particular by recognising that the demands for single language and literature degrees is dropping and that more needs to be offered by way of combining

1139
language studies with the teaching of other professional skills, such as law, medicine, engineering or business. But, in the long run, if the supply of qualified students cannot be improved, the efforts of the universities will be nugatory. We shall find ourselves trapped in a vicious circle.
So what is to be done? I shall not try to re-invent the wheel and to improve on the excellent recommendations of the Nuffield report that we are debating this evening. But I shall focus on two of its proposals: the need to begin language teaching at an earlier stage in our schools; and the need to continue it longer, avoiding the sharp drop in 16 to 19 year-olds studying languages that is currently the case. Of the two, I suspect that the first is the more important. It seems rather fashionable currently for British politicians to sally forth from these islands to discover how those other Europeans, a mere 30 miles from us, are ordering their affairs. Well, a pilgrimage designed to discover how much earlier they begin the systematic teaching of foreign languages in their school curriculum could well be salutary. The answer varies, but the contrast with us is not, frankly, in dispute; and nor are the results that they achieve in language skills. The old Jesuit claim that if they could educate a child in its early years that was what mattered, surely applies to language teaching too. No one who has seen the ease with which young children are capable of acquiring language skills can doubt that this must be one part of any overall solution.
In concluding, I should just like to say a few words about the Diplomatic Service, to which I belonged for some 35 years. I was glad to see that the report commended the Diplomatic Service for the excellence and the breadth of its linguistic skills. I believe that that was well merited. I know from my own experience that our embassies and High Commissions around the world are the envy of their peers for being so well staffed with diplomats who can work in the language of their host country. But this does not come cheap. Scarce resources have to be diverted from other objectives to achieve it. I believe that that is a wise and proper allocation of those resources. But if the Diplomatic Service can recognise that it is in our national interest to have diplomats well qualified linguistically, why cannot this lesson be learned and applied more widely? I believe that that is the challenge facing the Government. I just hope that they will rise to it with a bit more vigour and purpose than they have displayed hitherto.
7.16 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has bowled an unusually straight ball at the Minister. I am looking forward to seeing her hit it back very hard. I shall try not to repeat what noble friends have said, but it is nearly two years since the Nuffield Foundation established the inquiry to assess language needs for the 21st century; and what has happened? Other noble Lords have drawn attention to the delay and it must be said that much of the evidence goes back four years to 1998. It really is unsatisfactory
1140
when a government seem to ignore serious research by eminent persons, and let down an entire profession without, apparently, having made any tangible response beyond the usual promises—that is, until the noble Baroness arrived and embarked on a national strategy. We are told that the Government have accepted it but not acted on it, although we have heard hints that they are about to do so.
However, let that not distract us from the real disgrace and embarrassment which has concerned many of us; namely, that the English-speaking world for which Winston Churchill did so much in literary as well as in political terms has, paradoxically, abused its special position and is lamentably failing in this one respect to contribute adequately to 21st century culture. "Arrogance" was the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. That includes all of us who, despite our training, stumble through European languages whenever we travel abroad, to be rescued quickly by kind friends.
We, the British, as we heard from the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Wilson, and my noble friend Lord Hannay, seriously underestimate the effect of our lack of language training on our ability to convince most of Europe and the rest of the world of our performance and good faith in commerce, foreign affairs, diplomacy, and many other fields.
The French, notably through L'Express magazine identified this problem years ago, but they have not convinced us or changed our Anglo-Saxon attitudes. With all the repercussions of 11th September, it is time that we put more resources, as the British Council is now doing in its own way, not only into more language training but also into achieving a wider understanding in Britain and perhaps in the United States of other cultures and traditions. I shall not expand on this idea. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, made mention of it and the Minister already knows of my interest in global citizenship.
The Nuffield report is remarkably mild in its condemnation of Britain's inadequacies, while so prolific in its practical recommendations. That is why it is surprising that it has been so long ignored. As someone who spent nearly 14 years trying to learn foreign languages, I empathised at once with Kevin from Buckingham School, who says on page 72 of the report that "they can be quite tedious". The quality of teaching has improved enormously since my time. The shortage of teachers is, of course, a more critical problem.
I followed my mother's advice, not my father's, and gave up history to study French and German at university. I did so with great enjoyment, but it was rather too late. However, by reading Balzac and Goethe and Heinrich Böll, as well as working in Europe, I finally appreciated the wealth of knowledge that exists outside this offshore island of ours. Later, travelling to Asia and Africa, I easily fell back into the Anglo-Saxon intellectual lethargy which is still with me now. I even read Thomas Mann in English. On holiday, I try to read Le Monde or the Süddeutsche Zeitung, but, regrettably, not Racine.

1141
My main point, like that of the report, is to emphasise the importance of learning languages in early childhood. We have all seen wonderful examples of very young children, as young as four or five, quickly picking up language ability. It is vital that the Government act on Recommendations 5 and 6, on early language learning, and run with them both in primary and pre-primary schools. Perhaps the Minister has evidence that that is happening already. The proposal is so simple and so urgent. The French have done it for years, and now they have offered us help—and quite right too. More teachers from Europe seems an obviously good idea.
The Nuffield report calls for a national action programme and makes the interesting suggestion of establishing international primary schools. Surely that is the least we can do for our children as they become the leaders and opinion formers in the middle of this century. But we must do it now.
Another recommendation focuses on basic competence in one language for 16 year-olds. I welcome the specialist schools initiative, which I have seen in action and endorse, but I would not personally invest a lot of resources beyond the age of six, let alone 16. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I agree that we should promote the use of technology, school exchanges, websites and related techniques of language teaching. I could list other recommendations, but other noble Lords have already mentioned them.
As I said at the outset, the Government have been given a great opportunity in this report. It is high time that they seized it.
7.21 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for raising this very important issue. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Michie on an excellent maiden speech.
This has been an excellent debate, although it has confronted us with many dire statistics—on the decreasing number of students studying modern foreign languages to GCSE and A-level, the decreasing number of university students and the closure of university departments. We have been told that one in 10 students drops languages after 16. I should think that the figure is even higher, as many students drop the subject at 14. Only five in 10 students are taking modern foreign languages to GCSE, and only 6 per cent—just over one in 20—are taking them at A-level.
One statistic is that 80 per cent of English people freely admit that they have no competence in any language other than English, compared with 13 per cent of people in Holland and a similar percentage in Sweden and Denmark. As we know, competence in other languages is important in smaller countries. However, as my noble friend Lord Watson reminded us, English is becoming a lingua franca around the world. Another statistic is that 200 million Chinese are
1142
learning English. Another statistic, however, is that—as the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, reminded us—the other 1.1 billion Chinese are not learning English. Perhaps we should be humble, not arrogant about the degree to which English is becoming a lingua franca.
The issue certainly matters. My noble friend Lord Watson gave a quote—I had it on my list—from Quentin Peel, who said:
"We think we understand what makes other people tick but only if they tell us in English".
That is certainly the case.
Tribute has been paid to the German ambassador, Herr Doctor von Ploetz, for all his efforts in this country to promote the extension of modern foreign language teaching. He has said that learning languages is the key to mutual understanding. Although it is true that we celebrate the cultural diversity of the European Union, as we do the cultural diversity of the world, we must know and understand something of the language, literature and history of those countries to share that cultural diversity.
I was interested that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to the concept of international skills which emerged at the Lisbon conference. In relation to those skills, Ambassador von Ploetz said that,
"increasing awareness of cultural, communicative and analytical skills gained from learning a foreign language are vital to facing the challenge of the global knowledge economy".
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, pipped me at the post by giving an Evening Standard quote that I too had picked out. Even the Evening Standard is now telling us that,
"speaking another foreign language automatically increases your job prospects".
As the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, reminded us, even the British Airports Authority is having difficulty finding people with the necessary language skills to welcome people into this country. The same is true of the hotel and tourism industry.
The Nuffield report has won great acclaim, and I join others in praising it for its plethora of recommendations. A consistent theme, however, has been the need for a national strategy based on catching young people early and involving people in lifelong learning in every respect.
The French and the Germans have already moved forward on the Lisbon agenda. They are putting us to shame. The current aim in those countries is to introduce all primary school children to a modern foreign language and all secondary school pupils to a second modern foreign language, with the ultimate objective that all those leaving secondary school at the equivalent of A-level have two foreign languages. Furthermore, all students in those countries should be able to spend at least one semester abroad.
What are we doing in this country? I am sorry to tell the Minister that, like others, I really do not think that we are doing enough. We have established a national task force, but, at the moment, that is a talking shop and not a strategy. The Government would say that they have a strategy because they are establishing

