Sitting of 17 January 2002

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

    Research and Development
    Mr. Mike Hall: What steps she is taking to encourage research and development in UK manufacturing industry. [25545]
    The Minister for Employment and the Regions (Alan Johnson): We have a range of policies to encourage manufacturing research and development. Recent steps have included the announcement on 26 November by my noble Friend Lord Sainsbury, who has ministerial responsibility for science, of the creation of 12 innovative manufacturing research centres, backed by £60 million of Government cash.
    Mr. Hall: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that centres of excellence and research facilities are vital to manufacturing in the regions? Will he comment on the Casim project, which is vital to the future of Daresbury laboratory in my constituency and fundamental to securing a key part of the knowledge base of the north-west?
    Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of the two Casim projects. I am happy to give him and the House an update on the fourth generation light source project. The proposals are undergoing peer review to establish the science case, which is due to be completed in March. The business case will be reviewed thereafter. As for the Sirius project, the science case passed peer review last year and the outcome of the business case is due in March.
    Brian Cotter: I wish to highlight the situation at Westland helicopters, where 900 jobs are being lost: 300 in my constituency and 600 in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws). First, will the Minister take on board the need for support for the rapid funding response bid that will be made this week, and follow that up? Secondly, the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) talked about development of manufacturing industry. In Weston-super-Mare, we are going to lose a high-quality manufacturing facility. Will the Minister consider seriously whether he can do anything to
    412
    avoid that closure? Once we have lost that facility, we will have lost it for ever. I understood that the Government previously made a commitment to keep it going
    Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is right to stress his concern about Westland, which is an important British company and has been mentioned before in the House on various occasions in the last 10 to 15 years. We shall do everything that we can to help it through its current difficulties. I agree that it is an important manufacturing base that we should strive to keep.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: My question is about research and development in the UK aerospace industry. My hon. Friend will know that 46 per cent. of research and development by Rolls-Royce now takes place outside the UK. The commitment of other countries to their aerospace industries is much bigger than that of the UK. Rolls-Royce is a huge employer—in my constituency, it employs 1,200 people—but a third of the work force are being made redundant. It is important that the Government address that to see whether more help can be given to keep research and development in the UK and to tie launch aid to research and development programmes.
    Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of aerospace and research and development. We have invested £1 billion in launch aid for the aerospace industry, some of which is associated with research and development. I fully accept his point about the importance of research and development in all sectors, particularly aerospace. He knows that we have various projects designed to help the aerospace industry and other industries in that important area.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I recently wrote to the Secretary of State to ask whether she would meet a small delegation to discuss the heavy redundancies announced by BAE Systems, not least in respect of the regional jet division at Woodford on the periphery of my constituency. I deeply regret the decision of her junior, the Minister for Industry and Energy, who has just had a quiet word with her, to decline to meet me because he is too busy—[Interruption.] Oh yes, that is exactly what the letter said; he was too busy.
    Does the Minister for Employment and the Regions not think that 1,000 redundancies at Woodford, on top of more than 600 redundancies in other parts of BAE Systems, is a serious matter? Considering the limited research and development that this country puts into the aerospace industry, it would be appropriate if the Secretary of State or one of her Ministers met me to discuss the matter at an early date.
    Alan Johnson: Of course we will. My right hon. and hon. Friends are pleased to meet any Member to discuss such important issues. There may be some confusion in respect of the hon. Gentleman's point, but we would be delighted to meet him to discuss that important issue, not least because the aerospace industry has suffered in the context that he mentioned and experienced considerable adverse effects after the horrendous events of 11 September.
    Mr. Stephen Hepburn: Is the Minister aware that in the Treasury report, the north-east appeared at the bottom of the league table for research and development

    413
    in both the public and the private sectors? If we are to get manufacturing to flourish in the north and move out of a Burger King economy, we need one of those centres of excellence in the north-east. Will he tell us whether we will get one?
    Alan Johnson: Yes. My hon. Friend will get a centre of excellence. We have introduced centres of excellence in six regions so far, and we have another six regions to go. That is an important part of our strategy on research and development. I assure him that there will be a centre of excellence in the north-east.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: Is the Minister aware that the figures for manufacturing output announced this week show the biggest drop for a decade, and that the Trades Union Congress predicts the loss of another 150,000 jobs in manufacturing this year? Did not the Secretary of State's much-vaunted summit last month send out the message that the Government would continue to sit on their hands and watch manufacturing industry in this country disappear?
    Alan Johnson: That accusation is ludicrous. Yes, manufacturing is having a tough time. Around the world, imports have declined across all the economies of the G7 countries. Manufacturing in the US has fallen by about 7.3 per cent. and it has fallen faster and further in Germany than in this country. We cannot insulate ourselves against world events, but the accusation that we are not taking the issue seriously is ludicrous.
    It is politic to examine the policies that we have heard from the Opposition about what we should be doing. If we speak to manufacturers, some of them say that there is a problem with the single currency and the weak euro—no help from the Opposition there. Some say that they need more help through regional development agencies, but the Opposition would scrap them. Our approach is to raise the game of British manufacturing industry, improve skills and investment, and introduce projects such as the industry forum. That is the way to help manufacturing and enable it to compete in a difficult global situation.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I agree with much of it. However, many of the problems could be put right in other ways. We ought to ensure that grants are made available to non-assisted areas for manufacturers who need to invest in new technology to compete with the rest of the world. Does my hon. Friend agree?
    Alan Johnson: I always like to agree with my hon. Friend. Grants are available, and we have assisted many companies. We do not simply sit back, like the previous Government, and leave the issues to market forces. Hon. Members who represent the north-east will remember the help that we have given in respect of ViaSystems, particularly the help directed through the RDAs. We give assistance through enterprise grants and other grants. We are not looking to prop up failing industries, but we are ready to help and advise companies that need it in difficult times.
    Mr. Whittingdale: May I pursue the Minister on Government grants? The manufacturing summit resulted in a package worth £20 million, a large part of which will
    414
    go to the partnership fund, whose major success so far has been to establish an employee forum at Pizza Express. Meanwhile, the climate change levy is costing the engineering sector alone an extra £100 million, even after the cut in national insurance contributions. Was not the general secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union right when he said two weeks after the summit:
    "They're incompetent when it comes to governing. They don't care about manufacturing. The end result is that my members' jobs are going down the plughole and this Government isn't lifting a finger to help"?
    Alan Johnson: Once again, that is the wrong analysis of the problems facing manufacturing industry. It does no service to manufacturing to make such comments. According to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), the Tory party is defined more by what it is against than by what it is for, and it is time to stop point scoring. [Laughter.] I am only quoting the hon. Member for Buckingham. The problems that manufacturers face were discussed at the manufacturing summit. The £20 million investment is for the partnership fund and the industry forum. The industry forum, which has been introduced into the automotive industry, into the aerospace industry and now into chemicals and other parts of manufacturing, has had huge success. I remind Opposition Members that the TUC and Confederation of British Industry report on productivity, particularly as it pertains to manufacturing industry, is what we are taking forward from the manufacturing summit on 5 December.

    Renewable Energy
    John Thurso: When she last met the energy regulator to discuss renewable energy supplies. [25546]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I met the energy regulator on 15 November, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy met him on 11 December. The matters that we discussed at those meetings included the development of renewable energy supplies.
    John Thurso: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Is she aware of the article in the Financial Times of 5 December in which the energy regulator was reported as saying that energy projects such as those in my constituency
    "would represent poor value for money"?
    May I draw to her attention the unique combination of circumstances, both climatic and tidal—and including skills such as those available at Dounreay after decommissioning—that make areas such as my constituency extremely good for renewable energy? Will she ensure that it will be Government policy, irrespective of what the regulator says, to continue to support such initiatives in such areas?
    Ms Hewitt: I am aware of the press report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I am also aware that the energy regulator was misrepresented in it. If he cares to read the transcript of Callum McCarthy's appearance at the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, he will find that it does not bear out the press report.

    415
    I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's other point. In Scotland, we have some of the best offshore wind, wave and tidal resources in the world. We want to use those resources to deliver cleaner energy to consumers. Callum McCarthy was saying that we need to ensure the right transmission and distribution infrastructure, especially on the west and north coast of Scotland and England, to enable us to use renewable energy sources that are situated at some distance from the main centres of electricity demand. That is what we are seeking to do.
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: What guarantees can the Secretary of State give to the House that huge swathes of the beautiful English countryside will not be blighted by these obnoxious looking windmills—noisy instruments that cannot generate enough electricity even to boil a decent kettle? What guarantees will she give that the English countryside will not be ruined by these obnoxious things?
    Ms Hewitt: I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not like the appearance of modern windmills. I think that they are rather beautiful. Environmentalists cannot have it both ways. If we are committed to the development of renewable energy, and if we want to meet our Kyoto targets—and, indeed, targets beyond that—and deal with the problem of climate change, then yes, we have to meet the targets that we have set. That means ensuring that 10 per cent. of our electricity comes from renewable energy by 2010—and, frankly, more beyond that. Environmental issues, especially in respect of areas of outstanding natural beauty, are always taken into account when planning decisions are made on the siting of wind farms.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: It is all very well the Secretary of State saying that and telling us how keen she is on renewable energy, but what is she going to do about NETA, the new electricity trading arrangements, which, as she will know, have led to the closure of several small wind farms and other projects, and have caused a reduction of more than 60 per cent. in the production of energy by combined heat and power plants? They are destroying renewable energy projects and not working to increase the amount of renewable energy that is produced.
    Ms Hewitt: I am well aware of the concerns that have been expressed about NETA, especially by producers of combined heat and power. Let me stress that, generally speaking, the arrangements have been an enormous success, as we have a much more transparent and efficient pricing system that has brought wholesale electricity prices down by 25 per cent. These are new arrangements and yes, they are causing difficulty, especially for CHP and other small-scale renewables. We are considering that problem and consulting on possible measures to deal with it. We now have a working group that will report to me and my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy by the end of January on how we can overcome those obstacles and ensure that, within the NETA framework, we can still ensure the development of small-scale renewables.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that until there is a critical mass of facilities in the United Kingdom, renewable energy will be
    416
    considerably more expensive than the traditional, rather dirty and sometimes environmentally unfriendly systems? We must ensure that the attack on fuel poverty continues. She and her colleagues must advise the regulator because the problems with NETA arose in the absence of such advice. The rightly desperate desire to roll out the new system resulted in short-term disadvantage for renewable energy. A balance must be struck, but in the interests of the poor in the first instance.
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right about the overriding importance of dealing with the appalling problem of fuel poverty, which stems fundamentally from an outdated and inadequate housing stock. The Government are making huge investments in warmer, energy-efficient homes, which allow people on low incomes to heat their homes better at lower cost. We will maintain that programme. We are also doing a great deal to invest in the development of renewable energy, not least through the renewables obligation.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Job losses have occurred in a small company in my constituency that manufactures hydro-generating equipment. It is one of the few remaining such manufacturers in the United Kingdom. When renewable energy is next examined, may I appeal to the Secretary of State to consider thoroughly the delays in the planning process throughout the United Kingdom? Such delays in approval for projects deny jobs in many constituencies.
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We have extended the renewables obligation to include smaller-scale hydro-electricity plants. I hope that that will help to stimulate the growth of such plants and thus of demand for the products made by the manufacturer in his constituency. That is the best way in which to deal with his constituents' problems, with which I have enormous sympathy.

    Dominican Republic
    Mr. Huw Edwards: If she will make a statement on the role of the Export Credits Guarantee Department in supporting British trade with the Dominican Republic. [25547]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): In the past two years, the Export Credits Guarantee Department has provided more than £50 million in export credit support for British exporters to the Dominican Republic. It has recently made a further £10 million available.
    Mr. Edwards: Fairfield-Mabey in my constituency has negotiated a contract for $125 million of work, providing steel road bridges in the Dominican Republic. However, the ECGD is providing only $10 million of cover, whereas the equivalent agency in America is offering much fuller cover. That may mean the loss of jobs and technology to the Americans. Will my hon. Friend discuss increasing the cover with the ECGD to help to keep the jobs in my constituency?
    Nigel Griffiths: The Mabey group has already received substantial support of more than £340 million from the

    417
    ECGD for eight projects in six countries. More than half the ECGD support in the Dominican Republic has gone to Mabey and it has been offered a further £10 million in that country. Of course we shall continue to work hard to eliminate unfair competition among international export control agencies.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Is not it essential for the interests of the taxpayer that the ECGD exercises its scrutiny responsibly and carefully on a case by case basis to ensure that unnecessary exposure does not occur? The Dominican Republic has one of the sounder economies in the Caribbean, with a big tourist trade and reasonable political stability. Will the Government therefore maintain a positive attitude towards British business in the area?
    Nigel Griffiths: Of course we will maintain a positive attitude. As I have said, more than £25 million out of £50 million of ECGD support to the Dominican Republic alone has already been made available to the group of companies to which my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) referred. Each case must be examined on its merits.

    Postal Services
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: What steps she has taken to ensure that the universal service provision is adhered to in the UK market for postal services. [25548]
    The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Government enshrined the universal service obligation in the Postal Services Act 2000. The Act provides that it is the primary responsibility of the postal regulator—Postcom—to exercise its functions in a manner best calculated to ensure the provision of a universal postal service. It is therefore for Postcom to determine how the universal service obligation is implemented in the interests of consumers.
    Mr. Pickthall: Is my hon. Friend confident that, given its recent performance, Consignia is capable of sustaining the universal service obligation? Given that that obligation involves reliable daily deliveries to every household and business in the country, will he use his influence to see that it is extended to the Liverpool postal area?
    Mr. Alexander: I appreciate the points that my hon. Friend has made. There have been particular challenges in Liverpool, which is why I was pleased that Lord Sawyer attended the Liverpool sorting office while preparing his report on the Post Office.
    Of course Consignia has to do more in terms of providing the quality of service that people are looking for, and we have actively taken steps to strengthen its management. I must re-emphasise the point that the primary obligation of Postcom is to secure the universal service obligation. It is the regulator's prime function to ensure that the service is enjoyed not just in Liverpool but right across the country.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Is it not wholly unrealistic to expect that the universal service obligation, which depends on cross-subsidy within the Post Office, can continue to be maintained when Consignia is making mounting losses because of intensifying competition and industrial disruption? What kind of guarantee can the Minister give that these crucial social service obligations will continue to be provided—by the Government, if necessary—when the Post Office is forced to default on its universal service obligation because of its financial difficulties?
    Mr. Alexander: As I said earlier, the primary obligation of the regulator is to secure the universal service obligation. There is no doubt that Consignia faces considerable challenges. Not least as a shareholder, the Government are determined to see the improvement of the company in the months and years to come. That is why we have taken active steps to improve the management. The chairman of Consignia is being appointed at the moment. Allan Leighton has been appointed to the board with particular responsibility for overseeing network issues. A new financial director, Marisa Cassoni, has also been appointed. I am confident that, on the basis of continued application and hard work, not just by the management but by the employees, we shall see the kind of step change in performance that all hon. Members agree is necessary for Consignia.
    Geraldine Smith: Is the Minister aware that the regulator is putting thousands of postal workers' jobs at risk by allowing competitors to cherry-pick the most profitable areas of the postal business while restricting Consignia's ability to raise its prices to the levels necessary for it to meet the universal service obligation and to make a profit? Does he agree that this has the potential to plunge the country's postal services into a shambolic mess?
    Mr. Alexander: One of the terms of the licence granted to Consignia was to uphold the universal service obligation. It is also important to recognise that liberalisation is coming not only from the Postal Services Act 2000—which was supported by many hon. Members on both sides of the House—but from Europe. There is simply no alternative for Consignia but to improve its performance, and that is why the Government are taking active steps to ensure that that happens.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: What action will the Minister urge on the regulator in the light of Consignia's persistent failure to meet its delivery targets, the scrapping of the second delivery, and the loss of 1 million items of mail a week? Given the already deteriorating postal service in this country, will he take this opportunity to condemn unreservedly the threat of strike action?
    Mr. Alexander: Of course, any strike action is to be regretted, not least in a service on which so many people rely. It is important at this critical stage in the negotiations that management and unions work together to find a resolution to this prospective dispute. The implementation and securing of the universal service obligation rest

    419
    primarily with the regulator; the terms of any change in delivery schedules by Consignia would also be a matter for the regulator.

    Consignia
    Mr. David Stewart: If she will make a statement on the decision to grant commercial freedom to Consignia. [25549]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Commercial freedom for Consignia, which is provided by the Postal Services Act 2000, was widely welcomed on both sides of the House as well as by management and unions. That freedom is essential to enable Consignia to improve its services and performance.
    Mr. Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend raise in future discussions with Consignia the issue of rural areas in which the post office is not just a business, but a community centre where postmen and women both deliver the mail and act as social workers? Does she share my view that with commercial freedom comes social responsibility?
    Ms Hewitt: Yes I do, and that is precisely why the 2000 Act places on the regulator the primary duty of ensuring that the universal service obligation is maintained. My hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness and I have already discussed with Consignia the steps that need to be taken to maintain not only the delivery service in rural areas, but the rural network. That will prevent avoidable closures, and we are investing substantial sums in it.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Is not the unique achievement of this Government and this Secretary of State driving Consignia—the Post Office—into sustained and substantial deficit for the first time? Does she have any view as to why that has happened? There can be only two reasons: either sales have fallen or costs are out of control. Which is it?
    Ms Hewitt: There is a simple reason for Consignia's current state of affairs: the complete failure of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member to deliver commercial freedom to the Post Office when it started to ask for it 10 years ago. If it had been given commercial freedom when it should have been—when management and unions wanted it—it would have been able to begin the necessary restructuring instead of delaying that until now.
    Alongside that is the fact that the growth in volume of mail and parcels has been dropping off, not least because of e-mail. The Post Office and Royal Mail in particular have high fixed costs that they simply do not have the income to cover. That is why management and unions must work together. They need to create an effective partnership to deliver a much better service to their customers and much better conditions to their workers.

    Wind Energy
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What time scale she expects for the development of offshore wind energy. [25550]
    The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Brian Wilson): The Government are vigorously encouraging the development of all forms of renewable energy, including wind energy, both onshore and offshore. We expect offshore wind energy to make a significant contribution to the UK energy mix by 2010. Eighteen offshore wind farm projects, each of 30 turbines, successfully pre-qualified for sea bed leases from the Crown Estate earlier this year. Construction of the first of those projects could begin in 2003.
    Mr. Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend agree that offshore wind power is not only an important new energy source with huge environmental benefits, but a great opportunity to create more jobs if British companies can get ahead of their German and Danish competitors in developing, constructing and installing the wind turbine structures? What encouragement can he give British firms in the supply chain so that they have the confidence to make the necessary investment to secure the jobs in this country, particularly in coastal communities with high unemployment such as Lowestoft, which is trying to diversify from oil and gas fabrication? Will he visit Lowestoft to see the pioneering work being carried out by a local firm, SLP, which is involved in a project to build the largest wind turbine in Europe?
    Mr. Wilson: I know about SLP, I would be delighted to visit Lowestoft and I could not agree more strongly with the premise of my hon. Friend's question. The link that must be made between renewables and manufacturing is exciting and challenging. This country lost the lead in wind power 20 years ago, because we had a Government who did nothing to support it, and the Danes picked up what is now a £4 billion a year worldwide manufacturing industry and market. We shall not let that happen again with wave, biomass and other technologies in which we still have the worldwide lead. We can catch up on wind power, but to do so we must have both projects and domestic demand offshore and onshore, which means tackling what is obstructing that.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: When the Minister comes up to Lowestoft, will he also visit King's Lynn? He will learn that, subject to planning permission, the Crown Estate has indeed let a contract for 60 turbines at King's Lynn and one for 30 turbines offshore from Cromer. Does he agree that, however desirable offshore renewable wind energy is, it is vital that fishery interests are considered when locations are decided? Otherwise, irreparable damage could be done to the cockle, whelk, mussel, shrimp and crab fishery off the Norfolk coast.
    Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I am due to meet the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to discuss all these matters.
    As in everything, we must strike a balance. Of course other maritime interests must be consulted and considered, but we must not have blocking mechanisms,

    421
    and stalking horses of initiative that appear to be environmentally based but whose objective is actually to block renewables projects including this major potential source of energy, offshore wind.
    Mrs. Joan Humble: The Minister will know of proposals for not just one wind farm but three off the shores of my constituency. May I reinforce the point about consultation with the local community? In my area there are two issues, tourism and fishing. I hope the Minister will ensure that there is full and frank discussion with representatives of both those interests, especially representatives of the fishing industry, which was mentioned earlier. In my constituency, the proposal is to build the three wind farms on the Shell flat, which is the prime fishing ground for Fleetwood fishermen.
    Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend makes a good constituency point. Of course there must be consultation, and people have a right to expect account to be taken of all possible impacts when applications are considered. What we must not have, however, is institutionalised objection to every project that is proposed. That applies to offshore wind, onshore wind and all other renewables. At some point, a contradiction will arise if we as a Government, and the country generally, pay lip service to renewables without willing the means to deliver the necessary contribution. Obviously each project must be scrutinised, but there must also be a generally positive attitude to the development of the industry.
    Mr. Robert Key: The Minister did not answer the question from the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) about the time scale. How confident is he that the growth in renewables will be fast enough to fill the gap left by the 25 per cent. drop in our baseload generating production with the gradual disappearance of nuclear generation—or will he replace it?
    Mr. Wilson: The country currently has a healthy energy mix, and the Government and I have an obligation to ensure that it is maintained. That is why the Prime Minister established the energy review, whose recommendations he has now received. They will be published in the near future.
    The earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question related directly to my previous answer. We will not meet 10 per cent. targets unless projects go ahead, which is why we must maintain the momentum behind renewable energy that exists for the first time in this country. It did not exist 20 years ago, or 10 years ago. I shall not dwell on the failures of the last Government, but we now have a great potential contribution to our energy source and a potentially great new manufacturing industry.
    Miss Anne Begg: May I associate myself with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard)? Offshore wind will be important for the diversification of the economy in the north-east, and important to Aberdeen. I can tell the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), however, that there is another source of energy that can plug the gap he mentioned. Yesterday's announcement of licences out of round for fields that were previously abandoned, and this morning's announcement of the 20th round for oil and gas
    422
    licences in previously rediscovered and explored fields in the North sea, prove that there is still a future for oil and gas, and for the economy of the north-east.
    Mr. Wilson: I could not agree more enthusiastically, having returned from Aberdeen only this morning. We have heard three wonderful announcements. We have heard about the revitalisation of the Argyll field, the first from which North sea oil came ashore, and about the initiation of a 20th licensing round. Late last night, the news came from Canada that Pan Canadian has identified the Buzzard field as the biggest discovery in the North sea since 1998.
    We must make the link. This is not some abstract energy issue; it is about jobs. Many thousands of jobs related to North sea industry will be both protected and created as a result of those three excellent events.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the Minister agree with the earlier comment from a Labour Back Bencher that many people are in despair at the proliferation of onshore wind farms, which do not even produce the amount of energy that offshore wind could produce? We need that to happen in the Celtic sea especially. Ireland is taking advantage of that resource and the Irish Government are investing in the biggest offshore wind farm in the whole of western Europe. Should not that be happening in UK territorial waters? What infrastructure will the Minister put in place so that offshore wind farms can be developed off Wales and in the Celtic sea?
    Mr. Wilson: On the last point about infrastructure, I have initiated a feasibility study on a sub-sea cable off the west coast, so that all the areas that have the potential to contribute to our renewables industry can be linked to the grid. The grid was geared to a coal and steel economy and we must now change it so that it can also be linked to a renewables economy. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises the problem: he wants us to build large offshore wind farms all over the place, but the opposite view has been expressed by other hon. Members. People must take a balanced view and we must act collectively. If we are to have a serious renewables industry, we must be able to drive forward projects without them being blocked for years, sometimes on unreasonable grounds. At the same time, we must protect the right of scrutiny.

    Steel Industry
    Ms Meg Munn: What steps she is taking to ensure that the UK steel industry can trade freely in the USA. [25551]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): We are making every effort to ensure that US markets remain open to exports of UK steel products. Working very closely with the European Commission and our European partners, we are in frequent contact with the US Administration to seek to persuade them not to impose unilateral restrictions on trade.
    Ms Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will she impress on the US Administration that much of the steel industry in Britain has already undertaken the

    423
    restructuring that President Bush has requested and that the imposition of trade restrictions would be detrimental to my constituents who work in the steel industry and would have negative effects on the steel industry in many countries? Importantly, it would significantly hamper the valuable work that has been done by the OECD steel group to find ways of addressing the need for restructuring throughout the world steel industry.
    Miss Johnson: In addition to my answer, I can tell my hon. Friend that the Prime Minister yesterday wrote to Sir Brian Moffatt to confirm that we take the issue very seriously. We are continuing to press our case at the highest level and he will press the case with President Bush at an appropriate time. I agree that the safeguard action will not solve the problem of global overcapacity in steel production. The problems that are being experienced in the US are largely of its own making and we believe strongly that it should not seek to export those problems to the rest of the world. We will continue to register our strongest opposition to the proposals and I agree that the OECD and multilateral talks about how to deal with the problem on a global basis are the way ahead.
    Tony Baldry: Does the Minister agree that those who advocate global free trade cannot just pick and choose which bits of free trade they are going to support? Are not the US's proposed sanctions and tariffs against UK steel in breach of World Trade Organisation legislation?
    Miss Johnson: I entirely agree. The proposed US action is contrary to its WTO obligations.
    Dr. Ashok Kumar: Is my hon. Friend aware that more than a year ago steel industry management at Corns announced the closure of Teesside technology centre and the transfer of the work force to a new technology centre in Sheffield? Many of my constituents who work at the Teesside technology centre are still waiting to hear about their future. Will my hon. Friend raise that matter urgently with the Corns management?
    Miss Johnson: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, because the staff involved are highly skilled scientists and lab technicians. Uncertainty over the future of such highly marketable individuals is not helpful. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy will raise the issue when he meets the company shortly, including the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland. East (Dr. Kumar).

    Export Credits Guarantee Department
    Mr. Peter Viggers: What real return on capital employed is required of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. [25552]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): None.
    Mr. Viggers: I find that reply rather baffling. Is the Minister aware that other nations run their export credit as a facility for exporters, whereas the Export Credits Guarantee Department is run as a profit centre and is
    424
    expected to make a 6 per cent. return on capital employed? Is he aware that there is a widespread feeling that our exporters—especially small and medium enterprises—are disadvantaged because of this? Is he concerned about that? What is he going to do about it?
    Nigel Griffiths: The facts are these: last year saw the largest amount of supported business in this area for a decade. We backed more than 100 UK exporters and investors to the tune of £5.6 billion, securing tens of thousands of jobs here. In the light of that record last year, we will take no lessons from Conservative Members.
    Mr. Andy Reed: Is the Minister aware that there is great disquiet about the transparency of the export credits guarantee scheme; in particular the decision to allow an export to Tanzania before Christmas, which came under great scrutiny in the media? However, there has been little chance for Members of this House to scrutinise the decision here. Where there is criticism of particular export credit guarantees, will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that we are able to discuss those and to press home the case that sometimes they are not in the best interests of the country concerned?
    Nigel Griffiths: I am not sure if my hon. Friend is referring to the Tanzania air traffic control project.
    Mr. Reed indicated assent.
    Nigel Griffiths: He is. I can tell the House that it receives no ECG support, nor is it seeking it.

    Computer Hardware Industry
    Michael Fabricant: What steps she is taking to promote employment in the computer hardware manufacturing industry; and if she will make a statement. [25553]
    The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Government are today announcing a new £24 million LINK programme to support collaborative research in information storage and displays. This should lead to the development of the next generation of monitors and disk drives for PCs. The Government already have in place a range of assistance and schemes that are designed to increase the productivity and competitiveness of UK industry.
    Michael Fabricant: That is good news for the industry. The Minister, who represents a Paisley constituency, will be aware of the fall in the number of jobs available in the development of computer hardware and computer chip technology. He will be aware that this is partly due, but only partly, to there being overcapacity in the world market. Is it not also the case, as the chairman of Fujitsu pointed out, that, for the first time since the last Labour Administration in the 1970s, the on-costs of employment in Britain are now higher than in Germany? Is it not the case that companies such as Siemens, Fujitsu and others who are having to cut back in a worldwide market are now choosing Britain to cut back rather than Germany

    425
    and other countries because the cost of employment here is now so much higher because of Government legislation?
    Mr. Alexander: As we have said, we cannot wholly insulate ourselves from international challenges at the moment, and the overshoot in the technology sector generally over the last couple of years is having an effect on the British market. The challenge does not come just from Germany. The challenge for computer manufacturing more widely is to move up the value chain in the UK. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to mention my constituency of Paisley, South. In that area we are clear about the importance of computer manufacturing. The Compaq facility—where I myself was employed—is only just down the road. The challenge for such facilities is this: how do they move from basic computer manufacturing up the value chain, often involving software design? That is why the money being put into research and development by this Government is critical in assisting those companies as they move up the value chain.
    Margaret Moran: I congratulate my hon. Friend on yesterday's conference on women in IT, which was intended to increase the employment of women in the computer industry and across the technology industry. However, the record in terms of the employment of women is lamentably bad in that sector. With that in mind, what further measures will the Department take to increase the awareness of employment opportunities in those industries among young women, particularly, whose perception of the industry is that it is full of net nerds?
    Mr. Alexander: I endorse entirely my hon. Friend's statement. If we are to be globally competitive, we cannot afford to draw on the talents of only half the population of the UK. That is why I particularly welcomed yesterday's announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If I had to refer to one aspect of it, it would be the work done by ambassadors, who are going into schools and actively talking to young women about potential employment opportunities within this dynamic and important sector.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Minister may recall that the 2000 Budget document stated that Britain would be the best place in which to trade electronically by 2002. The year 2002 has arrived and the latest report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development suggests that Britain is 22nd in the ranking of those with access to broadband technologies. Will the Minister acknowledge that the Government have failed in their target, and what will he do to rectify the lack of broadband access?
    Mr. Alexander: The hon. Gentleman will know that, in December, we published the broadband stakeholders group report, which drew on wide expertise from across industry. We also published the next stage of the Government's strategy in response to the challenge of broadband. Two challenges exist: extending the 60 per cent. infrastructure coverage that exists at present, and driving up broadband usage levels. At present, 1.9 million small businesses are online. One of the challenges in broadband is to deliver services and content that small
    426
    businesses consider to be valuable. That is I why I especially welcomed the initiative that we launched in December, "Broadband Britain: The Content Challenge", which was directed specifically at developing content that will drive up broadband usage in the months and years to come.

  MINISTER FOR WOMEN
  The Minister was asked—
  MINISTER FOR WOMEN

    Child Care
    Caroline Flint: What steps she is taking to encourage those responsible for economic development and regeneration to include child care provision in their strategy. [25582]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The women and equality unit, my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and the Regions and I have raised this issue directly with the chairs of the regional development agencies. They are currently discussing the best way in which RDAs can support child care provision.
    Caroline Flint: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. In my constituency, there is a very large brownfield site at the old RAF Finningley that we hope will become a regional airport. Tomorrow, I shall visit the Flying Start day nursery, which provides child care resources for employees of the 35 companies that are based there already. However, neither the RDA nor objective 1 status has helped the child care situation, and guidance is needed in two ways. First, where there is funding for facilitating or creating employment, the people who oversee that funding must recognise that child care is an important element. Secondly, deprived communities often benefit from community-based funding, and although a brownfield site may not be situated in a deprived community, it may provide employment opportunities for people from those communities. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that more lateral thinking and creativity are needed in those respects?
    Ms Hewitt: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's expertise in this matter, and to her work in founding the all-party parliamentary group on child care. She makes an enormously important point whose relevance goes beyond her constituency. I want RDAs, councils and business partnerships to understand, when they plan new business sites, that providing for child care is as important as getting the transport links right. I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills the specific matter of funding for child care in disadvantaged communities.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: May I first welcome the fact that the Government have devoted parliamentary time specifically to questions on women's issues? When I attended the induction programme for child minders in the Solihull borough, I was struck by the fact that the application pack that had to be filled in comprised six booklets. That deters many people from applying. Along with the demise of play groups under

    427
    Labour, that has led to the fall in the number of child care places in many deprived areas. Does the Minister accept the need for more support and encouragement for community child-minding groups? They are crucial to the expansion of child care in such areas.
    Ms Hewitt: I echo the hon. Lady's welcome for the introduction of this question session. If it is not exactly "Woman's Hour", it is at least women's 10 minutes. I also want to thank my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, who ensured that this innovation happened.
    The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) is right that community child-minding groups are enormously important. The Department's social enterprise unit, which I created, can help to promote them, as can the early-year child care partnerships that we have created around the country. However, I also point out that we have created new child care places already for more than three quarters of a million children. I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise that achievement and support us as we build on it.

    Equal Pay
    Joan Ruddock: What progress has been made on the Government's commitment to ensure equal pay reviews are carried out by March 2003. [25583]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Departments and agencies are at various stages of reviewing their pay systems. The Cabinet Office is about to issue comprehensive guidance to assist Departments and agencies in carrying out those reviews to ensure that our commitment is met.
    Joan Ruddock: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. As someone who pressed for such a slot in 1997, I particularly welcome this dedicated Minister for Women's Question Time and hope that it will be extended.
    Is my right hon. Friend aware of work carried out in the new Welsh Assembly? Its gender pay audit has discovered that a gap of as much as 10 per cent. exists between women's and men's pay in some posts. She may be aware that the Finance Minister has committed to find extra funds. Will she bring to the attention of Whitehall the information obtainable from the Welsh Assembly? In addition, will she talk speedily to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about how money can be made available if required to ensure that the civil service is brought into compliance with the Equal Pay Act 1970?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend has been a great champion for women, not least when she was Minister for Women. On the pay gap that continues to exist in the public sector, this week I have written to all my Cabinet colleagues asking them to co-ordinate and to bring together examples of best practice on equal pay and on flexible working in their Departments and agencies, so that we can do much better across the board. I note that already several Departments and agencies have included proposals to
    428
    reduce the pay gap in their settlement for the current year. I will certainly pick up the point that she makes about the work in the Welsh Assembly.
    Sandra Gidley: I add my welcome to the 10 minutes, but with a slight note of caution because I notice that a number of questions have been withdrawn. If we have a very narrow focus for women, we are not doing the job properly.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must speak to the question.
    Sandra Gidley: I come to my question now, Mr. Speaker.
    The equal opportunities task force has recommended that there be a legal liability on employers to audit staff pay to highlight any gender discrepancies and to remedy the situation. Will the Minister commit to introduce such legislation and if so when?
    Ms Hewitt: In the private sector, it is much better, within the legal framework that we have got and that we are strengthening, to spread the use of pay audits by means of promoting best practice, which we are doing, particularly through the fair pay champions and the Castle awards. That is better than introducing another statutory requirement on business.

    Flexible Working
    Ann McKechin: How the Government intend to review the operation of the new statutory scheme on flexible working. [25584]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): We plan to carry out surveys of employers and employees before the legislation on flexible working is implemented to provide a baseline against which to judge changes. We will then repeat the surveys three years after the legislation has been implemented. We will monitor experience from day one through calls to helplines, tribunal cases and so on. That will give us the basis for deciding what further changes may be needed.
    Ann McKechin: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. She will be aware of the appointment this week of the new permanent secretary at the Department for International Development—a male member of staff—on a flexible hours contract to allow him more access to his six-year-old daughter. Does she agree that that represents an excellent example of how flexible working can be incorporated in all levels of work, including senior management, and that the review should consider extending the benefits of flexible working to parents of children aged between six and 10?
    Ms Hewitt: We will examine that specific question about the age of the child when we review the effectiveness of the new law but fundamentally it is about achieving a massive culture change within business and the public sector. I agree with what my hon. Friend has said about Suma Chakrabarti's appointment as permanent secretary at DFID. Within my own Department, I have created a partnership group of management and the work

    429
    force to look at how we can do more to change our working culture. I look forward to the time when we have the first pair of job-sharing Ministers in government.