1143
specialist schools. However, we have 3,400 secondary schools of which only 108—less than 3 per cent—are designated as specialist language schools.
The specialist schools are doing excellent work. We have one in Dorking that is acting as a hub, going into primary schools and helping with the continuing task in the local community. However, the school is in Dorking, not Guildford. What is happening in Guildford? We do not have a language specialist school, although we have a technology specialist school and an art specialist school. As a strategy, the scheme is full of holes. It is just not good enough.
The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, mentioned the QCA's rejection of the notion of introducing modern foreign languages into the primary school curriculum. Yet there is increasing evidence that those who start languages early not only learn them very well, but benefit from them in their other studies. My noble friend Lady Michie made the point that those who are bilingual are helped rather than hindered by their language skills.
The shortage of teachers in modern foreign languages is reaching crisis level, similar to the situation in maths. More teachers are leaving the profession than joining it. Schools are having to cut back on language teaching so that there are fewer pupils enthused with modern foreign languages and going forward with them at university. The situation is dire and I do not think that the Government are doing enough about it.
What would the Liberal Democrats do? First, we would introduce a modern foreign language at seven. We would like all primary schools to offer children the opportunity to learn a modern foreign language from seven onwards. We think that that is a good idea because of emerging evidence. Although all children may not be suited to such study, we would like most children to be given the opportunity.
Secondly, those noble Lords who follow the education press may have noted that my honourable friend Mr Phil Willis spoke at the north of England education conference. He hit the headlines when he suggested that the Liberal Democrats would like to see an end to the GCSE. We feel that the GCSE constitutes a narrowing of the curriculum. We need increasingly to look to a much wider curriculum that runs from the age of 14 through to 19 and offers children the opportunity of a wider spread of objectives rather than the relatively narrow channelling of those objectives through what was originally the academic GCE exam for the 20 per cent who attended grammar schools. The curriculum was widened somewhat with the introduction of the GCSE, but not nearly enough. If a wider curriculum is introduced, one can move towards the Nuffield report's suggestion; that is, instead of GCSE exams one has grades as in music teaching, for example, grades one, two and three. That is what we would like to see.
Thirdly, we certainly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, suggested in terms of the right of a student to have a semester abroad. As regards
1144
teachers, every year we send thousands and thousands of students abroad as teachers of foreign languages. The training is short. After four months' intensive training one can acquire a certificate stating that one is a teacher of English as a foreign language. Why cannot we welcome many students and young people from abroad into our schools and colleges to teach foreign languages and enthuse and motivate our students on the same basis? I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
7.31 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for so ably introducing the debate. I am sad that my noble friend Lady Blatch who is present is recovering from an illness and therefore will not speak. I wish that she were speaking as the House is deprived of her wisdom and experience and will have to listen to me instead.
We welcome the report, but I hope that I shall be forgiven if I take a pragmatic approach. The premise that we must improve the teaching of foreign languages in our schools is something with which we can all agree. The solutions to the problem set out in the report are, as the Americans say, "Mom and apple pie". It sounds almost heretical to offer any criticism. However, the Government in their response, which welcomes the report, merely state:
"The Nuffield report sets challenging aspirations and strong vision".
That and another telling phrase in the former Secretary of State's foreword to the response—
"we share its strategic aims"—
suggest to me that there might be a pigeonhole waiting for some of the recommendations.
I certainly do not criticise the authors of the report who have clearly put a great deal of work and thought into it. The fault lies in an ambiguity or an omission in their terms of reference. The report states:
"What capability in languages will this country need in the next twenty years if it is to fulfil its economic, strategic, social and cultural responsibilities and aims and the aspirations of its citizens?"
The inquiry seemingly took its terms of reference to refer only to the learning of foreign languages. Although we agree that that is important we also believe that item number one on its agenda, especially if it was to consider how to improve the economic and social aspirations of all our children, ought to have been, first, that they are all fluent in English.
All four of my grandparents arrived in this country early in the 20th century speaking not one single word of English between them. Their children, all born in this country, were sent to school where they were taught—as all other children were in those days—in English. There is no point in the authors of the report paying tribute to what they say is,
"the global role of English, now essentially the language of international science, law, banking, technology and much else"

1145
when scarce resources are spent in teaching children, for whom English is not the first language, in a multiplicity of other languages in schools, because that is what they speak at home. Encouraging and perfecting their fluency in English will do much more to improve their integration into British social and cultural spheres, for which the committee's terms of reference call. I believe that such a process would make it much easier for them later to learn other languages.
The former Secretary of State in his foreword to the Government's response also acknowledged what he called,
"the dominance of English as a world language".
The report calls for a language to be a requirement for university entry and for designated vocational qualifications. I note that the Government's response does not endorse that. However, the most important linguistic qualification for university entry should be a working knowledge of not just English but also English grammar and English spelling.
The report calls for more resources for the teaching of foreign languages. That is something we can all support. The report wants languages to be designated a "key skill". The Government's response states:
"Language learning is indeed an important skill and we understand the rationale for the report's proposal".
However, it makes only vague proposals on future intentions. There is no indication at all of where the money is to come from. Perhaps that is not surprising. Under the previous Conservative government spending on education between 1992 and 1997 was 5 per cent of GDP. In the previous Parliament that spending between 1997 and 2001 was reduced to 4.7 per cent. That represents a shortfall in education spending in Labour's first term of nearly £13 billion. I remember the Prime Minister's assertion in 1997 that his first three priorities in office would be "education, education, education".
The report also calls for the appointment of a languages tsar, or "supremo" as it calls it,
"to ensure successful implementation of the national strategy for languages".
The Government's response merely offers "to consider the proposal". However, I should point out that there is already a "supremo" charged with the task: of ensuring that our children receive adequate language tuition—she is called the Secretary of State for Education.
A main problem in attaining the objectives set out in the report is the dire shortage of teachers acknowledged in the Green Paper published in February 2001 and commented on in many of the excellent speeches tonight. The Government's response claims an 11 per cent rise in the recruitment of people into secondary initial training as well as the recruitment of foreign nationals. That is commendable. However, there are between 24,000 and 25,000 schools in this country. I should be fascinated to know where language teachers for each of those schools will come from. That assumes that we are talking about only one language, whereas the report mentions more. How could that extra demand be met?
1146
Incidentally, I agree with my noble friend Lady Hooper and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, as regards the importance of Spanish and with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on Chinese and all the other interesting languages that noble Lords mentioned.
I understand that the German ambassador recently said that there is a surplus of teachers in Germany who may be able to assist us, assuming that the money can be found to pay them. The noble Lords, Lord Radice and Lord Quirk, also mentioned that point. Other noble Lords mentioned the excellent work of the German ambassador in this field.
The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority was asked to examine the idea of foreign languages being taught in the compulsory curriculum in primary schools. It reported that a considerable investment in teacher training would be required. The Government's response to the report was that they had no plans at present to make foreign languages compulsory in primary schools. Foreign languages have been compulsory in secondary schools since 1992 when the then Conservative government introduced the national curriculum. But last September for the first time 61 places were funded in various IT colleges around the country to train primary teachers to specialise in French. Will the Minister tell us what plans there are to expand that excellent initiative? What plans are there to increase language laboratory facilities in schools and after school clubs?
Time does not permit me to discuss all of the details in the report and the Government's response but I draw the attention of noble Lords to one more point. The Government very properly take credit for the establishment of what they call specialist language colleges. There are 99 of them so far and more to follow. I remind noble Lords that it was a Conservative government who introduced specialist schools, including language schools. It is the greatest form of flattery that the present Government have continued with that policy.
The report's objectives are highly commendable and entirely desirable, and we on these Benches endorse them. However, the Government's lukewarm and highly qualified welcome makes it clear that the priority should be to concentrate on literacy skills in English and to resolve the teacher shortage. That includes the need to reduce the dependency on supply teachers and on teachers who are teaching subjects in which they were not trained. It is also the case that until a sufficient cohort of school leavers are competent in one or more foreign languages, it will not be possible to provide language teachers for 25,000 schools.
As my noble friend Lord Lucas and I said, unless technology can be harnessed effectively and on a very large scale, many of the report's recommendations will not be deliverable. It is not possible to detect from the Government's response to the report what precisely they intend to do or what their timescale is. I am certain that the Minister will do her best to enlighten us on what their programme will be.
7.41 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I begin by saying how delighted I am to see the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in her place. I look forward to many debates with her. I feel that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was being rather modest; I was delighted that she participated in the debate.
I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel for initiating this debate, and to all noble Lords who have taken part, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Michie of Gallanach. It is surely an indication of the importance that your Lordships' House places on language teaching and learning that our debate has been of such quality.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that I perhaps hope to catch the ball rather than to bat it back. I share the view of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and other noble Lords on the importance of language learning to our social and economic success. I say that especially to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. I strongly feel that learning a foreign language is not just about verbal exchange; it is also about encouraging intercultural understanding and tolerance and a sense of international or—I say this to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich—global citizenship.
An immense wealth of languages is spoken in this country. More than 300 languages are spoken in London alone, making it one of the most—if not the most—linguistically diverse cities in the world. Understanding that cultural and linguistic richness plays a critical role in promoting social inclusion, responsible participation and an understanding of cultural traditions in the UK and wider international communities.
My answer to the first question of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel is yes, the Government do appreciate the importance of language learning. I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that, yes, we feel a sense of urgency. The Government were extremely grateful for the Nuffield report, which was summarised so succinctly by my noble friend Lord Williams and given greater explanation by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill. It laid out the issues and challenges that we face. We were pleased to respond to it. On my appointment I was delighted to find myself chairing the National Steering Group for Languages, which was charged with developing a languages strategy. I currently spend a great deal of my time on that, such is my view of its importance.
Even a cursory examination of the Nuffield report shows that there is much to do at every level of education if we are to turn the shafts of light that were described by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel—I could also refer to the rays of sunshine that were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, and the ray of sunshine that was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill—into brightness everywhere. We need to be mindful of the work that is under way to lighten the load of teachers and of the priorities and targets that we have set ourselves.
1148
As my noble friend Lord Williams said, it is people who will make the whole system work. As many noble Lords—not least the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—said, resources are important. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, languages do not come cheap.
The challenge that we face is to build simultaneously two pillars. They are the "motivation to learn", which was mentioned by many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Massey and my noble friend Lord Puttnam, and the "opportunity to learn". We have the foundations for our pillars but, at the risk of pushing this analogy too far, we need to get the right kind of bricks, bake them, cut them to size, reinforce the structure and build it to the right height.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, discussed her motivation to learn the computer and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, discussed motivation in the Diplomatic Service. In those two examples—the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, not learning the computer and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, discussing the example of those in the Diplomatic Service—we have, in a sense, laid out before us the whole issue of motivation.
There is much to celebrate in our society: the fact that one in five primary schools already provides some opportunities for language learning; the innovative work of some schools in promoting and supporting community languages; the development of 126 language colleges; the use of ICT as a tool to teach languages, such as Japanese; the push of business to see language as an important factor in recruitment and promotion; and the support of our European partners.
However, I have chosen not to spend my time on what is already a success, in the knowledge that noble Lords will join me in congratulating all those who make an important contribution; rather, I want to use this opportunity to share our thinking with noble Lords. These thoughts are a long way from being proposals, but they are indications of the seriousness with which we take this subject and our willingness to be open to ideas. In other words, rather than being the worked-up answer, this is the part of the exam question where you, the examiners, see the workings out—and, later, possibly the crossings out, too.
I mentioned motivation. I am particularly keen to motivate those young people who are making decisions about their futures. What do I believe will motivate them, and where should we start?
Practically every noble Lord in this debate has discussed the need to begin early. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, suggested the age of seven and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, suggested nursery age. I have seen examples of all such kinds of teaching, including that from the earliest years. A child in a nursery can be enriched by the language and culture of other nations through the benefit of other children who speak those languages—that should never be overlooked—and the benefit of those who work with them. The opportunities to study languages—whether in primary school or before—to have developed an interest in and perhaps even love for language and to have had, over time, the chance to study different languages, both in