    Equal Pay
    Julie Morgan: What steps she is taking to encourage equal pay for women. [25586]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Government have taken a number of steps already to improve levels of pay for women, including the introduction of the national minimum wage, which has benefited around 1 million women. The Employment Bill that is now going through the House will provide improved maternity rights to help ensure that more women return to their original jobs, and will strengthen the Equal Pay Act 1970 with the introduction of equal pay questionnaires.
    Julie Morgan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that she is aware that NOP research on
    430
    equal pay, conducted for the Equal Opportunities Commission, showed that 93 per cent. thought that their pay structures were fair, but that only a third had actually checked whether they were fair. How can we overcome such problems, and how confident is my right hon. Friend that employers will check their pay systems for fairness voluntarily?
    Ms Hewitt: The research to which my hon. Friend refers, as well as research that has been carried out in government and in the EOC, makes it clear that the causes of unequal pay are complex. Such research includes the fact that many women spend some of their working life in part-time employment, usually trading lower pay for the hours that they want. All the steps that we are taking to promote flexible working, as well as making it easier for women to obtain information about the pay structure in their firms, will also help to close the pay gap. I was campaigning for equal pay 30 years ago, and I do not want my daughter's generation to have to carry on doing that in 10 or 20 years.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week, please?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 21 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill.
TUESDAY 22 JANUARY—Opposition Day [8th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate entitled "Failings in the Public Services" on an Opposition motion.
WEDNESDAY 23 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the International Development Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 24 JANUARY—Motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied. Details have been given in the Official Report, Thursday 10 January 2002, columns 673–75.
FRIDAY 25 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
Provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 28 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Civil Defence (Grant) Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
TUESDAY 29 JANUARY—Opposition Day [9th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 30 JANUARY—Motion On the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2002–3.
Motion on the Local Government (Finance) Report 2002–3.
THURSDAY 31 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Environmental Impact Assessment (Uncultivated Land and Semi-Natural Areas) (England) Regulations 2001.
Motion to approve the Administration Committee Report on the reopening of the Line of Route.
FRIDAY 1 FEBRUARY—Debate on implementing the Learning Disability White Paper on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the beginning of February will be:
THURSDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Debate on Child Health and Maternity.
THURSDAY 14 FEBRUARY—Debate on the report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on relocation following paramilitary intimidation.
The House will wish to know that on Wednesday 23 January 2002, there will be a debate relating to the Barcelona Process and assistance to Palestinian Society in European Standing Committee B. [Relevant European Union documents: 11381/00, Reinvigorating the Barcelona Process; 14778/00 Assistance to Palestinian
432
Society; Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 28-vii (2001–02); HC 23-xxvii and HC 23-xxix (1999–02).]
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us the business. Will he confirm that it is the Government's intention to hold the annual St. David's day debate in the usual way? If so, will he—as soon as possible, please—give us the date when that debate will take place? He will understand that the Opposition are very keen to hold that debate, as we have many points to make in it, so it would help not only us but, I am sure, the whole House if we could have the date as early as possible.
You, Mr. Speaker, will recall, because you take a close interest in such matters, that the Public Administration Committee, in its excellent report of last December on the ministerial code, stated on page viii, paragraph (f):
"We recommend that when the Ministerial Code is next revised the spirit of the original wording should be restored in respect of announcements of important Government policy."
The Government reply stated:
"The Government accepts this recommendation. It is an important principle that when the House is sitting, announcements of Government policy should be made, in the first instance, in Parliament."
Then just last week, the Deputy Prime Minister, no less, said:
"in response to a recommendation from the Public Administration Committee, the Government have agreed to amend paragraph 27 of the code, which now requires that all announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament."
The Deputy Prime Minister, with all the weight and majesty of his office and his personality, then said:
"I am sure that the House will welcome that."—[Official Report, 9 January 2002; Vol. 377, c. 533.]
Against that background, Mr. Speaker, are you not as disturbed as I am that the Secretary of State for Health, having said outside the House that his statement was the most important policy statement that he had made during his tenure of office, then went and made it outside the House and had to be summoned here by virtue of the fact that you, Mr. Speaker, granted a private notice question?
Mr. Speaker: Order. It looks as though the right hon. Gentleman is drawing the occupant of the Chair into his argument. His questions should be addressed to the Leader of the House, not to me.
Mr. Forth: Oh, I do apologise, Mr. Speaker, for giving you the credit—I will try not to do that again.
The point is a very serious one, is it not? The Committee has made a statement; the Deputy Prime Minister, no less, has agreed that the Committee was correct and made a commitment on behalf of the Government that something would happen; but then we find that we have to use devices to get Ministers to come here and do what the Government said they should do in any case. Even worse than that, apparently that mysterious person "a No. 10 spokesman" said at the briefing yesterday that he thought it impossible for all statements to be made in the House. We need clarification of that.
The Deputy Prime Minister said what he said in good faith. The Health Secretary was dodging and weaving outside the House and had to be brought in here. Now we

433
find that No. 10 is effectively calling the shots and saying, "None of this matters; pay no attention to it; its all irrelevant trivia." We must get to the bottom of this, and we must get it sorted out, otherwise the only interpretation that we can place on it is that the Government are holding the House in complete contempt.
May I finally ask the Leader of the House whether he will make time for some clarification of a very important matter indeed that came up during Prime Minister's questions? Yesterday, in referring to the Saville inquiry, the Prime Minister said:
"The cost of the inquiry is £52 million."
However, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) said that he believed that that could not possibly be the real total. He said:
"The cost is already more than £14.5 million to the Ministry of Defence".—[Official Report, 16 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 289–92.]
He went on to say that he thought that the inquiry's real, true total cost right across government was greatly in excess of £52 million. Is it not time that the House had an opportunity to get the full picture and, indeed, to express its view on it? Whatever the figure is—whether it is "as little as £52 million", as the Prime Minister seemed to imply, or much more—when will we get the chance to say whether we think that it represents value for money; whether it is a proper use of public funds; and what the view of the House of Commons is on the matter? Will the Leader of the House please arrange for a very early opportunity for that matter to be explored and debated?
Mr. Cook: May I first congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on attempting to speak for Wales? That is a bit rich given the nature of the Conservative representation from Wales. When we have such a debate, of course, the Conservative party's position at the Dispatch Box will be occupied by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). I know that Wales is a country of valleys, but that is really not a satisfactory basis on which to claim to speak for Wales. Yes, I am sure that we will have the traditional debate when the time comes, and it will demonstrate once again the extent to which the Conservative party does not have support in and cannot speak for Wales.
On the issue of the announcements of Government policy, in the speech that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made on Tuesday, he was taking forward announcements that had already been made in the course of the 10-year plan. Indeed, the Conservative party normally complains that we keep making the same statement too often. My right hon. Friend had already made that statement once. He came to the House, and he answered perfectly adequately on that occasion. May I say in defence of my right hon. Friend that he will have debated health matters in the Chamber on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, which reflects the priority that the Labour party attaches to health?
May I also gently point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, if he wants to encourage Ministers always to announce policy first in the House of Commons, he could have set an example last Thursday when we debated the White Paper on Lords reform. He was invited several times by my hon. Friends and me to announce the Opposition's policy, but he refused to do so. However, on
434
Sunday, we discovered that they had a fully formed policy which was disclosed courtesy of The Sunday Telegraph, not the most pluralist of vehicles by which we can inquire into that policy. [Interruption.] Well, the right hon. Gentleman is not a Minister, and we will do our best to make sure that he never is.
On the Saville inquiry, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was asked about its cost and he gave a perfectly correct, precise and accurate reply. The cost of the inquiry is met by the Northern Ireland Office and it is precisely the figure quoted by my right hon. Friend. Of course, parties to the inquiry and those supporting those giving evidence will have their owns costs on top of that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Of course, they will, and no one has ever denied that, but that is not the cost of the inquiry. [Laughter.] Well, on that basis, every time we have an inquiry and any organisation prepares itself for and gives evidence to it, it will register that as part of the cost.
The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) included in the costs Lord Saville's salary. If we had not had the public inquiry—whatever the Opposition might think about it—we would not have sacked Lord Saville. His salary would have continued to have been paid and would have continued to be a constant factor in public spending. As to the bottom line, there is a matter of public policy to be debated and I would very much welcome Opposition Members' views as to whether they believe that lawyers' fees are too high. However, I do not dispute the fact that we are right to have had the inquiry so that the full facts can be known and so that we can demonstrate to the people of Northern Ireland that we have nothing to hide.
David Taylor: Earlier today, we heard questions about the universal service provision of the Royal Mail, now Consignia. I met members of the east midlands region of the Communications Workers Union in Leicester last week and they are very concerned about the impact of Consignia's management, its clumsy industrial relations and the rate at which it is outsourcing many of its activities. Will my right hon. Friend find time to include in the parliamentary timetable as soon as possible a debate that examines the future of the postal service in the United Kingdom, and Consignia's record so far?
Mr. Cook: I am not sure that we regard it as appropriate for the House to debate the management of Consignia given that that is a matter for the company and that we must maintain an appropriate distance from management decisions. However, I have already said to the House—I echo it again—that we were surprised at the manner of the announcement of the redundancies by the management of Consignia. We strongly urge them to enter into full consultations and dialogue with the work force about the financial challenges facing the industry.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Can the Leader of the House clear up some confusion about the likely date of the Whitsun recess? He will be aware that the Whit bank holiday has been moved this year to allow it to stand beside the Queen's golden jubilee. [Interruption.] I understand that some Conservative Members have already made holiday plans for the wrong week.
In his role as the protector of Back-Bench interests on both sides of the House, will the Leader of the House make representations to the Secretary of State for

435
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the chaos that is continuing in the correspondence section in her Department? I received in November an answer to a letter that I had sent to the Department in September, but I then received almost the identical answer again just last week from the same Minister signing the same letter. That is rather excessive even if the letter is that much delayed. Clearly, the correspondence section is in chaos. I have already had letters sent to me marked "for the Minister's approval and signature", but without either the approval or signature of the Minister. Members on both sides of the House are suffering from this problem.
Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to consider Mr. Speaker's ruling after the 10 o'clock vote last night about the occupancy of the Opposition Front Bench and the use of the Dispatch Box? Is the Leader of the House aware that there are useful precedents for the representatives of the main third party in the House to speak from the Dispatch Box? No less than former Prime Ministers Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Asquith did so long after they ceased to lead the Opposition or Government parties? Would it not be for the convenience of the House, when the Liberal Democrats are leading a debate or are the only Opposition party present, for them to use the Dispatch Box so that there can be a genuine debate across the Floor of the House?
Mr. Cook: I am intrigued to hear that some hon. Members have arranged holidays for the Whit recess. I can only admire them for thinking that far ahead on such arrangements. However, I am not able to announce firm times for the Easter or Whit recesses at present. I hope to have made some progress on that when we meet again next Thursday, and I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's point.
On DEFRA, the House is aware from previous exchanges of the massive increase in correspondence to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Ministers in that Department. Indeed, that correspondence has trebled over the past year. As a result, DEFRA is seeking to improve and increase the number of people working in the correspondence section. It is currently attracting additional staff and I hope that that will lead to an improvement. No one is trying to defend the response rate, which is, of course, a reflection of the very strong increase in interest in DEFRA matters over the past year.
On the subject of last night, far from studying Mr. Speaker's ruling, I was present to hear it, and a very entertaining and enjoyable sight it referred to too. I am sure that a good time was had by all. However, it would be unwise for me to comment on a matter that is within a Speaker's ruling.
Glenda Jackson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that despite the Prime Minister's responses to questions yesterday, there is still sizeable public disquiet over the transportation and incarceration of Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners? Can he arrange for a debate, hopefully based on access by British consular officials to those prisoners who are deemed to be British citizens, because that would help to calm public disquiet? It would also help to ensure that we cease to give comfort to those who want an expansion of international terrorism and who use scenes and statements that seem to bear out their argument that western powers have little respect for,
436
or consideration of, Muslim lives, religion and human rights. [HON. MEMBERS: "Heartbreaking!"] If you have a heart to break.
Mr. Cook: I do not think I will get involved in that exchange.
What will be of importance, although I cannot predict whether it will calm the disquiet, is the visit by the Red Cross to Guantanamo bay, which I understand will take place later today. I hope that that will provide clear, authoritative guidance on the state in which the prisoners are being kept and whether it is consistent with international humanitarian law.
On the general issue, I would only say that we did, of course, fight in Afghanistan to end terrorism and uphold the values of law and order and of decency and the right of everyone to lead a peaceful life. It is important that we treat those whom we capture in the process of that exercise in ways that are consistent with our principles.
Michael Fabricant: The Leader of the House will be aware of the joy felt by Conservative Members at the splendid innovation of having a Minister for Women and questions to her. He will also be aware that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 says that there should be equality of both sexes, of which a significant minority are men. When will we have 10 minutes of questions to a Minister for Men?
Mr. Cook: I would not wish to detract from the hon. Gentleman's joy at the appointment of a Minister for Women. I can assure him that all the Ministers in this Government will be very happy to answer his questions about men.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is nigh on impossible for Ministers to give all new statements of policy? We had evidence of that in Question Time today when the Minister for Industry and Energy was going to announce a new Government policy of paying out lump sums of £2,000 to those miners who finished working way back in 1975. He was not able to deliver that statement because we did not reach question No. 10, which is a pity, so I thought that I had better make the statement on his behalf.
As that lump sum is a decent start in dividing up the pension surplus, I look forward to many more chunks being handed out to other categories of miners in the future. On a similar issue, will my right hon. Friend ask the Minister to come back to the House, when he has time, and ensure that all those colliery cleaners and those who work in the canteens get the money that they are owed from the settlement made by the previous Energy Minister?
Mr. Cook: I shall bear in mind the useful constitutional innovation provided by my hon. Friend in making the statement on behalf of the Minister for Industry and Energy. I welcome what my hon. Friend said about the additional funds that the Minister will make available to those who have the lowest pension from their days in the mines. That is a valuable and useful way in which to use the surplus, and one that I know the mining industry will welcome.

437
On the other matter that my hon. Friend raises, as he has done vigorously and repeatedly over the past few months, I cannot add to the answers that I have already given, which is that we have honourably settled with and paid all those who made a claim within the time set out in the legislation. It specifies that all claims have to be made within six months of leaving employment, and we have no latitude within the legislation to make payments to others.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Leader of the House will have seen the publicity this week surrounding the quashing by the Appeal Court of the verdict on Stephen Downing. Will he give consideration to the way in which Parliament may be informed of the lessons that need to be learned from this vast miscarriage of justice? Inquiries need to take place for the sake not only of Stephen Downing's family but of the surviving family of Wendy Sewell, who have suffered the devastation caused by the case being continually regurgitated in the national media. This is a very sad and moving case. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Government are able to learn all the lessons from this grave miscarriage of justice?
Mr. Cook: I think that the whole House echoes the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman, and we fully recognise that there can be no more appalling injustice than to be imprisoned for as long as Stephen Downing has, knowing throughout that period that one is innocent. There has obviously been a serious miscarriage of justice in this case. I am sure that my colleagues at the Home Office will want to consider what lessons can be learned from it, and when they reach a conclusion they may well want to share it with the House. In the meantime, the urgent question will be that of compensation, and I doubt that they will be in a position to say anything until that is resolved.
Kate Hoey: The Leader of the House will be aware that tomorrow is the last day for consultation on the revised proposals on congestion charging in London. Will he find time in the next couple of weeks for a debate on congestion charging in London? Is he aware that the charging zone goes right through Kennington in the heart of my constituency, and there has been no environmental audit of the proposals whatever? People are up in arms—fortunately not literally—and I urge my right hon. Friend to find time for a debate so that the Secretary of State can consider carefully whether now is the time to call in the Mayor's plans. In my view they will do nothing to ease the flow of traffic or to help pedestrians or indeed anyone who wants to get around London more easily.
Mr. Cook: I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the opportunity to ventilate an issue that is of concern to her constituents and to many other people in central London. Anybody who has taken a taxi lately must be well aware of the strength of feeling among taxi drivers on this question. It is, of course, primarily a matter for the Mayor of London and the Greater London Assembly, and I would be loth to enter into a situation in which we sought to override what is, in the first instance, their decision. However, I hope that in taking that decision they will bear
438
in mind the importance of carrying with them the population of London, particularly central London, and will listen carefully to the results of consultation.
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: One month ago I wrote to the Leader of the House concerning one of my constituents who happens to be the Opposition Deputy Leader in the other place. Unfortunately, he was taken ill in the other place and was left waiting two hours for an ambulance to arrive. In my letter I suggested that the Leader of the House give careful consideration to providing the Palace with proper medical facilities, with a doctor present at all times, and its own ambulance. Has he considered my letter, and does he think the subject worthy of a debate?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, which I am sure is of close personal interest to all Members. I assure him that I will consider carefully the points that he has made and reply to him.
Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will recall that after the publication of the reports into the disturbances in Burnley, Bradford and Oldham last November, it was indicated that the Government were considering holding a debate on the important issues involved, which, with the proposals resulting from the reports, have implications that go far wider than the three places concerned. I recognise the difficulties experienced by my right hon. Friend in finding time for debates, but is he aware of any progress on that matter?
Mr. Cook: I fully understand the importance of that issue to my hon. Friend's constituency and the House, given the wider questions raised in the report. We shall certainly consider at what point in the Session it would be appropriate to find time for that important issue.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House early-day motion 678, on access to the facilities of the House:
[That this House notes that access to the facilities of the House has been granted to four Members who refuse to take the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance; believes that the individuals concerned should be required to place an entry in the Register of Members' Interests and be subject to the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to lay a Resolution before the House to rectify matters immediately.]
As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, a decision has already been taken to permit elected representatives of Sinn-Fein IRA to have access to the House, and nothing in the early-day motion seeks to deny that. However, many right hon. and hon. Members believe that all MPs who have access to the facilities of the House should be required to make an entry in the Register of Members' Interests; elected Sinn Fein-IRA representatives in the Northern Ireland Assembly already do so. Early-day motion 678 has the support of Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru and Unionist Members of Parliament. A letter has already been sent to the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee which also has cross-party support. I appeal

439
to the Leader of the House to consult him and lay a resolution before the House urgently to rectify the situation.
Mr. Cook: This was a matter that came up in our debate in the week before the House rose for the recess. A number of Members expressed strongly the sentiment that appears in the early-day motion to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As I said at the time, the present position is that the authorities of the House are committed to the resolution of the House which specifies that Members should make an entry in the Register within three months of taking their seat. It is open for debate whether that should be amended to be within three months of being elected to the House. I personally very much welcome any view that the Standards and Privileges Committee may wish to express to guide us on that point.
Joyce Quin: Will my right hon. Friend give consideration to a debate on regional devolution in England, given that at some point we are to have a White Paper on the subject. Does he agree that the issue should be aired as widely as possible to facilitate the Government's aim of consulting widely throughout the regions on what will be an important issue in future?
Mr. Cook: The Government are strongly committed to decentralisation to the regions, as well as encouraging regional identity and, wherever possible, regional decision making, which is why early this year we shall produce a regional White Paper. I am sure that when it is produced, it will attract much interest in the House and it may be appropriate at that point to make sure that it is adequately debated and aired in the House.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Can we have an early debate on the composition of Cabinet committees that shape Government policy? Is it not profoundly unsatisfactory that the Government's policy to deny the electorate the opportunity to choose substantial numbers of Members of the second Chamber should be shaped by two unelected Ministers, the Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the House of Lords, neither of whom has condescended to stand for election to public office and both of whom may be reasonably supposed to have a prejudice, not to say an interest, in denying the electorate a say in such important matters?
Mr. Cook: We had a full debate on that on Thursday, when a number of vigorous views were expressed. I said at the time that the Government will need and wish to reflect on the views expressed in the debates last week and in the response to the consultation White Paper. I am sure that the House will have opportunities in future to return to that matter. While it is important that the Lord Chancellor and my colleague the Leader of the House of Lords should necessarily play a full part in shaping the proposals, those proposals will be widely debated and shared in government and, I suspect, outside government.
Mr. Clive Betts: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that just before Christmas, the Minister for Housing and Planning produced a Green Paper that proposes several significant and wide-ranging changes to the planning system, which could in due course
440
affect the lives of our constituents. Because of the conventions of the House, as it was a Green Paper rather than a White Paper, there was no requirement for a ministerial statement, so there has been no opportunity so far for the House to debate the matter or question Ministers on it. Will my right hon. Friend therefore find time in the near future, before the consultation period ends, for a debate on this important matter?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a matter which, as he is probably aware, has been raised on a number of occasions. It was raised several times last Thursday. I shall certainly undertake to draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions the expression of views and interest within the House. At some point it will be appropriate for these matters to come before the House. Apart from any other consideration, as I said last week, they cannot be taken forward without primary legislation. Whether we have yet reached the point at which it would be appropriate for a statement and an expression of policy in the light of consultation is not a matter that I can judge, but I am sure that at the appropriate time the House will have plenty of time to debate the matter.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is the Leader of the House comfortable with the grossly escalating costs of the Saville inquiry? Is it not time that we had a proper debate? One must consider the costs of the Ministry of Defence, as those come out of taxpayers' money, and the figures are getting very large indeed. The right hon. Gentleman has presumably noted that the charge has been led, characteristically, by that great Government supporter Mr. Michael Mansfield and his fee charges.
Mr. Cook: On reading such stories, I have sometimes reflected on whether I have mis-spent my life and might have been better becoming a barrister. I am sure that the same thought has entered the mind of many people looking at the figures. There may be a debate about whether the rate of pay is appropriate, but I do not think that there is ground for a debate about the fact that it is important that we have a full public inquiry and bring the matter out into the open. On Thursdays I frequently hear demands from the Opposition for more public inquiries, not fewer. Next time they are minded to do that, perhaps they will reflect on today's exchanges.
Roger Casale: I refer to the forthcoming convention on the future of Europe, and draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the recent report of the European Scrutiny Committee and its recommendations for the selection of the representative of this Parliament to that convention. Does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever the outcome of the discussions that are taking place about the selection of our representative, we must not lose sight of the important topics that will be discussed at the convention itself? As a central theme of the convention is to be enhancing the role of national Parliaments in European decision making, may we have an early debate in this place about how democratic accountability in European decision making can be enhanced through the scrutiny process? Finally, I renew my request for the House to take the lead in bringing non-governmental organisations and other organisations

441
from civil society into the debate, to determine how this Parliament can play a role in reconnecting the European citizen with European decision making in the future.
Mr. Cook: On my hon. Friend's first point, there have been discussions between my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs about who should go forward to represent Parliament in the convention. I hope that those discussions will bear fruit in the near future, and that the names to come before the House will be agreed by consensus by both parties. That will have to be laid before the House and approved by the whole House, so the House can have a say.
On the other matter that my hon. Friend raises, I am well aware of the central feature of the review leading up to the next intergovernmental conference, which puts national Parliaments centre stage. I am aware of it because I played a part in making sure that that happened. We should be doing more to connect the national Parliaments with the debate and the decision making in Europe. As to our procedures in the House, the Scrutiny Committee is carrying out a review of procedures relating to European legislation and decisions, and I look forward to discussing that with the Committee when it has completed its report.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: May I tell the Leader of the House that I have recently received a number of representations from constituents who support a campaign to ensure that posthumous pardons are given to many of those who were shot for cowardice in the first world war, when it was apparent to just about every right-thinking person outside this House that they were guilty of no such thing? I am aware that this matter has come before the House on previous occasions, but I say to him that it is not an issue that will go away. Can we have an early opportunity to bring it back to the Floor of the House?
Mr. Cook: I am well aware of the strength of feeling of the relatives of those who were shot. I think that everybody in the House would express great sympathy with their position and concern about the action that was taken at the start of the last century. It is plain now, in retrospect, that many of those who were sentenced and executed at the time would never have been sentenced or executed under modern law or standards. However, as the hon. Gentleman will know from previous exchanges, there is a bona fide issue as to whether it is credible to apply a legal pardon posthumously in very different circumstances—including the state of the law—from those that applied at the time. Nor would this be the only occasion when we might be invited to do so. Therefore, what I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that he should offer comfort to relatives by telling them of the very strong sympathy and regrets of all of us who are alive today about what happened. However, it is not really for us to make legal judgments by today's standards about what happened 100 years ago.
Mr. Michael Jack: The Leader of the House correctly said that there was strong interest in DEFRA matters. He will be aware that the first of the three reports that the Government commissioned following the
442
outbreak of foot and mouth disease is to be published at the end of the month; that is, the report produced by Sir Donald Curry on the future of food and farming. First, can he give an assurance that the report's findings will first be reported to the House? Secondly, instead of allowing us to deal with the matter in the first instance merely through a statement, will he consider as a matter of urgency the possibility of having a debate on what will be the first of three very important reports that affect the fundamentals of the future of our farming industry?
Mr. Cook: I am advised that the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first question is yes and that the report will be brought before the House. The appropriate time for a debate is a matter of judgment that we would have to consider in the round. I am not immediately persuaded that it would be sensible to have three separate debates on three separate reports, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government and my DEFRA colleagues will be considering how we should best take the matter forward.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend will have seen recent press reports on the damage caused by alcohol misuse. He will also be aware that the Government have long promised an alcohol strategy, although it has yet to emerge. Will he encourage Ministers to bring forward the Government's alcohol strategy at an early date? Even before that, will he make time for a debate on alcohol abuse on the Floor of the House? [Interruption.]
Mr. Cook: May I say straight away that I would wish to rule myself out as the opening speaker in any such debate? None the less, my hon. Friend raises a serious issue that causes immense distress in the families of a number of our constituents. I shall certainly convey my hon. Friend's views to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and ensure that Ministers reflect upon the urgency and importance that he and many other hon. Members obviously attach to the question. I cannot promise a debate in advance of a strategy, but I am sure that my hon. Friends will consider how they can quickly take forward a response.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Given that the BBC's "The World at One" programme yesterday made the extraordinary decision to devote more than half its running time to concerns about the treatment of al-Qaeda prisoners, the Leader of the House may think that far too much time has already been spent on the issue. Nevertheless, I should like to join those of his Back Benchers who are calling for a statement from the Foreign Secretary on the treatment of al-Qaeda prisoners and the way in which they should be tried. Surely, such a statement would give the Foreign Secretary the opportunity to point out that, in past conflicts, people who engaged in the sort of outrageous terrorism of which the prisoners are accused were by no means and by no stretch of the imagination ever subject to the provisions of the Geneva convention. It would also enable him to point out to the House that it was as the result of trying such people in a civilian court after the attack on the World Trade Centre in 1993 that bin Laden was informed that his telephones were being listened to. If that had not

443
happened, the later attack might not have succeeded. So, let us hear why it is that military tribunals are indeed a necessity.
Mr. Cook: It is plain that there are two views on the treatment of al-Qaeda prisoners. I advise hon. Members to wait until we have heard from the Red Cross, which is visiting today. It will be able to provide a clear statement about the matter and say whether it wishes to make representations about changes.
On the legal background, whether the prisoners are covered by the Geneva convention is not immediately germane. Requirements of international humanitarian law transcend the Geneva convention, and they have to be observed, even if the convention does not apply.
I am delighted to say that I have no responsibility for the content of "The World at One".
Mr. Harry Barnes: Does my right hon. Friend know that coal-mining communities are well served by CISWO—the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation? In my constituency, it is setting up a one-stop shop with a wide range of services at the Mastin Moor miners' welfare. However, CISWO is currently in financial difficulties because there is no National Coal Board with which to negotiate to advance its financial position. Its difficulties will lead to considerable loss of important services in coal-mining communities.
Last week, I asked for a general debate on the coal industry. The matter that I have raised today could be included in such a debate. Other items, such as equal pay for women, compensation for vibration white finger, bronchitis and emphysema and the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on the miners' pension scheme could be covered in an omnibus discussion on important matters for coal-mining communities.
Mr. Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the vigour with which he promotes and defends the interests of the coal-mining communities that he represents. A Thursday rarely passes without his raising them. That is a good example of Parliament being used for the proper function of articulating our constituents' interests. I am sure that my hon. Friend will ensure that the issue that he raises today is included in the discussion to which he referred. I shall give advance warning to my colleagues in the relevant Department.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House may know that people in Northern Ireland, especially Omagh, are worried about mixed messages on terrorism. The American authorities have banned funding of the Continuity IRA, which uses the alias the 32 County Sovereignty Committee. Is it not time for the Home Secretary to list that organisation? The legislation that was introduced after Omagh has not brought anyone before the courts in Northern Ireland, and the Continuity IRA continues.
Mr. Cook: I do not believe that there is anyone in the Northern Ireland Office, the Government or the House who does not regret that people have not been brought to court for the Omagh atrocity, which we all deeply deplore. I assure the hon. Gentleman that our security services
444
vigorously pursue the Continuity IRA, the Real IRA or anyone engaged in terrorist activities. We will take any opportunity to bring to court those against whom we can bring a charge with sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.
Julie Morgan: I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows about the increasing number of women in prison. I learned through a response to a written parliamentary question earlier this week that 169 women from Wales are in prison in England because there is no women's prison in Wales. Will my right hon. Friend bring that to the Home Secretary's attention and ask him to use all the means at his disposal, not to build a prison in Wales but to reduce the number of women in custody by encouraging sentencing in the community? The devastating effect on families, especially children, could thus be avoided.
Mr. Cook: I am happy to say that it will not be necessary to draw this to the attention of the Home Secretary, because I know that he is well aware of the rapid rise in the number of women in prisons across England and Wales. He is also vigorously involved in the review of sentencing. He has said that he wants to bring sense to sentencing. Serious sentences are applied to those who have committed serious offences, but those who have not, and who can be treated in other ways, should be so treated.
In fairness to my right hon. and hon. Friends and to everyone involved in the system, it must be said that there has been a rapid rise in the number of women offenders. That is reflected in the statistics to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) referred. They are not simply a result of sentencing policy; they are also a reflection of the number of offenders. There is, unfortunately, no short-term, easy solution to the problem of increased demand for places for women in prison. It is, however, an issue to which the Home Office attaches high priority, and to which it will respond over time.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Leader of the House sought to raise to an art form his disingenuousness in his original response to my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House. Does he not recognise that most of us realise that Ministers constantly bypassing the House and making statements to the media first, rather than to the House, is a tactic to which we all expected the Government to return, the minute the wheels started to fall off? Regarding the Saville inquiry, does he not realise that, in a constituency such as mine, in which many members of the Parachute Regiment and their relatives live, I doubt that a single constituent thinks that any public money should have been spent on this ludicrous inquiry? It was a craven act of appeasement by the Government to terrorists, and it should have been stopped long ago.
Mr. Cook: I do not honestly see that anyone interested in the affairs of Northern Ireland should be afraid of our bringing out into the open what may have happened on that occasion; nor do I believe that anyone in the United Kingdom would wish to create the appearance that we have anything to hide.

445
On the hon. Gentleman's other point, he said—if I apprehended him correctly—that I had out-performed myself in my disingenuousness. I shall try to continue to set new standards of clarity and fact in the House.
Mr. Forth: Starting now?
Mr. Cook: Starting right now. Before I came into the Chamber, I asked for the comparative figure for statements made to the House in the last five years of the Conservative Government and the first five years of this one. I shall try to express these statistics clearly so that the hon. Gentleman can follow them. We have made more than 60 more statements in our first five years than the Conservatives made in their last five years. I therefore decline to take any lectures from them on the importance of accountability to the House.
John Cryer: My right hon. Friend will be aware of a recent judgment by the Law Lords to the effect that term-time workers in schools are not allowed to claim jobseeker's allowance during the three months of the year in which they are not employed and, therefore, not earning. Unusually, the Law Lords made it clear that they foresaw a change in the law being necessary, and recommended such a change to allow those workers to claim that benefit. Like many hon. Members, I have constituents who are caught in this trap. Is there any chance that the appropriate Minister could make a statement to the House to set out just where the Government see this going?
Mr. Cook: The rule, if I recall it rightly, that those leaving school cannot claim benefit until September is of long standing. If the Law Lords have made a ruling on it, I am confident that my hon. Friends at the Department will be considering its implications, and I will advise them to write directly to my hon. Friend.
Chris Grayling: Further to the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the Secretary of State for Education and Skills made a major speech outside the House this week on an apparent change in the Government's policy on school exclusions, ironically at a time when the Standing Committee on the Education Bill—of which I am a member—has been discussing that same issue. Will the Leader of the House tell me when the Secretary of State will come to the House to make a statement about that policy change?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has just confirmed that this issue has been debated in the Standing Committee, and it will continue to be debated as the Bill proceeds through the House. I anticipate our having a very full period of time in which to consider the Bill on Report, when it will be open to the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member to table an amendment or a new clause that could ventilate this or any other part of education policy. I would say to the House that we have to get real on this issue. Cabinet Ministers have made speeches outside the House from time immemorial, and sometimes that has taken forward the development of Government policy. The ministerial code rightly and properly places an
446
obligation on Cabinet Ministers and others to bring serious developments in Government policy to the House. However, if every single development in Government policy came to the House, we would be debating nothing else—certainly not Opposition motions.
Mr. John Lyons: May I remind my right hon. Friend that Holocaust Memorial Day is approaching? Will he consider how the House and individual Members may better support such commemorative events?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend draws attention to a very important approaching date—and the commemoration was of course introduced by this Government. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make a speech on the day to mark its significance and I am sure that hon. Members will consider how they can best do likewise in their constituencies.
Mr. George Osborne: Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on backstabbing in the Government? He will have seen the comments of one of his Cabinet colleagues:
"Unlike David Blunkett, who bought time at the Home Office by dumping on what Jack Straw had done, Steve hasn't taken the knife to Prescott's legacy—and that is maybe what he should do."
Will the Leader of the House support that incredibly helpful advice from his Cabinet colleague to help the beleaguered Transport Secretary?
Mr. Cook: Perhaps the House requires a debate on backstabbing in the Conservative party. [HON. MEMBERS: "There isn't any."]I am interested to hear that, because the shadow Chief Secretary says that the Conservative party is seen as
"racist, sexist, homophobic and anti-youth".
That goes further than even I would dare, but I do not dissent from his conclusion that the Conservative party is in a worse state than ever.
Mr. Mark Francois: May we have an early debate on the cost of public inquiries? The recently published planning Green Paper includes specific Government proposals to prevent public inquiries from dragging on for years at great public expense. If that is now Government policy on public inquiries, why have they allowed the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday to be granted a blank cheque?
Mr. Cook: Because it is not a planning inquiry.
Mr. John Baron: Given recent comments by former military chiefs that the armed forces are dangerously overstretched, particularly following the Afghanistan deployment, and given that British military reservists are being compulsorily called up for first time since the Suez crisis, does the Leader of the House accept that this country must either increase the defence budget or reduce its commitments to ensure that no damage is done to our fighting capability and that lives are not unnecessarily put at risk?
Mr. Cook: It is important to ensure that our armed forces can carry out the tasks that we give them and that

447
those tasks can be carried out without putting unnecessary and unreasonable strain on family commitments. It would be much easier for us to achieve that had the Conservative Government not cut 30 battalions from the military. I would like to hear how the hon. Gentleman would square any commitment to increase our military capability in terms of numbers, equipment and capacity with the commitment made today by his leader that the Conservatives' first priority is cutting tax.
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: The Leader of the House will be aware of a situation in the Somerset and Avon area over the past few days—a gentleman has induced young girls to remove their clothing. The police are unable to pursue the matter because a loophole in the law precludes them from doing so. The White Paper "Setting the Boundaries: Reforming the Law on Sex Offences", published in July 2000, proposes to bring the loophole under control. Will the House have a chance to introduce that proposal as quickly as possible and close the loophole before other children are put at risk?
Mr. Cook: I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers and I share the sense of surprise and puzzlement of all Members that the incident does not constitute an offence. He will be aware that a sex offences review is under way. We attach high priority to it and we shall bring its conclusions before the House at the earliest opportunity. In the light of recent events, the review will want to consider this particular point.

Bristol Royal Infirmary
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]
1.24 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I hoped that we could have the debate earlier, in November, but, as some Members know, we had to consider emergency legislation dealing with human reproduction cloning at that time. Nevertheless, I trust that today's debate will give the House an opportunity to take a step back from the normal yah-boo politics of health—an opportunity for a more considered response to events at the Bristol royal infirmary that I believe people will come to see as a turning point for the national health service and a catalyst for change.
We are publishing today, to coincide with the debate, my Department's response to the report of the Kennedy inquiry. I should acknowledge at the outset that whatever is said here today, and indeed whatever was said in the report, will inevitably be of little comfort to the families of children who died or were damaged at Bristol. I have met the parents more than once, and I only hope that the action we are taking will help to assure them that we have all learned the lessons of what went wrong.
Sir Ian Kennedy and his team did an outstanding job, and I want to record my thanks to them for producing a report that I consider fundamentally important to the future development of the national health service.
The Kennedy inquiry into the care and management of children receiving complex heart treatment at the infirmary between 1984 and 1995 was established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Examining events at the infirmary between those dates, the report recognises that much has changed since then—not least at the infirmary itself, where, as I learned when I went there recently, cardiac care for both children and adults is now among the best in the country.
It is important to put the Kennedy report in context. Overwhelmingly, despite the real problems that undoubtedly exist in the NHS, patients receive good care and staff do a brilliant job. It is worth reminding people that the NHS is not full of bad doctors; it is full of good ones—people who are doing their best for patients, sometimes in difficult circumstances.
The report, however—in my view, at least—provides a searing analysis of the failings in organisation and culture that were prevalent not only in Bristol but throughout the NHS during those years. In brief, they were a failure to put patients at the centre of care, a failure of communication, a lack of leadership, paternalism, and what the report calls a "club culture", in which people got on in their careers by not rocking the boat. No standards were laid down against which performance in the NHS and quality of care could be measured. That was compounded by a decades-long underfunding of NHS services that is only now beginning to be put right.
Those broader organisational failings were most manifest in the specialist children's services. At the infirmary, and undoubtedly elsewhere in the NHS, children's services were last in line when it came to the allocation of resources. The report estimates that at Bristol all those factors—no single factor was responsible—conspired to bring about the unnecessary deaths of between 30 and 35 children.