1149
and out of school, are important. I do not believe that all language teaching needs to be, could be, or should be in school.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said, there needs to be greater recognition of community languages, and opportunities for children to share their language with others. That fits in well with our strategy for an enriched curriculum at primary level, not at the expense of, but as part of, our drive for higher standards.
Lest any teachers are listening, we are not proposing a new SAT. We believe that the primary stage is where we should begin. I say to my noble friend Lord Radice that we asked the QCA for its views because that is what we should do. It is important that we use organisations that can offer expertise. It did not believe that it was currently appropriate to discuss a mandatory language at the primary stage. I shall return to what I believe we should be beginning to do.
The second part of motivation is to understand the importance of language learning for the future careers of young people. As our young people reach the age when they make choices about their future studies, they need to weigh up the potential for their career that language can give them. I believe that we have a huge amount to do in that area. We need to build active partnerships with businesses that can help by communicating their need for employees who have languages and to demonstrate the implications—financial and otherwise—of doing so.
Those are the motivating factors on which I believe we need to concentrate. We need creative and innovative ways of delivering those opportunities to children. The factors that determine how many of our young people will continue with language study to good effect are whether we can offer opportunities for younger children, whether we can motivate them to learn and whether we can demonstrate to young people the benefits of languages. The noble Lord, Lord Quirk, discussed the potential of journalists, switchboard operators and others. I argue that there are probably very few young people who really understand the different opportunities within the different professions and jobs, and their potential to enhance their careers as a consequence of language ability. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, with his background in universities, will be interested to know that, of the number of graduates who obtained a first degree in 1999–2000, 60 per cent of those who had studied languages were employed six months after graduation as a result of their studies.
How do we go about improving this situation? I believe that during the debate 13 languages were mentioned as being of key importance. That raises some difficulties for me in terms of where we begin in relation to primary education; or, rather, it would do if we were not extremely creative.
The system referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is, in a sense, raised in the Nuffield report. The noble Baroness mentioned a matter that we have begun to explore, and it is one with which I am very taken; that is, the use of a system similar to that of
1150
accreditation in music. Schemes do exist that run along those lines, and all credit to them. Put simply, children and adults learn a variety of musical instruments in and out of school. In each case, they have an accreditation system, universally understood, called "grades 1,2,3" and so on. Why should that not be the case in respect of foreign languages, including, following such an eloquent maiden speech, Gaelic?
I start from the principle that such a system could be beneficial—not only to children but to anyone wishing to pursue languages at any point in their lives. Easily understood and recognised, it could provide a quality assessment—a matter referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill—in terms of primary languages, where the provision of a language club is not what we have in mind. It would enable children to use their after-school and weekend activities and link them more easily to their school learning. It would help secondary schools to understand what their newly arriving students have learnt and help to keep them motivated, rather than, as happens too often, allowing those students simply to hang around while the others catch up.
Such a system would make better use of peripatetic teaching and better use of those within our communities who are able to teach languages in better ways. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, referred to the wealth of talent in our communities that we are not able to access or use at this point. It would also allow recognition for children who already have more than one language. I think, in particular, of community languages. It would allow more choice than a GCSE or conversation-class route to language. It would allow us to put more on our CVs than "A smattering of French" or "I get by in Italian". It would also provide a route to life-long learning that is understood and accessible.
The thinking on this issue is at a very early stage and requires a great deal of exploration. However, I believe it to be only right and proper that I explain our current thinking to your Lordships and demonstrate that this is an area that we consider to be worthy of exploration. We are discussing the details of this matter with the subject associations and with CILT. But I am keen to demonstrate that we are looking for solutions that enhance the quality of learning not only for primary education but for life and, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, provide opportunities to learn.
In that context, we need to consider the use of ICT. I was most grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, believed that I had waxed enthusiastically about ICT. I do indeed and intend to continue to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, referred to what we are already beginning to think about. We have recently announced curriculum on line. That tool provides opportunities, still in a very fledgling state, to children and to all learners to develop their abilities, not least in language. If it is the success that we believe it can be, we shall be able to offer language teaching to a variety of learners, in a wide variety of languages. I also want us to consider the use of new

1151
technology, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, and its potential for epals, the twinning of schools on the Internet, and so on.
In the short time available, I also want to consider briefly our secondary schools. I trust that I have already indicated our belief that the earlier children start to learn languages, the better, and our belief in the need to think extremely creatively about how to ensure that opportunities exist in the wider community. But the reality is that at present most children come across the formal teaching of a foreign language for the first time at secondary school.
Motivation needs to continue to secondary school. That is why the new key stage 3 strategy is important. It is designed to improve classroom teaching and learning for 11 to 14 year-old pupils in all subjects, including languages. In essence, it is a major programme of professional development for teachers. We are supporting the strategy with an investment of £489 million over the three years to 2003–04. We shall run a pilot specifically for languages as part of the "teaching and learning in the foundation subjects" strand of the key stage 3 strategy. The pilot will run from summer 2002 until spring 2003, and we are investing £1.2 million in it.
A number of noble Lords referred to the specialist school model. We believe that that is important. My noble friend Lord Radice said that we have approximately 100 but, in fact, we have 126 language colleges—a number that we expect to see grow. Part of the purpose of that model is to allow other schools to access the knowledge and support of specialist schools, including links through ICT. That is one answer to the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in her example of Guildford.
We want to see the links between language colleges and primary schools strengthened, as part of the community links that specialist schools are already required to make. I am also interested in looking at the role of specialist schools as the professional home for language assistants who come to this country and who can provide great support in teaching and learning for our children.
Noble Lords know that we are looking carefully at the curriculum for 14 to 19 year-olds. There will be many opportunities to debate the consultation document on that matter when it is ready. However, I believe that the agenda of motivation and opportunity is the important course to follow in this issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, many young people do not study languages beyond the age of 14. I believe that that returns us to the question: what will make young people recognise the twin motivation of having languages experience as a young person and knowing that it will be of benefit to their futures?
A few moments ago I raised the issue of language assistants. That gives me the opportunity to focus on the question of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel about our links with the embassies of our European partners. We have received a number of proposals from our European partners and from the
1152
ambassadors of those partners. There is a regular dialogue between us and we are very keen to discuss issues with them.
The possibility of the Education Bill reaching your Lordships' House in good time has prevented my planned visit to Madrid—I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that it would have been a one-day visit—to discuss these issues. However, his Excellency the German Ambassador has been in discussion with officials and Ministers at the DfES. We are grateful to him for his ideas. Our task is to weave those ideas into realisable plans that fit together.
We are interested in looking at the opportunities provided by teachers coming from our European partners and other countries who can offer languages. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that we have not only 61 but 100 places available for primary languages. I agree with the noble Baroness that this is an important initiative and one that we wish to promote.
I want to end by talking about the languages steering group and future work. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that not only do I have a steering group but I also have a focus group looking specifically at primary languages. However, more realistically, within the languages steering group we are talking to and working with partners not only from organisations which are deeply involved in languages, such as Nuffield, but also with our colleagues across government: the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry. Of course, we are very mindful of the issues—
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She explained to the House that she was sharing with us this evening some of her background thinking and some of the crossings-out as well as the ticks. However, can she also share with us when she hopes to arrive at a strategy?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, indeed. I shall. This is a slightly long-winded answer and I apologise to the noble Lord, but in replying I want to make two points. The first is that it is very important to the work that we are doing that we have a strategy that is well resourced and that meets with approval from those who will have to implement it. Much criticism is heaped on all governments in all societies for coming up with ideas that have not been tried and tested. It is not our intention to do that.
Secondly, for the next few months the languages steering group will continue to deliberate on the different parts of education. I hope to be able to come to your Lordships' House with a thought-through strategy by the autumn. I say that on the basis that we have already begun to think about that languages strategy. Noble Lords will be aware of that because I know that such documents are in existence. But we need to talk to many colleagues to discuss and debate