449
As those who read the report may conclude, perhaps the greatest tragedy of all is that concerns were raised in and indeed outside the hospital about standards of care in paediatric cardiac surgery. Many people knew what was happening, but no one acted. The fact that it took a whistleblower, Dr. Stephen Bolsin, to bring the problems to the fore is perhaps the most serious indictment of the culture prevailing at that time.
The fault at Bristol, however, lay not with bad people, wrong though a few senior managers and senior clinicians were to act as they did. Underlying the whole Bristol tragedy was a much more profound structural and cultural problem—that of an NHS ultimately more geared to its own needs than to those of its patients, in which the question of accountability was confused in regard to services, professionals and patients.
I think most people would conclude today that a different relationship is needed between patients and services. When we published the NHS plan 18 months ago we tried to paint a different picture of the future of health care in our country, in which patients—and their safety—always come first; in which patients are in the driving seat and able to make informed choices about their care; in which there is a new culture of trust, not blame, in the NHS, with lines of accountability that are clear and a willingness to learn from mistakes; and in which the NHS is decentralised within a clear public service ethos, defined NHS principles and a framework of tough national standards which are regulated independently.
We endorse the Kennedy report's vision for the future of the NHS, but no one should underestimate the challenge involved in delivering it. As the report recognises, the NHS today is a very different health service. The report acknowledges that the underfunding that was such a feature of the NHS then is beginning to be addressed now. More significant for the longer term, the events at Bristol have spurred the Government and the medical profession to work together to put in place new standards and structures to improve the quality of care. As the Kennedy report says:
"Recent developments give cause for optimism. These include statutory responsibility for the quality of health care, the development of clinical guidelines through the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, and the monitoring of performance through the Commission for Health Improvement."
The report welcomes the establishment of the national patient safety agency to run a single reporting system for all adverse health events, wherever they occur in the NHS. The report welcomes annual appraisal and revalidation for doctors, and recognises that a new contract for hospital consultants is being negotiated and that joint training for health professionals is being introduced. Many of those changes, and other reforms contained in the NHS plan, are welcomed or endorsed by the Kennedy report.
As the report highlights, however, further action still is needed if we are to prevent another tragedy on the scale of Bristol. The Government's response to the Kennedy report that we have published today addresses the 198 recommendations he made. Many we have accepted either directly or in principle, and work is under way to implement them. In a minority of areas we have chosen to adopt a different solution to that proposed by the inquiry panel. In essence, our response to Kennedy falls
450
into two parts. The first includes the organisational and cultural changes needed to put the patient at the centre of the NHS. The second involves the changes needed to assure quality and secure improvements in services.
The reforms that are about putting patients centre stage involve giving patients more information, more power and more choice. The NHS at the time of the events in Bristol lived in the shadow of its own history: it was an organisation for which Government provided limited resources and in which doctors were left in charge of providing limited services, and patients—frankly speaking—were expected to be grateful for the limits of what they received. In today's world, most people would conclude that that will no longer do. People today expect services to respond to their needs—and rightly so. They want services that they can trust and that offer faster, higher-quality care. Increasingly, they want to make informed choices about how to be treated, where to be treated and by whom.
Those changes require a new culture of openness in the NHS. The days have gone when parts of the NHS could behave as if they were a secret society. In the end, the NHS does not belong to anyone other than the public and patients it serves. A service designed around the needs of patients has to give more power to its patients. As Kennedy said, the patients voice should be
"on the inside rather than on the outside."
So reforms are being introduced to give patients a greater role and a stronger say in the NHS, with patients forums in every trust, patients electing patients onto trust boards, and the results of surveys of patients helping to determine the ratings and therefore the resources that trusts receive. The balance of power is shifting—decisively, I hope—in favour of the patient.
Kennedy describes the relationship between services and patients in the Bristol era as
"based on a paternalistic approach to families and to the care and support they needed."
Today's relationship between professionals and patients should be a partnership in which patients have a responsibility to keep healthy, treat professionals respectfully and use services wisely, but have a right to be involved in decisions about their care. That is why new procedures for informed consent are now coming into place, and they will need to be underpinned by a better patient focus in the education of future generations of clinicians. I hope that, increasingly, doctors, nurses, therapists and other clinicians will be trained together to learn the values of patient involvement and the need for better patient communication.
Professionals have the right to be valued by Government and patients and to exercise their skills and judgment for the benefit of patients. They have a responsibility to participate in audit and clinical governance, to work not on their own but as part of a team and to treat patients with respect and dignity.
The Kennedy report says:
"the culture in Bristol was not one which encouraged openness and honesty in the exchange of information between and amongst healthcare professionals and between them and families."
Patients today have a right to know about their treatment and care. We are already publishing more information than has ever been published before about the NHS, whether that is local health service performance or specific data on mortality rates. We need to publish more, not less, information for the benefit of patients.

451
In the light of the Kennedy report, it is clear to me that such information should not be published by Government but should be published independently. That is why we have accepted the inquiry recommendation to establish the office for information on health care performance within the Commission for Health Improvement.
As the Kennedy report makes clear, there was no shortage of data about clinical outcomes at Bristol. The problem was that no one was responsible for analysing them or acting on them. The new office within the CHI will address that fundamental faultline.
There was another problem: parents and families did not have access to data at Bristol. The Kennedy report calls for that failure to be addressed through the publication of information on the performance of individual hospitals and consultant units. Open publication is the right thing to do. For data on surgical outcomes to be published, of course, they need to be robust, rigorous and risk-adjusted. They also need to command the confidence not just of patients, but of surgeons themselves.
The events at Bristol have, I believe, fundamentally changed the view of the medical profession about the publication of outcome data. There was a time when the very idea was regarded as unacceptable. Today, it is the profession itself that is leading the drive towards more open publication.
The cardiac surgeons are in the vanguard here. For example, the Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons has published the results of coronary surgery for heart units in the UK and, within the last week, has extended this information to include the results of aortic valve operations over the last three years.
I am pleased to say that, following discussions, the society has agreed to go further still. We have now reached agreement that, from April 2004, 30-day mortality rates for every cardiac surgeon in England will be made public. This goes further than the Kennedy report recommendations. It means that, for the first time, patients themselves will be able to see the clinical outcomes that heart surgeons are achieving. We have of course to guard against defensive medicine. That is why the society itself will be involved in publishing this data, alongside the new office for information on health care performance, to ensure that the data systems are properly resourced and that the data themselves are credible and properly risk-adjusted and take rolling averages over a number of years.
This is just the first step to publishing more information on individual consultant outcomes over time.
Dr. Liam Fox: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the data that are to be published will include paediatric cardiac surgery?
Mr. Milburn: We are in further discussions with the British Paediatric Association. By the summer, I expect that details on individual units will be published by the association in order to make that information more available. Over time, more data will be published about individual consultant outcomes, as I shall describe later.
Dr. Evan Harris: I warmly welcome the Secretary of State's emphasis that the data must be valid and must enjoy the confidence of
452
clinicians, and his stress on the consequential need to avoid defensive medicine. Does he accept that previous performance league tables lacked the data on patients' preoperative state produced, with the Department's co-operation, by Dr. Foster, and that they fell short of some of the welcome requirements that he has set out today?
Mr. Milburn: Yes, of course, but I want to make a couple of important caveats. First, I have told the House, and the Select Committee on Health when I have appeared before it, that we are never going to have perfect data. There is no such thing, and we should be clear about that. All the data that we publish, whenever we publish them, should come with the appropriate health warning.
Secondly, we will never get better data until we have the courage to publish. Only then will people begin to realise that the data have some significance. That is beginning to happen already with the organisational data that we are publishing on NHS trusts. Trusts are beginning to realise that the assessments that are made have consequences. That is as it should be, as organisations doing well differ from those doing consistently badly.
I do not mean to say that the same principles apply to individual surgeons, but in my time as a Health Minister I have witnessed the remarkable change that has taken place in the NHS and in the medical profession. There is a real recognition that the old order to which the Kennedy report in so many ways looks back has changed fundamentally. That change must continue, and we need to drive it forward.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State spoke of the publication of data on the NHS by the new office for information. However, will the office be responsible for acting on the data, or will that fall to the Commission for Health Improvement? Also, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that not only should action be taken on performance failure identified through the data, but that referral should be improved as a way of driving standards up? Does he agree with the report that paediatrics should be more widely available as a specialisation in general practice in order to ensure a greater awareness of good referral for children's services?
Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman's second point is absolutely fundamental, and my speech will touch on the centrality of improving standards in children's services, in both primary and secondary care. Sometimes there is a debate about whether primary or secondary care is the more important, but we must improve the standards in all the services available for children and their families. We have some proposals for doing just that.
As for the relationship between analysis and action with regard to information, the beauty of Kennedy's recommendation that an office be established within the existing inspectorate which will have overall responsibility for overseeing standards of care is that that provides an opportunity to achieve precisely those linkages that were missing when the tragedies in Bristol took place.
People were analysing data at that time. Lots of people had access to data, but no individual or organisation had the responsibility for doing anything about what was found. Terrible tragedies occurred as a result.

453
It is important that we learn the lessons, and the office will have an important role to play in analysing the data and feeding information back to the service. The CHI will also have an important role, but I stress again that I believe we will secure lasting improvements in the NHS only if the analysis and dissemination of information is done in conjunction with the people who perform the operations.
I do not perform operations, and neither does the CHI. The people who do are among the most skilled in our country, and they should be among the most valued.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I share the emphasis that the right hon. Gentleman places on that issue. I have just two questions. First, he talked about data and defensive medicine. Is it not possible that some people involved may protect their reputations instead of giving the best service to their patient—in other words, if there is a risk, they will not take it? Medical science has been advanced by those who, using their skills, took risks and helped people. Secondly, are we training and encouraging enough paediatric specialists?
Mr. Milburn: On the second point, I hope that we are training a lot more but we have shortages, as the hon. Gentleman and I are painfully aware. I think that we can deal with that over time. It is worth remembering that the numbers coming through medical schools, training and so forth are a sign of optimism.
The hon. Gentleman's first point is very important. I have discussed that matter at length with Mr. Bruce Keogh from the Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons. He put to me a sensible proposal, which we will need to discuss with the new office within the commission. We cannot have a situation in which open publication of data means that the surgeons who take on the highest-risk cases feel as if they will be penalised—that they will end up bottom of the league table in The Times. The proposal that we have discussed—obviously, we will need to refine it—is that we publish two sets of information: one to try to identify standard cases, so that we get some evenness and a benchmark; the other on the overall performance of the surgeon. Of course, that will be risk-adjusted and so on.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a strong and credible science behind that. In parts of the United States of America—New York state and elsewhere—that sort of information has been published for many years. I think that we can do better than them, and the society does too. There are some safeguards that we can put in place, but I come back to the fundamental point, which is twofold. First, patients have a right to know. Secondly, surgeons and doctors have a right to be involved in the process of patients knowing. That is the way we intend to take it forward.
Dr. Evan Harris: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Milburn: May I move on for a moment?
As I said, we are working with the medical profession to extend the number and range of specialties where information on both the consultant's and the unit's comparative performance can be published. In each case
454
we will work closely with the royal colleges and other professional groups to build on national audit work already in train.
That is a courageous step on the part of heart surgeons and the society that represents them. I believe that it is the right step. It will tackle one of the deficiencies that lies at the centre of the Bristol tragedy—patients and parents were kept in the dark about the care and treatment that they were likely to receive. With the safeguards that I have described in place, open publication will not just make for a more open health service but will help to raise standards in all parts of the NHS.
It will certainly help to empower patients and help them to make informed choices about their care. As the House is aware, from July this year heart patients who have waited six months for their surgery will be able to choose between waiting longer locally or travelling further to be treated quickly in another hospital. As capacity expands, choice can grow. Choice will fundamentally change the balance of power in the health service. In the crudest of terms, hospitals will no longer choose patients—patients will choose hospitals. That is a fundamental change in accountabilities, whereby the patient is in the driving seat and the NHS looks outwards to patients rather than upwards to Government or even inwards to itself.
That brings me to the other element of our response to the Kennedy report—
Dr. Harris rose—
Mr. Milburn: Or perhaps not.
Dr. Harris: May I quickly raise two points with the right hon. Gentleman? First, as regards the six-month limit, is he prepared to introduce safeguards so that hospitals do not try to rush people in within six months at the expense of more urgent cardiac cases where delays of between three weeks and six months have been experienced? I have raised that point with cardiac surgeons.
Secondly, I am so pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman's qualifications about league tables. With hindsight, does he think that performance league tables for hospitals should be subject to caveats and quality controls similar to those he wants for surgeons' data?
Mr. Milburn: Sometimes I wonder why I bother to try, but let me try once again with the hon. Gentleman—just to test my patience.
I have told the hon. Gentleman on innumerable occasions that when we published the first set of what he calls "league tables" for NHS trusts I said—as I have said on every subsequent occasion—those data were far from perfect. They are far from perfect. However, we have to start somewhere. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not saying on behalf of the Liberals that the Liberal party, of all parties, believes that the public do not have a right to know what is going on in their local health service. Of course they have a right to know, but caveats are attached to all such matters. However, we really must move to a very different relationship between public services and the public whom they serve.
I was about to say—
Dr. Harris: What about the six-month limit?
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reminder. As regards the six-month limit, urgent or

455
emergency cases must always come first in the NHS. However, if capacity is going begging in other parts of the NHS, or even in the private sector, which could be used for the benefit of NHS patients who face a serious operation such as heart surgery, we should use it. No one will be dragooned into exercising choice. By definition, choice is a matter of individual volition. Individuals will be able to choose—and rightly so. If that means that we will be able to reduce waiting times for people who, as everyone agrees, are waiting too long for treatment at present, it is a sensible course.
The other element of our response to the Kennedy report is to address what it rightly identifies as the confused system of accountability that existed for standards, regulation and management in the NHS. The report sums that up well:
"We cannot say that the external system for assuring and monitoring the quality of care was inadequate. There was, in truth, no such system."
For all those reasons, we have established a clear national framework within which local NHS services can operate. When we came to office in 1997 there was an absence of national standards and no means of implementing them. There was no means of spreading good practice or of eliminating bad practice. There was no national evaluation of new treatments and certainly no independent external inspection of local services. As Kennedy rightly pointed out, that lack of clear standards and clear lines of accountability underpinned the whole Bristol tragedy.
It is easy to forget how far the national health service has come in only four and a half years. There are new national standards for services—for cancer, mental health, care of the elderly and coronary heart disease. There is greater transparency in local service performance. There is a new legal duty of quality and a new system of clinical governance to enshrine improvements throughout the NHS. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence evaluates new treatments. For the first time, the NHS has an independent inspectorate—the Commission for Health Improvement. With the NHS modernisation agency, there are now new systems for when things go wrong and more help to learn from what goes right.
Within that strong national framework, greater devolution to local NHS services can take place. However, Kennedy recommends that we go further still. There are five recommendations in particular that we will take forward.
First, we agree with the thinking behind the inquiry's recommendations on the separation of inspection functions from the overall management of the service. As devolution takes hold in the NHS, the Department of Health will move from a day-to-day management role to a more strategic one. It will set overall direction and ensure that there are proper arrangements for management, standard setting, inspection, improvement and accountability.
Secondly, inspection will be strengthened and made more independent. Through the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, the Commission for Health Improvement will have a new function of inspecting individual NHS trusts and other providers that offer NHS care against a set of agreed and published criteria. Where the commission finds evidence of unacceptably poor services, it will be able to recommend
456
that special measures are taken. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) asked about that a moment ago. In future, the commission will also make an annual report to Parliament on its overall findings on the quality of services provided to NHS patients—a further mark of its independence.
Thirdly, there will be greater co-ordination among those organisations responsible for assuring the quality of care in the NHS. That will necessitate closer working and, over time, organisational integration between the CHI, the social services inspectorate, the National Care Standards Commission and the Audit Commission, so that health and social care services are subject to a common set of standards, irrespective of whether they are provided by public, private or voluntary organisations. In the meantime, I confirm that we will establish a new non-statutory council for the quality of health care to bring those organisations together with other relevant organisations, such as the national patient safety agency, the National Clinical Assessment Authority and, of course, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
Fourthly, there will be reforms to professional self-regulation. Kennedy says that it should be organised in such a way that it provides adequate and transparent safeguards for the patient. Through the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, which is currently before Parliament, we are actioning the Kennedy recommendation that there should be a new body—a council for the regulation of health care professions—to ensure that the individual regulatory bodies, such as the General Medical Council and so on, act in a more consistent way. I can also tell the House today that in the spring we will publish the Government's proposals for the reform of the GMC alongside its own radical proposal for the revalidation of doctors. As a minimum, reform will need to secure a GMC that is smaller, with much greater public and patient involvement, with faster, more transparent procedures and with meaningful accountability to the public and the health service.
Fifthly, we will strengthen the system for reporting and analysing adverse clinical events and so-called near misses. The national patient safety agency that we have established is currently testing how such information can best be gathered and fed back to the NHS. The aim is to have a national system in place this year. Among other changes, we will establish a confidential telephone helpline, as recommended by Kennedy, to allow staff and patients to report problems and mistakes.
Those changes, alongside others in the Government's response today, will strengthen the national framework for standards within which NHS care should be provided, so that patients everywhere receive high-quality care. There is one important caveat to all this, however. No one can guarantee, even with the best standards system, that mistakes will not occur. Medicine is not a perfect science; it is a human science. Even the best doctors can make the worst mistakes. Our task therefore is not to pretend that we can somehow eradicate every error; our job is to ensure that systems are in place to detect errors, to minimise them and, perhaps most important, to learn from them.
Mr. Hugo Swire: In the spirit of the Kennedy report, and given that liability in most of those cases was agreed as long ago as 1998, what pressure—as a part of clearing up this appalling episode—will the right

457
hon. Gentleman now be prepared to apply to the NHS litigation authority to settle outstanding cases such as that of my constituents Jim and Bronwen Stewart's son, Ian, as soon as possible?
Mr. Milburn: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that pressure, as he describes it, has been applied. Indeed, when I met the Bristol heart children's action group, I told the chairman, Mr. Steve Parker, whom he will know, that I would try to facilitate a discussion between Mr. Parker and Mr. Stephen Walker, who leads the litigation authority. That meeting took place on 12 December. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a substantial number of cases have been settled and £1.8 million has been paid out thus far in damages. A small number of cases are still outstanding and the litigation authority will try to speed those through as quickly as it can. However, some cases are not in the hands of the litigation authority but in those of the claimants' lawyers. It is for those lawyers to try to be as speedy and co-operative as I believe the litigation authority is.
I was saying that, to minimise and learn from the errors, we need to develop a more open culture in the NHS and certainly move beyond any culture of blame. Anyone who has read the Kennedy report will find its tone, given the seriousness of the issues that it addresses, very refreshing.
I have asked the chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, to assess the feasibility of implementing a controversial Kennedy recommendation, but one that needs serious consideration. Staff who report an adverse incident promptly should be immune from disciplinary action other than, of course, if they have committed a criminal act. We shall assess the feasibility of being able to do that. That is also why we are considering reforms to the current system of clinical negligence that Kennedy says
"institutionalises the notion of blame."
As the House is aware, the chief medical officer is considering proposals for radical reform here with a view to publication of a White Paper on this subject later this year.
There is one final point. Lest we forget, the tragedy at Bristol was a failure in services for children. Too many children were failed by a system that was supposed to keep them well, make them well and keep them from harm. Improvements are now coming through. At a national level, they are being overseen by Professor Al Aynsley Green, the Nuffield professor of child health at Great Ormond Street hospital, who I have appointed as national clinical director for children. At a local level, each primary care trust and NHS trust will have a senior member of staff taking responsibility for improving children's health. By the end of this year, there will be new national standards for the care of children in hospital. Those standards will be in place for the first time.
Thankfully, few of us in the House have experienced the tragedy that the Bristol parents have faced. That said, I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that that does not diminish in any way the determination of us all to learn the lessons and change the system that let those families and children down so very badly.
Some of the reforms necessary to do that are already in place; some are being put in place through legislation at this time; and some, as I have outlined this afternoon,
458
will require further reforms in the future. Legislative change takes time and cultural change takes longer, but no one should be in any doubt that the reforms required to open up the NHS, to make it more accountable to its patients, to strengthen regulation and to raise standards are now under way.
There can be no greater loss for any parent than the tragedies that parents faced at Bristol. There can be no greater lasting legacy than that we learn the lessons, reform the structures and change the health service so that it is better able to ensure that what happened then is not repeated again.
2.4 pm
Dr. Liam Fox: For me, this is an issue not only of national concern but of great local importance. That goes for all those Members on both sides of the House who represent seats in and around Bristol. It is worth pointing out that all of them—Front and Back Benchers—are present for this debate.
The tragic events of recent weeks that we all witnessed on our televisions and read about in the newspapers will have brought home to those of us in the House in a very personal way the sadness and devastation involved in the loss of a child. So much worse it must be for parents who know or believe that it could have been avoided. It is with the greatest admiration that we look at the parents involved in the Bristol scandal and see not a driving emotion for revenge, but a determination to ensure that it cannot happen again.
It is also worth pointing out that life has not been easy for health professionals in Bristol recently. When I worked as a junior doctor in a bone marrow transplant unit, I learned early on that I did not have what it would take to work with sick young people, many of whom would die from the trauma involved. The people who do that show a special courage in their care for patients. The good recent results in Bristol, to which the Secretary of State alluded, should be a major boost for them.
Bristol has an excellent medical school that produces excellent doctors, and high-quality postgraduate education that produces top-quality medical personnel. I am sure that all hon. Members with constituents who work as health professionals in Bristol will want to pay tribute to those who overwhelmingly act with only one motive—to improve the care for all their patients.
Naturally, we welcome much of what is in the Government's response to the Kennedy report, and when we have time we will consider some of the issues in greater detail. We have been especially pleased with not only what the Secretary of State said today, but with what the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), said during the passage of the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill about the Government's understanding of the need to move towards a single regulator for health care.
We very much welcome the strengthening of the Commission for Health Improvement. We always thought it ridiculous that when the Government negotiated the concordat with the private sector there was one body to investigate and regulate the private sector and one for the NHS. I think that it is nonsense to have two inspectorates when NHS patients can be treated in the two different systems. The assurances that the Minister of State gave

459
the other night were most welcome, and I hope that they will be transferred to proposals in legislation, which would certainly have Conservative support.
The Secretary of State will receive even more support if that single inspectorate is strengthened further and given a public health role. The improvements in mortality and morbidity have come about because of public health issues. It is worrying that we have falling immunisation rates and a rising incidence of infectious diseases and sexually transmitted diseases. We want a body that can take concerted action, across departments. If the attitude of the Minister of State in our debates in Committee and the House the other night is anything to go by, there is a good chance that we can get agreement on both sides of the House on a substantially improved and strengthened body. That would be to everyone's benefit.
There is no doubt that the Secretary of State was right when he said that information is the key to what Professor Kennedy wants. Those of us who have been involved in what happened in Bristol are all too aware that although there was an absence of information available publicly, a great deal was available to doctors in the know in the locality. It is interesting to see the referral patterns of those who were treated in Bristol. I hope that the publication of information will ensure that that problem does not happen again.
Questions arise from what the Government say in their response to the report. They state that more information will be
"provided to patients on how local health services compare with others"
and that there will be
"greater choice for patients over where they are treated".
We need more details on exactly what information patients will get. Will it include aspects of primary care and issues that go beyond that into the community? How will it be made available? Where will it be available—in libraries, surgeries or on the internet? Who will decide what local information should be made available, and who will decide what information—if any—should be withheld? Exactly how will patient choice be rolled out in accordance with the information that will be available?
We are interested in some specific details. The Secretary of State talked about publishing information on 30-day mortality rates. As he said, that opens up a range of other issues. He is right to say that the medical profession itself has been leading the debate. Its openness and willingness to contemplate the publication and wider use of data differs from past attitudes. Even during my medical training, information was still regarded as something that the profession owned. There has been a huge cultural shift, for which we should all be very grateful.
I completely agree that information is, in itself, a good thing, and incomplete information is better than no information at all. Only fools and knaves fear information, and if it is incomplete, our job is to try to make it complete, not to try to withhold it. If information is to be meaningful, however, we must have certain assurances about what it will contain. It must be comprehensive and it must take into account the clinical background of those involved and the sort of units in which doctors will practise.
Recently, a case came to light concerning a hospital that was to have one of its stars withheld because its neonatal death rate was too high, until it was pointed out
460
to inspectors that the hospital is the regional centre to which difficult cases are sent. That demonstrates our need to have complete information in the appropriate context before we can decide on its usefulness.
Information must include the value-added data that make it much more useful to patients. Of course, patients must be able to understand it, and the majority of them are not statisticians. It is difficult to look at tables of information. It needs to be presented in a way that is accessible and, therefore, useful to patients. It is no use if it benefits only those who understand the complexities of statistics.
Dr. Evan Harris: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman just said, but before that he said that the publication of incomplete data was always better than a total absence of published information. However, in his example, which concerned a star rating based on inappropriate data, the information was misleading and its publication might have damaged morale and led people to avoid using the best unit for the most difficult cases. Would not that have been worse than having no data published?
Dr. Fox: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but to say that it is better to have no information is to move in completely the wrong direction. If information is incomplete, one must explain why it should be improved and point out how that could be done. That gives the professions a chance to respond. Of course, it is better to have full information, but withholding information because it is incomplete cannot be beneficial in a health care system where consumers are increasingly well informed and, indeed, desire to be better informed. I find it strange that a party that used to be liberal wants to withhold any data. It seems that it has been left behind in this debate.
We are interested in what the Government said in their response about consent. Fully engaging patients in consent is one of the most important ways in which information is usefully imparted to patients in the health care process. Perhaps when the Minister of State responds to the debate he will give us more details about how the Government intend to develop that. Will we have standardised consent forms so that patients everywhere and in every sector will receive the same information about the procedures that they may undergo, about what will happen to them after an operation and about any likely risk? If so, how will those forms be drawn up?
It is worth pointing out that the system has improved markedly in recent years, with far better information given to patients who have consented to medical and surgical procedures. I hope that the Government, in making improvements to the consent process, will welcome the big improvement in professional experience and, not least, the involvement of the royal colleges. We must, however, accept that there are limitations to what we can achieve. It is far easier to get fully informed consent for elective surgical and medical procedures than it ever will be for emergency procedures. We must not throw the baby out with the bath water.
We must also make sure that patients are fully informed about experimental procedures. I believe that patients understand the need for innovation and, very often, if they are given full information, they will agree to be involved

461
in experimental procedures. What they find completely unacceptable, as will the House, is being kept in the dark about the real reason for such procedures. We have to achieve a balance to ensure that we are not putting at a disadvantage those who are carrying out valuable clinical trials, because that might impede the development of quality medicine.
Dr. Howard Stoate: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there have been improvements in the past few years. In my area and, I have heard, in other areas, consultants are now much more likely to write directly to patients, rather than to their GP, who will receive a copy, setting out the precise details of the proposed operation. The patient therefore has a written record from the consultant, which is surely to be welcomed.
Dr. Fox: Of course, that is to be welcomed. There is extremely good practice by some doctors in some areas. That is not the problem; it is that such procedures are not followed throughout the health care system. Any attempt to improve practice in both the private sector and the NHS is to be greatly welcomed.
Naturally, we have strong reservations about parts of the Government's approach, including the abolition of community health councils and the establishment of patients forums and patient advocacy liaison services. In recent days, our arguments on those matters have been well rehearsed. For example, we believe that the abolition of CHCs is ill thought out, expensive and vindictive. There is no reason for us to repeat those arguments today.
We are, however, concerned about one or two specific matters that I should like the Minister of State to address. The first relates to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The Government response refers to
"NHS bodies being directed to fund treatments recommended by NICE from January 2002"—
which we already knew about—but goes on to say that
"NICE guidance will no longer need the approval of the Secretary of State for Health before dissemination".
Who will make the decisions about affordability, and where is the accountability in the system? That seems to go against the earlier assurances given by Ministers on that front. Urgent clarification by the Minister of State would be very welcome.
It is rather unclear what is meant by some of the statements in the Government's response on the future training of health professionals. For example, it says that the Government are
"supporting people from non-traditional backgrounds to move into medicine."
What does that mean? To whom is it intended to apply? What will it mean in practice? What does the response mean when it refers to
"greater public involvement in the selection of those entering training as health care professionals"?
I am not entirely clear about what the Government intend by that. It would be useful if the Minister of State could clarify that.
462
I would also welcome clarification, which I thought the Secretary of State was going to give us, of the Government's plans for information. The Government response says that by summer 2002 there will be
"guidelines about sharing information with patients and parents of young children".
Details on those points would help us all to avoid any unnecessary confusion in the debate.
We look forward to the Government's plans for the reform of the GMC. The Secretary of State was right to say that Bristol acted as a catalyst to that reform, but it was, in any case, well under way. I welcome Professor Kennedy's positive approach to the concept of the maintenance of professional self-regulation. He says:
"For each group of healthcare professionals (doctors, nurses and midwives, the professions allied to medicine and managers) there should be one body charged with overseeing all aspects relating to the regulation of professional life: education, registration, training, CPD, revalidation and discipline."
He says that for doctors that body should be the GMC. I am glad that the Government have not listened to the voices of those who would have taken them in another direction.
I hope that when the plans are published there will be a clear separation of the disciplinary and investigatory aspects of the GMC. I suggest that it would be very useful if the Government included time limits for investigations, or at least for those conducted under normal procedures. There is a serious problem with lengthy investigations undermining professional self-confidence, removing staff unnecessarily from the NHS and costing a lot of money.
The Secretary of State alluded to the issue of clinical negligence. Professor Kennedy was bold in his assessment and suggested remedies. His report says that the clinical negligence system
"should be replaced by an alternative system for compensating those patients who suffer harm arising out of treatment from the NHS."
He went on to suggest that an expert group be established to advise on the matter and that every effort be made to create
"an open and non-punitive environment in which it is safe to report and admit sentinel events."
The National Audit Office report "Handling clinical negligence claims in England", published last May, estimated that on 31 March 2000 there were outstanding clinical negligence claims to the value of £2.6 billion. It estimated that a further £1.3 billion would be required to meet likely settlements for claims expected to arise from incidents that have occurred, making a total of almost £4 billion in outstanding claims. It showed that while 75 per cent. of publicly funded claims were unsuccessful, the total charge to the NHS for settling claims had risen sevenfold since 1995–96. In 1999–2000, 65 per cent. of settlements below £50,000 involved legal and other costs involved in settling claims that exceeded the damages awarded. Cerebral palsy and brain damage cases accounted for 80 per cent. of claims by value and 26 per cent. by number.
In 1999–2000, the average time from claim to payment of damages of £10,000 was five and a half years, which is not satisfactory. The debate has centred on medical practitioners and patients, and the effect on them of such a slow process. There is concern that the rise in litigation and its formal nature may adversely affect medical practitioners in their work and relationships. I have

463
first-hand knowledge of patients and doctors who have been devastated by the slowness of the process, and it has to be tackled.
The disproportionate amount of money spent on legal costs and the costs of settlement in smaller-value cases deprive the system of resources that could better be used to compensate patients or more widely deployed in the NHS. Many patients would like remedies other than compensation. The National Audit Office pointed out that a package of measures may be necessary to satisfy patients, perhaps including an apology, an explanation, access to remedial treatment, counselling, meetings with medical staff to explore what went wrong, an explanation of action taken to prevent it from happening again, and the provision of support. How many of those measures are missing in the sorry and tragic saga in Bristol?
We therefore welcome this debate and have issued our own consultation document, which has received a good welcome and thoughtful responses. I hope that the House can take a consensual view of what measures we need to introduce in this complicated area. We cannot allow the compensation culture or, even worse, the blame culture, to swamp our medical systems. Health spending is for health services, not lawyers.
We must still make a full remedy available to those who have been harmed in the health care system, which is why we find it hard to agree with Professor Kennedy's recommendation that we abolish the right to sue for medical negligence. We believe that that goes too far, but we are interested in conciliation, mediation and tribunal methods of achieving that goal. We are also worried about no-fault compensation, given the experiences of other countries, but we maintain an open mind on that.
Naturally, we agree with much of the Government's response and join them in thanking Professor Kennedy and his team for all their work. Many further issues have been raised and no doubt we shall consider them in detail in forthcoming legislation. There will be an inherent tension between inspection bodies and setting guidelines and standards on the one hand and what the Government describe in the report as the "freedom to innovate" on the other. All other countries suffer that tension, and we shall be no exception. Over time, we shall want to look in detail at the Government's responses and shall want to co-operate constructively, where we can, in the legislation that will flow from the report.
Finally, producing better and safer care is the best tribute that the House can pay to those who suffered so much in the Bristol tragedy.
2.25 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: I very much welcome the Government's considered response to the Kennedy report and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the progress that has already been made in implementing many of its important proposals.
Basically, the report spells out two things: what happened in Bristol and what needs to be done to prevent it from happening again anywhere else in this country. I congratulate all those involved in conducting the public inquiry, which has been extremely thorough and intellectually rigorous. That covers both aspects of the inquiry—the historic inquiry into what happened and the forward look at how best to avoid it in future.
464
I congratulate in particular Professor Ian Kennedy—now Sir Ian Kennedy—on the way in which he conducted the inquiry. When he was recommended to me, I knew that he was a great scholar and intellect. When I met him, I discovered that in addition he was questing and awkward, in the best sense of the word. I got the clear impression that he was extremely humane and understanding, so I was pleased to have the opportunity to ask him to chair the inquiry. My hopes and expectations, and those of everyone involved, were exceeded. He therefore deserves great congratulations on his contribution, not just to sorting out what happened in Bristol, but to future changes and improvements in people's treatment in the national health service.
After years of representations by concerned professionals and parents whose children had died or suffered brain damage, for a long time nothing was done—there was no response. It was 1997 before the General Medical Council finally started to investigate what had happened in Bristol, although concerns had been expressed in the mid-1980s.
In early May 1998, before the GMC concluded its inquiries, I met the Bristol heart children's action group, which represented parents whose children had died or suffered brain damage. I was deeply impressed, and deeply depressed, by the grief that the parents had suffered. I was deeply impressed and depressed by their dissatisfaction with the way in which they had been treated before, during and after what had happened to their children. I was deeply impressed and depressed by their disillusion with the personal, clinical, professional and management arrangements surrounding what had happened to their precious children: their children had been failed, and they had been failed. I explained that once the GMC had concluded its deliberations I would set up an inquiry.
The first time I met the group, we discussed the form that the inquiry should take, as there were various alternatives. I gave them a memorandum produced by Sir Cecil Clothier QC, the former ombudsman, which set out the merits, as he saw them, of a private inquiry with a public report, on the lines of the Nurse Allitt inquiry that he had carried out. I suggested that the parents should discuss the various alternatives with their colleagues and lawyers, and that they should then come back and meet me again.
I reflected on what the parents had said and its significance, and within minutes of their leaving my room I concluded that the only proper response was to establish a public inquiry with full statutory powers—that, in the circumstances, only that would suffice. Preparations started before I met the parents again and before the GMC came to its final conclusions.
Considerable pressure, one way or another, was brought to bear on me not to hold any inquiry at all, and certainly not a great big public inquiry, because of all the problems that it might cause. As a measure of the change that has occurred since then, I do not believe that any of those who tried to persuade me not to proceed would want to do that now. I am pleased that the culture in the NHS and the profession has changed and things have moved on.
By the time the General Medical Council announced its disciplinary decisions, in the middle of June 1998, I could announce the establishment of the public inquiry and the appointment of Professor Ian Kennedy to chair it.

465
The report confirms in detail what seemed fairly obvious in 1998 from a distance: there had been failures at every level—by individuals and of the system.
Surgeons had let down the children. The local NHS management had let down the children and their parents. The national health service advisory machinery on clinical standards, such as it was, had let down the children and the parents. NHS regional management had failed. NHS national management had let them down. Sadly, the professional bodies, including the royal colleges, had also failed to tackle this difficult problem.
It was not just a question of technical failure. There was an enormous failure of attitude, and a failure to take the right approach to patients and parents. They had been let down by the NHS and the professions, who were there only to serve them. It was not a question of failure against new, more rigorous and demanding criteria. It was a failure against Florence Nightingale's century-old immortal question, "Who is in charge here?" The answer was, "Nobody." Everybody was responsible, so nobody was responsible.
In terms of clinical standards, it must be recognised that at that time the NHS, as an organisation, was letting down patients and the professions. The professions were trying to set, monitor and raise clinical standards, but that was not working well, partly because of some of the professional attitudes spelled out in the inquiry report, and partly because within professional organisations and between professional organisations there was no clear definition of responsibility for identifying things when they went wrong, and for doing something about it.
Most of all, the NHS as an organisation made little or no contribution to the setting, monitoring and raising of standards of treatment and care. That had become blindingly obvious to me within a few weeks of becoming Secretary of State. That was why, even before the Bristol inquiry was established, we published a White Paper in December 1997 that was intended to assist the professions in what they were trying to do by way of improving standards. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence was established to set standards.
A duty of clinical governance was being imposed on the boards of NHS trusts. It is difficult to believe that for 50 years the NHS had operated a management system in which senior management had no responsibility for the clinical standards of the organisation that they were supposedly managing. All they had was a duty to break even at the end of the financial year—a duty that they frequently failed to discharge. They had no duty in relation to clinical standards, so they were given that duty. The Commission for Health Improvement was set up to make sure, through a process of inspection, checking and advice, that standards were met.
All doctors, we said, would be required to be subject to external clinical audit. National service frameworks were established to cover heart disease, cancer, the treatment of older people, mental health and diabetes. Patients and GPs, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State observed, were to be given information about the success rates of treatment in their local hospitals.
The medical profession was already moving to introduce the concept of revalidation, so that every effort could be made to ensure that doctors were up to date in
466
their knowledge and continually updated themselves. That was a difficult concept for the medical profession to take on, but members of the professions were doing that and continue to do so.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, there have been further developments since the Bristol inquiry was established. One of the most important was the work by the then new chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, who started to consider how the NHS could learn from things that had gone wrong, and to apply to the NHS the approach of the aviation industry. The aviation industry has never sought to learn just from crashes; it has also always tried to learn from near-misses.
In the NHS there was hardly a process of learning from the crashes, and no process of gathering information and learning from the near-misses. Eventually, Professor Donaldson produced his report entitled "An Organisation with a Memory", and now my right hon. Friend has proceeded with the establishment of the national patient safety agency, which will help the professionals learn from things that have gone wrong, not just in their hospital or their unit, and not just from their own mistakes. They will be able to learn from the problems and mistakes of other professionals, and to identify procedures that appear to be intrinsically dangerous and should be avoided, or procedures that could be improved by minor changes.
Such developments have been endorsed by the report of the inquiry. In most cases the report recommends that the functions of the bodies that I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have set up should be extended, their powers strengthened and their independence enhanced. I am sure that we all want that to happen. I am glad that there now seems to be a consensus in the House about the establishment of the Commission for Health Improvement and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, as well as the introduction of other proposals that some people described at one stage as time and resource-consuming bureaucracy. All those changes were intended to help NHS professionals to make it easier to do their jobs as well as they would like. That is what they want and why they took up their professions in the first place. They are entitled to demand from us a system that helps them to carry out their professional tasks and does not hinder them.
A huge range of issues were raised in the report. I should like to concentrate on two of them. First, a major change in attitude is required in the medical profession. I think that it is already under way. Secondly—this may be more difficult—a change in public attitude and a major change in the law are required. First, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, there must be a much more open approach to patients and they must be more involved in decision making. Part of that openness concerns personal relations between professionals and patients, but another part of it is the publication of data, in relation to which there are dilemmas and difficulties. It is no use anyone pretending that there are simple, easy and quick solutions to the problem. Indeed, I do not think that anyone is suggesting that; at least, I have not heard anyone do so.
If one is a dedicated professional, the crucial issue is that the data should reflect the truth. The simplest truth is this: "When I did this operation, did the patient live or die?" That is a plain simple fact. Oddly enough, previously, and during the time in which I have been a Member of the House of Commons, NHS data did not

467
distinguish between deaths and discharges. It was only as a result of pressure exerted by me and others that that distinction began to be made. The difference between death and discharge is simple and straightforward, and involves no element of judgment. The minute that we start trying properly to make allowances for the advanced—or otherwise—nature of the condition being dealt with, or for the general health of the patient being operated on, some elements of judgment come into the data.
We will have to allow that to happen, but it is crucial that it is done fairly. If the process is unfair to the professional, it is bound to mislead patients; it cannot do otherwise. Unfair data would do no one any good. They would undermine confidence and give false impressions of the brilliance of some and the inadequacies of others. If an impression is false, it is worse than useless. None the less, we must try to make a start, and the profession, including cardiac surgeons, has gone far in that regard. The extent to which professional bodies have taken on the problem and are addressing the dilemma, however difficult it may be for their individual members—after all, those are the people whom they represent—is commendable. They have carried progress on the matter a long way and they need our encouragement. Provided that they are willing to publish the data, we are going down the right road.
Then we come to the question of the personal involvement of patients in decisions affecting their treatment or that of their children. There must be greater understanding in the profession, or at least in some of it, about how patients and parents feel. Some people at least are lagging behind and must make a greater effort to put themselves in the position of the confused and not especially well-informed patient. If the patient is a child, those in the profession must try to imagine themselves in the perturbing and deeply disturbing circumstances of the parent. There is a difference between our concern for our own health, however good or bad it is, and our anxiety about the health of our children. Many people are fairly cavalier about their health, but I know no one who is cavalier about the health of their child, so a different approach is needed when dealing with parents—a more concerned and understanding approach than in respect of adults.
That is part of the professional task, and the majority of people in the profession are now involving patients more and are doing their best. Some of the most distinguished and well-known surgeons and physicians in this country are well known not only because of their success rate, which can be demonstrated by any data, but because they involve the patients, who get to love them because of that involvement. That is good for patients. It makes them feel better, improves the success rate and gives everyone greater satisfaction.
Again, I point out that we must recognise the difficulties. It is difficult for professionals who hope that they know what they are talking about in a very difficult sphere to explain the complexities of what is happening to someone who does not have their long experience and medical education. It is difficult to try to talk about the risks and odds that are involved. We cannot expect people to do that task easily without it having been included in their medical and nursing education and training. We must ensure that it is included. Imagine the difficulty for the doctor or nurse who is trying, as an individual human being, to say to a parent, "The child that you have brought
468
into the world and who you dote on has a 60 per cent. chance of dying—even if my operation is a success." Imagine saying to a parent after an operation, "Although your child is still alive, I don't think that I've succeeded and I think that he will die", and then saying later, "I've failed; he died." We must recognise that that is not an easy task and provide all the encouragement, help and training that is necessary to give people the ability to cope with those huge stresses, on top of carrying out a complex, difficult, demanding and lengthy operation. It is not easy, and we must try to help.
On public attitudes and the law, I believe that everyone understands that the patient may die if a surgeon gets something wrong. Equally, everybody understands that, if a surgeon gets things right, a life may be saved. I regret to say that, in our blame culture, there is a tendency to lose sight of the fact that the patient can die even if the surgeon gets things right. In recent times, there has been a massive increase across the board in the number of people who look for somebody to blame when something goes wrong and assume that someone must be at fault. People were at fault in the Bristol case. That is clear beyond any doubt, but it is not always so. We must therefore encourage doctors, nurses and other professionals to draw attention voluntarily to the things that go wrong and not to be frightened about being sued or damaging their career because they tell the truth.
That must happen not only because, as the shadow Health Secretary pointed out, failure to do so is expensive but, more important, fear of telling the truth is bad for patients. The national patient safety agency will not work if people are frightened to report things that have gone wrong. The threat of litigation could put them off.
Nowadays, doctors are told to tell all, come clean and apologise, and that many people will be satisfied. That would be best for patients, and many would be satisfied. However, doctors who pick up their cars from the hospital car park, drive down the road and bump another car are told, "You shouldn't admit that it was your fault or your insurers and everyone else will be after you." We are asking people in the clinical professions to do something that is contrary to the culture outside the hospital. We must therefore tackle the culture not only in the hospital but outside it.
I had a slogan: keep doctors out of courts and lawyers out of hospitals. I once made the unseemly suggestion that the only place for a lawyer in a hospital was on the operating table. Apart from visiting, that still broadly applies. We must change the law and take seriously what happens outside the hospital if we are to improve what happens inside it. I strongly support the report's recommendation 119 to replace the current inadequate, slow, unsatisfactory, grotesquely expensive and lawyers' pocket and handbag-lining system of dealing with clinical negligence.
The system's main fault is that it is bad for patients' safety. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that patients and their safety must come first in the NHS. They must also come first in our legal system. I welcome the chief medical officer's work in bringing people together to try to find a compensation system that is fair to those who have suffered but does not damage others who will be treated in future. When the Government present their proposals and we consider them, we should revert to the point that patients and their safety must be the top priority.