1153
what the issues might be. I know that the noble Lord will hold me to that, and I look forward to discussing the matter in the autumn.
I shall be brief in finishing. As the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, said, it is important that this is joined-up government. However, it is also important that we recognise that a political will exists to take action on this matter. I say to my noble friend Lord Radice that we need to be careful about mixing need with political will. We should approach this because it is of value and important to our society, not just simply on the basis of need.
We wish to move to a strategy based on practical action that we can undertake. We shall be exploring all the proposals I have indicated. We are mindful that noble Lords will have other ideas. I look forward to speaking with noble Lords, both in your Lordships' House and outside.
In conclusion I do not pretend that there is anything other than a lot to do. We are fortunate in the partners with whom we are working, including the Nuffield Foundation, CILT, subject associations, business, teachers, students and others. We are determined that our solutions will stand the test of time, can be resourced properly, are not rushed and are well thought through. I hope that I have given your Lordships some indication of our commitment. Once again, I thank my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel for initiating the debate.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for replying in extenso. I note that we have a date in the autumn. Perhaps I may advise her that that date will be met.
My noble friend has given us many ideas. There are many things which both she and the department are studying. As yet we have not had any action on, or a strategy for, the Nuffield report. It is a question of waiting until the autumn. I am sure that noble Lords who have taken part in the debate will hold my noble friend to that. I hope, too, that the Government 'will provide time for a debate on the matter in the autumn.
Meanwhile, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It has been a useful exercise. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Michie, for her speech, which was not in Gaelic. Perhaps I should have replied in Welsh. It was a most distinguished maiden speech and we look forward to hearing from her on many occasions on all sorts of subjects at which she is expert.
On a personal note, I echo the comments of my noble friend the Minister. I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in her place. She was much missed and I am glad that she has returned. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Parliament Act 1949 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
8.3 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I start by offering an apology to your Lordships, particularly to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, for the fact that this is the second week running in which he, particularly, is required to sit on the Government Front Bench and to speak on the tricky subject of Lords reform.
On the other hand, I believe that discussion has moved on since the two day debate of last week. It has become clear, not least from the debate in the other place last Thursday, that the White Paper, entitled The House of Lords, Completing the Reform. will not complete the reform. It is, perhaps, a step on the way. It has provoked argument—which is a good thing—rather than agreement. Therefore, it is appropriate to look further, not so much tonight at the question of composition of the reformed House, which has dominated past debates, but much more, as I should like to do in the context of my Bill, at the powers and functions of a reformed House, a subject which has had much less attention.
I do not expect myself, a single Back-Bencher, to change the British constitution, though it would be pleasant if one were able to do so. However, I hope to use tonight's debate as a lever to get greater thoughts from the Government as to their position on the question of increasing the powers and functions of a reformed and partly elected upper Chamber.
Almost exactly 90 years ago, Winston Churchill, then a young and pretty bumptious Home Secretary in Asquith's Liberal Government, after winning two elections in 1910, and in discussion about what became the Parliament Act 1911, wrote to Asquith on 3rd January 1911, after the second election stating:
"If the Parliament Bill does not make proper progress, we shall clink the coronets in their scabbards".
That is what we spent a large part of the 20th century doing. I suggest that that process occupied us over the past 90 years. At 40-year intervals, the powers of this upper Chamber were steadily diminished because of the dominance in it of hereditary, aristocratic Peers. Surely that has now finished. We move on to a different chapter. The hereditaries now form only 12 per cent of the composition of the upper Chamber. Just as their presence required in the last century our powers to be diminished, surely the possibility now exists that the opposite is true.
The argument works in reverse. We now have a vast majority of life Peers. In my judgment, we shall soon be joined by a proportion of elected Peers. At that stage, the upper Chamber must, at least in logic and reason, be considered as more representative, therefore more legitimate, although I accept that that is a difficult word to define. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider in that context whether the powers are adequate or should be increased. At the same time, in the process of considering reform of the upper

1155
Chamber, in my judgment we should endeavour to institutionalise to a greater extent the powers of a partly-elected upper Chamber, so that we become less dependent on unwritten conventions and last-minute discussions and agreements between, for example, a Home Secretary and a shadow Home Secretary, which Members of the upper Chamber hear only by whisper and of which they are told the decision literally minutes before being required to go to a final vote.
I accept that both the Royal Commission and the White Paper thought that our powers were adequate. Apart from a small diminution of our powers in relation to statutory instruments, they recommended no change. However, at the same time, reading carefully the language, there was a hint that part of the problem for them was that it was all too difficult to make a real change in our powers. That argument has been put to me by several noble friends on these Benches; that is, it is just too difficult to try. Is it right to accept that at this moment of potential reform? Are our powers adequate?
Compared to international examples of other bicameral legislations, our powers are relatively weak. In the United States, the Senate and the House of Representatives, both of which are elected, are equal in legislative power. I often remember a remark attributed to one of the founding fathers, in which he was asked to describe in his judgment the difference between the Senate and the House of Representatives. He drew an analogy with a cup and saucer. He said that the House of Representatives was there as the cup and the Senate as the saucer to catch the overflow from the cup. That is a nice way to put it. We should consider whether or not we are a good enough saucer.
I refer to Australia and Canada, which have more recent constitutions. The United Kingdom played a part in the formation of those constitutions. Australia has an elected Senate. I believe that Canada has a fully nominated Senate. In both cases, they have considerably stronger and greater powers than ours. The upper House may amend or reject any ordinary Bill and may amend financial Bills. In neither case is there any specific limit on the amount of delay that the upper House can impose.
In Germany, the most recent constitution of substantial size—again, one in which after 1945 our British advisers played a considerable part in forming—Bills where the two Houses, the Bundestag and the Bundesrat, do not agree, must be submitted to a joint mediation committee of both Houses. That committee is composed of 16 Members of each House. Interestingly, they serve on it for only one parliamentary session. It is considered to be a very powerful committee. It has to come up with a compromise that is acceptable to both Houses. I suspect that in the long run, after we have a reformed upper Chamber, that is the kind of remedy that we shall arrive at. There will be a joint mediation committee that will try to settle disputes. Obviously that will take a long time to arrive at. In the short term, it is much easier to concentrate on the length of delay
1156
that the upper Chamber can impose on ordinary Bills—not money Bills—coming up from the lower Chamber.
I must confess—perhaps I should not—that as Government Chief Whip under a Conservative Government about 10 or 11 years ago, I found the delaying powers of the upper Chamber irritating, but not a great deal more than that. Mea maxima culpa perhaps, but that is the truth of the matter. Other people might say to me, "Well, all that has changed now. There is a large Labour majority in the lower House. In this House there is a close balance now between Conservative and Labour Members and Cross-Benchers, with the Liberal Democrats adding a good dash of pepper and salt. So the situation is totally different to what it was when you were Government Chief Whip in the Commons". But, having been here now for rather more than four years, have things changed very much? I do not get the impression that they have. We are still very hesitant to use the limited powers that we have. Therefore, in my little Bill, I have concentrated on this delaying power and have sought to extend it in order that, fundamentally, we should have more influence and a stronger negotiating position with the lower Chamber.
The contents of my Bill are very simple. It is only one page long. The effect of Clause 1 is to restore the powers of the House of Lords to delay public Bills coming from the Commons for two years rather than one year. It is a power that existed after the Parliament Act 1911 but was removed by the Parliament Act of 1949. It applies only, as I have said, to public Bills, ordinary Bills that are not money Bills.
There are two important limitations on this. The first clause does not apply to public Bills that come to us from the Commons in the third or subsequent Sessions of a Parliament—in the second half of a Parliament. Therefore, given that most Parliaments last for four or five years, my reason for putting that in was that if a Parliament runs its normal course of four years or more, no new power is being given to the upper Chamber to kick a Bill from the Commons over to the other side of a general election. I thought that that was an important continuing curb and restraint.
The second limitation is in Clause 3 of the Bill. That comes into force at midnight on the day of the first popular election of Members to the upper Chamber.
I have chosen this particular route for a partial restoration of the power of the upper Chamber because the greater the power to delay, the more influence the upper Chamber will have over the lower Chamber, which I fully accept is the primary legislating body. I am not suggesting any alteration to that basic primacy of the Commons. I accept that what I am suggesting is both modest, because it gives the Chamber a greater opportunity to increase its powers to revise and amend only in the first two years of a Parliament, but it is also radical. It is radical because it is the first time that for 90 years we would see a minor increase in the powers of the upper Chamber to coincide with the arrival of elected Members.

1157
I have tried—I want to be in this context—to be constructive, rather than confrontational. I was much struck and much believe in the first sentence in the Prime Minister's opening statement in the White Paper. He said:
"A credible and effective second chamber is vital to the health of Britain's democracy".
That is what we in this period of reform really need to try to achieve.
I end by reminding your Lordships of the remark by Walter Bagehot, the great constitutionalist. He said:
"With a perfect lower House it is certain that an upper House would be of scarcely any value".
As we all know, the Commons is not perfect. I know of no MP who thinks that it is perfect. Greater ability to ask the executive to think again and greater wisdom is needed. That is why I recommend to your Lordships the small return of delaying power to the upper Chamber that is described in my Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Renton of Mount Harry.)
8.16 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, for introducing a Bill which gives us the opportunity to discuss the way Parliament works and what the functions of a second Chamber should be. I wish the Bill well. I trust that it will be very fruitful in all its subsequent stages.
I suspect that the Labour Party, which I notice is barely visible tonight, except on the Front Bench, has not asked itself the right questions. It seized on an obvious anomaly—namely, the hereditary peerage—and asked how this could best be removed. Labour failed to ask: What are the proper functions of Parliament? How can the two Houses best divide the necessary tasks and work together like a pair of organs in the human body? Labour overlooked the consequences of the absence of independents and the effects of rigid party discipline in another place. It seems not to have reflected on the constitutional impact of the "payroll vote" in that place. The combined phalanx of Ministers, junior Ministers, Whips and PPSs together ensures that few, if any, non-governmental amendments are approved in another place. Labour overlooked also the effect of the heavy burden of constituency work on Members of another place. Much of this burden, in my view, relates to matters that are primarily the concern of local authorities. Or, like education, health and housing, they should rationally be devolved to English regions.
I believe that I have touched on some of the factors which account for the low esteem in which politicians are currently held and for the trend towards an ever lower turn-out at general elections. These factors may explain why we in your Lordships' House not infrequently receive letters from people who prefer our reasonably non-partisan debates and our independence of outlook. They may also throw light on the situation in which it was necessary for this House last year to approve 4,761 amendments to Bills.
1158
I believe that that is the correct figure. I am sure that someone will correct me if I have it wrong. The onus of revision and refinement is therefore thrown very largely onto the second Chamber. We have also been subjected to almost annual education and criminal justice Bills. With better scrutiny, both before and after legislation, this could surely be avoided.
For these reasons, I support the den-Land of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, and others for a Joint Committee of both Houses, to consider the parliamentary implications of reform. The interactions of the Houses need to be fully considered on a joint basis, with the minimum of ministerial pressure. The Government said plainly that that would happen, and now they seem to be drawing back. They should bear in mind that the interests of good legislation are permanent and above politics; they are a public need, as important as the interests of justice.
That brings me to the purpose and functions of the second Chamber. It should be complementary and capable of taking a longer-term and more strategic view of policies. Its advice on constitutional matters and on minority and human rights issues should continue to command the respect of all. It also has the supplementary role of constantly calling the executive to account and holding it responsible for the consequences of its decisions. For legislation, the second Chamber is, and should be, primarily a revising one. That is not to exclude Private Members' Bills, private Bills and some government measures originating here. The huge flow of secondary legislation makes necessary a sifting mechanism, to draw attention to significant and controversial orders. There should be power not only to delay secondary legislation, but to reject or amend it as may be desirable.
The second Chamber, as many have said, should retain the right to reject any measure breaching the entrenched quinquennial Act. The task of examining Bills in draft or outline form and of considering the effect of Acts after they have been in force for a period should be shared with the other place. A Joint Committee of both Houses should also consider how the various stages of Bills can most effectively be spread between the two Houses, bearing in mind the variable length and content of legislation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, about mediation and conciliation in disputes between the two Houses. That is most important.
Your Lordships must ensure that the present accumulated experience of European policies and legislation is not diminished. In that context, I have suggested that the British Members of the European Parliament should have the right, when they wish, to attend and speak, but not to vote, in the new second Chamber. On to the existing competence in European matters it would be wise to build a new function of examining treaties, especially those of global significance, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and others have proposed.
The various ombudsmen, inspectors and regulators should all report to Parliament. Their activities could be considered first by the Joint Parliamentary

1159
Committee on Human Rights, which might decide to steer many important points towards the second Chamber. Scientific and ethical issues are also issues in which it has specialised and should continue to specialise.
Nearly three years ago, in evidence to the Royal Commission, I agreed with those proposing a Chamber of some 450 Members. Now, it seems that the target is 600 or more, to accommodate part-timers and to diversify the party political elements. I also advocated the indirect election of a majority, to overcome the inherent lack of democratic credibility of a mainly hereditary or a mainly appointed House. In that, I agreed with the Fabian Society, but I know that the more vocal parts of the public who met the Royal Commission dislike the idea.
I believe that the concept still has merit. It overcomes problems such as the timing and multiplicity of elections and the level of turn-out. It would also reduce the influence of national political parties. That might be helpful. It could help to improve the participation of women and members of ethnic minorities in a reasonably democratic and non-paternalistic way. I do not say that all have to be elected indirectly; a direct percentage would be acceptable, and nomination would still be important if we are to achieve the widest spread of experience and independence.
I shall give two examples of indirect election in practice. It has been suggested that the British MEPs should elect a number of people, not themselves MEPs, to act as a long-term liaison group between Brussels and Westminster. Again, we might consider how the main religious faiths should be represented. I would like that to be done by lay people, rather than—with due respect to the Bishops—by clergy, as at present. The existing Anglican Bishops would retire, and the various faith or denominational groups would be asked to elect a quota of, say, 30 in proportion to the membership of each electing group.
I conclude on the terms and conditions for the second Chamber. It should be called the senate and its members senators, thus finally severing the link between aristocracy and Parliament. I recall the telling phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, who quoted Churchill's phrase about the clink of coronets. The terms of service should be long and should be the same for elected and nominated Members. All Members need not serve for the same length of time, but the terms could range from seven to 15 years. If lists must be used, they should be open ones. The system of daily expenses should be continued for as long as it can attract good quality Members with diverse experience. The nominating body for appointed Members and any other necessary purposes should be essentially a parliamentary one, once again without Ministers. It could, of course, include some non-parliamentarians to represent the wider national interest.
I conclude by putting two questions to the Government. Will they encourage the early formation of a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the
1160
parliamentary implications of reform? Secondly, will they please not dismiss indirect election out of hand, but rather consider its possible merits?
8.27 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry on introducing his Bill to amend the Parliament Act 1949 and limit its application as soon as the first popular election is held to elect Members of your Lordships' House.
The principle underlying the Bill is clear. It is that the powers of the House should not be inhibited to the extent described in the Bill and by my noble friend once the composition of your Lordships' House has been changed to include an elected element. The obverse side of that coin is that the powers of the House should be increased after reform, as proposed in the White Paper or in any other proposals that include an elected element. Judging by the polls, I understand that many people want to see an elected House of Lords. I venture to suggest that what they want is the House of Lords at its traditional best, but elected by them. Of course, they do not want a replica of the other place. That proposition would find favour with the electorate and possibly with the majority of your Lordships.
The underlying assumption in any election is that those elected are given a degree of pre-eminence, and, in politics, that means power and influence. Voters do not vote for nothing. They expect those for whom they vote and who are elected to be able to serve their interests. My noble friend's Bill removes one of the restraints on the power exercised by your Lordships' House. Some of those restraints were self-imposed, over the years, because the House was conscious of its unelected status.
It is curious that the Government have only belatedly realised that they have opened a Pandora's box by proposing an elected element. In the Government's White Paper it is 20 per cent, but according to a report in tonight's Evening Standard under the heading "Blair hints at U-turn on Lords reform", there was a private meeting of Labour MPs at Westminster with the Prime Minister. There was talk of a revised blueprint and the newspaper suggests that that would include a bigger elected element.
Therefore, the ratchet is slipping and there are those who will not rest content until they have an entirely elected House. Such is the threat that the Leader of the House in the other place devoted a substantial part of his opening speech in last Thursday's debate to countering such a proposal. He said:
"No written document would be strong enough to withstand the challenge to the supremacy of the Commons by a second Chamber that felt it had equally good democratic legitimacy".
He went on to conjure up the prospect of a,
"democratically elected House of Lords … which might sometimes find itself pressing for changes with the support of public opinion".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/02; col. 707.]

1161
Mr Cook certainly did not think that statutory restraints on the powers of the House could withstand the test of time in such circumstances, and I believe that he was right.
Curiously, the non-elected, appointed element in the composition of the House has suddenly become all important. It is the Government's last line of defence against more democracy, more accountability. After the two days of debate in your Lordships' House and the one day in the other place, no one is under any illusion as to the purpose of the Government's reforming strategy. It is to remove the Conservative majority and substitute their own as best they can.
Mr Cook put it very succinctly when he enunciated his two core principles of reform—getting rid of the hereditaries and reflecting the state of the parties in the country. He said:
"The Conservative party remains the largest single party in the House of Lords, despite successive record defeats in general elections. I hope that, even among the Conservative party, this debate will establish that there is a consensus that a modern second Chamber must more fairly represent the balance of how Britain votes".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/02; col. 703.]
That last phrase raises the very interesting question of how the non-voters, the abstainers, at the last election, for example, are to be represented. There were some 40.6 per cent of them. Are they to be represented by independents, or not at all? I leave the question open.
Under the White Paper proposals, because of the closed list system of choosing candidates for election and the basis of appointment, 80 per cent of Members would be directly or indirectly appointed by the political parties. That was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. Therefore, what we might be faced with here in the event of a Labour defeat at the polls would be a hangover of Labour domination able to block Conservative measures for some years to come. Alternatively, if Labour continues to win, its measures will be able to pass through this place unscathed. The Government would be assured of victory in the Division Lobbies and the executive's power will know no bounds.
But of course the ratchet has not stopped. The Conservative leader, the right honourable Iain Duncan Smith, has proposed that 80 per cent of his smaller House should be elected on a first-past-the-post basis. His proposals are part of a larger scheme of reform of both Houses designed to increase the accountability of the executive. He, too, has acknowledged that the House should have additional powers. It would be similar in some ways to the American Senate. All his proposals would, of course, be put to a Joint Committee of both Houses, which is to us on this side of the House a sine qua non for the consideration of that proposal.
The point, surely, is that once there is a body with an elected element, especially if that element exceeds 50 per cent of the whole, it will inevitably seek more powers. It is happening already in the Scottish Parliament, in the National Assembly of Wales, and I am sure that it will happen here.
1162
If my noble friend's Bill does no more than highlight the close relationship between elections and powers and hint at the shape of things to come if the Government persist with their plans, it will have served a useful purpose. But I hope that it will do more than that which I have just said.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I join in this debate in order to draw attention to a significant omission in the House of Lords paper, Completing The Reform. It is an omission that I believe could possibly mislead. I refer to paragraphs 29 and 30. The cross heading is "Parliament Acts".
Paragraph 29 deals in general terms with the effect of the Parliament Acts and states correctly,
"The effect is to give the Lords a delaying power, exercised only in exceptional circumstances, but not an ultimate veto. The Government agrees with the Royal Commission that this should continue to be the case".
I turn, more importantly, to paragraph 30:
"The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 were responses to immediate imperatives. Accepting the principle of a reserve delaying power of about one year, the framing of the power might be rather different if it were done afresh. For example, the Royal Commission looked into the question of whether the time limits set out in the Acts were any longer appropriate. They also considered whether the Acts should he applied to Bills starting in the Lords. In both cases they concluded that the changes were far from simple to enact, and the practical effect insufficient to justify the Parliamentary time and effort required. The Government agrees. It therefore proposes no changes to the legislative or conventional framework governing the relationship between the two Houses".
That is all very fine and large but there is no hint of any dissent from the Royal Commission's recommendations in "Changes to the Parliament Acts" and, in particular, paragraph 5.15. That paragraph states:
"That seems to strike the right balance. Any change to the detriment of the second chamber would risk leaving it with insufficient powers to carry out its overall role effectively. We therefore recommend that the Parliament Acts should he amended to exclude the possibility of their being further amended by the use of Parliament Act procedures. This would, in effect, give the second chamber a veto over any attempt to constrain its existing formal powers in respect of primary legislation. On the basis of expert advice, we believe that this could be achieved by a simple and straightforward amendment, for example, by inserting the words 'to amend this Act or' after 'provision' in Section 2(1) of the 1911 Act. This would avoid opening up the whole of the Parliament Acts to debate and amendments".
I turn now to formal Recommendation 19:
"The Parliament Acts should be amended to exclude the possibility of their being further amended by use of Parliament Act procedures".
The short paragraph 5.16 states:
"This recommendation would also secure the second chamber's veto over any Bill to extend the life of a Parliament, since that provision is written into the Parliament Act 1911. Our consultation exercise revealed overwhelming support, from all the main political parties and from the public, for the preservation of the House of Lords' existing veto over any such Bill".
Recommendation 20 states:
"The second chamber's veto over any Bill to extend the life of a Parliament should be reinforced. Our previous recommendation would achieve that".