469
I have always felt strongly that we must resist the compensation culture that the United States would wish us to accept. Professor Kennedy also feels strongly about that. Unless we tackle the problem, it will undermine the impact of the inquiry's proposals, the changes that have already been made in the health service and the professions, and those that are in the pipeline.
I shall not attempt to cover other aspects of the report, but revert to what happened in Bristol. The performance of surgeons in operations on children's hearts in the Bristol royal infirmary was, to put it at its mildest, not as good as it should have been. Anxieties were expressed in the professions as early as 1984. In 1987, anxiety was expressed in the news media. From the time of his appointment in 1988, Dr. Stephen Bolsin, the consultant anaesthetist, expressed concern. Over the years, his anxieties grew, as did his efforts to get others to take them seriously.
For seven years, there was no outside investigation of the Bristol unit's performance. The representations that were made and the anxieties that were expressed at that time take up no fewer than 97 paragraphs in the inquiry report and are described as "confusion" and "muddle". Individuals and systems failed. Failings by individuals do not excuse system failures; system failures do not excuse those of individuals. The General Medical Council found individual doctors guilty of professional negligence. The inquiry found the system under which they worked equally if not more guilty.
Sir Ian Kennedy's foreword to the report summarises what happened in stark and simple terms, which I shall quote:
"There were failings both of organisations and of people. Some children and their parents were failed. Some parents suffered the loss of a child when it should not have happened. A tragedy took place. But it was a tragedy born of high hopes and ambitions, and peopled by dedicated, hard-working people. The hopes were too high; the ambitions too ambitious. Bristol simply overreached itself. Many patients, children and adults benefited; too many children did not. Too many children died."
We must all hope that the steps that have been taken to change the system, the changes that are already in the pipeline and the additional changes that the Secretary of State has endorsed today, all of which reflect the lessons from Bristol, will ensure that nothing as bad and on such a scale happens again. However, even the changes pose a dilemma. The new structures will produce many reports of minor failures that are observed early. The professions and the NHS may find their reputation undermined as a result of the publication of reports that are the product of the effort to improve clinical standards. All of us who want a better health service, including those in the news media, must bear that in mind. However, the improvements are the least that we owe the parents whose children suffered death or brain damage.
That brings me back to my first meeting with the representatives of the parents in early May 1998 when they made clear their wish for an inquiry that would put on record for them what had happened in Bristol. It was as important to them that the inquiry proposed ways in which to ensure that other children and parents did not suffer as they had suffered. That meeting took place 10 years after Dr. Stephen Bolsin first expressed anxiety about what was going on.
470
As the representatives of the Bristol parents got up to leave my office, one of the mothers asked, "Mr. Dobson, do you mind if I kiss you?" I replied, "Not at all. I like being kissed." She kissed me and I asked her whether she minded telling me why she wanted to do that. She replied that I was the first person in an official position to sit down and listen to what she and her fellow sufferers had to say. For 10 years, nobody had listened. That must never happen again.
2.59 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who started and ended his contribution in a suitable tone, while the middle was packed with suitable content. I agree with almost everything that he said. He should also be applauded for choosing Sir Ian Kennedy to run the inquiry and for giving the Kennedy committee the freedom of a wide-ranging inquiry. He had the option of establishing a narrow inquiry, which might have limited potential damage and only implicitly criticised the direction that Governments, including that of whom he was a member, had traditionally taken. He made a brave move that has been amply rewarded, both in terms of the subjects covered in the recommendations of the Kennedy report and of the acceptance by the Government of many of the recommendations.
I would like to read from the synopsis at the beginning of the Kennedy report, to set the context for some points that I shall make later about the culture of blame. Professor Kennedy states:
"The story of the paediatric cardiac surgical service in Bristol is not an account of bad people. Nor is it an account of people who did not care, nor of people who wilfully harmed patients.
It is an account of people who cared greatly about human suffering, and were dedicated and well-motivated. Sadly, some lacked insight and their behaviour was flawed. Many failed to communicate with each other, and to work together effectively for the interests of their patients. There was a lack of leadership, and of teamwork.
It is an account of healthcare professionals working in Bristol who were victims of a combination of circumstances which owed as much to general failings in the NHS at the time as to any individual failing. Despite their manifest good intentions and long hours of dedicated work, there were failures on occasion in the care provided to very sick children.
It is an account of a service offering paediatric open-heart surgery which was split between two sites, and had no dedicated paediatric intensive care beds, no full-time paediatric cardiac surgeon and too few paediatrically trained nurses.
It is an account of a time when there was no agreed means of assessing the quality of care. There were no standards for evaluating performance. There was confusion throughout the NHS as to who was responsible for monitoring the quality of care.
It is an account of a hospital where there was a 'club culture'; an imbalance of power, with too much control in the hands of a few individuals.
It is an account in which vulnerable children were not a priority, either in Bristol or throughout the NHS.
And it is an account of a system of hospital care which was poorly organised. It was beset with uncertainty as to how to get things done, such that when concerns were raised, it took years for them to be taken seriously."
The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras highlighted that last point, and many of the others, in his speech.

471
I am grateful to the Minister of State for the briefing that I received this morning on the Government's general approach, and for the opportunity to see this very lengthy report about an hour before the start of the debate. Making a statement, followed by questions, a few days after everyone had had the chance to read the wide-ranging proposals in the Government's report might have been a more appropriate way of dealing with this matter. Debating the matter now makes it difficult to give due credit to the Government for some of their proposals—although I shall try—or to give adequate scrutiny to some others.
Nevertheless, from what I understand of the Government's proposals, many of their responses to the recommendations are welcome. They will stand as a testimony to the people who campaigned for something to be done, including parents and Members of Parliament from the Bristol area who are here today, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), who cannot be here today. He, too, pressed for an inquiry into this matter. If there is broad agreement on the Government's response, the children involved will not have died in vain, because steps will be taken to prevent—to the best of our ability—such things happening again.
The report is clear that there must be not only adequate resources but honesty about the amount of resources available, and about what can be delivered by means of those resources. Professor Kennedy sets out, in paragraph 29 of chapter 4, how one might imagine that a Government would be elected, and would put the resources in place, and that would be that. He states:
"On this reasoning, resource allocation in the public sector is the product of a compact between public and government.
This approach would suggest that a service can never accurately be said to be underfunded since, within a relatively short timescale, its funding is regularly adjusted to reflect the prevailing political compact. On this approach also, it is idle to talk of a 'proper level of funding' or the 'necessary level of resources', since there is no absolute or proper level. There is only a political choice which, by reflecting the will of the electorate is, by that fact, the proper choice."
He goes on to make this important point:
"To the extent that this describes the political reality of how resources are allocated to the NHS, it is an approach with a flaw at its centre. If the government of the day opts for X resources to fund a public service and then represents that service as being able to provide services which in fact cost X plus Y, then it immediately becomes possible to use the term 'underfunding'. And this has been the history of the NHS in the period in which we are interested and beyond."
He says "and beyond", because this still applies.
The report continues:
"Governments of the day have made claims for the NHS which were not capable of being met on the resources made available. The public has been led to believe that the NHS could meet their legitimate needs, whereas it is patently clear that it could not. Healthcare professionals, doctors, nurses, managers, and others, have been caught between the growing disillusion of the public on the one hand and the tendency of governments to point to them as scapegoats for a failing service on the other.
Of course, if governments had claimed that the service delivered by the NHS should be judged on the basis of a comparison with a moderately successful Second World country, no complaint could be raised. But the NHS was"—
and I would say "is"—
"repeatedly represented as a comprehensive service which met all the needs of all the public. Patently it did not do so."
472
I would say that it patently still does not do so. That is why we must have an ordered debate on the priorities required. It is no good saying that the resources are in place, when clearly they are not sufficient to meet a particular need. I have said before that the resources that the Government started to put in, not when they came to power but in 2000, represent the sort of increases that we need. Indeed, the Kennedy report recognises that. In paragraph 36, on page 58, it states:
"In 2000. at last, the present government acknowledged this gap between claim and reality in the NHS. A significant boost in funding was announced."
We know that that will take years to come through in terms of increased numbers of staff, because of the time that it takes to train them, and questions must also be asked of the Government about those missing three years. Nevertheless, Kennedy does a valuable job in pointing out that the claims of politicians can sometimes create expectations that cannot be met. That can create a gap between the public estimation of the NHS and the reality, and the people working in the NHS often get clobbered as a result.
There is much in the Kennedy report about the culture of blame, and the Government often use such words in defence of their own policies. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was right to draw attention to the explicit terms in which the report talks about the culture of blame and the unwillingness to admit mistakes, both of which have arisen as a consequence partly of the club culture and partly of clinical negligence. The report states:
"Clinical negligence litigation, as a barrier to openness, should be abolished."
It goes on to stress that the NHS
"must promote openness and preparedness to acknowledge errors and learn lessons."
It also states:
"clinical negligence is part of the culture of blame. It should be abolished."
It recommends the introduction of
"an alternative administrative system of compensating those who suffer harm arising from medical care."
That means no-fault compensation, a policy that my party endorses, although we recognise that there might be cost implications. The cost might be greater than the amount saved in legal fees, but it might be less. We are pleased to hear that the Government have not ruled the policy out. The chief medical officer still has to report on it, and we look forward to reading the White Paper.
The lobby representing people who make a living—not unreasonably, in their view—on the basis of clinical negligence is strong, and I hope that the Government will be strong enough to resist it. It has a point to make, but reporting errors and swift compensation for patients are important. I am not sure whether the Conservatives endorsed that system when they raised concerns about the matter. Perhaps that may be clarified from the Conservative Front Bench.
Mr. Oliver Heald: I am happy to let the hon. Gentleman see our consultation paper on the subject. I am a lawyer, but I do not do personal injury work and never have and I do not practise. I shall be fair to the world of the law, if I may. Does he acknowledge that Lord Woolf considered the clinical negligence claims procedures and proposed some good

473
reforms that are just beginning to bite and that are speeding up claims? Furthermore, Lord Justice Otton has made proposals, which I do not agree with, that are not hugely dissimilar to those of the Liberal Democrats, so it would be wrong to suggest that lawyers are not considering these subjects intelligently.
Dr. Harris: I am happy to accept that and do not seek to scapegoat lawyers for lobbying in their interests. However, I hope that the Government resist that lobby and look beyond it, although I am not convinced that they will.
There is more to dealing with a culture of blame than no-fault compensation. There is the problem of what awaits doctors who might report their own errors and shortcomings and, perhaps more relevantly, what might await the friends of doctors or other health care professionals if they report that clinician. Something must be done about the quintuple jeopardy facing health care professionals.
In the event of an error being made despite there being no hint of malice and no previous history of negligence, doctors may face, first, a criminal prosecution then, when that is concluded, possible prosecution and trial by the General Medical Council. They may then be dragged through the courts and, in parallel, face disciplinary proceedings from their employer. Many such proceedings are rightly conducted in public so that there is accountability. Nevertheless, it is unique that those four areas of jeopardy may be played out in the full glare of publicity. People might be tempted not to reveal their error or report on their friends and colleagues who may be subjected to a long drawn-out process.
The fifth jeopardy is trial by media. The accused are urged by their legal advisers to make no comment, but those making the accusations have the right to do so in the media. For legal reasons and reasons of professional confidentiality, which must still be respected by the doctor or health care professional accused, they cannot be rebutted. That major problem is nowhere more apparent than in the scenes outside the GMC when someone accused of malpractice, but in certain cases not found guilty of gross professional misconduct, must run the gauntlet of the press and media. Indeed, the accusers, sometimes encouraged by the media, may throw fruit and insults at such a person who leaves the GMC by the front entrance.
Such proceedings may be necessary, but we must recognise that they represent a huge disincentive for people to report their friends and colleagues. The accused cannot answer back. I hope that the Government will at least recognise that the problem exists, although they are not directly responsible for it. Perhaps some thought will be given to the matter. Of course, health care professionals must run the gauntlet of another jeopardy—the danger of politicians naming and shaming them while proceedings are still going on.
To a certain extent, a culture of blame is encouraged by the Government when they list hospitals as failing. I shall return to that when we discuss the quality of data on which judgments should be made. There is always a temptation for politicians, especially when they are held accountable for failings in the service, to shift
474
responsibility to a few who happen to be at the bottom of a league table. I understand that temptation, but if the league table is not based on adequate data that measure the right things in the right way, it will lead to unfairness and encourage a blame culture.
The Society of Clinical Psychologists has long campaigned for suspended doctors, the majority of whom are eventually reinstated. However, the long drawn-out nature of investigations of conduct means that they cost the NHS a huge amount. Indeed, the Secretary of State raised that as a matter of concern in opposition. Something must be done to restore such people to the NHS as soon as possible if they are deemed fit to practise and it should not be deprived of their work for too long.
The Government response recognises the need to merge the Commission for Health Improvement and the National Care Standards Commission. We welcome that. I do not criticise the Government for indecisiveness when they change their mind and we have requested that they do so. That would be unfair, so I commend them on their change of heart, although regrettably it is too late to include it in the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, which has just left the House. That deals with reform of the Commission for Health Improvement and it could have been used as a vehicle for making that change. However, there will have to be further legislation, which pleases me as little as it pleases Government business managers.
Mr. Heald: The Lords could do it.
Dr. Harris: I understand that Members of this House may consider that unsatisfactory, as we could deal with those matters only when debating Lords amendments rather than during our two key scrutiny stages. Perhaps the Minister will clarify whether legislation has been drafted to deal with this welcome change of approach. All parties would like such timely legislation to be introduced, because the National Care Standards Commission is about to be abolished or involved in a merger even though it has just been established. That is not good for those who work for it or, indeed, work to it.
There is a significant question as to the independence of the new Commission for Health Improvement, which I raised on Report and in Committee with the same Minister who sits patiently on the Front Bench, and I raise it briefly again. It is not right that the Government talk in terms of completely independent scrutiny of the performance of hospitals and staff when they themselves lay down for the commission the criteria by which those hospitals will be judged.
The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that, if the data are poor or the criteria wrong, the performance indicators and tables may be unhelpful. I welcome those remarks. Indeed, as I believe and as he said, in those circumstances they may be worse than having no data at all, as they are poor for morale and they mislead patients.
The report refers to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) drew our attention to it. Paragraph 17 says:
"NICE guidance will no longer need the approval of the Secretary of State before dissemination".
The Liberal Democrats have raised concerns about the fact that NICE is asked to judge affordability, which is no job for a group of pharmacological academics or>

475
clinicians because that wholly depends on the resources in the NHS. The scheme's one saving grace was that the Department of Health and Ministers would have had to approve publishing affordability advice to the NHS, although it appears that that is no longer the case. What may be seen as a move towards greater independence might be a move towards shedding responsibility for finance and resources issues, which lie fairly and squarely with the Government.
There is a further concern about NHS bodies being directed to fund treatments recommended by NICE from January 2002. That would be satisfactory if sufficient and extra funds were available and clearly identified for funding those treatments. I believe, however, that in many cases, because there is not enough money to fund such treatments, other areas will have to be de-funded and de-prioritised. I am not sure that we want the tyranny of the appraised, as it were, that such an approach involves. I ask the Government to reconsider.
The Kennedy report speaks of the danger of a wrong approach to priorities. I do not think that the Government have responded adequately to that either. Page 81, which refers to a discussion of the role of the Department of Health, quotes Professor Sir George Alberti, president of the Royal College of Physicians since 1997, as telling the inquiry that the Department's focus appeared at the time
"to be more on throughput and waiting lists than on outcome or quality of care"
and that the
"guidance given in the area of audit was a reflection of this".
The professor is quoted as saying:
"They were not interested in results; they were interested in as many people passing through the system as possible for as low a cost as possible … commercial considerations did seem to enter into it rather strongly."
The report goes on to criticise initiatives such as those on waiting lists.
The present Government are falling into the same trap. I am thinking of their waiting-list initiative—which, thank goodness, they have abandoned—and their waiting-time initiative. If the Minister checks, he will find that I have never criticised the Government for the existence of a few "long waiters", extending beyond 15 or 18 months. I agree that that is an unacceptably long time for people to wait, but clinical priority should establish which patients are in most urgent need. The Government should tell hospitals that what is unacceptable is not a delay of a few weeks in treatment but the distortion of clinical priorities, which does not aid patient care, in respect of stable patients who have to wait longer than 15 months—a figure that is soon to be 12 months, then six months.
The Kennedy report describes prioritisation on the basis of numbers, rather than the clinical needs of patients, as being part of the culture in Bristol. I urge the Government to think again about the adoption of maximum waiting-time targets as the be-all and end-all of the waiting-time initiative. A better measure would be the average wait per patient, which would avoid the clinical distortions resulting from long waiters' becoming more clinically urgent than critical patients.
The Government have announced that hospitals will lose the funds following patients who choose to go elsewhere after waiting six months for a heart operation. That will put pressure on hospitals to treat people whose waiting time is approaching six months, so that they do
476
not lose the contract—the service agreement or the custom, as the new NHS has it. I fear that, as I believe has already happened, more urgent cases will be delayed within the six months so that cases due to be dealt with in seven months can be brought forward.
The Kennedy report talks a great deal about consent, and the Government should be applauded for their careful deliberation in that regard. They published model guidelines on consent in November, and have worked closely with the British Medical Association and other interested parties to ensure that they are implemented. I declare an interest as a member of the BMA's medical ethics committee, which has considered the issue regularly. Having done so, let me say that the BMA should also be applauded for its work on the consent guidelines toolkit.
Consent is not a simple matter. It is not a question of a signature on a piece of paper but an ongoing process, which continues throughout the management of a patient. The lack of informed consent at Bristol is one aspect of the problem, but similar aspects arose at Alder Hey. It will take a long time to change the culture—or, rather, two cultures. Some patients say "Whatever you tell me, doctor, I will be satisfied". Meanwhile, some doctors think that they know best. Nevertheless, I think that the change has already begun, and that the Government's deliberative approach will enable more progress to be made, not least in medical education. The importance of obtaining a valid consent rather than merely a signature is rightly being emphasised.
Before the hon. Member for Woodspring left the Chamber, I said that I wished to take up his—in my view—inappropriate response to my concern about the quality of data. He has not returned from the pressing media interview that called him away, and I am sorry that, once again, the Secretary of State cannot hear my response to his criticisms.
My point was that it was wrong to assume that all information put in the public domain entitled "Performance of hospitals" or "Performance tables" was desirable. Such data might be flawed; they might be incomplete to the extent that they were misleading, and would have negative effects on either the morale or the appropriate conduct of those being measured. I repeat that my party wants the public to be given more information, but that the information must be as complete as possible, although it will never be entirely complete. It must also be judged by means of peer review, rather than politically, for it to be of more help than harm.
I do not think that that has yet been established, which is why I was so pleased that the Secretary of State recognised the potential drawbacks of data. I pointed out to him that the Department of Health had co-operated with an earlier data set, which I think failed to take the difficulty of operations into account. It did take demography into account, and, through "Jarmanisation", specified the appropriate measures to adjust to the population that it served; but it had no data relating to the difficulty involved in some cases, and the complications affecting patients before operations.
Mr. Heald: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that the medical profession should be able to veto information? I believe that Professor Kennedy said that

477
that was part of the problem at Bristol. Surely, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will see that it just is not right.
Dr. Harris: I am merely saying that the data should be scrutinised. It would have to be decided whether they should be scrutinised by the medical profession alone or by an independent body—not a dependent body that would have to jump when the Government set criteria.
The Secretary of State acknowledged the drawbacks. That is why I was so pleased to learn of the basis on which the Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons will work with the Department of Health to produce data. I believe that the medical profession—like the hon. Member for Woodspring, I do not speak for it—is willing to produce such data, as it does in journals all the time. But the idea that publishing data is the only way in which to establish whether they are any good flies in the face of a scientific approach.
The Government should say, as indeed they have, that they want to see performance data. They should agree with the responsible bodies—which I think should be the CHI and, in the case of medical data, the relevant royal college—the criteria, and the adjustments needed to ensure that they are valid. They should then establish a peer review system, which should involve not just the medical profession but data analysts and experts and, indeed, members of the public—who have been left out of the equation—before the publication of data that could be misleading.
The hon. Member for Woodspring made the point himself. He said that data had been published leading to the removal of staff from a hospital on the basis of a poor neonatal mortality rate, although the hospital was a regional centre taking the more difficult cases. The publication of such data certainly leads to more information in the public domain—hurray for that—but it damages the morale of people working hard with difficult cases, and makes the public tend to avoid the best units because they appear to have produced the worst results.
As I told the hon. Member for Woodspring before he left, I thought his response dishonourable when he said that expressing such legitimate concerns—he was echoed to an extent by the Secretary of State, who cannot resist making such glib party political points—
Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to call an hon. Member dishonourable?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): That is not really a point of order. The hon. Gentleman has, of course, raised it with the Member concerned.
Dr. Harris: Let me make it clear that I said that I thought it dishonourable—a dishonourable thing to do—to say, when legitimate concerns are being expressed about the quality of data, that the Liberal Democrats therefore do not want information to be published. I did not think that I had used the words referred to, but I am certainly happy to consider the hon. Member for Woodspring honourable. I am saying that to say such a thing is dishonourable, and wrong. I believe that people
478
will be more willing to co-operate with the publication of information if they have assurances of the sort given by the Secretary of State in his opening remarks about the need to ensure that it is appropriate.
Mr. Swire: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on what is obviously a matter of great interest to the Liberal Democrats, as is evidenced by their presence in the Chamber. Does he think that the publication of data would have been helpful in cases such as the one before the General Medical Council today, concerning Dr. John Brennan and Dr. Graham Urquhart and the cancer tragedy in Devon?
Dr. Harris: I do not have the details of the case. Given what I have already said about the quintuple and even sextuple jeopardy that doctors face, I question whether it is right for a politician—whether or not he or she is in full command of the facts—to pass comment. We need to learn from cases in which people have been found negligent and in which suppression of data is involved, but I advise the hon. Gentleman to await the report on the case before urging the Government to act as quickly as possible.
Mr. Swire: To clarify that point, the charges against those two doctors have been proved. We are waiting this afternoon for the ruling of the General Medical Council on what will happen to them.
Dr. Harris: In that case, we should await the ruling. It appears that we do not have long to wait.
The Government's response to the Kennedy report contains many recommendations that are welcome, but I ask the Minister to consider allowing us a further opportunity to discuss the issue when we have had a chance to digest the report and some of the other initiatives that daily issue forth from the Department of Health. My central concern is that it is no good for the Government to defend all their reforms by saying, as the Secretary of State appeared to do at one point, that we need to get rid of the old order. As with the slaughter of the first born, any crazy idea could be justified, given the nature of the Kennedy report and the serious concerns that it expresses about what happened.
The Government must justify every one of their proposals on its merits, and in many cases they have done so. However, getting rid of a culture of blame will not be achieved by just saying the words. It will mean ensuring that politicians from all parties do not seek to scapegoat—on the basis of inadequate information—those who work hard in a system that does not have the resources to deliver what politicians have been guilty of encouraging the public to believe can be delivered. With that caveat, I warmly welcome many of the recommendations in the Government's response.
3.32 pm
Valerie Davey: Bristol—and especially the parents of those children who died or suffered brain damage during that difficult time—has waited a long time for good to come out of that tragedy. The Kennedy report was welcomed for both the quality and the quantity of its recommendations. After the Secretary of State's speech

479
today, and once we have had time to study the report in more detail, I am sure that the Government's response to it will also be warmly welcomed.
The Secretary of State widely endorsed the recommendations in the Kennedy report. The tenor of his speech was one of willingness to learn and to recognise the difficulties and the dangers of what had happened in the past. That is all part of moving forward and bringing some good out of the tragedy.
I am also sure that the parents would wish once again to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I am sorry that he has had to leave the debate temporarily, but I want him to know that the parents have not forgotten their first meeting with him in May 1998. I met some of them after they had been to see him. They told me that at last they had some hope for the future. As he recorded, they were glad that for the first time someone in authority had listened and appeared to be willing to take them seriously and share their pain. I thank him for that and also for the thoughtful and thought-provoking speech that he made this afternoon.
I doubt whether even my right hon. Friend recognised, at the time when he set the report in motion, just how important it would be, not only for Bristol but for the whole of the NHS. Some of the parents, however, realised that something momentous had to happen—a change in the culture—to ensure that what had happened to them did not happen again. That is why they put so much tenacity, determination, love and thoughtfulness into their struggle. They acted with such dignity in all that they did that I wish to pay tribute to them.
I also wish to acknowledge the work of colleagues, some of whom I know regret that they are unable to be present in the Chamber for this debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo) and for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), as well as the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), tabled questions in the 1990s—and in one case in the late 1980s—and sought to represent their constituents involved in the issue.
The parents have also set up a new charity, Constructive Dialogue for Clinical Accountability—the CDCA—and I shall mention later some of the work that it has done. Its work corresponds closely with the Kennedy recommendations and the Government's proposals in seeking recognition for patients' contributions, alongside those of the professionals, to the future of the NHS.
I also wish to thank both medical and administrative staff of the Bristol royal infirmary who, since the tragedy, have worked to restore trust between patients and the medical staff. The staff have borne the brunt of much of the criticism, but the quality of treatment, especially in cardiac surgery, has now reached a very high level. That is due to their commitment and hard work.
In the Minister's response to the debate, I would be grateful if he could respond to a poor article in the Bristol Evening Post that concluded, from the faults at the BRI and the Secretary of State's comments earlier this week about the future for failing hospitals, that the hospital was to be taken over by private administrators. Those conclusions were simplistic in the extreme, and I would be grateful for the Minister's comments.
480
The Secretary of State, in his foreword to the Government's response, says that bringing about the changes that the Government seek in the NHS will require "time and commitment". I assure him of the commitment of the staff at the BRI and, in the time that has been available, they have done great things.
It is not appropriate this afternoon to deal in detail with the 198 recommendations and the Government's response to them. However, as other hon. Members have done, I wish to draw out some of the underlying themes that are so important but which involve more intangible aspects that are more difficult to monitor but essential if we are to achieve the change in culture. The need for openness and accountability is a thread that runs through the report and that ran, today, through the Secretary of State's speech. The summary of the report states:
"Openness and transparency are as crucial to the development of trust between healthcare professional and patient, as they are to the trust between the NHS and the public."
We are now working at both levels, and we want greater openness between patients and professionals. In this case, there was a lack of openness—of which we have seen evidence—between the parent and the professional. We also need the wider trust between the NHS and the public to be re-established.
The fragmentation of the NHS and the establishment of competing trusts was not helpful in establishing the kind of trust that is essential—as opposed to the organisational kind of trust—to monitoring within the NHS. We need monitoring, and we need national standards for that monitoring of clinicians and managers. We have seen the disastrous consequences in Bristol where, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, there was a breakdown not only with systems but with individuals. When the two came together in Bristol, there was a culture of secrecy that is now being tackled.
Results in Bristol are now speaking for themselves. We have seen new data, although we have heard questions today about whether they are detailed enough. However, we have to start producing data, and those of the associate parliamentary health forum—as well as the work of Dr. Foster that was published recently in The Times— show that Bristol is doing remarkably well in cardiac performance. Bristol has the lowest standardised mortality ratio in the country, taking into account all forms of heart surgery.
The teams concerned need to be congratulated on publishing the data. They are the first cardiac unit to recognise the importance of publication, and they have done it of their own volition. That is something important to come out of events at Bristol. The beginning of a solution to the tragedy is for those clinicians in the cardiac unit to say, "This is what we have to do to raise standards. We have to work as a team."
I recognise that it is not just a question of the data. The data have been produced because the doctors and clinicians at Bristol have recognised their importance. They have worked together as a team, and have been willing to publish. They have seen the importance of that and they are now getting praise for it. It is not undermining their credibility, but enhancing it in Bristol, the country and this House. I want to applaud that, and it is recognised on both sides of the House.
Confidence is returning and a report by the Department of Health's review team on paediatric and congenital cardiac services is very encouraging. In summary, it states

481
that the Bristol unit can be "proud" of what it has achieved, that its "high quality clinical outcomes" were to be applauded, and that:
"The concept of close continued work with parents and families is obviously of vital importance to consolidate the improving confidence in the Unit."
Following the anguish of Bristol, I trust that people will now look to Bristol and to the BRI for good practice that they can follow to improve their services, too.
I endorse the Government's work to establish national terms of reference. Many of us—certainly people of my generation—find it almost impossible to believe that those national standards were not in place when we took our families to hospital. We were vulnerable, and yet we put our trust—rightly, I am glad to say, in almost all cases—in clinicians without national monitoring. My constituents and I now seek such monitoring in terms of what we mean by a national health service.
The second important theme concerns the regulation of professionals. I congratulate the Government on proposing the Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals. That was directly recommended in the report and must be an important step in the right direction. Part of that body's responsibility is for education, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). We look to that body to bring people into the medical profession from a far wider base.
At Bristol, we have recognised that, in some cases, medical schools have not drawn as widely as they should from the general public. We need people to bring wider experience to the medical profession; that would be useful. The report pointed that out, and I am sure that the medical department at Bristol university will be aware of that and will begin to tackle it.
I want to recognise the part played by Stephen Bolsin. It is perhaps not well known that he is in Australia now and has written about the benefits of a new electronic personal professional monitoring scheme that trainee anaesthetists are using. That scheme is bringing greater clarity and openness to the system, and it makes us realise that the impact of Bristol—which resulted, sadly, in the professor having to leave Bristol for Australia—is causing international ripples around the world.
Thirdly, the need for child-centred facilities has been mentioned. It is clear that the care of the child in most families is central and unquestioned. The fact that it was not central in the health service has raised eyebrows and caused deep concerns. With the establishment of the children's hospital in Bristol, we have far greater provision than anything available in the 1980s and early 1990s.
We need to scrutinise Kennedy carefully, as well as the Government's response. There is real dialogue in Bristol about whether we centre everything for children in the children's hospital—meaning that all other disciplines must be around that hospital—or whether we emphasise the in-depth departmental provision for, say, burns or neurosurgery. There is a genuine and open debate in cities such as Bristol as to where we locate children's services. There is no debate about the quality of those services and their prioritisation within the NHS in every city and district. How that is done is part of an ongoing debate.
482
No one should expect the Government's response today to be the final determining factor in the development of a quality NHS.
Mr. Lansley: On that point, the hon. Lady and her colleagues from Bristol have experience of the opening of the new children's hospital last year. On reflection, what is her view of this matter? The Kennedy report looked at the concentration of paediatric services in a children's hospital, co-located alongside other acute district general hospitals that could provide specialties that could not frequently be expected to be available in a children's hospital. The treatment of burns might be one sort of treatment that a children's hospital could not be expected to maintain full-time and would have to be co-located. Bristol has moved to that point; in Cambridge, we do not have such a service and we look to a children's hospital in London. What is her experience of that in Bristol? Would she prefer that, or would she prefer something different from the current system?
Valerie Davey: The hon. Gentleman asks questions to which I do not pretend to have the answers. I checked, and the Kennedy report speaks about operating such a service alongside a district general hospital. In Bristol, we have some regional capacity. Do we therefore take that phrase to refer to regional acute services? The debate continues. There is a lot of history to the location of the children's hospital in Bristol. The hospital is well served by the equivalent of district general hospital capacity, but what about the regional level of capacity?
I welcome the comments of other hon. Members today. I do not have the answer to the question, and we have not always received a unanimous response from clinicians and professionals on the matter. The question is a huge one. The Department needs to consider it carefully when it gives advice. I shall scrutinise its response to Kennedy very carefully.
I am sorry not to have an answer, but I do not apologise. It is beyond any hon. Member to offer a definitive response.
My final point has to do with focusing on the patient, and putting the patient at the centre of the health service. That strategy is informing the Government's approach to the NHS, and should also inform the public debate, as I said earlier.
That may sound strange, as one would expect the public to have understood the notion that patients are central to the health service already. However, as a matter of custom and practice, people have always deferred to the medical profession. The questioning by parents, especially in Bristol, has given us all a new approach, and set out a new agenda for the NHS that we need to follow.
The clear presentation of information by the cardiac surgeons in Bristol is a good beginning, but we must still listen to parents. The now established charity Constructive Dialogue for Clinical Accountability is made up of parents, the public and clinicians, and their aim is to ensure better dialogue. They want to make sure that communication between health care professionals and patients is developed. The charity believes that parental contribution and input to children's health care should be recognised as having a value equal to the contribution of professionals.