1163
In the Government's paper there is no indication of their attitude towards that. Indeed, if one read it quickly, it could be thought that they fully accept the proposals. However, it is reasonably clear that they have not done so up until now. On 1st February 1999, the then President of the Council and Leader of the House in the other place, Margaret Beckett, said:
"Should the [House of Lords] Bill be actually obstructed in the Lords, despite being a clear manifesto pledge, or should it appear that the consensus and good faith for which we hope are lacking, then it is to this simple Bill that we would wish to apply the Parliament Acts so that the legislation can be carried in this Parliament, albeit after delay.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/2/99; col. 610.]
Almost a year later, on 19th January of last year, the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, replying at col. 1330 on behalf of the Government—at the time he was the Attorney-General—to a Second Reading debate on the Parliament Acts (Amendment) Bill, which I had introduced, made it perfectly clear that, from the Government's point of view, any attempt to clarify whether the 1949 Act was ultra vires was unnecessary and any attempt to entrench the provisions of the Parliament Act 1911 as amended would be either unnecessary or would not be accepted. That was made quite clear.
I ask the question: what is the Government's position today? Of course they seek a consensus on terms which are satisfactory to them. I make no criticism of that. But if they secure consensus and agreement, after having enacted that consensus will they move on and treat it merely as the basis for further negotiation or further intimidation or further unilateral action? We need to know, because I cannot help but think that the main parties, even though they are the main opposition parties, could not go along with a consensus which was in fact only an interim measure and thus left the other House in a position, in effect, to renege on it, or at any rate, to move on to an entirely different basis.
If the Government do not get a consensus, what are their intentions then? Will they try now to use the Parliament Acts procedures to push through what they believe to be in the best interests of the country as a whole? If that is the case, I ought to warn them that I have no doubt at all that that would be resisted in the courts. Whether the courts would take the view which I am inclined to take; namely, that the amendments apparently produced by the 1949 Act are in fact ultra vires, or whether they would uphold the Government's position, I know not. But it does not really matter because in constitutional terms we ought, if we possibly can, to avoid a situation in which the courts become involved in such an exercise.
On the Bill as it stands, I make only two points. The first I shall apologise for because I am sure that it will be dismissed as a pettifogging legalism. I do not think that the 1949 Act can be amended and produce any results at all. That Act, whether it was good or bad, is spent; it amended the 1911 Act. If the mover of the Bill wishes to move on from there, he will have to amend
1164
the 1911 Act. However, that point does not matter too much since no doubt the Bill could be altered. I thought that I would simply make the point.
On the Bill's merits, I am bound to say that I do not think that this is the time to decide whether we should alter the powers of this House. The time to consider that decision is when there is some clear consensus or determination by the Government as to what are the duties of this House in the parliamentary context; that is, in the context of this House, the other place and of an all-powerful executive. What is the function of this House? Having decided those matters, and seeing what the composition will be—a revised composition—it will then be the time to decide what powers are appropriate. For the moment, however, I go along with the view taken by the Royal Commission. Subject to entrenchment, there is no case at the moment for altering the powers of this House.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I greatly welcome the opportunity afforded by the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, to discuss the powers of this House. I listened with great interest to the cogent speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson, who approached the subject from a different angle but, I believe, with the same general objective as that of the mover of the Bill; that is, to find a way of limiting the executive power being exercised on behalf of the so-called supremacy of the House of Commons.
The debate held last week was concerned solely with the composition of the House, except for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, who did refer to the powers of the House. That followed the lead of the White Paper. In my view, composition and powers are the two blades of the same pair of scissors. I understand that the principle lying behind the Bill is that powers should be proportional to composition. The more authority or legitimacy the House of Lords acquires, the greater should be its powers. This Bill suggests a small, practical step to give effect to a very large principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, reminded us that the Parliament Act 1911 was intended as an interim measure to curb the power of an entirely hereditary House of Lords pending a more radical reform of its composition. It was in that context that a suspensory veto of two years, reduced to one year in 1949, replaced the absolute veto on non-money Bills. Now the House has been recomposed, but ironically the interim measures have achieved the status of holy writ.
The reasoning behind the Parliament Acts was simple. It was wrong that a chamber whose members were there by accident of birth could thwart the will of an elected government. The offence was aggravated by the fact that the hereditary Peers were predominantly supporters of the Conservative Party. Your Lordships' House was memorably dubbed, "Mr Balfour's poodle" in the constitutional crisis which led to the Parliament Act 1911.

1165
I am not sure whether it was the accident of birth or the Conservative allegiance that accompanied it which rankled most with the Liberal and then Labour governments. Had the accidents been more randomly distributed among the political parties, with an occasional inclination towards progressive causes, I suspect that the animus against the hereditary peerage would have been much less. Be that as it may, the two Acts of Parliament were understandable and properly justified in the circumstances of the time.
But those are not the circumstances of today. Practically all the hereditaries have gone and the rest will soon he given their marching orders. There is no Conservative majority. As the Lord Chancellor pointed out, this House now has 220 Conservative Peers, 200 Labour Peers, 65 Liberal Democrats and 189 Cross-Benchers and others. In short, the reasons which led to the two Parliament Acts no longer apply. In strict logic, they ceased to do so from the moment the balance started to shift from accident to merit with the Life Peerages Act 1963. Yet the Government, with widespread support in last week's debate—the only point on which they did have widespread support—have insisted that the relationship between the two Houses set up by those Acts is sacrosanct.
So what are the new reasons for maintaining the status quo? One argument is that even a second House appointed on merit would lack the legitimacy of an elected House of Commons. The Lord Chancellor rightly rejected the suggestion that such a House would have no legitimacy at all. He pointed out that election was not the only route to legitimacy, giving the judiciary as an example. He might have gone further. Spiritual authority has never depended on election—and I doubt whether we would be altogether happy if our hips were replaced by elected doctors or our aeroplanes flown by elected pilots. In the euro-zone, the legitimacy of the European Central Bank is thought to depend precisely on its not being democratically accountable.
The Government in fact propose a hybrid House, with a relatively small elected element; the Liberal Democrats would go further with an almost wholly elected House; and the Conservatives have now jumped onto that particular bandwagon with the idea of a Senate, of which 80 per cent of its Members would be elected. I recognise that in a democracy an appointed or a hybrid House would have an inferior mandate to a wholly elected one. Parenthetically, we should not swallow entire the doctrine of the mandate. The main function of democracy, as I conceive it, is not to implement the will of the people—because what is the will of the people?—but to give voters a chance of choosing their rulers. That is a hallowed tradition in political theory. So I would not overstress the doctrine of the mandate. But, accepting it for the moment, would the mandate of the House which the Government propose be so inferior to the mandate of the House of Commons as to justify maintaining the Parliament Acts in their full rigour? That is the question to which the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, draws attention and which deserves a wider airing.
1166
Behind all the fine talk about maintaining the supremacy of the Commons lies the barely concealed aim of maintaining the supremacy of the executive. We have come to regard the arrangements which make this possible as the bedrock of democracy. But in no other advanced democracy is power concentrated so exclusively on the executive. All other countries have mixed or balanced constitutions. In Britain, there are no general formal checks and balances on the House of Commons at all.
That was not always the case. Before the executive gathered unto itself all the powers hitherto distributed between the Monarch, the Lords and the Commons, there was a balanced constitution. Eighteenth-century political theorists looked to the British constitution as a model of a balance-of-power constitution in devising their own constitutions. But that has gone completely. The process was quite relentless, it was unplanned and it was made possible by the lack of a written constitution. You may say that this accretion of power by the executive was accidental—as accidental as the accidents of birth to which such objection has been taken.
The Government's case amounts to this. By a series of accidents we have reached a situation of executive supremacy with which Ministers are wholly comfortable; "Let us not change that". I fear that historical accidents are no longer quite so fashionable as they were as a basis for constitutional thinking. Once you start stirring the constitutional pot, who knows what kinds of accidents and anomalies will start floating to the surface.
The alternative to accidents is simple—it is logic. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has dipped his toe into the treacherous stream of reason. I believe that we would find it rather invigorating—though perhaps un-English—to follow him at least part of the way.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support my noble friend's Bill. I voted against the 1949 Act—indeed, I may be the only living person who did so—and I confess that, although we feared very much at the time that it would do a lot of harm, both Houses of Parliament have learnt to live with it. But we must remember and bear in mind in all our future decisions on this matter of the composition and powers of your Lordships' House, in particular, that over the past 50 years—especially in the past five years—there have been important changes in composition, particularly in regard to the other place.
For most of the years since 1949 there has been enough talent, experience and expertise in the other place to accept the decisions of your Lordships' House and to realise that they are well founded. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, we make several thousand amendments each year to government legislation and. luckily, so far the other place has always accepted all but a very small number of them. But in considering this particular matter of the law, we must not ignore the changing composition that has already taken place