483
The charity issued a press release today that highlights the section of the Kennedy report that suggests that the NHS must work with people, and that it must celebrate its successes and make known its shortcomings.
It is invidious to name individual parents, but Maria Shortis and Trevor Jones have worked hard for many years to establish the CDCA. Although they are getting increasingly professional, they used lay terms to tell me that clinicians are not gods.
"Clinicians make mistakes," they said, "and we need to recognise that. It is no good them telling parents that all will be well, when it may not be." They told me that parents need to be treated as mature people. Obviously, they are concerned about their children, but they want the truth. Parents want to know what the probability is that an operation will succeed, but they understand about human error. That is their down-to-earth message. Thanks to some funding from the Department of Health, they have been holding training sessions around the country. They have taken on the GMC and the BMA, and have earned those organisations' reluctant respect.
Trevor Jones wants health funding money to go to doctors, not lawyers, as he put it. That blunt point has been echoed in the Chamber today. He does not want large sums to be diverted into medical negligence actions.
Interestingly, Trevor Jones made a link with the need for better provisions for informed consent. He said that truly informed consent requires better understanding. If clinicians took the time to talk in a mature fashion to parents about an operation's likely outcome, parents would have more trust, there would be far less litigation and money would be spent properly in the NHS.
I assure Ministers that the CDCA will not be entirely content with the response from the Government today. It will welcome what has been said, but its campaign continues. Its press release speaks about accountability and independent regulation, the adequate funding of quality services and active patient partnership. Then comes the sting in the tail: if the Department of Health is in charge, to whom is it accountable? Questions as pertinent and difficult as that will go on being asked.
I am convinced, from my experience with the Bristol cardiac unit, that lessons have been learned and acted on. However, the words of the Kennedy report still resonate with me, as they do with other hon. Members. We cannot guarantee that similar events are not happening elsewhere as we speak. I want to ensure that the lessons learned by the Bristol cardiac surgeons are learned by all similar departments in the rest of the country, and that professionals in every other discipline learn those lessons and act on them.
The culture of secrecy and of the patronising attitude to patients has begun to be dispelled in Bristol. I am sure, given what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said today, that the major task of ridding the whole NHS of that culture has been begun and is already, in part, in hand. All of us now must ensure that the process is taken forward nationally, throughout the NHS.
3.57 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey). Clearly, she and other colleagues have put an enormous
484
amount of time, energy and effort into supporting the work of the parents who suffered the tragedies at Bristol royal infirmary over the years. They have tried to keep the issues to the fore and ensure that they have been followed up. It is to the credit of everyone involved, including the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), that we can debate these matters today with the benefit of a report that is both comprehensive and challenging.
In addition, I hope that hon. Members who have lived with these problems for many years will agree that we must today make sure that hon. Members who have only read about them in the Kennedy report think about the report's conclusions as they affect parts of the country other than Bristol. The lessons have to be learned by people in other parts of the country and they have to be acted on. In that way, the hope is that we can prevent the repetition elsewhere of the tragedies that took place in Bristol. We can do that by systemic change in the NHS and by promoting awareness and additional openness in the service. In that way, we can ensure that the accountability rightly described by the hon. Member for Bristol, West is being exercised by those who bear that responsibility. Members of Parliament to a large extent share in that responsibility. I am therefore pleased to have the opportunity to think about those issues from the other side of the country, as it were—from Cambridge. We are being challenged to think about how they will affect us and the configuration of our services for children.
Several hon. Members have said that it is challenging to try to deal with the range of issues as there are so many. There are 198 recommendations, which makes it challenging to try to respond to the report, and indeed to embrace the Government's response and to comment on it. I shall not attempt to do that across the board but focus on just one area.
When reading the report, one of the issues that sprang out at me was its criticism of the lack of priority that has been given to children's health services over many years. Today, rightly, the Secretary of State and others have focused on the lessons than can be learned for the NHS as a whole in terms of accountability, professional regulation, consent for treatment, inspection of the service and so on, but underlying all that is the fact that the tragedies occurred in respect of children's health services. It seems that one of the reasons why they occurred was because a relative lack of priority was given to children's health services, which were not integrated and managed in a way that would have inhibited the lack of performance. They were too often seen to be at the periphery of the professional practice of a hospital.
Chapter 29 of the Kennedy report sets the matter out clearly. It paints a stark picture:
"it is a remarkable feature of children's healthcare services that, over a period of 40 years, successive independent reports have made the same or similar recommendations."
It mentions the Platt report of 1959 and the Court report of 1976. It does not go through them all in detail but elsewhere one can find references to the national confidential inquiry into peri-operative deaths in 1989, the 1991 guidance issued by the Department on children and young people in hospital care, the 1993 Audit Commission report, and a range of reports in the run-up to the 1997 general election, including one on hospital services by the Select Committee on Health and the Government's response to it.

485
Throughout that period, a series of reports often made similar remarks. They talked about the need for a child-centred approach to children's health care services; about recognising the difficulties for children of being treated away from their families; about a holistic view of the needs of children; about the given level of expertise required to deal with specialist factors associated with children; and about not treating children as a by-product of the professional expertise of treating adults—children are not simply a small version of adults when it comes to medical practice. The reports also talked about the need for minimal hospitalisation—it should happen only when absolutely necessary. There must therefore be a different approach to the relationship between hospital care and community care.
The Kennedy report says in chapter 29, paragraph 14:
"had the principles set out in the DoH's 1991 guidelines and the Audit Commission's report been implemented in Bristol, a good number of the shortcomings in care would have been addressed much earlier."
What we learn from that is that it is not sufficient to publish reports. It is not sufficient even to publish Government responses to reports. They may be more comprehensive and compelling, but they must be turned into action. There must be delivery in response. There must be delivery in relation to children's health services and an increased priority for those services within the NHS if we are to avoid a new, but different form of tragedy occurring somewhere else because of a lack of specialist expertise and a lack of integration of health care services for children.
Several issues arise from that. Specific recommendations arising from the Kennedy report concern the future configuration of children's hospital and health care services. At the moment, it is difficult to see precisely how the Government will respond to those. There are relatively few instances where the Government's response rejects what the Kennedy report has said but there are some. The Secretary of State rightly focused on what he is accepting in the Kennedy report—the recommendations on introducing strengthened inspection procedures and the role of the Commission for Health Improvement—but he might have gone on to say that he is rejecting the Kennedy report's recommendations in relation to validation and revalidation of children's hospital services.
According to the Government's response, if I characterise it correctly, to accept those recommendations would run the risk of losing capacity in the NHS for the delivery of services for children because of the failure to validate or revalidate a particular service. I am uncertain about that line of argument.
It seems that there is an interesting difference in the mind of Ministers. They say that we should not have validation or revalidation of services because if the answer is that a service is not good enough, quality standards will not be met, the service will not be able to be offered and patients will suffer because of the lack of that service for the time being. Therefore, we must have an inspection system whereby the Commission for Health Improvement has strengthened powers to the point where it can call for special measures to be taken in order to remedy problems straight away.
486
What are those special measures and how swiftly can one act on the commission's findings? If it is not very swiftly, by implication services provided to children will not be of sufficient quality and will not meet the necessary level of validation.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I am reluctant to interrupt a good and thoughtful speech, but I take the opportunity to clear up any confusion in the hon. Gentleman's mind. Clearly, the Department will not turn a blind eye to services that we know are unsafe. We will not hesitate to take necessary action. If that means closing a particular service when the evidence is clear that it is not safe, of course we shall do that. We will not expose children to unsafe medical practice at any time it is drawn to our attention.
Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the Minister. It would not have occurred to me that Ministers would turn a blind eye. Perhaps I should explain where my concern lies. It seems that one can take two attitudes in relation to services of that kind. One can say that services must meet a high standard before they can be offered. On the other hand, one can say that if services do not meet a minimum standard, they cannot be provided.
Often, inspection will find many quibbles. Inevitably, there is a large area that falls below a minimum standard, which means that the service cannot be offered. That service will have to show a path back towards a higher level comparatively, but there is a big gap between that and the point in a validation or revalidation system that demonstrates that one has met a certain measure of quality in order to provide a service in the first place.
The issue is brought into sharp focus in the validation of services that are not supranational or specialist. As the Minister will know, the Kennedy report sets out clearly the particular concern about hospitals across the country providing a specialist service when they did not have the necessary level of throughput. The issue then is whether validation is the better route. Is it better to say to non-specialist hospitals or those that do not have the necessary level of throughput of activity to deliver high clinical outcomes, "You cannot pursue that kind of service unless you meet quality standards"? That is a validation system rather than an inspection system.
The two are not mutually contradictory. Of course, having validated the provision of a service, one continues to inspect it to ensure that it is being provided to a satisfactory standard. However, it is not necessarily right to conclude that the validation and revalidation of children's services is complementary and desirable—perhaps especially as we want services with specified throughput rates in order to achieve safe clinical outcomes.
I raise that issue because I realise that to a certain extent Ministers are still thinking about it. Although on the face of it, the recommendations have been rejected, the configuration of services remains to be determined. National service frameworks must be completed this year because their shape will affect what flows from them.
As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Bristol, West, we need to consider the proper configuration of services because the lead times can be long. In Cambridge, Addenbrooke's hospital—one of the country's leading hospitals—is considering the shape of clinical

487
services at and around the site for 2020. For example, it is not currently the intention of the Addenbrooke's NHS trust board or the related health authorities to provide a children's hospital at Cambridge. That is because, although in every other respect Cambridge would be a satisfactory place in which to provide such a service, the catchment area comprises about 4 million people. I understand that the figure for Bristol is about 5 million. Cambridge is 56 miles from Great Ormond Street hospital, which is in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, but Bristol is 119 miles from Great Ormond Street. Presumably, the distance to Birmingham is somewhat less.
One might conclude from the above that there are implied criteria for the continuation and strengthening of a children's service at Bristol that would not apply to Cambridge. There are criteria as regards the number and location of units throughout the country that provide children's services in a specialised children's hospital. However, I am not clear about those criteria; nor am I clear about how the Bristol royal children's hospital has responded to them or whether it has used different criteria from Cambridge.
Cambridge is precisely the right place for a children's hospital: it has a teaching hospital, it has nurse education, and it has not only a district general hospital but the regional capacities for many services. That relates to a point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, West. In the time frame under consideration—up to 2020—Papworth hospital may come alongside Addenbrooke's as an independent hospital NHS trust providing cardiothoracic services. The Rosie—a maternity hospital—is part of the Addenbrooke's trust, so we have expertise in neo-natal intensive care and the associated paediatric services.
One could easily conclude that Addenbrooke's was precisely the type of medical campus on which one would want to site a children's hospital. The development of children's services in the NHS would point to that conclusion. However, people at Addenbrooke's and in the NHS have not reached that conclusion and are not working towards that end. Why are they not doing so? Have implied criteria already been established for the configuration of services? If there are no such criteria, we need to draw them up soon—in the course of setting out the national service frameworks—to decide whether we need to make changes.
Otherwise, in a few years, hospitals such as Addenbrooke's will offer paediatric services in a range of specialities but those services will not be grouped together in a dedicated children's hospital. That would give rise to the problems that were mentioned earlier. The peripherality and fragmentation of children's hospital services may be continuing throughout the country because we have not thought quickly or clearly enough about the desirability of reconfiguring hospital services and of creating additional children's hospitals.
In the past, hospital services for children have—because of the relatively small number of children who have to undergo certain operations and procedures—been located in quite distant units. The Kennedy report made it clear that fewer centres result in greater competence and better clinical outcomes. The report points out that for certain conditions, such as congenital heart disease, there may be a case for having only two units in the country that provide those services.
488
By implication, therefore, children and their parents and families will have to attend hospitals at a great distance from their homes. That will result in considerable costs for those families and there will also be effects on the general health of the children. Many charities can offer help; for example, the Sick Children's Trust offers families long-term support when children spend a long period in a hospital that is some distance from their home.
The report made some recommendations about travel support for children and their families, but the broadening of such support was not accepted by the Government, although their response today seems to suggest that they are willing to consider further steps to improve such support in due course. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that in his response to the debate. One of the ways that children's health care services differ from adult services is the complete dependence of children on their families. There are consequences for their health when they are sent to distant hospitals and we need to recognise that.
I thank the Secretary of State for his introduction to the debate. One important point is that we should not only publish data but should recognise that they will show us the difference in performance and clinical outcomes between different hospitals.
The Secretary of State talked about cardiac surgery. I have previously raised with Ministers the need to assess clinical outcomes in tertiary hospitals. For example, the Papworth hospital, as a cardiothoracic institute, has extremely good clinical outcomes. The publication of additional data will show that there is every reason for such institutes not to be merged into district general hospitals. That might make sense in terms of co-location but the clinical excellence provided by a separate institute with a clear focus would be lost.
If hospitals such as Papworth and Addenbrooke's can live alongside one another as two hospitals on one site retaining their tertiary expertise, that will be to the overall advantage of the health service. However, we must recognise the better clinical outcomes in tertiary hospitals, so I welcome the publication of data that would enable us to do that.
Much rests on the effectiveness of the Commission for Health Improvement. I have no way of knowing how good the commission will be in undertaking its task. It has been examining paediatric services at Addenbrooke's and it is also visiting Papworth. I have every confidence in both hospitals and await the commission's findings. Ministers should consider how much rests on the CHI. As we have learned only too painfully from the events at Bristol, we have to discover where things are going wrong and rectify them. We must also keep an open mind as to whether there are new ways of ensuring that services are correctly configured and provided to a high standard.
4.19 pm
Mr. Roger Berry: The dominant emotion that I, like other hon. Members, felt, and still feel, in preparing for this debate and on re-reading the Kennedy report was one of deep sadness at the events that led to children unnecessarily dying or being damaged and deep sorrow for the parents who had to endure not only that experience with their children, but many years of trying to get to the bottom of the tragedy's causes.
Unlike in many debates in the Chamber, I feel desperately sad about the situation, and I am sure that that is true of every other Member. I also feel anger because,

489
as has been said already, concerns were being expressed about the situation at the Bristol royal infirmary as early as 1984. This debate is taking place 18 years after those initial concerns were expressed.
In case there was ever any doubt about the importance of reform in the NHS, or the importance of the Kennedy report and the Government's response to it, I refer to the fact that, almost unbelievably, 18 years after initial concerns were expressed, we are debating the issue today. That cannot be other than entirely unsatisfactory.
Alongside the sadness that I feel for the children affected and their parents, I would also express, as other hon. Members have, my admiration for the parents who have consistently pursued over the years their campaign for a full and proper public inquiry.
I should like to congratulate, first and foremost, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). As he and other hon. Members intimated when we discussed the statement made in July, it was not as though establishing a full public inquiry was without its difficulties. Inevitably, some people will always wish to resist such a course of action. I should certainly like to express my great admiration for his decision to hold a proper, full public inquiry. It was the right decision to take; the tragedy is that it was not taken much earlier.
I join other hon. Members in thanking Sir Ian Kennedy and his colleagues for an extensive report, which took a fair amount of time to produce. Many hon. Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) was one—asked when we could have the report and see the outcome. I am sure that we would all agree that while the report took some time to produce, it is not only extensive in terms of the number of recommendations and pages; but a seminal document on the way in which we run our NHS, so it was well worth waiting for.
To complete my thanks, I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health for his statement this afternoon and for the Government's response to the Kennedy report. Inevitably, as the Government's response was available only a short time before this debate commenced, and although speed-reading courses are very effective these days, we need more time to digest some of the detail. However, the summary of the Government's response makes it clear that they are acting positively on virtually all the key recommendations. I thank my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Department of Health for the way in which they have dealt with this matter.
The Kennedy report is entitled "Learning from Bristol", and I want to take up a point made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). I have resided in Bristol for a very long time and am aware of events at the Bristol royal infirmary, but a substantial part of the report deals with the lessons for the future—lessons for the whole NHS. The report could just as easily been on events in another hospital in the United Kingdom, so we should acknowledge that it is as much about general failings in the NHS at that time as it is about individual failings in Bristol.
I want to make four brief points, the first of which relates to the need for standards to evaluate performance and assess the quality of care. Again, like my hon. Friend
490
the Member for Bristol, West, I was surprised to discover when I was first elected to the House almost 10 years ago that there were no well laid down standards or procedures for assessing the quality of care.
I was born in the year that the NHS was set up—within a few days—and I owe a lot to the NHS, not least being here today, but it had never occurred to me that throughout the 1980s and early 1990s there was no regime to establish standards for evaluating performance or basic procedures for assessing the quality of care. As I picked up the picture as a Member, I found it astonishing that we did not have such a framework, and I was certainly reminded of that when I read Sir Ian Kennedy's report.
As all hon. Members know, the report reveals that, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there were no national standards and monitoring was virtually non-existent. I was shocked by this comment in the Kennedy report:
"We cannot say that the external system for assuring and monitoring the quality of care was inadequate. There was in truth, no such system."
I shall not quote the report extensively, but it went to say that that was
"when there was no agreed means of assessing the quality of care. There were no standards for evaluating performance. There was confusion throughout the NHS as to who was responsible for monitoring the quality of care."
Much progress has been made in recent years. The Kennedy report indicates areas where things can be improved, but we now have clinical guidelines, through NICE, national service frameworks, the CHI and much more. Kennedy states in his report that that gives rise for optimism and provides it as the basis for recommendations about improvements, but I simply make the point that I cannot have been the only citizen in Bristol, or elsewhere, who in the early 1990s and before did not realise that there was a problem of the kind that Kennedy analyses. That revelation will have come as a great shock to the vast majority of people. People need to know not only that such systems are in place, but what standards of clinical care patients are entitled to; indeed, they have a right to know that.
Dr. Andrew Murrison: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the changes to regulation, inspection and audit that have taken place in the NHS over the past 10, 15 or 20 years. Does he agree that those changes have been features of our national life in general and that institutions other than the NHS have changed in that way? Such change is not unique to the NHS.
Mr. Berry: That is a fair point, although there is a certain importance in relation to the NHS—life and death—that is perhaps not always attached to other areas of life.
Dr. Murrison: That is a good point. Of course, the NHS is crucial—I know, I have worked in it. Other areas of our national life are, arguably, just as important—in particular, health and safety, and there has been a great deal of improvement in the way in which health and safety issues pervade life in this country. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on them, because they are also matters of life and death.
Mr. Berry: I am always delighted when Opposition Members support improved regulation for matters such as

491
health and safety. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but we are debating the Kennedy report and the point that I wish to stress is how welcome it is that we now expect in the NHS the use of national standards and monitoring in a way that did not occur at the time of Sir Ian Kennedy's report.
My second point is about the importance of open reporting. It may seem an obvious point, but let us not forget that the actions of Dr. Stephen Bolsin as a whistleblower led to the suspension of heart surgery at Bristol in 1995. We owe him an enormous debt of gratitude. It is not easy to speak out in such circumstances but, fortunately, I have never felt under the pressure that he must have been under. It is not easy to speak out and challenge authority, not least when one's job may be on the line. In his case, it clearly was.
Stephen Bolsin spoke out, made himself deeply unpopular and put his employment prospects at severe risk. We must give credit where it is due. As other Members have said, the Kennedy report refers to the time when there was a club culture and
"an imbalance of power, with too much control in the hands of a few individuals."
It is important that the club culture and the situation in which Stephen Bolsin found himself never occur again. It is important to be reassured that, should anyone else find him or herself in that position, they will be protected by current arrangements in a way that Stephen Bolsin was not. I invite my right hon. Friend the Minister to assure the House that that will be the case.
The other issue is the way in which the clinical negligence system acts as a disincentive to open reporting. How does one reconcile increased openness in the NHS with the threat of legal action? Members have referred to recommendation 119, in which Kennedy recommended the abolition of the clinical negligence system and its replacement with an alternative system for compensating those patients who suffer harm as a result of NHS treatment.
I know that it is a controversial issue, but I urge the Government to consider the recommendation sympathetically, and I believe that they are doing so. Yes, litigation takes time, people may have to wait ages for an outcome and there are the costs that have been mentioned, but I am sure that most people would prefer money to go to the NHS rather than in legal fees. There is no guarantee, under a litigation system, that those who suffer harm as the result of NHS treatment will receive compensation. Many people decide not to pursue litigation because of the emotional stress and the costs involved.
The key point is that the current arrangements can discourage openness and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras rightly said, that is probably bad for patients because they do not know what is going on. There are serious disadvantages with a litigation culture, so I welcome the Government's commitment—and their response today—to reforming the system of clinical negligence compensation. I look forward to the White Paper that will be produced in the near future.
My third point is about the need for a properly funded NHS. Kennedy, in his account of the situation at Bristol royal infirmary between 1984 and 1985, described it as
"a service offering paediatric open-heart surgery which was split between two sites, and had no dedicated paediatric intensive care beds, no full-time paediatric cardiac surgeon and too few paediatrically trained nurses."
492
There is still the need for increased capacity at the Bristol royal infirmary and elsewhere in the NHS, and there is still a need for more doctors and nurses, notwithstanding the very welcome measures that the Government have taken in recent years, but the point about a properly funded NHS provides an important lesson that we need to learn: we cannot expect a top-class NHS unless we are willing to pay for it.
My final point is to echo comments that have been made about the BRI today. It must have been difficult in recent years for people at the BRI to work as effectively and as enthusiastically as they have done in the aftermath of these events. I cannot imagine the pressures that they faced in those circumstances. Therefore, I wish to pay tribute to the contribution of the staff at the BRI today. The nurses, doctors, managers and everyone else have had the onerous responsibility of achieving change since the tragic events took place.
Today's survival rates for children's heart surgery at Bristol are now among the best in the country. We need to recognise that that has been achieved in difficult circumstances, which is a tribute to the staff currently working at the BRI.
We must learn the lessons from Bristol, but the Kennedy report and the Government response are not just about the BRI; they are about the NHS as a whole.
4.36 pm
Dr. Andrew Murrison: The Kennedy report is a magisterial tome, particularly the 530-page version. I prefer the slim volume but, like most hon. Members here today, I have ploughed my way through the big brother. It is to be thoroughly commended. I welcome it wholeheartedly.
It is a great shame that the Government did not produce their response earlier. However, those of us who sat on the Committee considering the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill will recognise certain strands that have been reflected in the Bill.
It is good to see that so many people involved with the Bristol royal infirmary—Members for constituencies in Bristol and the surrounding area—are present. We must recognise that the BRI is a tertiary centre that draws from a wide area. Many Labour and Conservative Members—although, sadly, not many Liberal Democrats—have been involved in the debate.
I declare an interest in that I trained at Bristol. I have the highest regard for the BRI, which turns out first-rate doctors. This is a sensitive report that acknowledges that. It does not resort to the blame culture in which politicians of all persuasions at times indulge. It does not subscribe to the cult of the easy target. Where politicians have, on occasions, been insensitive, Kennedy has trodden warily.
The report begins by laying down what most of us who have dealings with the BRI know to be true—that it is full of dedicated staff doing the very best that they can under difficult circumstances. I expect that, like many here, I struggled with the volume on first reading but, for me, the thrust was given not in the report, but by Professor Kennedy's subsequent newspaper statement when he was reported as saying:
"The report does not make a virtue of the number of people criticized and is at least as scathing about institutional failings in the NHS as it is about the deficiencies of individuals."

493
I recognise much of what was written from my time at Bristol. The report hints at a blokeish club culture. Although it does not explicitly state it, it hints at an atmosphere of bravado—the sort of thing that sadly attracts people who lack empathy to those specialties that are associated with high mortality and risk. I remember full well the towering and almost overweening self-confidence and arrogance of many surgical specialists at that time. Equally, however, I am struck by a new generation of doctors who seem to be in all respects different in outlook from those of the past, including the not-so-distant past.
My perception is that medical schools have, somewhat belatedly, realised that society has changed and that we demand a more conciliatory style of practitioner, with far better communication skills. The trend in our medical schools and in subsequent professional development has been towards enduring skills at the expense of more ephemeral learning of facts. It is a welcome development that has been driven by the profession and not by Government. We should pay tribute to the hard work that has been put in. I submit that that hard work will bear far more fruit than the Government's attempts at reform, no matter how well meaning.
Despite my up-beat assessment, I counsel caution. In July, The Times asked Professor Kennedy:
"Could Bristol happen again? Could it be happening right now?",
to which he replied, "Yes." In The Guardian in the same month, he basically said, "There but for the grace of God go any number of bits of the NHS." The problems that he found were not unique to Bristol; it just so happens that they manifested themselves first in Bristol.
Indeed, if we require proof of that we need only refer to the investigation by the Commission for Health Improvement into St. George's, Tooting that was published just four months ago. It concluded that the deaths of eight out of 11 heart transplant patients over a 10-month period at that hospital could not be explained away by chance. The report revealed that not only did surgeons and managers choose their patients inappropriately for transplant, but that the unit was infested with rats and cockroaches, which is disgusting.
I wish to dwell on communication because it is axiomatic that doctors have been bad at it, and this report is certainly witness to that fact. I think that all are agreed that we need to ensure that patients have more time with doctors. Indeed, that is an important aim of the current negotiations to develop the new contract for GPs and consultants. Five minutes for the patient is simply not good enough and I know very well that it is dangerous, both for patients and practitioners.
The British Medical Association's board of medical education is doing well in promoting communication and learning skills for doctors, but at the end of the day the key factor is time available for the patient. I fear that the Government must take a large portion of the blame for failing to recognise that for every bright idea, initiative or stipulation that they impose on practitioners, there is an opportunity cost—less time and poorer communication with patients.
On Tuesday, during the debate on the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, the Minister of State dismissed the second tracker survey because it covered
494
events in the last three months of 2000. He said that it was an historical document because it reflected a situation that was 12 months old. The events recorded in this report are at least six or seven years old and we must not suppose that what applied then applies now.
The report paints a grim picture of mismanagement and institutional failure at the BRI and extrapolates its assessment to the NHS as a whole, but we do countless professionals, whose dedication to patients puts many of us to shame, a grave disservice if we fail to register the improvements that have been made since 1995 and to recognise that many of the problems unearthed at Bristol originate much further back in the history of the NHS.
4.44 pm
Dr. Doug Naysmith: Like other hon. Members, I want to thank a number of people who contributed to the report and the Government's worthwhile response: first, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who described the circumstances in which he made the brave decision to establish a public inquiry to which we have the opportunity to respond; secondly, Sir Ian Kennedy, who chaired what must be one of the most thorough public inquiries ever, which presented sensible recommendations that are also clear, concise and easy to understand; thirdly, the parents of the children involved, who not only had their individual tragedies to contend with, but their individual grief to bear once more as the inquiry began and many of their stories came into the public domain again.
I rarely agree with my neighbouring Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), but I did today when he drew attention to the burden that has been placed on the staff at the United Bristol Healthcare NHS trust hospitals. There has been an unwarranted focus on them simply because they have been close to the eye of the storm. Similar comments apply to the current senior management and senior board members at the UBHT, who were not in post at the time of the tragedies and have coped admirably with their additional unwanted tasks.
Perhaps the most important result of the Kennedy report, and the Government's response to it, has been the recognition that the concerns of so many people in the national health service were ignored or pushed under the table for years. No appropriate action was taken on the very poor results of paediatric heart surgery for far too long. Although bits of information were available over a period of years, they were not acted on.
There are many disturbing comments in the report. It talks of a lack of leadership and teamwork, a hospital that was permeated by a "club culture" and the lack of open discussion. It was a place where review was difficult and, perhaps most tellingly of all,
"vulnerable children were not a priority".
There was no means of assessing the outcomes of treatment. Indeed, there were no agreed standards to measure local results against. That surely contributed to parents being told the national success and failure rates for such operations, rather than being given the Bristol figures. Had those been available to parents, it is hard not to ask how many children might have been saved if their operations had been carried out elsewhere. Parents who wanted to do their best for their very sick children were let down by the very people they trusted to help them.

495
To make matters worse, the report criticises the way in which parents were given details of the operations to be performed on their children. For example, it mentions details that were written on scraps of paper and that when children died as a result of the operation, some of their parents were told of that in an unsympathetic manner, with little help or advice being offered. This rigorous inquiry was therefore welcome, however painful it must have been for those involved.
The Kennedy report made 198 recommendations, and I believe that the great majority have now been, or are beginning to be, addressed. Today the Secretary of State brought us up to date with the progress. The major point about the dreadful happenings at the BRI and the children's hospital is that they highlighted several areas of health care and clinical practice that were not uncommon at that time. Bristol was not the only place where systemic factors led to inadequate services remaining undetected for too long. It may be true that there was an uncommon conjunction of bad practice in one place at that particular time, but elements of the Bristol situation were certainly present elsewhere.
I know that as a result of the scandal being brought to light and the subsequent inquiry, the BRI and hospitals throughout the country have changed, or are beginning to change, auditing and assessment techniques and, at least as importantly, their approach to patients. The result in Bristol has been a dramatic improvement in the quality of cardiac care for both children and adults.
I want to quote from a recent report by a Department of Health review team, to which there has already been a reference today. The team is examining every children's heart service in Britain. On clinical excellence in Bristol it says:
"The Trust has strengthened the Clinical Team during the last 3 to 7 years by appointing additional Consultants in Medical Paediatric Cardiology and Intensive Care and the recruitment of two full time Paediatric Cardiac Surgeons. The Clinical outcomes for Cardiac Surgery are amongst the best in the UK. It has a strong Intensive Care Team and a well balanced service from ante-natal diagnosis to the care of adults with congenital heart disease."
On clinical governance, it says:
"Audit practice and procedures appeared particularly strong and are coupled to the clinical governance system where it operates through the clinical directors on to Trust Board level. Again the principle of transparency was emphasised. The Cardiac Unit is the only unit in the United Kingdom which at present publishes its clinical outcomes on the internet."
That report clearly shows that much of what Kennedy recommended is not only sensible but achievable. That is why I welcome the Government's response to the Kennedy recommendations, including those that have been implemented and those on which announcements were made today.
4.51 pm
Ross Cranston: My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) began and ended his contribution with a moving tribute to the parents. My hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey), for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) have all spoken, as constituency Members, of their admiration for the parents. Of course nothing can replace their terrible loss or assuage their grief, but I should like to associate myself with my hon. Friends' remarks about them.
496
As the Secretary of State said in opening the debate, much has changed since these terrible events. More money has gone into the NHS and more doctors are in the process of training. There have been organisational responses. There has been work to ensure that patients' needs are taken into account; national standards have been established, and there are mechanisms both to monitor and improve those standards. In addition, more information is being published for patients.
In many ways, the report is an historic document, dealing with what happened, but also providing an important and challenging map, as the Government response puts it. The Secretary of State indicated what steps have been taken; what steps are being taken in the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, which is before the House; and what will be done in future by, for example, the Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals.
My hon. Friends and others have paid tribute to Sir Ian Kennedy, and I should like to associate myself with those remarks. I should declare an interest here, because I was dean of one of the law schools at the university of London when Professor Kennedy was the dean at King's college, London. I know his work. He effectively pioneered the study of medical law in this country and, in many ways, the report is a testament to his accumulated knowledge and wisdom on the subject.
I want to address one particular aspect of the report, which falls under the heading of "Openness". At the very outset, on page 3, the report says that although from the late 1980s there was enough information about mortality rates for questions to be asked at the Bristol royal infirmary, the mindset to do so did not exist. The information was not available to the parents or the public, and the information that was given to them was confusing, partial and unclear. In an important passage, the report states:
"Perhaps the most fundamental feature of a culture of safety is the need for the hospital to create an open and non-punitive environment in which it is safe for healthcare professionals to report adverse events, safe to admit error, safe to admit when things have almost gone wrong, and safe to explore the reasons why … Without a culture of safe reporting, it is impossible systematically to collect information about the incidence of adverse effects, especially errors."
That open and non-punitive environment did not exist at the time at the Bristol royal infirmary or more generally in the NHS. As my hon. Friends have said, the anaesthetist Dr. Bolsin blew the whistle. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his statement in July, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood said this afternoon, we owe him a great deal.
The report recounts how Dr. Bolsin became concerned about outcomes of children's heart surgery in the late 1980s; how he raised his concerns with his colleagues and within the trust; and how open discussion was inhibited by the culture. We had first-hand testimony from the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), who described his experience of being trained at the Bristol royal infirmary. In particular, Dr. Bolsin was inhibited by the fact that his anxieties concerned Dr. Wisheart, one of the most senior and long-serving surgeons at Bristol. Wisheart's view was that the reason for the poor results at Bristol was the condition of the patients, rather than the care that was provided. The report summarises Dr. Bolsin's position:
"The difficulties he encountered reveal both the territorial loyalties and boundaries within the culture of medicine and of the NHS, and also the realities of power and influence."

497
To promote a climate of openness and dialogue throughout the NHS, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when a Minister of State in the Department in 1997, issued a letter, "Freedom of Speech in the NHS", in which he called on chairs of NHS trusts and health authorities to adopt good practice, enabling NHS staff to raise concerns about health care responsibly without fear of victimisation. He noted that there was a private Member's Bill to provide legal protection for whistleblowers: he indicated that it had Government support, but said that it was necessary to act straight away in advance of the legislation. I commend his actions in September 1997 in which he was no doubt supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras.
I must declare a second interest at this point, because before entering the House I succeeded Lord Borrie as the chair of trustees of the whistleblowers' charity Public Concern at Work, which promoted what became the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. That Act was ably steered through the House by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and, in brief, protects people who raise genuine concerns—in the context of the NHS, concerns about risks to patients or possibly financial malpractice—whether or not the information is confidential. It protects NHS workers who blow the whistle and have an honest and reasonable suspicion of malpractice. Disclosure is protected if made internally and to identified regulators if the whistleblower honestly and reasonably believes that the information is substantially true. In some cases, wider disclosures are protected.
As a result of the Public Interest Disclosure Act, the NHS executive issued circular No. 198 on 22 August 1999, reflecting the strong support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Act's underlying policy. The circular noted that the NHS had had its share of incidents that could, and should, have been prevented, had staff felt able to raise their concerns about health care matters without being victimised. Clearly, what had happened at Bristol was one of the incidents contemplated by the circular, as the Kennedy inquiry had been established a year before by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras.
The circular required every NHS trust and authority to have in place local policies and procedures complying with the provisions of the 1998 Act. I hope that in his reply, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will lay out the steps taken to implement the circular. For completeness, I should say that the charity Public Concern at Work has done a great deal of work in the NHS to ensure that there are adequate whistleblowing procedures.
I return to the report, and in particular its consideration of the whistleblower, Dr. Bolsin, and of whistleblowing in general. I do not want my remarks to be misunderstood when I say that there is a flaw in the report. I am not criticising anyone for that flaw. It is inevitable in a task of such magnitude that not every issue will be given the same detailed consideration.
I look to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, in his reply to the debate, to confirm my understanding of the correct position. It is important for the future of the NHS and even more so for other parts of the public
498
services, as so much has been done in the NHS since my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State's letter in 1997. It is important that whistleblowers such as Dr. Bolsin feel able to take action in relation to serious concerns, without fear of victimisation.
What does the report say? At page 162 it states that Dr. Bolsin would not have been protected by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 if that had been in force, despite the report's assessment that although his actions may not have been the wisest, his conduct was understandable and he was right to persist in raising his concerns. His good faith is not questioned in the report. Unfortunately, the report does not mention my right hon. Friend's 1997 letter or the 1999 circular.
The legal analysis underlying the report's conclusion about Dr. Bolsin is in annexe A. I apologise to the House if what I am about to say is unduly technical. All that the Act requires of whistleblowers such as Dr. Bolsin is that they reasonably believe—I emphasise those words—that the information tends to show—again, I emphasise those words—the concern, and that the disclosure is in good faith.
The report states at page 141 of annexe A, first, that it is not clear whether any of the disclosures would have been protected as reasonable, and secondly, that mixed motives, which it rightly says are easily attributable to whistleblowers, would deny protection under the good faith requirement.
With respect, both those points are wrong. The test that a person should reasonably believe that the information tends to show something is a very low threshold. To suggest that Dr. Bolsin would not have met it is surprising—I put it no higher than that. The report sets out his collection of data, which clearly must have led him reasonably to believe that his concerns were credible. There is no criticism of Dr. Bolsin in that regard. Although hindsight cannot be taken into account, it confirms his reasonable belief. Doctors have been struck off, and we have a massive report with more than 200 recommendations. Clearly, Dr. Bolsin reasonably believed that the information tended to establish his concerns about children's heart surgery.
As for the point about good faith, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will no doubt remember from his own legal studies that in English law, the test of good faith is basic: it is honesty. By contrast, good faith in the civil law and in some aspects of United States law is more demanding. It requires fair dealing. To suggest that mixed motives, which whistleblowers typically have, obliterate good faith is to misunderstand the distinction. Of course, if the dominant—I repeat—dominant motive of a whistleblower is mischief making or if it is ideological, that good faith would come into question. However, the mere existence of mixed motives in no way means that there is an absence of good faith.
I believe that a third aspect of the report is in error, in relation to the wider disclosure that Dr. Bolsin made to Dr. Phil Hammond, the GP and media commentator. The report focuses on whether a particular gateway was satisfied. In my view, another gateway was clearly satisfied, as Dr. Bolsin had raised matters internally but had got nowhere and could therefore raise them outside.
I have detained the House for too long. I believe that it is very clear that Dr. Bolsin would have been protected by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 if it had been

499
in force at the time. The Act and the measures to implement it in the NHS, and more generally, have ensured a fundamental shift in culture since these terrible events occurred. I was especially pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announce acceptance of the report's recommendation on establishing a free confidential telephone line for the reporting of sentinel events. There is now a climate of greater openness and dialogue. Nothing in the report should dissuade people from expressing concerns because of a fear of victimisation. It is to the credit of Ministers that the culture has changed. The signal has now been given that speaking up about serious concerns is a safe alternative to silence.
5.6 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) made a good point about the protection that those who want to give information to the authorities require under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. I, too, will be interested to hear the Minister's response to that point. His contribution also shows that lawyers have their uses, as he gave us a fine technical legal analysis of the Act. Perhaps lawyers are not all bad. Have I made the declaration?
We welcome this debate, which has been a good one. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who opened for the Opposition, called for such a debate last year. We understood why it was not possible to hold it in November, but we welcome today's opportunity to consider the Government's response to the report. The debate has concentrated on the issues of information, openness and trust that are at the heart of what Professor Kennedy said in his report. I shall deal in a moment with some of those issues and the comments that have been made about them.
The debate has also been characterised by an understanding of the courage that has been shown by a number of people during the history of this dreadful situation. Of course, first among them are the parents, who have had to show great courage in tragic circumstances. It is hard to know how one would feel about losing a beloved child. There must be at least some comfort in the thought that something has come out of the tragedy. This is a very full, detailed report—I do not think that anybody could criticise it for not being fully comprehensive. The Government have listened and I pay tribute to them for that. The response that they have made today shows that they are taking the matter seriously, as they should. The courage of the doctors who deal with tiny babies and their surgery has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, as has that of the former Secretary of State in initiating a public inquiry. So, the debate has brought out some of the good qualities in this dreadful situation as well as the bad ones, which we should not, of course, ignore.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring paid tribute to the parents' courage from the perspective of a constituency Member of Parliament from the Bristol area. Several hon. Members spoke from that perspective and agreed with his comments about the parents and doctors who have brought about change at Bristol.
My hon. Friend spoke about the importance of informing the choice that parents make. He posed a question, which I hope the Minister will answer.
500
If comprehensive and balanced data show that a specific clinician in a specific hospital has a poor record, to what extent will it be possible for that to inform parents' choice? Will parents or patients be allowed to base choices about referrals on the data? If that cannot happen now, will it be possible in future?
My hon. Friend also mentioned consent and knowledge. He said that in some circumstances, informed consent was difficult to obtain—for example, in emergencies and when procedures are experimental. It would be helpful if the Minister could outline any proposals for handling emergencies and experimental procedures.
The Minister will be pleased to know that I shall not mention community health councils. However, if NICE produces guidance that has not been approved by the Minister, who makes the decision about affordability? It would be odd to leave it to NICE, given ministerial responsibility to the Treasury.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring made two other points. First, he referred to people from non-traditional backgrounds entering medicine and its allied professions. Will the Minister explain more fully what the Government have in mind? What would be the benefits? Secondly, hon. Members from all parties paid tribute to the General Medical Council, which has proposed reform and been prepared to meet the challenge of change. Do the Government have any proposals for speeding up investigations? Although the GMC should not be too hasty, a proper sense of speed is necessary for discipline and accountability as well as for the courts and dealing with clinical negligence.
The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made several important points. He was rightly given credit for choosing Professor Kennedy and for setting up a public inquiry. He said that there were failures at all levels and that one must always ask the Florence Nightingale question: "Who's in charge here?" He made important points about openness and the compensation culture. The extent to which the Government are prepared to move against the current arrangements on clinical negligence is not clear in the report. What is the Minister's thinking on recommendation 119?
The current system clearly has problems. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring said, it takes a long time to reach a result, and the legal costs often outweigh the compensation. However, most of us believe that there should be some form of legal redress in clear cases of negligence. We have ideas about moving more towards mediation, perhaps, or having a tribunal-based system, and about bringing informality into the system and trying to speed it up, building on the Woolf reforms, and so on. Is the Minister able to give us his view on this? It is important to avoid a compensation culture. I think that the Americans, if they had a choice, would probably not have the system that has developed in their country. Let us make sure that we do not have a compensation culture. Achieving that will not, however, be entirely straightforward, and it would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say on the matter.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) felt strongly that we should not have a blame culture, and I agree with him. It was something of a non sequitur, however, for him then to say that the information that is published has to be strictly controlled by the medical profession. I accept that what the Society of

501
Cardiothoracic Surgeons has done is excellent and a good example of teamwork—that is obviously what we must aim for—but it would be wrong if the medical profession or anyone else had a veto on information being published. It is important that information should be placed in the public domain, even if it is not quite as complete as one might hope.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring and the Secretary of State were right to say that to suppress information is never helpful. If incomplete information comes into the public domain, there are always opportunities for people to put it right. My hon. Friend gave an example of information from a regional centre, where one might expect the more difficult cases to be dealt with, not being clearly labelled as having come from there. His example showed what happens when information is put out that is not completely accurate. It was put right, because people are not prepared to accept false information. To suppress information is not the answer.
The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) made an important speech about the doctors who have worked so hard to improve the situation at Bristol. She rightly concentrated, as did my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), on the importance of child-centred provision. Although the hon. Lady did not claim to have all the answers—that was very honest of her, and something that we all ought to do more often—the points with which she was wrestling were important ones. There is no doubt that Professor Kennedy felt that this was an area of great weakness, in that suggestions for improving child-centred provision have been ignored for 40 years. It would be helpful if the Minister were able to give us some idea of why the validation and revalidation of children's hospitals is not to be pursued, and why he feels that relying on the Commission for Health Improvement is an adequate response to the recommendation.
Clearly, there are issues about structure involved here, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire outlined. There are also issues about the quality of the provision. Having met nurses and others who deal with children in hospital, I know that they say, "It isn't good enough to have surgeons who normally treat adults treating children, because they do not really understand how to deal with a child." Very different kinds of clinical procedure are needed when dealing with a child. I understand, for example, that children recovering after an operation need particular care—more so than adults, although we also expect a high standard of care for adults. With children, there are different considerations, and it would be helpful if the Minister would amplify the extent to which that will be dealt with in terms of structures, standards and monitoring, as hon. Members have requested him to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring asked a question that I remember asking the Minister in Committee not so long ago: what are the special measures? If the Commission for Health Improvement produces a report stating that a situation is unsatisfactory, the Secretary of State obviously has some powers of intervention. I believe, however, that the measures being suggested go beyond those simple powers. Will the Minister tell us today what they are? Will he also say why
502
the Government do not support the recommendation that travel costs and parental access should be more fully funded?
The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) made four points. He was surprised and shocked that there were no clear standards of care when the incidents occurred and that monitoring and an agreed means of evaluation were not in place. He also made an important point about the culture change that has occurred. My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) was trained at Bristol royal infirmary and he explained that years ago there was a hierarchical culture and arrogant attitudes among some surgeons, although he strongly made the point that that has changed.
Society's attitudes are changing and we are moving from a culture in which we accepted hierarchies and that the surgeon or consultant was not to be challenged or questioned to one in which we accept that patients have a voice and that they are entitled to information. We also accept that citizens are to be empowered, and I welcome that. It is not as surprising as the hon. Member for Kingswood suggested that things were as they were, but it would be surprising if they remained that way. It is a good thing that citizens are becoming more able to make choices and be informed.
The hon. Gentleman also made a point about whistleblowing and noted that health funding is important to standards. It is easy to ignore the basic funding position or the basic background against which a doctor works, but we should not do so. Inadequate equipment and buildings, which the report refers to, make it difficult for a doctor to perform and it is difficult for those in charge of monitoring performance and ensuring that it is achieved to set a world-class standard when world-class tools are not available for the job. We must all consider that issue and I am sure that we shall debate it further.
I do not want to speak at great length and there is much for the Minister to respond to. This has been a serious debate of the highest quality and, rightly, there was none of the usual party political knockabout. The report and this issue are so important that descending to that would not have been a good thing. I look forward to the Minister's remarks.
5.23 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Anyone who heard the excellent speeches of right hon. and hon. Members will reach the same conclusion that I have reached: that this has been a thoughtful but sombre debate, which is entirely appropriate to the subject. It was genuinely illuminated by important insights into the tragedies at Bristol and the clear and obvious failures of individuals and the national health service. All Members rightly emphasised the need to learn the lessons from Bristol. I shall say more about that later, but, most positively, they rightly decided to look to the future—securing higher standards and better treatment and care, which we all want in the NHS.
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) opened for the Opposition. I welcome his positive comments and his general support for the response that we are publishing today. He asked a number of specific questions. I shall try to deal with them, but in no particular order, as I have not arranged my notes in that way, although I may surprise him.

503
The hon. Gentleman began by asking what have become familiar questions about arrangements that we have established in statutes over the past two or three years relating to inspection arrangements for the NHS. He requested further and better particulars about how we intend to advance the commitment made today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to secure more organisational integration between inspectorates. I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming what my right hon. Friend said, and I thank the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) for doing the same.
The hon. Member for Woodspring was right to say that we must carefully consider these important issues. The changes in question would certainly require primary legislation. I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon that, given their importance, it would not be appropriate to try to make such amendments during the passage of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill in another place; that would deny Members of this place a proper opportunity to debate the Bill.
I am sure the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon understands, as I hope that the House does, that we are not in a position today to go into further detail about the proposed reforms, but, as I think I made clear on Tuesday, it is at the forefront of our mind that the NHS should have a set of arrangements for inspection of quality and performance monitoring that are as streamlined as we can make them, and the least bureaucratic possible. We want those arrangements to add value—not just to help the NHS to deliver high-quality services, but to inform the public better about the quality of those services. Those criteria will inform our thinking, and I am sure that Members will have many opportunities to debate them in more detail.
I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising the importance of greater public access to information that is comprehensible and adds value. I shall return to that shortly, because several Members asked about it.
The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about consent, and how we were proceeding with proposals to standardise consent procedures. As he will know, the Department published a standardised consent form last November. Its use will become a requirement throughout the NHS in April. He asked about the standardisation of information. We shall need to develop the issues with the professions, and with patient groups, but the model consent policy will require trusts to make patient information available locally and in a form that people can use—as tapes or pictorial material, as well as written leaflets. Trusts are also required to provide information on local advocacy groups.
Information needs to be tailored to reflect the provision of local organisations and services, and the procedures that a patient is undergoing. We want as much standardisation as we can get, along with as much customisation as we can get. Perhaps that is an example of the hon. Gentleman's failure to understand what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Tuesday.
The hon. Gentleman asked an important question about the General Medical Council. He asked whether we were minded to seek ways of speeding the important process of investigating allegations relating to fitness to practise. The answer is that we are very much so minded: we will look sympathetically at proposals to speed the processes
504
of the GMC and its various disciplinary committees, and to make them simpler. As we are currently discussing those issues with the GMC, however, I do not think that I can deliver more than my statements of general intent.
The hon. Member for Woodspring asked for more information about how we intended to move people from non-traditional backgrounds into medical careers. He and the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) seemed surprised that we want to pursue that objective, although I may have misinterpreted what was said.
The hon. Member for Westbury implied that all the progress that had been made was down to the medical profession—that, anyway, is how I interpreted his remarks. I must tell him, with respect, that I think that the Government have played an important role in introducing change.
Hon. Members asked how we intend to proceed. In accepting Kennedy's recommendation 78, we have acted against a background of action that has already begun. In 1999 and 2000, and in subsequent years, higher education institutions were asked to bid for extra places, and to demonstrate an active commitment to recruiting students from a broad range of social ethnic backgrounds to reflect the patterns of populations served by the NHS. Most of the successful institutions addressed the issue of broadening the socio-economic background of the intake in a number of ways. Those included reviewing their selection processes, promoting outreach schemes and creating new—or increasing the numbers on—pre-medical courses designed to broaden intakes. That is an important policy objective if we are to address some of the concerns that Professor Kennedy expresses in his report and that right hon. and hon. Members have raised on several occasions in the House.
The hon. Member for Woodspring raised several other points and I shall return to his comments later. I calculated that I was asked 49 separate questions during the debate and I shall try my best to answer all of them, but I cannot guarantee to do so. I shall certainly write to hon. Members about those that I do not cover.
Like everyone else who has spoken in this debate, I wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on his decision to establish the inquiry. It was his decision to appoint Professor Kennedy, who did a superb job, and to make it a public inquiry, which was undoubtedly the right decision.
My right hon. Friend raised two important issues. He spoke about the need for medical professionals to adopt a more open approach to patients, and he was right to say that that approach creates its own dilemmas. We need to approach the issue carefully, in consultation with health professionals and patients. I agree that information must be fair and not give a false impression. We will need to work with the health professionals and others to ensure that that happens.
My right hon. Friend also spoke about the importance of the way in which patients are treated. As he said, when they or their family or loved ones are ill in hospital they are often under great stress and feel great anxiety. I agree that the training of doctors, nurses and other health professionals has a role to play, and that issue is being pursued. He is also right to say that progress is being made; we wish to maintain that progress, even though it can be extremely difficult.

505
Yesterday, I presented some prizes at a writing competition for doctors that was organised by the BMA. It was not, as someone at the event suggested, sponsored by the pharmacists to see who could interpret the doctors' handwriting. Perhaps I should not have said that. The competition was designed to get doctors to write about what brought them into the medical profession and what motivates them to stay in what we all acknowledge is a highly pressurised and stressful environment. The entrants wrote some fabulous pieces on what made them want to become doctors, but the majority centred on the relationship with their patients, their care for their patients and their desire to improve the health of their patients. The points that my right hon. Friend made about the essential relationship between the doctor and other health professionals and the patient lie at the heart of many of Professor Kennedy's recommendations, which the Government have endorsed. That relationship is the key to making the NHS a better service for patients.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, the hon. Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon and for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) all expressed concerns about the law on medical negligence and how a fear of being sued must not deter doctors from being honest about failures or being clear about when things have gone wrong. Other hon. Members talked about the disincentives of the present scheme of tort-based clinical medical negligence law suits. That is addressed in recommendation 119, which deals with replacing the present system with a no-fault compensation scheme.
All that I can say on the issue, which has obviously been the subject of serious concern, is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that we will publish a White Paper that will consider all the issues in some detail. The way forward will be informed by the work that the chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, has already begun of talking to the professions, lawyers, patient groups and others, and by what Professor Kennedy has to say on that immensely complicated matter, which also raises human rights issues.
Dr. Fox: The Minister is right that the issue is complicated. None of us expects a simplistic solution, but can he give us a rough idea of when the Government might be able bring their proposals to the House?
Mr. Hutton: We will do it as quickly as we can and I hope that, in the not too distant future, we will have the White Paper. I cannot give a specific date—[Interruption.] That is what it says here, anyway. The hon. Member for Woodspring must understand that these are complicated issues. If we were to rush to produce an unsatisfactory White Paper, he would be the first to jump up and say that it was a rushed job. The seriousness of the issues raised today means that the most detailed consideration will be required before the White Paper is produced.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon made one of his usual speeches about the NHS and offered his prescription for what is wrong with it. He started where the Liberals always start—with resources.
506
[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is not here? Then this will not be nearly as much fun. [Laughter.] That is a great shame. I am sure that he will be listening through the monitors. If not, I shall send him a video of my remarks.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon spoke about resources, and made a perfectly fair criticism in that regard, but there are two points that I should make. First, Kennedy himself recognised and acknowledged the importance of the extra investment that the Government are making in the NHS. That is an important point to get on the record. Secondly, Professor Kennedy's report made it clear that the problems at Bristol were not caused by underfunding. He made it clear in paragraph 39 that that is not his view of the problems. That is not to say that there were not resource pressures at Bristol, but they were being experienced in every other hospital across the country at that time, and Bristol's performance was significantly poorer. The problems are clear and Professor Kennedy's analysis was specific.
I have dealt with the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon about recommendation 119, albeit perhaps not to his satisfaction. I welcome his support for the general direction in which we are travelling in relation to the reform of inspection, but I am disappointed, although I cannot say that I am surprised, by his comments on the CHI and the role of Ministers in setting priorities for the NHS. I have told him many times that that is a perfectly legitimate job for Ministers. It is Ministers' job to set priorities for the NHS—it is our responsibility to this House and the public at large.
I must take issue with the hon. Gentleman's view that there is any benefit or constitutional propriety in shuffling off that responsibility to the CHI, whose job is different—to inspect the NHS and to advise this House and Ministers about the quality of NHS care, not to supplant the proper role of Ministers in determining the overall priorities for the NHS.
We are making substantial extra resources available to support the introduction of the NICE guidelines. The hon. Gentleman took a rather cynical attitude to the issue of making more information available to patients—an issue to which we shall return in future. I was left in some doubt, however, about whether he was on the side of patients in this regard, and he needs to make up his mind about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) made an impressive speech, and I echo and endorse her praise for those who not only campaigned on behalf of patients caught up in the tragedy but worked tirelessly to support their families. She mentioned Maria Shortis and Trevor Jones, and I echo her support. She was right to reflect the commitment and professionalism of staff at the BRI, who will continue to dedicate themselves to the needs and interests of their patients.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the benefits of publishing more health care information. Along with the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), my hon. Friend raised the important issue of service reconfigurations affecting children in the NHS. The report makes a number of important recommendations in this regard. The hon. Gentleman referred to developments that are planned or under consideration in his constituency. He will know that we are committed to establishing a new national service framework for children's services across

507
the NHS. It will be an important step forward in improving services along the lines that Kennedy would like. Everyone in the House who is concerned about the welfare of children would like to see that as well. The work is being led by Professor David Hall, President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and Jo Williams, the director of social services in Cheshire, with the support of a number of leading professionals in the field.
That is about all that I can say today about how the reconfiguration will be addressed. It will form part of the work of the external reference group, and ultimately it will be reflected in the national service framework.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West said that, although the Kennedy report made it clear where the responsibilities lay, she had been asked to whom the Department of Health was accountable. I can tell her that the Department is responsible to the country, the public and hon. Members. Long may that remain so: we are fully accountable, in this House and outside it, for our decisions. The country will be the final judge of our performance.
The hon. Gentleman made a considered speech, as always. He was right to look at the report's implications for other parts of the country and of the NHS. He focused on children's services in the NHS. As I said, matters to do with reconfiguration will be dealt with as part of the work on the national service framework.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that it will not be enough just to publish another report on improving those services. All of us know, from our experience in the House, in business or in government, that reports do not implement themselves. They need to be monitored and implemented. There will be a clear timetable for implementation of the national service framework, and that will form the benchmark for CHI inspections. We are under no illusions about the job that needs to be done, but I assure the House that this report will not gather dust on anyone's shelf.
I am grateful for the support that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire expressed for the families of sick children. He and other hon. Members asked about recommendation 142, which covers the hospital travel costs scheme. We have to make a difficult judgment on the matter. It is right that NHS resources are targeted on those whose need is greatest in regard to travel and support costs, but he will know that trusts use their general powers of discretion to provide a range of support facilities for patients and family members caught up in terrible events such as happened in Bristol.
Hon. Members will, like me, have visited hospitals where trusts make overnight accommodation available to parents and others and that provide a range of other services to support patients and families who have to travel with sick children. Again, long may that continue to happen, but we have to make a hard judgment about access to the travel costs scheme. We believe that help should be focused on those with the greatest need, but we will also do everything in our power to support the wider use of trusts' discretionary powers.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood about the importance of the report. I welcome his support for the Government's response. He was right to emphasise the need for national standards. He and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North
508
(Ross Cranston) raised concerns about the extent and scope of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 in relation to Dr. Stephen Bolsin.
We have corresponded with Public Concern at Work on the matter. In the light of Professor Kennedy's recommendations and conclusions in that regard, we have carefully looked again at the scope of the 1998 Act. We are completely satisfied that if the Act had been in force when Dr. Bolsin made his recommendations, it would have given him the necessary protection and cover, as it was designed to do.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North made a scholarly and learned speech, in which he referred very politely to my legal training—although I do not think that my training was quite as good as his. I can confirm to him, as I have to Guy Dehn at Public Concern at Work, that the legal advice that we have received supports that organisation' s interpretation of the relevant sections of the 1998 Act. I am therefore satisfied that Dr. Bolsin would have been fully protected by the legislation. We will, of course, keep the matter under the closest scrutiny.
The hon. Member for Westbury rightly called the Kennedy report a magisterial tome, and welcomed both it and the Government's response. He described the report as sensitive and reflective, and he was right to do so. We certainly benefited from hearing his personal and professional observations about working at the Bristol royal infirmary. I welcome, too, his support for expanding recruitment to medical schools to a wider social range. That is the right thing to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) described the recommendations as clear, concise and easy to understand. That is true. Like other Bristol Members, to whom I pay tribute, he emphasised the high quality of paediatric cardiac services at the BRI. Kennedy's recommendations were sensible and achievable. I agree with my hon. Friend in that regard.
I have referred already to the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North, who rightly described the Kennedy report as an historic document. I am grateful for his support for the measures that we are taking.
Professor Kennedy's report on events at Bristol royal infirmary between 1984 and 1995 marks a seminal moment in the history of the NHS. It not only accurately identified the problems that existed at Bristol and across the NHS at that time—the lack of national standards, the absence of a proper system for monitoring and ensuring quality, the lack of information for patients, no effective role for the public in local health care services and inadequate regulation of both professions and services—but pointed the way forward in ensuring that the NHS learns from those events and improves its service to patients. We intend to make sure that that happens.
Mr. Lansley: I recognise that the Minister was asked to give answers to many questions and that he has not dealt with them all, but I draw his attention to the fact that I and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) referred to the Government's rejection of a package of 10 recommendations in the Kennedy report on validation and revalidation of trusts providing children's services to build quality into the provision of services, rather than to seek to inspect them

509
post hoc. The Minister may refer to that at the same time as he says that the Government are going in the right direction on inspection.
Mr. Hutton: I intend to refer to that, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong in his description of the difference between validation and inspection. It is wrong to say that the Government are concerned only about measuring quality, as it were, post hoc. We are building quality into services by, for example, establishing the new national standards contained in the national service frameworks and in a range of other measures, including NICE guidelines.
Under NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, CHI will have new powers to advise Ministers about a range of special measures that could be taken. The hon. Member for Woodspring asked what those special measures would be. We have been through that issue on many occasions. He is aware of the range of special measures, which could range from visits from the modernisation agency and, looking at practice and how it can be improved to taking more serious measures: for example, to curtailing the provision of a service if it is unsafe and is placing patients' lives at risk. It is wrong to say that in rejecting the recommendations on validation we have compromised the pursuit of high-quality services across the NHS. It is just a different mechanism for securing those quality improvements.
In identifying the problems and recommending solutions, we warmly welcome the fact that Professor Sir Ian Kennedy has given a broad welcome and endorsement for the NHS plan and the general direction of health service reform and investment that the Government have initiated since taking office in 1997.
The events at Bristol were, in the view of Professor Kennedy, a tragedy. No one can dispute that assessment. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, the inquiry team estimated that between 1991 and 1995 alone, 30 to 35 more children under the age of one died after open-heart surgery at Bristol than might have been expected had the unit been typical of other paediatric cardiac surgery units in England at the time.
In five of the seven years between 1988 and 1994, the mortality rate at Bristol was roughly double that elsewhere in the NHS. As many hon. Members have observed, the warning signs were obvious but were neither acted on nor taken seriously enough. As Professor Kennedy makes clear, the failures were both structural and individual.
Too many children died as a result. In the view of the inquiry team, a third of all the children who underwent open-heart surgery at Bristol received less than adequate care. Those children and their families were let down by the very system that was supposed to protect and care for them. The emotional consequences of those failures are still being felt today by all the families involved, who have been devastated by the loss of those so young and vulnerable.
While acknowledging that grief and sense of loss, as we must do in the House today, it is important, as the
510
hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon did, to record the view of the inquiry team:
"The story of the paediatric cardiac surgical service in Bristol is not an account of bad people. Nor is it an account of people who did not care, nor of people who wilfully harmed patients. It is an account of people who cared greatly about human suffering, and were dedicated and well motivated."
However, as the report noted:
"The system for delivering paediatric cardiac services in Bristol was frankly not up to the task".
The failures in Bristol were both within the hospital—in its organisation, culture and leadership—and in the wider NHS.
The report clearly identified failures on the part of key individuals involved, but crucial failures were also recognised on the part of the NHS itself effectively to monitor and set standards for the quality of care provided at Bristol—or indeed anywhere else in the NHS at that time—and to give a high enough priority to the needs of sick children.
As Sir Ian put it:
"There were no agreed standards of care, and not only no external monitoring of clinical performance but no real mechanism for doing so."
That is a shattering critique of the NHS at that time. All those deficiencies must be addressed if the NHS is to remain a high-trust organisation. Patients trust that doctors, nurses and other front-line staff will take the highest possible care over their treatment—and rightly so, because in the vast majority of cases that trust is fully deserved.
The NHS is full of excellent professionals who do their best for their patients and provide very high standards of care. Nothing in the report detracts from that; but that trust must always be earned—it can never be taken for granted.
The Government's responsibility—working with the medical, nursing and other health-care professions—is to do all that we can to maintain that vital relationship of trust and confidence between patients and the NHS. It is in that crucial area that Professor Kennedy's report is so important and where its recommendations will, I believe, make such a useful contribution.
Of course, as many hon. Members have said today, and as my right hon. Friend also made clear, things can and do sometimes go wrong. All of us know that even the very best doctors and nurses can make mistakes. As the report rightly stresses, heart surgery at any age is a risky enterprise. The trust that must lie at the centre of the relationship between patients and the NHS can, first and foremost, be enhanced by ensuring that NHS services are built around the needs of patients, with safety at the top of our list of priorities—not as an add-on.
We must be able to demonstrate that the NHS can respond effectively to concerns raised by patients and the public; that people working in the NHS are encouraged and feel able to speak out when necessary, safe in the knowledge that someone will listen and will take their concerns seriously; and that reliable and independent inspection and regulation, using national standards as a benchmark, will back up all those essential safeguards.
The relationship between doctors and their patients must depend absolutely on the principle of informed consent, where the right information is provided to the

511
patient, in the right way and at the right time to enable them and their family to come to the decision that is right for them.
Professor Kennedy makes a number of important recommendations in that area that we accept and fully endorse. The way in which patients and, in the case of young children, their parents, are treated by doctors and other key staff is of enormous importance in establishing and maintaining a relationship of trust and confidence. We are already taking action to improve the procedures for obtaining consent, and as our responses today make clear, they will fully reflect the principles outlined in the Kennedy report. There, as in other areas, important lessons have been learned from the events at Bristol.
In essence, the main features of the new NHS architecture suggested by Professor Kennedy in his report are: openness; clear standards; quality and safety built into every aspect of service delivery; a real partnership between patients and the health professions; and a service led by managers of the highest calibre who are provided with the right level of resources to do the job expected of them.
As my right hon. Friend made clear, we accept and share that broad analysis. That is why we have already begun the process of putting those new arrangements into effect. Significant progress has been made in that area since the terrible events at Bristol occurred.
Since 1997, we have taken action to establish new standard setting and inspection bodies: the Commission for Health Improvement and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, both of which operate outside the Department of Health.
The new national patient safety agency and the National Clinical Assessment Authority will help to tackle the problem of poor performance wherever it is identified and help doctors to improve their clinical practice.
New national service frameworks—initially covering mental health, coronary heart disease, services for older people and diabetes—have laid out clear national standards for the first time. The frameworks will cover both long-term medical conditions and children's services in the near future. As I said earlier, the national service framework on children's services will help to address Professor Kennedy's specific concerns about further improvements in the standard of paediatric care in the NHS.
The modernisation agency is helping NHS organisations to improve their performance and to spread good practice across the NHS. There is more information available to the public than ever before about NHS performance both nationally and locally, backed up by a system of rewards for good performers and intervention when necessary where performance is not good enough.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has outlined how we intend to make further and better information available to the public on the performance of individual consultants and surgical teams. Those important steps will help to maintain the vital trust between doctors and patients and increase public information about the standard of health care available. That will represent significant gains for both patients and the NHS alike.
As Professor Kennedy acknowledged, the reforms will require a new relationship not just between patients, the public and the NHS; the relationship between the Government and the NHS itself needs to change so that it
512
better reflects the society that we live in and the complexities of such a large and diverse organisation that now employs more than 1 million people and treats more than 20 million patients each year. The Government have already embarked on important changes in that regard, to which the Kennedy report adds further impetus.
My right hon. Friend has today set out the Government's view on the changing relationship between the NHS and the Department of Health. As the Government's response to the Kennedy report makes clear, the role of the Department is no longer to run the NHS as if it were a mid-20th century nationalised industry.
The proper balance needs to be struck between maximum operational responsibility for front-line service providers and the Department's responsibility to provide the accountability and the means—the resources and properly trained and supported staff—by which health care services of the highest possible quality and standard can be provided to patients.
As Kennedy makes clear and we have accepted in our response today, a key element will be to ensure that the highest priority is attached to improving the leadership and management of the NHS at every level. The new leadership centre, which we have established, together with the NHS university, which we are setting up, will play important roles in developing those vital skills. A new contractual framework for senior managers and a new national code of conduct will help to ensure that the highest standards are pursued at all times.
It is also the Department's responsibility to propose the overall framework of legislation and policy in which the service operates, and to do so in a way that reflects the need for flexibility, choice, quality and diversity in health care.
The Health Act 1999 and the Health and Social Care Act 2001 implemented important reforms. The NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill will also produce important further reforms, called for in the Kennedy Report, with the establishment of the new United Kingdom Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals and the office for health care information in the CHI, together with a stronger role for the public in decision making in the NHS.
We should not lose sight of the fact that those reforms are being implemented against the background of sustained and unprecedented public investment in the NHS, which will produce more doctors, nurses, therapists and other key staff, working in newer hospitals with better equipment and faster access to the latest technology.
In conclusion, it is our collective responsibility in the House to ensure that we learn the lessons of what happened at Bristol, and in the process see to it that we have an NHS fit for the new century. That will require the will to see through the necessary reforms and not to slow down the pace of change. It will need the necessary resources to be provided—yes, of course—to ensure that the improvements in quality, safety and capacity across the NHS take place. It will necessitate the active support of patients, public and NHS staff themselves.
I believe that all those key elements are in place. All of them will support the necessary change of culture in the NHS that Professor Kennedy rightly identified as being of fundamental importance. It is obviously true that none of us can turn back the clock. We cannot undo what was

513
done to those children and their families, but we can take action to put right the obvious failures identified in the Kennedy report.
The action that the Government have already taken, together with the further measures that my right hon. Friend has announced today, will make a significant contribution to realising that objective. I hope that all Members from both sides of the House will support those reforms in order to ensure, as far as we possibly can, that the trauma and suffering of those children and their families will not be repeated in the future.
Mr. Phil Woolas: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Incinerator Proposal, Capel
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Woolas.]
5.58 pm
Sir Paul Beresford: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a local issue this evening. I am also grateful that the Minister is here to respond. Having been in her position for a number of years in the past, am well aware that she has probably had to delay her departure from London to her constituency, although I suspect that the weather here will be duplicated there. Having been a Minister with responsibility for planning and having responded to similar debates in the past, I am equally aware that, although I am dealing with a specific application and related issues, the hon. Lady can only respond in broad and non-specific terms. That, of course, is because the Secretary of State is in a quasi-judicial position in that the Capel incinerator application, although approved by Surrey county council, has been referred to him for consideration because it involves a departure from the local development plan.
Surrey county council has an adopted waste local plan. However, the plan was considered by the local planning inspector to be totally inadequate because of the lack of a locational strategy and the lack of identification of any sites whatever for waste-related development. Because of that, the local inspector urged the county council to carry out an immediate review of the plan. Quite rightly, the inspector's intention was that that would provide an opportunity for the proper consideration of alternative sites and pay regard to the need to locate waste-related development as close as possible to the waste's origin. The shorthand notation for that is the "proximity principle". That would also ensure that all communities in the county would have the opportunity to engage in the consideration and that the relative environmental impacts and benefits of a range of sites would be discussed so as to provide the most appropriate solutions. Neighbouring councils have done that, and West Sussex county council in involved in that procedure at the moment.
However, Surrey county council has dragged its heels. Only preparatory work has been carried out in preparation for a revised waste local plan. In the meantime, the county has charged ahead with a competitive tender procedure involving the private sector not only applying for the task but being required to supply the sites. Clearly, a contractor's priorities differ from those of a public waste authority. In this case, it is important that the role of the public waste authority is to go through the procedures as set out by the inspector.
Environmental issues, such as the proximity principle, were clearly low on the list of considerations to at least one contractor. In the event, the contract was won by Surrey Waste Management, which submitted two planning applications for energy-from-waste incinerators. In addition, a second firm, Thames Waste Management, which is not contracted to Surrey county council, submitted a third application.
The geographical location of all three applications appears to be related to the availability of access for the applicants and not to other environmental issues. Two applications by Surrey Waste Management, the chosen contractor for Surrey county council, were at Redhill in

515
north-east Surrey and at Capel in the rural south. Thames Waste Management's application related to Slyfield, a site close to Guildford in central Surrey.
The interesting point to note is that the majority of the waste in Surrey is produced in the north-west and centre of Surrey, which means that both Surrey Waste Management's applications were at odds with the proximity principle. That also indicated the clear disadvantage involved in Surrey county council's assessment of the applications before its completion of a review of the waste local plan. In other words, in my opinion—and I hope eventually that of the Secretary of State—consideration of the applications was premature.
Broad issues were considered by officers before the committee meeting of the county council was held to consider all three applications. Considerable work was undertaken to produce a paper assessing need. After some months, this paper was produced for the committee—along with other papers—approximately a week before the meeting. Even a cursory study of the details suggested that there was little or no urgency. That impression was added to by the fact that Surrey county council's enthusiasm for recycling was muted to the degree that the bare minimum required by the Government was accepted as standard.
However, to everyone's great surprise, two or three days before the committee meeting, Surrey county council suddenly produced a completely new set of needs assessment statistics which—surprise, surprise—greatly enhanced its claimed case for urgency. As I am sure the Minister is aware, such an assessment of need is hardly an exact science. In fact, it is hardly a science; at best, it involves guesstimation.
However, given the Minister's background, she can imagine that this sudden change of statistics greatly disturbed the concerned public and clouded the issue. Furthermore, in this assessment, Surrey county council took no account of the fact that approval had recently been granted for a very large incinerator just over the northern Surrey border. The successful applicant, a firm called Grundons, is currently seeking waste sources to fuel this incinerator prior to building it. If indeed there were the urgency that the officers tried to impress on Surrey members, the utilisation of that incinerator would have been an obvious early choice. Incidentally, it would adhere much more closely to the proximity principle.
On 6 and 7 December last year, Surrey county council's planning committee considered those three applications. Having considerable experience of planning issues, I was somewhat surprised at the recommendation that the officers made to the committee, which it supported, although only narrowly in one instance. I must qualify that statement, however, as I undertook only a cursory assessment of two of the applications. The application from Surrey Waste Management, the council's contractor, for the Copyhold site near Redhill was refused. I believe that that was the correct decision. The thought of approving a large energy-from-waste incinerator site in the green belt was beyond even Surrey county council.
The second application, which I briefly looked at, was by Thames Waste for the Slyfield site near Guildford. That site has little or no environmental value in that it consists of sewage sludge ponds and a waste transfer station. From the point of view of the proximity principle, it has the advantage that it is very close to a main source
516
of Surrey's waste. The primary reason for refusing the Slyfield application was the substantial scale of the plant and the fact that it would be detrimental to the visual amenities of a nearby section of the green belt.
I found that intriguing. It is my opinion, which is based on the drawings, that Thames Waste had gone to great lengths to disguise the normal hideous solid square-block building with a chimney sticking out—the appearance of most incinerators. It had produced a modern rounded building which, when viewed from the green belt in the distance, was vaguely reminiscent of a modern cathedral, but without the cross.
The current situation is that Thames Waste is in the process of assessing over the next few weeks whether to appeal or to re-submit a further application. Obviously it may choose to do nothing, but with the recent approval on appeal of the Portsmouth incinerator application, I feel that an appeal may well be successful.
Interestingly, Surrey county council required Thames Waste to produce an assessment of all three applications, based on the proximity principle. Its application at Guildford clearly followed the proximity principle most closely—certainly much more so than either of the other two applications. Anyone who is familiar with Surrey geography and the applications would recognise that that is a statement of the obvious.
However, in considering all three applications, Surrey county council officers advised the planning committee on totally different grounds. Their assessment of the proximity principle was that if the site was within Surrey's boundaries, the proximity principle was met. In my opinion, that is a cavalier approach, especially as the committee members to whom I have spoken were unaware of the results of the mileage assessment undertaken for the county by Thames Waste.
The third application was for a site at Capel. That application for recommendation for approval by the officers was confirmed narrowly by eight votes to six. However, as I have already explained, that application has been referred to the Secretary of State as a departure from the development plan. I believe that that particular application should be called in for a public inquiry and final determination by the Secretary of State.
There are many reasons for that, and I will give only the main ones. First, the site is approximately 1,700 m from the green belt. It is clearly visible from it and from many of the sites in Surrey that people use to look over the downs. The view from those sites is beautiful, the downs are spectacular and there, sitting in the corner, will be a pile of tin cans with a chimney poking out of it in the middle of a rural area. The drawings show a hideous building. Although it would be slightly lowered into the ground, it would still have a detrimental effect on the view. What is interesting is that the key reason for refusing the Thames Waste application at Guildford was reversed or ignored and ceased to apply when the committee considered the Capel application.
The second reason is that the application proposes a substantial industrial development for a remote rural location, which is contrary to the guiding principles for development in the countryside as set out in planning policy guidance note 7. Indeed, the Minister for the Environment is on record as saying that he thought that
"plans for incinerators in the countryside would not be approved".
I wish that Surrey had taken note of that.

517
As I have already said, the application flies in the face of the proximity principle. Waste for the Capel incinerator would have to be transported by refuse collection vehicles in central Surrey, predominantly in Guildford and Woking, to the Slyfield site near Guildford—the same site to which the application from Thames Waste relates. The rubbish would then be transported by road to the Capel incinerator, giving a round-trip distance of approximately 100 km. We face the prospect of tens of thousands of 100 km-trips by heavy lorries to transport waste that could be dealt with nearby. If there is to be an energy-from-waste incinerator in Surrey, handling Surrey's waste, then Capel is probably the most remote from the origins of waste in Surrey. That is acceptable only if one ignores the whole basis of the proximity principle.
The Minister, with her local government background, will understand my great concern about the transparency of the decision. The council is not only the waste planning authority, but has a land ownership interest in the site and a waste disposal contract with the applicant. Indeed, the service committee chairman reminded the planning committee of the importance of the fact that Surrey Waste Management, the applicant for Capel, is the council's waste management contractor. My concern is increased by the fact that the reverse point was made regarding the Thames Waste application as the company is not a Surrey waste management contractor.
The Minister will be well aware that neither of those points are planning considerations, but they almost certainly influenced some members. As I said, there is an argument that consideration of the applications is premature, but it is worth recognising also that the proposed development at Capel is contrary to the provisions of the current Surrey waste local plan, to the Surrey structure plan and to the Mole Valley local plan—Capel is within the boundaries of Mole Valley.
Council officers have recommended granting planning permission for the site on the basis that it is the least worst of the three applications before them. They did not accept the argument that the sites for such development should emerge through the local plan process. To compound that error, they, by their own admission, accepted that the applicant's consideration of alternative sites had not been exhaustive. Indeed, at a public meeting in Capel, I asked Surrey Waste Management's planning adviser why the Capel site was chosen. He gave two reasons. First, the applicant, as Surrey county council's waste management contractor, had access to the site because the county had a land ownership interest. Secondly, because it was a rural site and therefore of low population density, there would be little protest. That is hardly a planning issue. Even so, I believe that the Government office of the south-east is currently dealing with about 1,500 written protests from very upset people in the Capel area, a rural area with about 880 houses.
To put it mildly, Surrey county council's consideration of its waste management responsibilities and of the three applications is at best murky. As the Minister will be aware, when a local authority grants permission, in effect to itself, which frequently occurs, that authority should go to considerable lengths to provide transparency. I believe that, in this particular case, that demand has not been met. As the decision conflicts with various local plans and the current waste local plan has been severely criticised, the
518
application must be called in for a public inquiry and the Secretary of State's determination. Such important planning decisions must follow proper procedures and, most important, they must be absolutely transparent. In this case, Surrey county council has been found wanting.
6.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): I congratulate the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) on his success in securing this debate on the proposed energy-from-waste incinerator at Capel. As a former planning Minister, he will understand that I cannot comment in detail on the specific proposal. As he outlined, following its decision to grant planning permission for the incinerator, Surrey county council has referred the application to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions as the proposal departs from the local authority's development plan. That procedure was introduced to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to consider whether such proposals should be called in for his determination. The incinerator scheme is before him, and I cannot comment because that could prejudice his decision.
Nevertheless, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that in deciding whether to call in the proposal, which, I know, has caused considerable local concern, we shall give careful consideration to the points in his letters to the Secretary of State, Lord Falconer and me. We shall also consider carefully the concerns of the local community, which we have heard about at some length. Given the limitations on what can be properly discussed, this could be one of the shortest responses to an Adjournment debate on record. However, it may be helpful for the hon. Gentleman, his constituents and people who have an interest in these matters if I set out the procedures and principles, to reassure them that the matter is being dealt with properly.
Although the hon. Gentleman is clearly familiar with the Secretary of State's power to call in planning applications, it may be helpful if I run through our policy on call-in, which was set out by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport in a written answer to a former Member on 16 June 1999. The general approach of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, like that of previous Secretaries of State, is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so because Parliament has entrusted them with responsibility for day-to-day planning control in their areas. It is right that, in general, they should be free to carry out their duties responsibly, with the minimum of interference.
There will be occasions, however, when my right hon. Friend may consider that he needs to call in applications to determine them himself. His policy is to be selective about calling in planning applications and, in general, he will take that step only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include, but are not restricted to, those in which the decision may conflict with national policies on important matters; cases that could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality; cases that could give rise to substantial regional or national controversy; cases that may raise significant architectural and urban design issues; or those that may involve the interests of national security or of foreign Governments. However, each case will continue to be considered on its individual merits.