1167
in the House of Commons and which, if the wrong decisions are made, could take place in your Lordships' House.
As I said in the debate last week, the House of Commons no longer has the people accustomed to responsibility that it needs, whereas there are people in your Lordships' House who are accustomed to responsibility of almost every imaginable kind. That is a factor that we should bear in mind in relation to this legislation and in relation to the composition of the House.
Let me make one or two brief comments about my noble friend's Bill. By the way, he is not the noble Lord, Lord Renton; he is the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry. I would not wish him to be, so to speak, diminished merely by having to use my name.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I apologise.
Lord Renton: Clause 1 is plain enough, but it is fairly far-reaching and we should bear that in mind. Clause 2, strictly speaking, is not necessary, but it has the advantage of removing doubts which might arise. Those are the only two clauses of substance in the Bill.
Those are the only points I wish to make. I hope that the Government, my own Front Bench and members of all parties, in considering the future composition of your Lordships' House, will bear in mind that its powers and the powers of the other place should be related to the talent, experience and expertise available in each House.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we may be suffering from a certain amount of "reform fatigue" when we get to further discussions on the future of the House of Lords. After all, we had two days of debate last week in which there were no fewer than 81 speakers, of whom I was the 79th and the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House was the 81st. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, has performed a useful service by introducing his Bill—although, as he admitted, the Bill is, in effect, a peg on which to hang a debate rather than a Bill introduced with any hope of proceeding into legislation. The noble Lord has performed a useful service because last week's debate was overwhelmingly concerned with composition, whereas this one is primarily concerned with the function and powers of the second Chamber. My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby said last week that reform of your Lordships' House must be considered in the context of reform of Parliament as a whole. I believe that almost everyone agreed with that sentiment but almost everybody devoted themselves largely to considering the composition of the House. In this evening's short debate, we have had the chance to consider the House's functions and powers.
My noble friend Lady Williams made it clear that we want an extension of the functions—rather than powers—of the House. We could usefully perform many functions that we do not. Most obvious among
1168
them is the creation of a Select Committee for scrutinising treaties. There is the possibility of non-legislative participation in debates on fiscal issues. There is a great deal of taxation expertise in the House. It is unfortunate that there is no possibility of that expertise being used in debates on budgetary issues. I am not suggesting for a moment that we ought to have any powers over money Bills but at least it should be possible to establish a Select Committee to look at fiscal and budgetary issues.
There is a strong case also for a Select Committee that would undertake proper scrutiny of secondary legislation and to strengthen the scrutiny of European legislation—matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
Different factors come into account when one considers a clawback of powers to block or delay legislation. I believe that particular debate was settled by the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 and that it would not be appropriate at this stage to reopen it. I do not believe either that this House wants to challenge the primacy of the other place. No suggestion was made in last week's debate that we would wish to do so. We certainly do not want to restore any possibility of legislative gridlock.
One of the anomalies in the Bill is that a measure introduced relatively late in the second Session of a Parliament would take longer to reach the statute book than a measure introduced early in the third. That is a minor matter. There may be a few constitutional issues on which this House should have a power of veto or the power to call a referendum. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, that there is a strong case for entrenching the existing powers of your Lordships' House—including the power of veto over any attempt to lengthen the life of a Parliament—by requiring the consent of this House as well as that of the other place before any such provision could be enacted.
Extending a general delaying power for Bills introduced in the first two Sessions of Parliament goes well beyond that proposal. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. Whatever might have happened if there had been no First World War and an elected second Chamber had come into existence in 1916 or 1917, that was a long time ago. Far too much water has passed under the bridge since then. It is too late to claw back additional delaying powers over those that your Lordships' House has now.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, referred to the views recently expressed in an article in The Sunday Telegraph by the Leader of the Opposition, which—as I understand it—represent in substance the Conservative Party's official line. I strongly agree with the view expressed by Mr. Robin Cook in the quotation given by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts—that membership of the second Chamber should represent the way in which the electorate voted, not the way in which those votes were transmuted into seats in the other place. That would simply create in this House a clone of the other place. While we welcome the

1169
conversion of the Leader of the Opposition to the idea of a mainly elected second Chamber, the methods of election that he proposes are unacceptable.
A first-past-the-post election based on counties of unequal size, with a balance tilted towards rural areas, would give the Conservatives a substantial and effectively permanent advantage in elections to the second Chamber. In normal times, they would preserve—although perhaps not continually—the Conservative majority that has existed in this House since time immemorial. That is not a democratic system and we would be entirely unable to support it.
9.7 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, it is my great pleasure to conclude on behalf of Conservative Members this wonderful debate on an important subject. I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry on the simple and careful drafting of his Bill and on his impeccable timing in bringing forward this measure at a moment when he knew that your Lordships would be focused on reform of the House.
I say right away that we want to see a stronger and more secure upper House. We hope that the Joint Committee on the reform of your Lordships' House—if it is formed as we hope that it will be; the noble Lords, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, Lord Hylton and Lord Roberts, also said that they would like to see such a committee established, as did so many other speakers last week—will consider my noble friend's proposal as an important contribution to their deliberations. I assume that the Government will want to lend the same kind of support to it in principle because it conforms with the views of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House that the new House of Lords is more democratic, more legitimate and better equipped to do its proper job of holding the executive to account.
My noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry has introduced a modest Bill to give effect to that aim or at least to test its sincerity. The Bill proposes to disapply the Parliament Act 1949 for the first half of a Parliament. In other words, for the first half of a Parliament the House of Lords would have a greater period of delay than for the second half, when the 1949 Act would apply.
That arose because after the 1911 Act Members of your Lordships' House still had the power to frustrate legislation approved by the Commons in the last two years of a full Parliament's life. During debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, both drew attention to the fact that both Acts were, as the noble and learned Lord said, "responses to immediate imperatives" and as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky said, to "historic accident".
I believe that it is worth taking a moment of your Lordships' time to describe what actually happened which, I believe, only the noble Lord, Lord Renton, himself will be able to recall. In his memoirs the Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, described exactly what happened and what were the Government's motives with the 1949 Act. He wrote:
1170
"The Government attached much importance to the achievement of its purpose of nationalising the iron and steel industries within the life of the current Parliament. A Bill brought forward for the first time during the 1948–49 Session would not benefit from the protection of the Parliament Act 1911. It was [he says] with this immediate and particular objective in view that the Labour Government brought forward its Parliament Bill which proposed to amend the existing Act of 1911 by reducing the delaying period from two Sessions to one".
During the Bill's passage, Lord Salisbury moved an amendment which declined to give a Second Reading to the Bill,
"for which the nation has expressed no desire".
Lord Salisbury said,
"We believe that the power of a second Chamber to refer back to the electorate doubtful measures which deal with issues of the first importance is absolutely vital to the survival of democracy. We believe that that power provides probably the most essential safeguard in the constitution … and that equilibrium can be maintained only by some power of delay".—[Official Report. 27/1/48; cols. 644–47.]
I believe that what Lord Salisbury was saying was that it was precisely your Lordships' power to delay late and controversial legislation to a general election that was the means of referring such issues to the people.
This debate tonight has been about the proper scope of your Lordships' power of delay, but it is only one of several issues recently raised in your Lordships' House concerning the Parliament Act. In the past 12 months this is actually the second Bill and the third debate that we have had on the subject of the Parliament Act.
The first of two Bills seeking to amend the Parliament Act was introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and received its Second Reading on 19th January last year. I am most grateful to him again this evening for pointing out the "serious omission" on entrenchment that he detected in the White Paper.
It was only a week after that on 24th January that the second debate was initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, calling attention to the Parliament Act in the light of constitutional changes.
The third such debate was on the Second Reading of a Bill which I had the privilege of introducing into your Lordships' House; namely, the House of Lords (Financial Powers) Bill, which brought about a redefinition of a money Bill for the purposes of the 1911 Act so that the present blanket disqualification of the House of Lords in public finance is partly lifted.
The question is: why have all these Bills concerning the Parliament Act suddenly appeared in the past 12 months? I believe that it is simple. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, explained, with its changes to the composition of your Lordships' House,
"the balance of power has been disturbed"
between the two Houses of Parliament.
The result is that Members of your Lordships' House, as tonight with this Bill, have focused their minds on two particular aspects of the Parliament Act which set the balance between the two House during the last century. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, showed, during the course of the Second

1171
Reading of his Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, reminded us of exactly the same point tonight—that the Parliament Act 1911 was,
"an interim measure … pending a constitutional change".
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, agreed with that understanding of the Parliament Act 1911. If I quote the noble Lord correctly, he said that the preamble makes it clear that the Parliament Act was seen as an interim step leading shortly to a full revision of the composition and powers of your Lordships' House.
Tonight my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, reminded us of a second relevant aspect of the history of the Parliament Act 1911, which is that its raison d'être was the hereditary nature of the composition of the upper House. The then Prime Minister, Mr Asquith, made that crystal clear by introducing the Parliament Bill into another place in 1911. However, as was clearly expressed by my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, the Government have now removed the hereditary Peers. They have gone. The Government have cut this House in half in the most dramatic change in 600 years. For the first time, elected Peers are to be introduced.
Yet I fear that the Government's response to calls for changes in the powers and functions of this House will be the same tonight as it has been previously. Even when those calls come from all sides of this House, even when the case is argued as superbly as it was by my noble friend Lord Renton, even when it is argued with images as clear as if they were two blades of the same scissors, the point that composition and powers go together is met with a blank on the part of the Government. I hope that my noble friend's Bill will not receive the same dusty answer as others of us have received.
The view of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, which he expressed on the previous occasion when we debated this subject, is that:
"Essentially nothing has changed that requires any modification of the Parliament Acts".—[Official Report, 24/1/01; col. 299.]
He went on to say that the primary legislative powers of the House as circumscribed by the Parliament Acts should remain unchanged.
Is it not a real mystery that a Government who so despise the forces of conservatism, and who are led with such distinction in this House by the noble and learned Lord—a self-confessed questioner and radical—should be so anxious to uphold history and tradition that they use the events of 100 years ago as the basis for their policy? Why are they so resistant to change? Is it not because, in the mind of the Government, the real analogy is not with cups and saucers, but more in line with the words of Hartley Shawcross in 1946:
"We are the masters now"—
in other words, servants and masters rather than cups and saucers?
1172
The trouble is that if the servant is dressed up in smart new clothes, he may start to think better of himself and think less of his master. The bad luck for the Government in terms of timing is that, just as the servant has been given his new, modern dress, the master has begun to look a little faded around the edges. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, reminded us of the low esteem in which Members of another place are now held. So, splendidly, did the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, in last week's debate, when he said:
"The House of Commons has recently reduced itself to a lower level in public esteem, a less effective watchdog of the executive … than I have ever known, whether in my own direct experience of 54 years in Parliament or in my modern historical writing and reading".—[Official Report, 10/1/02; Col. 701.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said much the same.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, summed the matter up perfectly. He said that we now have the most uncontrolled Ministers in the western democratic world. So the master may have inadvertently participated in one of the oldest stories in literature, which tells children of the mayhem caused when geniis leave bottles and Pandora's Box is opened. This is why the Government are so keen to keep a lid on this debate as on all three predecessor debates. That is why they wish to keep the Parliament Act unchallenged, its iconic status intact.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said that the Government's motives were barely concealed. Perhaps I may bring them out into the light. The Prime Minister's view of the Parliament Act can be summed up in a syllogism: "I like to be in control. The Parliament Act gives me control. The Parliament Act is good".
You can make a House of Parliament more legitimate and you can give it more power; or you can make a House less legitimate and give it less power. But what you surely cannot do is to make a House more legitimate and simultaneously reduce its power—which is what the Government are proposing.
The power of delay is a crucial one. We should be grateful to my noble friend for drawing it to our attention by introducing his Bill. I hope that the Joint Committee, when it is formed, will consider it worthy of its consideration.
9.19 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am also most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, for introducing the Bill. I had a nightmare the other evening and I woke up thinking that a day might pass without us devoting our attention to the subject of greatest interest to many of us—our own future. Fortunately, he has saved me from that gloom.