519
Before I talk about other issues involved in this debate, it may be helpful if I say that the three schemes that the hon. Gentleman talked about are regulated by the Environment Agency for England and Wales to prevent harm to health and the environment. I understand that a permit application has been received by the agency for the proposed incinerator at Capel, which is currently under consideration. An incinerator must have both planning permission and a pollution permit to operate; gaining one does not guarantee that the other will be issued.
I am aware that Surrey county council considered two other planning applications for waste-to-energy incinerators last month, at Slyfield industrial estate in Guildford and the Copyhold works in Redhill. I understand that those, too, were deeply controversial. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Surrey county council decided to refuse those applications on a number of grounds. The applicants have until July to appeal against the council's decision; the Secretary of State may find himself determining the appeals so, obviously, I cannot say anything that would prejudice them.
I should like to say a few words about the plan-led system and why we believe that such difficult and often highly controversial planning issues can best be handled at local level. It might be considered that there have been shortcomings in the way in which the wider system has been handled locally. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that when Surrey drew up its draft waste local plan, which was adopted in 1999 and is still in force, the plan contained a list of potential sites for large-scale waste processing and treatment facilities. There was considerable public opposition to the proposed allocation of some of those sites, one of which was the site at Capel. As a result, Surrey chose to delete them from its plan. Instead, the council drew up criteria-based policies against which planning applications for waste management facilities could be assessed.
In her report following the public inquiry into the plan, the local plan inspector recommended that Surrey county council proceed to an immediate review of the plan, which should include an identification of sites or preferred areas to accommodate Surrey's needs and to make an appropriate contribution to meeting regional guidance needs. I am encouraged to hear that officials in the Government office of the south-east have held discussions with Surrey about preparing a revised waste local plan containing sites for waste management facilities, although a new plan is unlikely to be forthcoming before the end of the year.
The lack of sites for waste management facilities is, of course, by no means exclusive to Surrey. In our role of scrutinising development plans to assess them against our policies, it is all too common to come across plans that lack identified sites for new facilities. A great deal of controversy is generated when such sites are later identified. If more sustainable waste management systems incorporating a range of waste management options are to be implemented effectively, there will clearly be a corresponding need to identify suitable sites for the development of the necessary facilities. The key instrument for identifying such sites is the waste local plan, which is developed in consultation with local communities.
Since Surrey adopted its waste local plan, my Department has finalised its advice in planning policy guidance note 10, which is intended to assist planning
520
authorities in the preparation of their waste local plans, and in the determination of planning applications for waste management facilities. It also provides specific advice on the criteria for the siting of those facilities.
We expect waste planning authorities to consider all the relevant planning issues when determining planning applications, and PPG10 makes it clear that waste management decisions should be based on the best practicable environmental option and the following three principles, the first of which is waste hierarchy. That is a conceptual framework that we want local authorities and others to use to rank the waste management options. It sets out a preferred order for dealing with waste—reduction, re-use, recycling, composting, energy recovery and, if those are not viable options, incineration without energy recovery or disposal through landfill.
The second principle is the proximity principle, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It suggests that waste should generally be disposed of as near as possible to its place of origin. That was one of his prime concerns. It avoids passing the environmental costs of waste management to communities that are not responsible for its generation, and reduces the environmental costs of transporting waste. The third principle is regional self-sufficiency. As far as practicable, waste should be treated or disposed of within the region in which it was produced.
In considering waste management options, authorities should take into account all three principles to arrive at the option that produces the best balance between environmental, social and economic needs.
Sir Paul Beresford: When the hon. Lady speaks of disposal within the region, she is presumably not equating the region with the county. I raise the matter because next door to the northern border of Surrey is a site for which there has been a successful planning application, as I mentioned in my speech, for a large incinerator. It is conceivable that Surrey county council could use that, although the officers believe that they are restricted. I believe that they are misinterpreting the Government's guidance and interpreting the region as being within Surrey's boundaries alone. I think that that is incorrect.
Ms Keeble: I do not want to be drawn into interpreting the guidance, as in this instance, there is a specific application about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned. If he would like any further information about the principle of regional self-sufficiency, I shall certainly provide it to him writing, but I do not want my comments to be read across to a particular application.
To assist waste planning authorities to develop sustainable strategies for the management of waste in their areas and in the preparation of their waste development plans, my Department has commissioned consultants to develop guidance and best practice on identifying and assessing the factors that should be taken into account when deciding on the best practicable environmental option for dealing with controlled waste streams. Research has also been commissioned to produce good practice guidance on the types of policies that should be included in waste development plans. That will benefit waste planning authorities when they prepare or review the plans and assist my Department in its role of scrutinising development plans to ensure that they comply

521
with Government guidance. Both studies will report shortly and I shall certainly ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives copies of both reports.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the procedures by which the local authority would generally set about handling these matters. I thought that it might help him and his constituents if I set out some of the information, advice and views that the Department has on the way in which local authorities should conduct the process. The role of local authorities is, of course, crucial to achieving more sustainable means of handling the waste that we produce. As I explained, they are responsible for identifying suitable sites and methods for waste treatment or disposal. They are expected to take an integrated and socially and environmentally sensitive approach that includes the following three points: first, promotion of informed debate with the public and businesses; secondly, establishment of the best practicable environmental option, which means taking account of the waste hierarchy that we have set out in "Waste Strategy 2000" and the proximity principle; and, thirdly, regional self-sufficiency in managing waste and working with the
522
Environment Agency to ensure that planning and licence conditions are complementary and effective. He also raised concerns about transparency. Of course, any local authority planning decision must be taken completely transparently and with a great deal of integrity. I do not want to make any remarks that might impinge on that.
In conclusion, I repeat that we recognise the concern that is felt locally about the Capel scheme. I assure the hon. Gentleman that he can inform his constituents that the Government are fully aware of the strength of feeling and the nature of the debate. We will consider this matter and the different issues that are involved against our planning policies and the call-in criteria. I hope that in the interests of ensuring that his constituents feel that the Government are acting transparently, he can inform them of the criteria by which we make a decision on a call-in application. Although I cannot say more about the decision on this particular scheme, I can say that we will of course ensure that he has that decision as soon as possible. I hope that he and his constituents will find the information that I have set out of some help and reassurance.
Question put and agreed to
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Six o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Criminal Justice System
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Stringer.]
2.30 pm
The Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform (Mr. Keith Bradley): I am grateful for the opportunity to outline what we have achieved so far to help victims and witnesses and to set out further planned improvements. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary are responsible for many important policy areas, which affect millions of citizens, but there are few areas to which we attach greater priority.
For far too long, the needs of victims and witnesses have been the secondary focus of the criminal justice system, and the Government are working to rectify that. We need the co-operation and support of victims and witnesses for the criminal justice process to work properly. In return, we have an obligation to ensure that they are offered the best possible support so that the often awful experience of the original crime is not made worse by the response of the criminal justice system.
I am aware of the critical comments made only last week by some of the country's most senior police officers. I accept some of their points, and others will be dealt with as we carry out work in response to Lord Justice Auld's important report on the criminal courts. We have, however, already made good progress on several issues, as I hope to make clear in this short opening speech.
First, I want to deal with what we have done for victims. Our most basic need when we are affected by crime—whether serious or less serious—is for immediate protection and support. We look to the police to assess what protection is required and then to provide it. They also play an important role in providing on-going support, but we now expect the voluntary organisation, Victim Support, to step in to offer the bulk of that assistance. To help it fulfil that responsibility, we have more than doubled its Home Office grant in the past four years. In May 1997, its annual grant was less than £12 million; today, it is £25 million. That has enabled Victim Support to establish two significant new services: a national telephone helpline for victims and a support service for victims and witnesses in magistrates courts, which matches the service already provided in the Crown court. Victim Support has also significantly strengthened its community-based schemes. With 15,000 volunteers nationally, it is the epitome of the giving society that we aim to nurture.
Another important need is for information. It is essential that all criminal justice agencies work together to ensure that victims are kept informed of how cases progress. The police, the Crown Prosecution Service and, in the most serious cases, the probation service have direct roles to play at different stages of the process. The police already have a victim's charter commitment
144WH
to tell a victim when a suspect is charged, the date and result of the trial or hearing, and the outcome of any subsequent appeal. The charter also gives the police responsibility for conveying prosecution decisions to victims, although Sir lain Glidewell's independent review of the CPS and Sir William Macpherson's report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence recommended that the CPS should take responsibility for communicating prosecution decisions directly to victims, rather than via the police. Arrangements to implement those recommendations were piloted in six CPS areas before a national programme of implementation began in April 2001. The scheme will roll out across the country on a phased basis, with full implementation planned for October 2002.
Mr. David Kidney: My right hon. Friend has rightly pointed out that the police have an obligation to notify some decisions to the victims. The CPS now has an obligation to notify some of its decisions, which I think are called key casework decisions. The probation service has a responsibility, and Victim Support assumes another. That is four bodies, and the danger is that they become mixed up. Some people do not give notification, because they think that someone else will. I appreciate the need for some kind of evaluation of the national roll-out of the CPS responsibility, but is there not a case for a victims' champion, whose job is to take on all the responsibilities from those different organisations?
Mr. Bradley: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I shall come to issues around the victims charter later. What is essential is coherence of proper co-ordination between individual agencies and people who deal with victims and witnesses. That would ensure a proper level of support and service that is understandable to the victims and does not make them feel worse than they do, directly or indirectly, as a result of the crime.
Mr. David Drew: I declare an interest as president of Stroud Victim Support, which is a good organisation. I am interested in cases that the CPS decides not to pursue, a subject that my right hon. Friend may mention. There is a lacuna, in the sense that the CPS is unwilling to say why it does not pursue them. That can be hurtful and difficult to understand.
Mr. Bradley: I accept that point. It is essential that the reasons why a case is taken forward or not are communicated to individuals. Public confidence in the criminal justice system must not be further undermined through lack of intelligence.
I was about to say how the CPS system is meant to work. If the CPS decides to drop or alter a charge substantially, it should write directly to the victims to inform them of the reasons for the decision. In certain serious categories of offence that involve child abuse, sexual offences or racially aggravated offences, a meeting will be offered if further explanation is required. That is in addition to the existing victims charter commitment to meet families who are bereaved as a result of crime to explain prosecution decisions. It is a key initiative aimed at improving the quality of service to victims and contributing to increased public

145WH
confidence in the criminal justice system. I hope that that goes some way to answering my hon. Friend's point.
Various agencies are involved, and the probation service is another. Since the mid-1990s, victims of offenders sentenced to four years or more for a violent or sexual offence will normally have been contacted by the probation service before the release of the offender. On taking office, we decided to put that work on a statutory basis in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. The probation service is now in contact with the victims of all offenders sentenced to 12 months or more for a violent or sexual offence, unless the victim requests otherwise. The probation service will explain how the prison system works and answer any questions that the victim has. Victims will later have the opportunity to have their say about the release conditions of offenders. Many have genuine grounds for fear, and it is essential that those responsible for making arrangements for release are routinely informed of what those fears are. It does not give victims the right to decide whether a prisoner should be released, but there could be a good reason why an offender should be excluded from a particular town or city, for example.
The principle of allowing victims to give information, as well as any evidence that they might have, is important. Since last October, we have given them the opportunity to do so earlier in the process, with the introduction of the victim personal statement scheme. The scheme will ensure that victims' views are taken into consideration at all stages of the criminal justice process. It will outline the effect that the crime has had on their lives and might lead to their receiving help that would otherwise not have been available. For example, the police may see from the personal statement what kind of personal support the victim thinks that he or she needs, or the magistrates courts might use the information provided to decide that conditions should be attached to a defendant's bail. The statements will not give victims the opportunity to decide the sentence that a convicted offender should receive. It is important that that remain the responsibility of magistrates and judges. We shall evaluate later this year how effective the scheme has been, and shall make improvements if any are needed.
We have made improvements to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Since last April, and following a public consultation process, changes have been introduced to improve awards, by up to 10 per cent., for victims of rape, sexual assault and child abuse, and for those who suffer serious multiple injuries in other cases. Awards are available, for the first time, to same-sex partners in homicide cases.
The changes more than maintain the scheme's position as more generous than any other in Europe. Those are just some of the developments that have taken place for victims.
Mr. Drew: I know that this is a common problem and it could be that my right hon. Friend will have to answer me in writing, perhaps after consultations. I have encountered at least two cases in which claimants have been told that, because they have previously been
146WH
convicted of a criminal offence, they are not eligible for compensation or entitled to a lesser amount. Will my right hon. Friend clarify the rules?
Mr. Bradley: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I do not want to give misleading information about the operation of the scheme in individual cases—it is administered, as he knows, independent of Government—but if I can give him the precise details later in the debate, I shall. Otherwise, I shall write to him.
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: What is the rationale behind discriminating against people who have already been convicted of crimes, in relation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority?
Mr. Bradley: I have just made it clear that I shall clarify the position, and I shall do so, ideally in this debate, but if not I shall ensure that my hon. Friend receives a written explanation.
I shall try to highlight some of our future plans. At the centrepiece, as we trailed in last year's election manifesto, is a bill of rights for victims. After consultations on this and other issues last year, there was broad agreement with the principle, but a divergence of views on the content of the Bill. Those differences are being discussed across government and with victims' representatives. I intend to return to the House later this year to announce how we plan to proceed.
There was much greater unanimity on the idea of a victims commissioner or ombudsman. He or she would be appointed to champion victims' interests on a range of issues—not just those relating to the criminal justice system—and to investigate complaints when things went wrong, but also, in line with what my hon. Friends have said, to ensure co-ordination of activity and services. I would expect the commissioner to make recommendations to improve the response of every organisation that comes into contact with victims of crime. The detailed development work on the post is currently taking place and, again, I intend to inform the House of definite plans later this year.
I know that many right hon. and hon. Members are equally concerned about the victims of road traffic incidents and accidents. I am very grateful for the several hundred items of correspondence that we have had about this and to the many hon. Members who responded to the consultation paper to which I have referred. It may seem strange, as it did to me at first, that those injured in road traffic incidents, and the families of those who are killed, are not entitled to the same services as victims of crime. There are, however, complex issues to resolve before we can decide how they can be brought within the scope of current or planned services for victims. I am examining that question closely.
For example, after many incidents, it is decided that no offence under the road traffic legislation has been committed. If an offence has been committed, should the families of offenders who have died in an incident be entitled to receive personal support services, just as victims' families do? Those are the kind of detailed and

147WH
sensitive questions that we need to explore. The matter is one of particular concern to me, and I assure hon. Members that I shall make progress on it.
Mr. Drew: My hon. Friend is getting through my checklist brilliantly, and there are not many more items left, but I wonder whether the Home Office has studied the role of insurance companies. I have evidence that they have deliberately delayed the pursuit of justice on the basis that it is better not to make a payment today, even if that means paying more eventually. That is a scandal that needs to be properly investigated.
Mr. Bradley: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I shall reflect on it and pursue it as we develop the role of the commissioner and the rights of victims in the relevant cases.
I now move on to witnesses. Many victims of crime give evidence about the offence in court. I would like more to be given that opportunity, either because more offenders are detected, or because witnesses feel more confident about coming forward to give evidence. The attrition rate is simply too high, and, for some types of offences, unacceptably high. We are addressing that with determination.
We need to ensure that support is provided in court to enable witnesses to give evidence with as little stress as possible. During our first term, we conducted a major review of the needs of particularly vulnerable or intimidated witnesses. Their plight has long given rise to concern that too many cases are abandoned, or not even started, because the stress of the criminal justice process is too great for many victims and witnesses, both adults and children. For example, adult witnesses may be vulnerable because of personal circumstances, such as their relationship with the defendant or the nature of certain serious crimes such as rape. Some witnesses with particular disabilities are not regarded as being capable of giving evidence and so can be denied access to justice.
A witness who fears intimidation may not report the offence or may refuse to give evidence in court. The review made 78 recommendations for improvements in the criminal justice system—in the reporting of crime and the identification of vulnerable or intimidated witnesses and measures to assist witnesses before, during and after the trial.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Forgive me, but I cannot recollect the terms and recommendations of report. Were convicted criminals serving extensive sentences in prison who had been victims of crimes in the past covered by the report and identified as vulnerable victims?
Mr. Bradley: I do not have the report before me, but I shall give my hon. Friend a more robust answer later in the debate, or ensure that she receives the information by correspondence. I take her point, but I must ensure that I do not give her misleading information.
Simon Hughes: The Minister is coming to an important part of the debate, in which I hope to be called to speak later. Does he accept that we are in a serious position, because the trend is that an increasing number of people are
148WH
unwilling to give evidence? A key problem in clearing up a crime is that people are unwilling even to start the process of giving evidence, let alone continue through court to the end. If we could deal with that problem, the clear-up rate would rise and many other concerns would become a secondary consideration.
Mr. Bradley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is one of several reasons why cases are not being pursued as satisfactorily as they should be. The problem will be addressed in our general review of the criminal court process, sentencing and support for victims and witnesses. Unless we are given proper, robust evidence in court, trials of whatever type cannot be completed satisfactorily. Too many cases fail because of that, and we must address the problem, otherwise we shall not regain and rebuild public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Fiona Mactaggart: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a mirror image group of vulnerable witnesses who are eager to give evidence but whom the system debars, because it has concluded that they cannot give good evidence? To have better justice and better treatment of victims, we must improve the ways in which courts treat evidence from people with learning disabilities, for example.
Mr. Bradley: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend says. We must consider all the physical and environmental conditions, the general organisation of our court system and the criminal justice system to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of justice and that justice is seen to be done. We should enable anyone, however they may be described, to give evidence, by putting the conditions in place to hear it. We are attempting to do that. I shall identify some measures that we have taken and those that we intend to take, but there are always new perspectives on such matters, so I would welcome suggestions from my hon. Friend and others. We want to ensure that more people who are guilty of offences are brought to book.
The recommendations, including those requiring changes in legislation, were all accepted and are at various stages of implementation. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 provides the legislative framework for action. The Act defines vulnerable and intimidated witnesses in sections 16 and 17 respectively and contains several special measures for them, including the use of screens round witness boxes; clearing the public gallery in sex offence cases and intimidation cases; assistance with communication; video-recorded evidence in-chief; live television links; and the removal of wigs and gowns. Under the Act, children under the age of 17 will automatically be eligible to apply for special measures simply by virtue of their age. The Act also specifies that a court must consider a witness's views about his requirements for assistance in court when it determines whether to grant him special measures.
Some provisions of the 1999 Act have already been implemented. Since September 2000, there has been a ban on defendants without legal representation personally cross-examining rape victims. That has put an end to the possibility of rape victims being put through the ordeal of the accused reliving his actions

149WH
through the line of questioning. We have introduced further restrictions to limit the questions that a rape victim can be asked about their previous sexual history under cross-examination.
We accept that the target of implementing most of the special measures in the Crown court by the end of last year was too ambitious. The Departments and agencies involved agreed that more time was needed to prepare for the changes. An announcement on the final timetable will be made next week, on 24 January.
Our commitment to improving the treatment of witnesses does not end with the implementation of the 1999 Act. The willingness of independent witnesses to report and later give evidence in court can, as my hon. Friends said, be crucial in detecting and prosecuting offenders. The Institute for Public Policy Research published a report called "Reluctant Witness" last autumn. It concludes that we need to know more about why witnesses, with the exception of those who are particularly vulnerable or intimidated, fail to come forward and are reluctant to participate in the criminal justice process.
The first national witness survey was conducted in 2000 and found that 76 per cent. of witnesses were satisfied with their overall interaction with the criminal justice system, but that only 61 per cent. would be happy to repeat the experience. We need and plan to do more work on that, and some of the measures that I described should help. As hon. Members have said, however, that is just a start and more needs to be done.
I am sure that hon. Members will recognise from that summary of our current initiatives and future plans our commitment to improve the status of victims and witnesses. We are actively working on combating persistent offenders, tackling repeat victimisation and encouraging the use of restorative justice when circumstances warrant it. Taken as a whole, that package of measures lays the foundations for a criminal justice system that gives victims and witnesses the priority that they deserve and for maintaining our acknowledged position as the European front-runner in victim care.
I have acknowledged that much more needs to be done, but I hope that hon. Members recognise that sound measures are in place and that good progress is being made. I am determined to drive the agenda forward, and I know that I have support throughout the House for that.
2.58 pm
Mr. Humfrey Malins: I am grateful to be called in this important debate. I thank the Minister for his comments, and I shall say a few words of my own. I shall be fairly non-partisan because people of good will should have common cause on such issues.
I begin by declaring an interest. I have been a solicitor for more than 30 years and initially practised in criminal law. I sit as a Crown court recorder and as an acting district judge, which is the same as a stipendiary magistrate. For over 30 years I have witnessed, sometimes as an advocate, but equally often in a judicial capacity, the situation in our courts
150WH
When I first began in practice, my firm impression was that scant regard was paid to the interests of victims or witnesses in the criminal justice system. Regularly, the first contact that a witness or victim—they are often the same person—would have with the case, after making their initial statement, was when they arrived in court to give evidence. Arriving at a strange court, quite often, in the old buildings, they had to wait in a confined and cramped area. There were often no separate waiting areas for the different parties in the case, and the witness or victim might find themselves standing next to the defendant or his or her family or friends. Little was done to care for the interests of the witness or victim in those days. It is to the credit of successive Governments and of all those in politics that there have been steady improvements during the past 30 years.
In 2002, more people than ever before who witness a crime do not bother to report it. They pass by on the other side. That is significant, and a point made tellingly by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) a few moments ago. We live in a society in which there is a tendency to pass by on the other side. I read that only one third of those who witness an act of vandalism report it to the police, and that only one in six of those who witness an assault bother to report it to the police. I read also that a majority of those who attend court, even now, say that they would be unwilling to act as a witness again in future.
We are bound to ask ourselves why that is. It is, perhaps, a sad reflection on the nature of the society in which we live, in which, over some years, there have been constant improvements. Is such a lack of engagement caused by a general loss of confidence in the criminal justice system, or by a decline in the general feeling of civic responsibility? Is it because more and more people in society do not think that it is worth becoming involved in the criminal justice system? The trend is worrying. It is strong today and, oddly enough, was not as strong 30 years ago; yet one would think that the situation would be the other way round.
I shall talk about some nuts-and-bolts issues that have arisen from my experience in the courts. I shall begin with a few words about witnesses—who can be victims as well—and the sort of problems that they may face. I qualify what I am about to say by remarking that there have been tremendous improvements in the past few years. Courts throughout the country, successive Governments and the voluntary sector in general have all been trying hard to improve the situation. I do not intend to be heavily critical.
From a witness's point of view, problems can arise inside or outside the court. I shall deal with problems that arise inside the court first. Before a case is fixed for trial, a pre-trial review takes place, when the court fixes a day and sorts out administrative matters. Over-listing of cases has been a problem in our courts. The more cases that are listed for trial on a given afternoon, the greater is the likely number of witnesses whose presence is required but who are not called to give evidence. It is difficult for the courts, because quite often a trial is listed at 2 o'clock and by 2.15 the defendant has pleaded guilty, so there are two or three hours spare. The problem of over-listing must be considered

151WH
Witness availability is a problem. I and those who practise in the courts have noticed that quite often on a pre-trial review the dates to avoid for defence witnesses are not brought to court. Sometimes even the dates to avoid for Crown witnesses are not brought to court. A trial date is fixed and some form of difficulty arises.
In court, we have all heard bullying questions by advocates that make witnesses wonder, "Is it worth the candle to come here?" There is a fine line to be drawn between tough questioning, which must be carried out on behalf of a defendant, and bullying questioning, where there is a clear duty on the judicial authority to intervene to protect the witness.
In the past, there has not been the facility for anybody to say to a witness, after they have completed an afternoon in court or finished giving evidence, "Thank you for coming." It has not been possible to write to the witness after the case to say, "You came as a witness: this is what our verdict was", "This is what the sentence was", or "This is what is happening about the appeal." The follow-through was missing.
A witness may come to court and find that the case has been adjourned. How can that be? Trials are fixed for 2 o'clock and 3 o'clock. The witnesses in the 3 o'clock trial have to arrive at 2 o'clock. The advocate stands up at the 2 o'clock trial and says, "My Lord, this is going to take the whole afternoon." The next trial then has to be adjourned. That happens not infrequently. The average time that a witness has to wait in a case is up to three hours. Moreover, 40 per cent. of witnesses do not give evidence on the day that they are called, and any witness who turns up is almost inevitably bound to lose money.
Even in the best-ordered world, there will be problems in terms of witnesses. It is good judicial practice if a case cracks—as is the phrase—for the judge or magistrates to have the witnesses in to say, "We are so sorry that the case has fallen away this afternoon. These are the reasons why, and we would like to apologise on behalf of the court system." Many judges do that, and it can make a difference. I understand that a majority of witnesses say after a court experience, "I don't really want to do this again." That is a pity.
The Minister mentioned the witness service, which can help to solve some of the problems to which I have referred. The service run by Victim Support helps witnesses and victims and their families before, during and after the hearing. Trained volunteers in every Crown court centre in England and Wales, and some magistrates courts, give free support and practical information to witnesses.
In my constituency, there is an effective and innovative witness care service with dedicated volunteers supporting witnesses. They do little things such as taking them to court before the hearing and telling them, "This is where you'll come in", "This is where you'll sit", "This is where we get a cup of coffee" and "This is where the refreshments are." That service was launched in October 2001. A few weeks ago, I received a letter from its organiser that read:
"Judging by the positive feedback from the Court users, it does make one wonder what victims, witnesses and families did before".
It has proved to be a great success and I congratulate all those connected with it—not only in Woking but elsewhere
152WH
In some cases, the victims and the witness can be one and the same person. The Minister knows that the Labour party's manifesto for the last election promised to legislate for a victim's bill of rights, but we do not think that we heard that in the Queen's speech. However, I believe I heard the Minister say a little earlier that such a measure was at the front of his mind and that he proposed before too long to return to the issue and make an announcement about the way in which the Government would proceed. That will be welcomed on both sides of the House.
The Minister referred to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which contained some measures that have helped victims, particularly those who might feel intimidated in court and who hitherto have felt intimidated. One is section 24, which provides for witnesses giving evidence by live link. That is quite a useful tool in one's armoury from time to time. Another is section 23, which provides for screens to shield the victim from the defendant. These measures are coming on stream in our courts and should be used with care and sensitivity. It is important that any witness—or a victim giving evidence as a witness—should be properly tested in court as to the truth or accuracy of their version of events. Nevertheless, the introduction of screens, when appropriate, is something that we can all applaud. There is also, as the Minister said, the banning of cross-examination of rape victims by a defendant, another forward-looking measure.
The Minister rightly referred to victim personal statements, which again are coming on stream. I believe that they were introduced in October 2001, so it is too early to say what effect they will have, but as the Minister said, in such a statement the victim has a chance to say how he or she has been affected by the crime, and the statement will become part of the court papers. We know the extension of this in relation to road traffic accidents and bereaved relatives.
Permitting a victim to make such a statement gives a clear signal that we believe that victims' rights and views are important and that they are not to be forgotten in a criminal trial. It is something that can also be relevant in a pre-sentence report. A judge or magistrate will put a defendant back in custody or on bail for a pre-sentence report following conviction. That will happen quite often. The pre-sentence report is likely to refer to the victims' personal statement, and I believe that the judge or magistrates, when sentencing, will be able to take it into account. I hope that I am not wrong on this; I must wait for guidance from those who tell me what I must do in court. However, I believe that those who pass sentence will read the victims' personal statement, which can be relevant. It is not often, for example, understood by those who do not take an interest in the criminal justice system that victims of burglary can, for months or years, be frightened of going back into their home. How helpful it is for a court to know the effect of a crime on a victim.
I want also to mention briefly the question of compensation. The rule now is that where there is an assault, and in other cases too, compensation should be awarded to the victim. I like the idea of courts awarding compensation against defendants in favour of victims, even a nominal amount against defendants of limited means. It does not stop a victim claiming relevant compensation. Victim personal statements are a very good idea and a great addition to our system.

153WH
We have already mentioned the victim support scheme. It is a great scheme that has been going for many years, staffed by more than 14,000 volunteers throughout the country. It has helped more than 1 million victims a year and it involves more than 1,000 staff. We all know the good work that the scheme has done and still does.
I think that it is the view of victims—it is certainly mine—that there is one extra little way in which to support a witness. Quite often, a nasty assault—a sexual assault or crime of violence, for example—involves a defendant and victim who live in close proximity. Statistically, that is likely. My experience, which I think is shared by others, is that there is a housing issue when the defendant comes out of prison. It is quite possible that the victim will remain frightened if the defendant is still three doors away. I do not know whether this could or should be put in statute, but I hope that in future local authorities will take a sympathetic view to requests for housing transfers.
Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that when I tried to persuade the Government last year to require local authorities to move someone whom the police had said should be moved for their own protection, they said that no, they would rather leave it to the local authority's discretion? My experience, like the hon. Gentleman's, is that the best will in the world on the part of local council officers and police officers often does not deliver the ability for someone to be housed away from where they feel vulnerable for months or even years. We might have to return to a situation in which the law makes people provide alternative accommodation, because the best will and intentions do not appear to be capable of delivering.
Mr. Malin: The hon. Gentleman makes a very strong point, and if I may say so it is typical of him to have spotted and done work on such an important point. I feel that he is right to suggest a move from just an expression of hope that local authorities will act to some statutory or other back-up. The position for a witness in such a situation can be very worrying. As the hon. Gentleman says, such things can take months, and months are long periods if one is living close to a person who has caused harm and fear to oneself.
I turn briefly to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The Minister rightly said that that scheme, which has now been in place in one form or another for 36 or 37 years, is probably the most generous in Europe. It has been reformed and, although it is not perfect, it is probably the best in Europe, providing for the payment of moneys to blameless victims of crime at taxpayers' expense. It paid out about £200 million to 46,000 victims in 1998–99, and continues to do well.
Having said that, I think that there is one small problem with the scheme, and I hope that it strikes a chord with the Minister. I believe that if someone who receives, say, £15,000 compensation for injuries is on benefits, their benefits can be stopped because the award is higher than the capital allowance for people in receipt of means-tested benefits. Such a person might have to spend their compensation on rent and subsistence until most of it has gone. That is slightly worrying, and I hope that the Government will examine it.
154WH
I have spoken for a little while about victims, and I mentioned Victim Support. All of us will want to pay tribute to the work of local victim support schemes in our own constituencies. In Woking, and throughout Surrey, dedicated volunteers provide excellent help.
I return to my central point. I am concerned that at a time when the Government, with support from politicians of good will, are trying not only to increase and extend protection for witnesses and victims, but do everything in their power to encourage witnesses and victims to come to court to give evidence and do their civic duty, there is a growing trend among people to say that that is not worth the effort. That distresses me immensely. The success of our criminal justice system depends on everyone co-operating and doing their bit. If the Government, through these measures and other action in the next year or two, can help to reverse that trend so that there are more people who feel properly part of the criminal justice system, the Minister and the Government will have done a good service for the country.
3.20 pm
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: The comments that I make today relate to the 80 historical abuse investigations that have been undertaken by police authorities throughout the UK during the past two years. I am chair of the all-party group for abuse investigations that was formed this summer. It has approximately 60 members from the Commons and the Lords who have a collective concern about the way in which these cases are investigated.
My interest in these cases and their victims started in 1997 when two people came to see me at a surgery. They told me that they were concerned about their friend, who had been accused of sex abuse. They were certain that that individual had not committed the alleged crimes. We all recognise that that is a perfectly natural response from the friends and family of any individual accused of committing sex abuse. However, mindful of the fact that juries make decisions about the guilt and innocence of individuals, I said that I would raise several questions to ascertain the validity of their comments. I tabled a significant number of parliamentary questions during the course of 1997 and 1998 relating to sex abuse inquiries in the UK. Unfortunately, the only statistics available at the time related to Merseyside, which has investigated sex abuse cases with a degree of thoroughness almost unmatched in the UK.
During the early part of this year, I met with Mr. Terence Grange, chief constable of Dyfed and Powys police, who is the lead chief constable on sex abuse matters. He prepared a report for me after contacting all police authorities to ask them about the scale of their sex abuse inquiries. For the record, I am sure that hon. Members would like to know how many victims of care home abuse there are in each of the major police authorities in the UK. Cheshire has identified 500 victims of sex abuse in care homes during the past 20 years; Devon and Cornwall has identified 369 victims; Gloucestershire has identified 150 victims; Greater

155WH
Manchester has identified 322 victims; Gwent has identified 500 victims; Humberside has identified 100 victims; Kent has identified 47 victims; Lancashire has identified 182 victims; Leicestershire has identified 73 victims; Merseyside has identified 697 victims; the Metropolitan police have identified 196 victims; North Wales has identified 500 victims; North Yorkshire has identified 100 victims; Nottinghamshire has identified 13 victims; South Wales has identified 569 victims; South Yorkshire has identified three victims; Staffordshire has identified 260 victims; Suffolk has identified 12 victims; Surrey has identified 25 victims; West Mercia has identified 286 victims; West Midlands has identified 138 victims; Wiltshire started its inquiries in 2000, but I have been unable to find out whether it has identified any victims.
I realise that it will be difficult for hon. Members to hold those statistics in their minds, but I know them extremely well. They beg several questions about the way in which the police have pursued investigations of this kind and their failure to identify victims. I have already mentioned Merseyside police authority, which has so far identified 697 victims. That should be compared with South Yorkshire, where, apparently, there are only three victims of historical care home abuse, or Nottinghamshire, where there are 13. That begs questions about how the investigations are pursued by the various police authorities.
Merseyside police authority assures me that there have indeed been 697 victims of care home abuse in the past 20 years. If that is right, and if it is also true that we in the north-west are not genetically predisposed to abusing children, one must assume a similar number of victims in every other authority in the country. In other words, it is probable that at least 600 people in each authority have been abused while in care homes in the past 20 years. Many of them have not been identified through the processes employed to date by the police. We have let those people down terribly. Of course, it is possible that the police authorities of Merseyside, north Wales and south Wales have identified people who are not in fact victims.
So who are these victims and how are they identified? Some 80 per cent. of those who have lived in care homes in this country in the past 20 years are convicted criminals. That is a dreadful statistic, and a travesty of the care home system that the young and the vulnerable have enjoyed in the recent past. Police authorities identify victims by working with social services departments to produce lists of those who have lived in care homes. Then, they seek and find those victims wherever they may arise. The vast majority have been in prison or are currently serving sentences. Indeed, I have visited a number of them.
The victims are identified with the help not only of social services but of solicitors, who run advertisements in newspapers stating, "Have you been the victim of sex abuse? If so, you could be eligible for compensation. Please contact us." In fact, a solicitor in Manchester is currently dealing with 700 such cases, at a cost to the state in legal aid of between £18,000 and £24,000 per individual. On average, between £30,000 and £40,000 is obtained per individual. Of course, it is not necessary to prosecute one's case in court to obtain compensation. The level of compensation reflects the degree of abuse to
156WH
which the victims were allegedly subjected. So solicitors work with the police, who work with social services, to identify the victims.
As I said, the victims tend to be found within the prison system, and I want to spend a few minutes discussing the way in which the police conduct interviews within that system.
Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady has clearly done a lot of work, but I wonder whether she has addressed the important point that many who are convicted of sexual abuse are convicted of offences against numerous individuals. Does she know how many people have been convicted of, say, more than 10 or more than 50 offences against different people? Such a person is far more likely to be guilty than the person whose conviction is based on a single allegation, which is much more likely to have been invented without supporting evidence.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: It is a sad fact that I probably know more about these investigations than anybody else on the planet, and I can give the hon. Gentleman a detailed answer. As I said, the only information that I have been able to obtain is from Merseyside police authority. I shall ask Terence Grange, whom I am meeting later on, if it is possible to apply the statistics to which he refers—they are very useful—to all other authorities.
The historical perspective is useful. When the police started to investigate the crimes, they found that if they identified two victims and placed them against one accused in court, they could lose, and statistics demonstrate that they did lose a number of such cases. Police now seek out multiple accusers, so typical cases have at least five—sometimes 12—identified victims against one abuser. There is a direct relationship between number of accusers and successful prosecutions.
Let us go back to how individuals are interviewed in a prison context. I was in a prison recently, and the police arrived to carry out an interview with an individual whom they believed had been a victim of abuse. The prisoner is not informed that the police are visiting, and has no idea that he or she will be interviewed. They are told only shortly before they arrive. The police can arrive in numbers of three to six. The day that I visited a prison in the north-east, six police constables had come to interview an individual who did not know that they were coming.
The nature of the interview is that the police present themselves and say that they would like the individual to assist them with their inquiries. Most prisoners have only ever seen police officers attempting to see them end up in prison for the crimes that they have committed. I urge hon. Members to consider that the police believe that such individuals have been subjected to the most horrendous abuse that we can imagine. One would think that a social worker or psychologist might be present, and that there might have been discussion with the Prison Service about the nature of the interview, bearing in mind that the prisoner may never in their life have disclosed information about the abuse.
However, six police officers stand over an individual in a room with square tables and chairs screwed to the floor, and they ask the individual to help them with their

157WH
investigations. In such a context, can hon. Members imagine how long it sometimes takes for the police to obtain statements from criminals? I visited one gentleman in the north-east who, while in 10 different prisons, had received 12 visits from the police because they were keen to obtain a statement that he had been abused. They were searching for additional victims to support the allegations of other victims.
Victims are therefore interviewed by the police in the most deplorable circumstances. Furthermore, the conversation that takes place between the police and victim is not recorded. Contemporaneous notes taken by the police, and subsequently written down more fully, are the only evidence recorded. That gives me cause for concern. The people involved are gravely worried about the nature of that conversation in a cell with no independent witness.
It has been alleged that police encourage vulnerable victims to give false evidence by offering preferred parole conditions and informing them of possible compensation—£30,000 to £40,000 per individual. Victims might be informed that an allegation could help in their application for parole because they could claim that sexual abuse was the reason why they had led a life of crime.
Having made their statement, victims must go to court. They will have little idea of the environment in which their case will be heard and certainly will not have received the support that other victims, who do not find themselves in prison, enjoy. They arrive at court to give their testimony and then leave. I have been unable to determine whether any of them receive support, but many have made substantial accusations of abuse and have been left unsupported by the system. However, if the case is proven, they can expect substantial compensation and many people believe that availability of compensation is significantly distorting the number of allegations of abuse that are being made in this country.
I have said enough about the matter. I have written to the Ministers concerned about my worries and have read every royal commission report and document on the criminal justice system in the past 20 years. I shall conclude by referring to several pieces of text that clearly identify my concern and put it into context.
First, the opening paragraphs of the royal commission on criminal procedure, which was chaired by Sir Cyril Philips and presented to Parliament in January 1981, state:
"In announcing on 23 June 1997 the Government's intention to set up a Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure and defining its terms of reference, the Prime Minister told the House of Commons that the time had come for the whole criminal process, from the start of the investigation to the point of trial, to be reviewed. In recent years, he said, some reforms had been introduced into the system, and many more proposed, but the approach had been piecemeal and no complete review had been mounted in this century."
The last century, of course. They continue:
"Consideration, too, of the changes in public opinion lay behind the decision. For some years anxiety had been manifestly growing about the continuing rise in the level of crime, about robbery, drug-peddling, street crime, fraud the use of firearms and terrorism. There were ignorance and confusion also about the
158WH
ways in which crime was investigated and prosecuted, and about whether, if these were improved, they could bring the growth of crime under control. On one side, it was asserted that the job of the police in fighting crime and of ensuring that offenders, and particularly dangerous professional criminals, were brought to justice was being made unwarrantably difficult by the restraints of criminal procedure; and on the other side that the use of the powers of investigation by the police were often open to grave question."
The powers of investigation by the police are still open to grave question. Despite the best efforts of the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department, the confidence of the public in the criminal justice system continues to fall.
As a result of the royal commission that was established in 1991, every word of police interviews with all suspects is tape-recorded. We have heard of a case this week in which a man was released after serving 27 years in prison, 10 of them as a consequence of refusing parole and refusing to admit to the crime of which he was accused. The requirement to tape suspects' statements meant that they were entitled to a fairer and more transparent trial. The time has now come to tape-record statements from witnesses when the only prosecution evidence is verbal testimony, which is frequently given to the police in the most draconian environment that can be imagined, with no independent witnesses. The only loser in the current criminal justice system in such cases is the person who has been identified as the possible accused.
3.39 pm
Simon Hughes: The issues raised by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) are hugely important. I am aware of the work that she has done, and have great respect for it. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) has been involved in the same issues. Although my question might have appeared harsh, it is important that we should understand that the victims of abuse need maximum protection and support.
I am extremely sympathetic to the hon. Lady's case, particularly on her last point. It is wrong for vulnerable people to be interviewed and questioned without such an interview being attested as a properly conducted interview. I hope that the Government will legislate for that in due course.
I welcome the debate, not because we should delight in having to have it, but because the matter is so important. Unequivocally, I do not disagree with anything that the Minister or the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) has said. I shall make no partisan or party political comment, because the more we collaborate to increase the effectiveness of the response of all parties—whoever is in power— the better we serve our constituents.
I come to the debate as one who formerly prosecuted and defended as a lawyer. Before I was elected, I was a youth leader in south London and often worked with young people who were both victims and criminals. I have several times been a witness in court and, although I am a politician with the sort of experience that we all have, I do not find it easy. Giving evidence at the Old Bailey is not easy for the best prepared of us, let alone for those who have never been inside a court in their lives.