1173
I am sorry to tell the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that I think that he has inadvertently fallen into error. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, is still alive, so he can remember the passage of the Parliament Act 1949 as well.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I was talking only about those who voted against it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I should not have teased the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
I also sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, who has expressed my general view of the reason for our existence in this temporal world—namely, to cause mischief and irritate those set in authority over us. He certainly succeeded in doing that.
It would be unreasonably economic if I simply attended to the Bill. I do not think that any of your Lordships have limited yourselves in that way. We have revisited the saga of the 81, to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred. My only observation on the Bill is that its odd consequence would be that the delaying power would be more effectively given late in a particular Parliament rather than early. For the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that strikes me as a shade on the bizarre side, to put it at its kindest. The Government will not oppose the passage of the Bill through this House, but it will come as no surprise to your Lordships that we do not agree with the proposal that forms its central core, which is that the powers of a government with a fresh Commons mandate from the electorate are more circumscribed than they are later in that Parliament. That seems wholly bizarre.
A number of questions have been asked. I was asked why the White Paper did not deal with powers and functions. I do not think that that is right. The White Paper says on page 4 that the House of Lords should be:
"A revising and deliberative assembly—not seeking to usurp the role of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent Chamber".
Whether we are right or wrong, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I have made it plain that we think that the duties and functions of this House are to scrutinise legislation, to revise legislation, to give advice to the Government and to the other Chamber arid to have general debates. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is right in pointing to functions, not powers. We have functions that, it has always seemed to me, we could deploy more effectively, but that is a matter for your Lordships' choice. For example, we could sit in the morning and not have two and a half months off in the summer. I have put those points so often in the past that I dare say that your Lordships are getting rather bored with them. That would be a way of deploying our functions much more effectively than we do at the moment.
Arguments have been made this evening about whether we should scrutinise secondary legislation better, whether we should scrutinise treaties at all and
1174
whether we should look at European-derived legislation. There are many views about those topics, but they have nothing to do with the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked a question—echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, and others—about the Joint Committee. I repeat what I said recently in the 81-speech debate. I said that we had been perfectly willing to have a committee to deal with the parliamentary implications. However, I repeat—I think for about the sixth time—that we were riot able to agree terms of reference. On every occasion that I have said that I have never been contradicted, so I doubt that this evening will be a first.
Questions were raised by the noble Lord. Lord Skidelsky, and others about legitimacy. I repeat the view that I expressed in the earlier debate. Election—direct or indirect, with open or closed lists—is not the only route to legitimacy. If the reformed composition of this House, with its powers and functions, is part of a constitutional settlement, that constitutional settlement, approved by both Houses, confers legitimacy.
One then—I hope—asks: legitimacy for what? I would suggest it is legitimacy to carry out those roles and functions that I described earlier—not to have primacy on taxation, and not, ultimately, to be able to insist in the context of primary legislation if the House of Commons, after the Parliament Act, due reflection and delay, decides otherwise.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, asked a few rhetorical questions. There is always a danger about the latter because sometimes they are actually implied. Why is it that we now keep talking about the Parliament Act? A more cynical creature than myself might say it is because we no longer have 400 Conservative Peers in the House. The Conservatives have a majority over the Labour Peers, but they do not have the 400 in-built majority which they rejoiced in, treasured and clung to for so many years. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, gave vent to hyperbole saying that, by inviting the hereditary Peers to go, we had accomplished the most dramatic act in the past 600 years. That is not so—not if I remember the Lord Protector's activities with any degree of accuracy.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, was quite right to say that Clause 2 is not required. I shall say no more about it because it seems to me not to have any effect.
We shall certainly need to consider the way that we operate. The sort of inquiry that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, is carrying out is capable of being most helpful to your Lordships, especially in the post-devolution context and perhaps as regards how we manage our relationships with devolved assemblies. At present, we rely significantly on concordats, but they depend on good will which may not always obtain. It seems to me to be a legitimate question as to whether, as the years unfold, we should perhaps consider more formalised arrangements even if, after consideration, we come to the conclusion that they are not required. I said "as the years unfold" and thus reminded myself that this must be the only legislature in the world where an interim measure is still regarded as such after such a short passage of time as 91 years.

1175
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, was right to observe that we did not accept the recommendation of the Royal Commission as to entrenched powers. I should like to make it perfectly plain that we still do not accept that proposition.
Perhaps I may correct the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, at this point. I should point out to him that we have an open mind on lists. The matter was not set out in the White Paper as something upon which we had decided. I am happy to repeat our position in that respect.
I am sure that Clause 3 of the Bill is not intended as a tease, but it certainly has that effect. If there is a "popular election"with however limited a component of popularly-elected Peers—it implies that that would be some sort of watershed. I do not believe that to be correct, either in principle or in theory. Indeed, I do not think that it would be correct in practice.
All in all, I have tried to deal with the issues raised this evening, extraneous as they may be to the purpose of the Bill. I repeat: the purpose of the Bill is to give an incumbent government less power in their early stages than in their later stages. I find that very strange as a constitutional doctrine.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may put just one question to him. He referred to a possible settlement of the problems that arise at present. If such a settlement is achieved, can the noble and learned Lord say whether that would merely be the starting-point of further demands by the other House, supported by the Parliament Act?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in the absence of a written constitution and bearing in mind that our constitutional development has always been organic and incremental, it seems to me that whatever settlement both Houses arrive at on this occasion—that is, if there is one, as the noble and learned Lord says—it could not conceivably be regarded as the end of the journey; nor ought it to be. In the absence of a written constitution, I believe it would be a sign of terminal decline, not to say death, if either of the institutions to which we have been referring were not
1176
able to change, whether it is in composition or in the way that they actually function within the parameters of their respective powers.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, are we to conclude from his comments that he agrees with the notion that our arrangements are inescapably interim?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, our arrangements share the characteristic of being inescapably interim with all human life and all human activity.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this very interesting debate. I am glad that we had it. I am also glad that it saved the Leader of the House from another nightmare by allowing him to spend a few more hours listening and commenting on the subject.
For me, the noble and learned Lord's most interesting comment was the one that he has just made—that "certainly we will have to look at the way we operate". I believe that that is at the heart of the matter. I do not think that this is the end of the story, and I am very glad that we should go forward in such consideration.
Both my noble friend, Lord Roberts of Conwy, and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, spoke very powerfully about the key point in my little Bill: the close relations between elected Members and powers. I think that that is the discussion and the argument that will continue. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said that in his judgment this is not the time to go into the detail of that issue. I can only ask when the time will be. Surely power and composition must be dealt with at the same time. If we do not do so, we may not have another chance for another 40 years. I do not want that to happen.
I thank very much all those who participated in the debate. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, told me that I dipped my toe into the stream of reason. I am not quite certain what I have to do to get my major limbs into the stream, but, as we are neighbours in Sussex, I shall doubtless find out in due course.
I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before ten o'clock.

  Development Aid: Sierra Leone
  Development Aid: Sierra Leone
  SADC Meeting 17 December 2001
  SADC Meeting 17 December 2001
  "Raves"
  "Raves"
  Sexual Offences: Reviews of Convictions
  Sexual Offences: Reviews of Convictions
  Asylum Seekers: Detention in Prisons
  Asylum Seekers: Detention in Prisons
  Northern Ireland: Bill of Rights
  Northern Ireland: Bill of Rights
  Northern Ireland: Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland: Human Rights Commission
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Deputy Prime Minister: Purpose of Office
  Deputy Prime Minister: Purpose of Office
  Animal Feed Checks: Funding
  Animal Feed Checks: Funding
  Breast Cancer
  Breast Cancer
  Disability Rights Commission: Statement on Abortion Act 1967
  Disability Rights Commission: Statement on Abortion Act 1967
  Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001
  Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001
  Parish Councillors: Registration of Gifts and Hospitality
  Parish Councillors: Registration of Gifts and Hospitality
  Tobacco Growing Subsidy
  Tobacco Growing Subsidy
  EU Environment Council 12 and 13 December 2001
  EU Environment Council 12 and 13 December 2001
  Government-sponsored Museums: Policy for Loans Abroad
  Government-sponsored Museums: Policy for Loans Abroad
  Historic Vessels
  Historic Vessels
  Scottish Constituencies: Westminster Elections
  Scottish Constituencies: Westminster Elections