159WH
I have also been a victim. For a time, I was burgled so often—I think it was eight times in two years—that it almost became commonplace. Just in case criminals are listening, my house is now much more secure: since the security measures and protection system have been in place, I have not been burgled, so they should not try it now.
Like most people, I am often a victim but do not report it because I do not have that mindset. If my tyres are slashed, as they were last year, I do not immediately think that the key thing is to report the crime; I want to get the vehicle back on the road. Sadly, my constituency—in which I rejoice and of which I am very proud—has very high crime levels, including violent crime, and that has been so for as long as I have been its Member of Parliament. I come to the debate with experience—not something that I have sought—as the friend of people who have been murdered. I have seen somebody one week and discovered that they were not there the next. I have had to support their relatives, fiancés, girlfriends and children. I have been in the public galleries of courts such as the Old Bailey with families whose child has been killed and who have felt totally alienated from the criminal justice process because they have never had a formal chance to say anything as the case is processed and there is or is not a conviction followed by a sentence. People feel as though nobody has taken account of their feelings.
In a sense, I have been privileged to be in the sad position of standing alongside the families of people such as Stephen Lawrence and Damilola Taylor in the borough in which I am one of the Members of Parliament. I came to know very well the family of 17-year-old Jamie Robe, who was killed gratuitously in one of the streets in my constituency on a warm summer's night. On their behalf, and on mine, the message, which has been confirmed by the Minister and by the hon. Member for Woking, is that the criminal justice system is in many places less and less able to deliver justice because people are not giving evidence. That makes it impossible to secure the convictions expected in a just society that upholds people's rights and liberties.
One example focuses the debate for me, but it may focus other issues as well. I was closely involved in the Jamie Robe case when, at the police's request, I sought to persuade people to give evidence when they were nervous about it. They carried out their civic duty, but their experience was not happy. Before the case, the assurances that they sought about their protection as witnesses could not always be given. During it, things that they were led to believe might happen—appearing behind screens, for example—did not happen, and the anonymity of names and addresses was, by accident, lost earlier than planned.
Subsequently, two families in which witnesses were protected had to move from the area and, in effect, change their identities. One family quickly felt unsupported by the system. Members of it got into personal difficulties that led to the loss of their home, which resulted in their having a poor mental state and wondering whether they had done the right thing. The other family had to give up a small business to move, and they found it hugely difficult to get business going again. They lost a huge sum of money trying to relocate the business, which was almost impossible.
160WH
I give that example because we must address such problems. That is why I intervened on the hon. Member for Woking. Every week in my constituency office, the member of staff who looks after housing casework—a young graduate in his first job after attending Cardiff university—has to deal with people who are desperate to move because they are vulnerable or threatened. He and I often struggle for weeks, with the best help that he can get from police and housing officers, to put them somewhere where they and their families can feel safe.
That is not acceptable. People regularly come to me suicidal or threatening serious violence, because they feel that those are the only ways in which they will be noticed. I say that simply to point out that I share the experience of the Minister, who represents another inner-city constituency, and that of colleagues who represent less urban deprived communities—the Wokings, Sloughs and Crosbys of the world. Those places are not perceived as great metropolitan centres, but they have the same tensions, as I know from the cases that we have read and heard about. Your city must have the same problems, Mr. Hancock. The issue is not unusual. It is countrywide.
We should seek to achieve maximum lay participation in the criminal justice system whenever it is needed. That is a great principle, and it ties in with the debate about the future of the criminal justice system, which I welcome. The more that citizens feel ownership of the system, the more confidence there will be in' it and the more comfortable people will be. That means that jury trials must stay, as they are a way to engage the citizen. The number of lay magistrates must be increased rather than decreased, as they must play a part.
That participation also means that we have a duty to be witnesses when that is required of us. It is our civic responsibility. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) made the important point that we have a duty to support those who need support when they can be witnesses. I have received, as I imagine have colleagues, a helpful reminder from Mencap about how important it is that people with learning difficulties should feel able to take part, as they are often keen to do so. The same would apply to those with mental illnesses.
We have civic responsibilities, but we have a mutual responsibility to support each other as well. The hon. Member for Woking reminded us of the Christian principle that we have a duty not to pass by on the other side, and that also applies to other faiths. Many people choose to do so, whether they see someone vandalising a train or misbehaving on the tube or the street, because they are not willing to become involved in the process that taking action would imply. A councillor colleague whom I respect greatly, told me when we were discussing this debate a few days ago that police officers had told her that they often tell people not to give evidence, because it could put them in too vulnerable a position. If that is so, it is a pretty worrying state of affairs.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: My question relates to people with learning difficulties. The hon. Gentleman would, I am sure, be interested to learn that discrimination against people with learning difficulties extends to people who live in care homes. I referred earlier to the trawling inquiries launched by police authorities, but they involved cases that arose only in care homes where there were no people with learning difficulties.

161WH
I wondered whether similar investigations had been undertaken concerning people with learning difficulties, but they have not. I suggest—I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees—that people with learning difficulties are more likely to be vulnerable to such abuse, yet they remain the least defended.
Simon Hughes: I agree. I imagine that we all have constituency experience of people with learning difficulties who have made allegations of abuse against those with responsibility for them, whether in a day centre or a residential setting. I hope that the hon. Lady and her colleagues will be able to make sure that such people are properly supported. Everyone deserves to be supported, but the more vulnerable people are, the more support they need.
Mr. Kidney: Before the previous intervention, the hon. Gentleman spoke of police officers who portrayed themselves as being on the side of potential witnesses by advising them not to be witnesses because the process was so terrible. Does he agree that the police are part of the process, and that it is important that officers should be willing and able to take up people's complaints? If they do not, they will act as gatekeepers, but keep the gates closed.
Simon Hughes: Absolutely. We have a duty to the police, too, as they often put themselves in the front line; they should feel confident that the system works. They are often as exposed as we are. Police officers do not often live in the communities that they police because they do not feel safe there. That is another change of the sort described by the hon. Member for Woking that has happened during the past 30 years.
Let us be blunt: it is not acceptable, from the playground upwards, to grass on people. That is the culture that we have to deal with. In my community, to grass on someone is as serious a crime as any, but we must be intelligent when trying to deal with it. If we are in a pub or club and someone we know knifes or shoots someone, it is not easy to go to the police station and say, "I know who it was."
Someone whom I knew well was killed some years ago in a bar in Tower Bridge road. The bar was completely packed, but not a single person was willing to come forward to say who had done it. The whole community knew who it was, yet not a soul was willing to say so. They did not do their duty. Although I could have given his name to the police, I was not there and could not give evidence, nor could I tell his family or his girlfriend about the incident. It is good that the matter is now on the Government's agenda, and I pay tribute to my colleague, the Deputy First Minister of Scotland, who has made sure that it is on the Government's agenda there. All our constituents should be reassured by that.
The Association of Chief Police Officers, led by the eminent and respectable chief constable of Thames Valley, who is soon to retire, published a report last week. It made it clear that we are in a pretty desperate state across the nation. I refer hon. Members to the section headed "The Search for Truth", which gives facts and figures on the views of victims and witnesses. The subtitle is
162WH
"The impact of 'the game' played in court on victims and witnesses".
It includes a section on the number of people who go to court and come away unhappy because of the intimidation and inconvenience. It mentions the downward spiral in public confidence, and states that two out of five witnesses had told the British crime survey in 2000 that they would be unwilling to do it again. It also said that 53 per cent.—I think that that is what the hon. Member for Woking was referring to—of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses said that they would not be happy to do it again. That is the level of lack of confidence.
The Metropolitan police are carrying out a survey, for which the deadline for responses is, I think, tomorrow—I shall try to get mine in on time, and I encourage others to do so; I hope that late submissions will occasionally be accepted. Locally, the police and the criminal justice system are alert in trying to bring about improvements.
I intervened on the Minister to say that we must have the objective of increasing the success rate of the criminal justice system. In a written answer to me on 19 December 2001, at column 482W of Hansard, the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs gave the most recent clear-up figure across England and Wales as 24 per cent., but said that it was down to 15 per cent. in such areas as the Metropolitan police area.
One of our objectives must be to increase clear-up, as the current rate is clearly unsatisfactory. A second objective must be increasing the credibility of and confidence in the criminal justice system, a third maximising lay participation, and a fourth presenting opportunities for citizenship education. If people reach adulthood with an understanding of their responsibilities as well as their rights, they will be more likely to participate.
I have a practical suggestion: when we write to ask people turning 18 to fill in the electoral roll, it would be a good time to reinforce the work that is done in schools, and is being included in the national curriculum this year, and to explain that among the obligations of being an adult, one can vote, one may be a juror and a magistrate, and one may be expected to be a witness. Perhaps Ministers or their colleagues at the Department for Education and Skills could consider how that might be set out on the reverse of the form that people are sent on reaching 18.
Alternatively, as people were placed on the electoral roll, from which they could be identified, they could be sent a special letter, perhaps from the Government, the local Member of Parliament, the local council leader, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. Perhaps it might be better if it came from footballers, rock stars and people who are paid more than us, but it should be from someone who might make the recipients think that it was important.
I hope that we always make it clear that a crime against a person is more serious than a crime against property. Property crimes are bad, but those against individuals, whether threats or actions, are more threatening. Property crime can be awful, but it is never the same if no one is threatened or harmed.
As a caveat, I hope that we do not regard looking after defendants' rights as being incompatible with the present objective. The hon. Member for Crosby made

163WH
that point well. That is why I consider jury trial important and something that should not be eroded. The two principles are not incompatible. We must be careful about issues such as double jeopardy and the suggestion that we might change the law to allow people to be prosecuted again after acquittal.
I take the view—although it is not a theological one and I could be persuaded differently—that if we propose to take that course, we might need, in the first place, as was originally proposed, to allow it only in homicide cases. Also, although I know that my view is controversial, the change should not be retrospective. I know that that would mean that when someone had been acquitted or the case had been discharged, the matter could not be brought back to court, and that that might even apply to the Stephen Lawrence case, but breaking the line on retrospective legislation would bring us big difficulties.
I end with some proposals. I would happy to elaborate on them privately to the Minister; since other hon. Members want to contribute, I shall merely list them now to put them on the record.
First, if there is to be reform of government, I hope that Ministers will study the idea of creating a ministry of justice, though I appreciate that that is not a central Home Office responsibility. Modernising government is a laudable objective, but the one Department that the Government refuse to examine is the Lord Chancellor's Department. That may be something to do with the Lord Chancellor's view on the matter, but I would like to persuade colleagues who know him and love him dearly that Modernising government should include his Department and the creation of a ministry of justice.
Secondly, I do not believe in royal commissions for everything. I am not going to argue for a royal commission in this case because there are dangers in taking that road. We had the Philips report, we moved on and the Government wisely suggested a national police forum to consider police issues. However, there is a case for a standing body to give accessible advice on criminal justice system issues.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that establishing a facility to identify research undertaken by offices in the criminal justice system would be a sound proposal? Such a body could ascertain whether procedures were effective and efficient and achieved the aims set out?
Simon Hughes: I certainly agree. The National Audit Office is carrying out a review, and it is a good agency.
I hope that a lot of issues can be brought together when the Government complete their current work and plan legislation for next year. I will be keen to persuade them to introduce, under the auspices of the management of the criminal justice system, a victim service, which would do what the name implies, a witness service, a defendant's service, a legal service and so on. All parts of the system would be represented and would contribute to the exchanges and improvements that the hon. Lady hinted at.
The Government explored many issues in the consultation paper that they properly commissioned to review the victims charter, and the results are being considered now that the consultation has finished. The
164WH
answers to their questions are that there should be a victims ombudsman, victims of road traffic accidents should be included in the scope of the charter, we need further measures—we have explained what they are—to support the victims of hate crimes. The Government also asked whether the victims of non-violent offenders who are sentenced to 12 months or more should be informed of their release from prison. The answer is yes, if the offenders fall into particular categories. Generally speaking, sex offenders, for example, have not committed a violent offence, but we need to debate the point. We also say yes to a victims fund, to improving the way in which matters are organised in court and to whether it is better to have rights rather than standards, although there are difficulties in getting them to work. Finally, there is the controversial issue of whether victims should become civil partners in criminal proceedings. That issue should stay on the agenda because it is worth continuing to consider it.
I hope that the Government will find time this year to implement the recommendations of the "Setting the Boundaries" report on sexual offences because it contains a lot of good material that would help a lot of victims. It is a worthwhile document, and its recommendations would increase confidence in the criminal justice system.
We all share the next concern, which the hon. Member for Woking expressed well. We should continue to reform the courts so that victims and defendants do not need to be together and do not accidentally bump into each other on the way to the same phone. That is extremely harrowing and off-putting. We should reconsider whether the obligation to rehouse can be made much more effective than it is at present.
The position on prosecution decisions is not absolutely clear, and I should like it to be made explicit that the public interest consideration that the Crown Prosecution Service always takes into account should include the question whether a prosecution serves the victim's interests. A warning might sometimes be better because it would not put the victim through the trauma of appearing in a case.
Assistance should be given to those who are vulnerable when they give evidence, and we should ensure that the protection that people need is sustained before court, in court and after court. There are a variety of cases in which cross-examinations by defendants should be prevented or carried out independently to avoid abuses. We may need to prevent addresses from being made public later in the proceedings. We must organise some court hearings so that the public gallery does not look down on the person giving evidence so that he is intimidated from upstairs. That is often enough to make people not give their evidence, change it or give only half of it.
People must know before they sign up to go to court whether screens will protect their identity. It is no good saying that they might or might not and that it will be decided on the day. In theory, it is decided before, but it is often decided only on the day on which the trial begins, which is a hopeless situation for the vulnerable and inexperienced.
Lastly, following conviction, there must be continuing support that does not drop away, advice to families and victims on the legal remedies that might be

165WH
found if they are unhappy with the outcome, and improved information about release arrangements for prisoners. To be fair, the Government and services generally do well in that respect. In fact, people suffer more from not knowing about the system rather than from any failure in the system itself, but it could be improved. The Government, the Conservative party and my party share common ground about the idea that there should be indeterminate sentences for the most serious offenders. In that way, the court could review whether it was safe to release someone, taking into account all the circumstances, which cannot possibly be done at the beginning of the sentence.
I am grateful for the opportunity to share my views in such an important debate. I would be happy to discuss the issues further informally, so that we can deliver as much as possible in the shortest possible time.
4.6 pm
Mr. David Kidney: I shall deal with three points. First, I shall make some practical suggestions about victim and witness support. Secondly, I want to deal with the question of road traffic victims. Thirdly, I shall consider the impact of the Auld report on the debate.
Before I entered Parliament, I worked for 20 years in a solicitor's office. At the beginning, before the Crown Prosecution Service existed, my work included acting as prosecutor for the police in magistrates courts, so I had access to the range of the prosecution process. Later, when the CPS was created, I was a regular defender of people in magistrates courts and, with barristers, in the Crown court. I have lived with the system for 20 years. As we have an adversarial system, there was always a prosecutor and a defendant, each of whom had legal representatives and their case. Those who did not fit neatly as part of the prosecution or defence case had an uncomfortable experience.
I suspect that victims became unhappy in the late 1980s and the 1990s because they were to an increasing extent squeezed out of the system, which at the same time became very professional. It gained the CPS and its legal input for the prosecution, and defence lawyers with legal aid and expert witnesses. Victims rightly felt aggrieved that they did not have such benefits.
We should give some credit to the Conservative Government who, in the 1990s, recognised that the situation was unfair and began the debate about victims and witnesses and their position in the system. I give them that much credit, although I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that the real action was taken after 1997 by the Labour Government. I give the Minister and his predecessors credit for their excellent work in supporting Victim Support, in setting such ambitious targets for witness support schemes in every criminal court in the country, and for the proposals that they set out in "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead". Some of those are in force, such as the victim personal statements, some have been legislated for in the 1999 Act, and some we await legislative time to complete. Therefore, the story is so far so good, but there is some distance still to go.
I want to commend a couple of instances of witness support from my own constituency. Like the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), I have seen a good
166WH
witness support scheme, in Stafford Crown court. The scheme was established before 1997, to the great credit of those who were involved, which is why I give credit to the previous Conservative Government. In recognition of the issue, well-intentioned people in Stafford, as volunteers at the outset, established a witness support scheme. Eventually, funding was found for a paid co-ordinator. Two weeks ago, I met the co-ordinator—who still works in the organisation—and asked him how the scheme was going. It is a superb success, providing all the services that the hon. Member for Woking found in the court that he visited, and I pay tribute to the people who run it. Almost every witness who has entered that court has been helped by that service. Such schemes should be duplicated throughout the country.
The second instance is a very interesting story. I assure hon. Members that it is relevant, and I shall come to the end of it in a moment. It comes out of the creation of the antisocial behaviour order and the discontent that has been expressed in the year since it became available because people do not apply for orders. The problem in Stafford was that the police often felt that the council should pay for the court case and that the police would help to arrange it, and the council felt that the police should pay for the case and that the council would help to arrange it. Between them, neither dealt with a single case. Under pressure from lots of people, myself included—I do not take credit for this—the local council looked for a solution.
A group of enterprising women in the west midlands set up a company that they called ASBO. It offered a service to local authorities and to police authorities that wanted to deal with antisocial behaviour but were not getting round to it. The local authority grabbed the offer with both hands, set the company up with a contract to deal with a specific number of antisocial behaviour cases in Stafford and left it to it. In just 12 months, the situation has been transformed. Where very many communities were complaining about antisocial behaviour, there are now very many communities that are wholly behind ASBO. People willingly go to court and give evidence and successfully obtain antisocial behaviour orders, eviction orders and injunctions.
I was so impressed by how good it was getting that I asked to go to one of ASBO's regular witness meetings. It let me attend, and I walked into a room crowded with the witnesses in the cases that ASBO was running. One of the women introduced everybody and we went round the room hearing who the witnesses were and which instance of antisocial behaviour they were involved in. It was the first time that some of them had realised that they were not the only people complaining about an instance in their neighbourhood. The person from ASBO then reported on every single case, saying that an injunction had been obtained, there was to be a pre-trial review, an order had been obtained, the case was to be next week and so on. It was a very moving occasion because of the great will in that room to do good—that was very satisfying.
I recently read with some amusement of one neighbourhood in which antisocial behaviour has been so successfully cleared away from a street—I say that glibly, but it means removing people, often with dependent children from their homes, so there are severe consequences for the misbehavers—that the remaining residents, thrilled that their community had returned to

167WH
normal, raised a petition to the local council to change the name of the street. They wanted the surname of the woman from ASBO who had helped them so much to be the name of their street. The story demonstrates a practical way of helping witnesses to stand up for themselves.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) was right to point out that support for witnesses does not begin in a courtroom or even in the court building. It is a process that—this might raise some eyebrows—starts before people become witnesses. The Government are right to promote community values, so that people have a feeling of ownership and responsibility for the area in which they live. Those who feel strongly about that should be encouraged to join neighbourhood watch schemes, so that there will be a pool of people available to be witnesses if witnesses are ever needed. When witnesses are needed, it is vital for the police to be able to respond.
My reason for asking the hon. Gentleman about the police and their role is that in Staffordshire, much as I support and take every opportunity to help my local police, the force changed its call handling system some years ago and became hopeless at responding to complaints from members of the public. That was a reason, as the hon. Member for Woking asks for reasons, why people thought that it was not worth bothering to be witnesses; they did not think that they would receive a response to their complaint. When there are witnesses, it is important for people to support them, as ASBO does in Stafford—they find that encouraging.
The hon. Member for Woking was right to remind us more than once that sometimes victims and witnesses are the same people. It is important to bear that in mind. Nevertheless, in the case of victims there is, in my experience, a lot of muddle about who is responsible for telling victims what. That is why I asked the Minister about co-ordination, and about who would be the person with whom witnesses could keep in touch, to give them a consistent message about what was happening in cases in which they were involved.
I mention some points about victims that have been put to me by RoadPeace. I am not a member of RoadPeace, but it is an organisation that I know and admire. It is one of several broad-based, enthusiastic and professional organisations concerned with the interests of the victims of road traffic offences. It made the point, as I have, that victims do not fit into an adversarial system.
RoadPeace also made a point, which I had not thought about, about victim personal statements. I had thought that they were wholly a good thing, but RoadPeace contrasts them with a defendant's plea and mitigation after conviction. No one knows in advance what someone will say in their mitigation and it is accepted by the court, or challenged, on the spot. However, victim personal statements are given in as witness statements, often at quite an early stage in the process. RoadPeace asks why defendants and their legal teams should have access to victim statements about how vulnerable they are, even as they are planning their tactics for their trial and their cross-examination of the
168WH
victims. If that point is correct, it needs to be examined urgently as part of a review of how the new victim personal statements are working.
Simon Hughes: It was our policy at the last election—which I know was controversial, especially with lawyers—that, after conviction but before sentence, a victim or their relative should have the chance to make a statement to the judge or bench, in front of the lawyers. Such people could thereby express their feelings of exclusion, and that would also address the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. Will he reflect on whether we should go further than written victim statements? I am not critical of them, but I do not think that they allow for a victim's need to be heard as part of the legal proceedings.
Mr. Kidney: I am happy for the way in which victims make their views known to the court to be part of any review, but at the moment I am asking the Minister to take account of when those views are made known during the trial process.
I have two practical suggestions. The first is about witnesses. There should be an established local scheme, for which I think that local authorities should take responsibility, for supporting witnesses in the way in which ASBO has done so effectively in Stafford. Secondly, we should look at the status of victims in the criminal justice system, and how they can fit into an adversarial system. Perhaps, instead of a two-sided system, we want a three-pointed one in which there is a formal place for victims.
Turning to road traffic victims, when someone is killed and the police pronounce that it is a murder, there is huge coverage in the media and, quite rightly, an extensive police operation, using all the necessary resources. If someone is convicted of murder, there is a severe sentence of life imprisonment. Most people think that every consideration should be given to the bereaved during every stage of a murder investigation and trial. Each year about 800 homicides occur in our country, while at the same time 3,500 people are killed on our roads. That puts into perspective the importance of what people are saying about road victims not being listened to.
When the Government consulted on their victims charter, more than half the respondents were road victims, and nearly all the respondents mentioned the position and plight road victims. With sad regularity, MPs such as myself hear complaints from families of those who have been killed on the roads. They complain, for example, that the family were given no information about the legal processes, that they were treated atrociously at an inquest, or that they had no involvement in what charges were brought and that, later, charges were reduced or dropped. Families often express dissatisfaction with the sentences passed in cases in which a loved one died. It is no wonder those people say with more regularity than most that they lack trust in the system.
Mr. Malins: The hon. Gentleman will know that, in road traffic accidents in which there is a death, sometimes the only charge that can be brought is one of careless, inattentive driving. Sometimes the person who has had a temporary lapse of judgment feels the most

169WH
tremendous remorse, and no sentence can properly compensate the family. Those are difficult cases to sentence.
Mr. Kidney: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with just one part of the process, because he has picked up on the last point that I mentioned, but that is only one of many complaints. There is a huge debate, with the lawyers on one side saying "It's only carelessness. There but for the grace of God go I. How can we be responsible for the consequences?" On the other side, organisations such as RoadPeace say that the consequences are so serious that people should be more responsible when they are behind the wheel. What the judge said in sentencing Gary Hart last week was helpful to the RoadPeace case about how dangerous is the vehicle of which people are in control on a road in Modern society.
I have outlined some of the reasons why people do not trust the system. Sadly, some people have expressed the strong feeling that when they go through the criminal justice system as the loved ones of a deceased person they suffer all over again. Surely we want to change that.
I know that we are waiting for the Government's proposals following last year's review of road traffic penalties, which might have some impact on my last point about sentencing, but again I make two practical proposals to the Minister. First, everything that the Minister has said today about treating victims better must apply to the victims of road traffic accidents. Secondly, I hope that the Government involve in any body that they set up—for example, any board to implement the victims charter—organisations such as RoadPeace, which have a distinctive point of view that needs to be heard in the nitty-gritty of administering the system.
My last point relates to the Auld report. I have not brought it with me because it is so big and heavy, but it has some relevance to today's debate. We are debating victims and witnesses. What we have seen from the case of the man who spent 27 years in prison—it has now been accepted that that was a miscarriage of justice—is that defendants can be victims too. That is relevant when we hear the Government's ebullient views about how they will stop defendants taking advantage of delay through the right to elect trial and how they will allow more hearsay evidence and make known more freely defendants' previous convictions. I shall listen to the Government's arguments on these points with an open and fair mind, but I hope that we do not lose sight of the common-law principle that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. There is a purpose behind that principle; it is followed so that innocent people are not convicted and do not suffer great miscarriages of justice. I hope that the Minister is willing to consider that as the Government develop their legislative proposals.
The Auld report contains only a small reference to witnesses and victims, partly because Lord Justice Auld acknowledges that it has all been said elsewhere. He says that witnesses in court should be able to refer to documents more freely to refresh their memory. He agrees with the reform of hearsay evidence to enable witnesses to tell their story naturally. In the longer term, he looks forward to greater use of video-recorded
170WH
evidence. In the case of victims, he has great praise for the proposals in "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead" and he commends victim support, but he recommends against a special status for victims in the trial process. However, that recommendation does not spoil my earlier point about a special status for victims in the criminal justice system before trial.
We are also still waiting for the implementation of the recommendations on sentencing in Halliday and for the proposals following the sexual offences review, so a big programme of legislative reform is coming. I put some practical proposals to the Minister. First, when the Government have finalised, if they had not already done so, a full set of proposals in response to Halliday, the sexual offences review and Auld, can we have a debate in Parliament in Government time before we reach the legislative process?
Secondly, can we have pre-legislative scrutiny of what is to come? Even as a loyal Government Back Bencher, I do not want vital reforms to the criminal justice system to be thrust upon us in a big Bill with a timetable and a plea for my loyalty. I am having to think carefully about some big issues such as the right to jury trial. I hope that the Minister thinks that that is a constructive suggestion about how to satisfy people who might otherwise be slightly uneasy.
If anything, my hon. Friend the Minister slightly undersold how well the Government have done since 1997. As he said, there is still more to be done, some of which requires big and courageous decisions, if I can say that without alarming him. I hope that he will take the right decisions each time so that we get a system of which we can all be proud.
4.25 pm
Fiona Mactaggart: I am grateful that we are having this debate. I want to concentrate on one aspect of victims and witnesses.
I start with a reminder that the best way to make the experience of the criminal justice system better for victims and witnesses is to make progress on the prevention and detection of crime. About 10 days ago, I was taken aback when one of my constituents said to me angrily, "That Victim Support organisation phoned me up about my burglary and the police hadn't even been round to see me." Sometimes providing appropriate support for victims of crime when there are insufficient policing resources to do anything about it can provoke rather than support victims.
I know something about this issue because I am chair of the Voice associate all-party parliamentary group, which focuses on dealing with abuse of people with learning difficulties. I should first say on behalf of Voice that all its members welcome the huge progress that has been made in recent years in improving support for people with learning disabilities who are victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system, especially through the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, the follow-on report, "Speaking up for Justice", and the action for justice programme. Nevertheless, although we have worked out what needs to be done and developed an action programme to do it, vulnerable witnesses are the least likely to be satisfied. In the witness satisfaction survey that the Minister quoted, which shows that 76 per cent. of witnesses were satisfied with

171WH
their experience, only 64 per cent. of vulnerable witnesses, and even fewer witnesses with disabilities, were satisfied.
The largest source of dissatisfaction for the group about which I want to speak is that their case never gets heard. That is what creates the most distress, anger and bitterness. We were told a story at our annual meeting, which took place in the next Room, that brought me to tears—not something that happens often in this august Palace. The chief executive of Voice read out a letter from a young woman who had been a victim of rape in the day centre that she attended. The letter, which was sent to the manager of the day centre, was expressed simply—she is a woman of low IQ—but clearly. It basically said, "Why did you let it happen? What are you doing about it? Why has nobody prosecuted or sacked the person who did it to me?" I cried because the letter that she received back was along the lines of "How nice to hear from you. I'm glad you're getting on with your present life" and other patronising, jolly comments. It did not even contain an acknowledgement of what had happened to her. That was more powerful than other accounts that I have heard from parents and relatives about a person they care for being ignored.
The case had not been brought to court because, although the woman was capable of writing that letter, she was not a reliable witness. Not only that, but the person who was supposed to be managing the care centre ignored the fact that she had been the victim of an appalling attack. That is the experience that most families have of the criminal justice system. It is not acceptable in a civilised society that someone who has learning disabilities is not allowed the basic rights that other victims have—to have their case heard and for the person responsible to be prosecuted and, if found guilty, sentenced appropriately.
The first thing that we must do is examine ways of ensuring that people with learning disabilities are not ignored and that they have their voice heard at the beginning of the process. I urge the Minister to try, in guidance and so on, to give wider recognition to the role of carers and family as interpreters for people with learning disabilities.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I am listening with great interest and sympathy to my hon. Friend. A number of my constituents have found themselves in a similar position. I applaud her proposals for an appropriate support infrastructure at the beginning of the process when someone initiates a complaint. Does she agree that there is an acute shortage of suitably trained staff in police authorities with an understanding of the range of learning disabilities and that there is an absolute unwillingness to develop those services because such cases will not be supported by the Crown Prosecution Service?
Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) anticipates my comments on those organisations and on training, but I want to start by referring to the role of families. In many cases, only someone with whom the victim has a long-term relationship can help them to communicate. People often develop established ways of communicating with their family, carers and so on. Allowing family or carers to act as communicators at all stages in the process can
172WH
enable people with learning disabilities to give best evidence, to make their points and so on. It is a real problem that some of our current arrangements do not allow that to happen.
On the point made by my hon. Friend, the wider issue is training, training, training at every level. I have spoken to the chair of the Judicial Studies Board, who is proud of the fact that judges receive half a day's training on disability. If they receive half a day's training on disability, how much training do they receive on learning disabilities and ways of communicating with people with learning disabilities? It is not enough. Unless we introduce serious training on how to communicate with people with learning disabilities for police, prosecutors and judges, we shall fail to deliver justice.
There are honourable exceptions. In places such as Hampshire, the police are focusing on delivering training and certain CPS offices are doing the same thing, which proves that it can be done. That is, however, not the norm, and it is time for it to become the norm. My biggest plea is to resource that kind of training so that every police force and every CPS office has a policy, an awareness programme and a designated officer. Simple schemes would deliver justice to people with learning difficulties.
Other things would make a difference. Others have referred to the current consultation on sexual offences. In the cases that are currently hardest to prosecute because there is a question whether a witness is capable of giving good evidence, there is a need for a new offence. There are cases in which there is not an appropriate offence under which one can successfully prosecute. We should introduce an offence of having sex with a person with a learning disability who cannot consent. That would overcome some evidential issues about the quality of communication of a witness with a learning difficulty.
I was interested to hear the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby because I became chair of the all-party Voice group following a grotesque example of institutionalised sexual and other abuse in a care home for people with learning disabilities on the boundaries of my constituency. The difficulty was finding an appropriate offence with which to charge the perpetrators. The main perpetrator committed suicide while he was in prison, and his wife, who was also involved, was charged with low-level offences because it was difficult to obtain evidence. We need a range of offences that are appropriate to the ways in which people with learning disabilities are treated.
The matter is urgent because we are getting better at protecting children from sexual abuse, and I am afraid that those who have been preying on children are now turning to people with learning difficulties, who are less well protected.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that individuals who are identified as sex offenders and put on the sex offenders register can subsequently enter care homes and perpetrate abuse against people who are vulnerable and not in a position to raise a complaint against them?
Fiona Mactaggart: I am shocked, but not surprised, to hear that. We are trying to do the right thing, but we are

173WH
failing. Much of what has been done is excellent, but there is much more that must be done. We must make it possible for witnesses to give best evidence, create appropriate offences and support victims and witnesses more effectively. I raise these points because I have worked out that, as a Member of Parliament, one achieves the best effects if one keeps one's foot on the accelerator and uses every available opportunity to bang on about things. Good policies are being pursued by Departments, but I suspect that the life of a Minister is often rather lonely, in that no one really notices the good things that are being done. All that happens is that people such as me complain, saying, "Look at our crime rates in Slough! Please change the world." As several hon. Members have said, there is a good framework of policies and we are making real progress, but we need to keep our foot on the accelerator.
We also need better information, particularly on this group of victims. National statistics should be kept on the number of offences involving victims with learning difficulties that have been investigated, and on the number of prosecutions that were not pursued. I have met many people whose lives were blighted because a prosecution was not pursued, and who genuinely believe that, although there was a chance that a conviction might not have been secured, the experience of being believed sufficiently to warrant bringing a prosecution would have proved therapeutic in itself. We need better statistics, so that we can identify why prosecutions are not made, and to use such statistics to inform the training that I have demanded. There is a real need for such information.
Finally, we should apply more pressure by creating a presumption that cases involving a vulnerable victim will go to trial unless detailed reasons to the contrary are spelt out to a judge. Perhaps an independent advocate should also be involved. I understand entirely that such cases are very difficult for the police and the CPS to deal with. Compared with cases in which the victim can give best evidence easily, it is more difficult to secure a successful prosecution. There are good public policy reasons for persisting with such prosecutions, and we need to create a mechanism that ensures that it is harder to abandon them. Requiring that reasons for abandoning such cases be given to a judge and involving an independent advocate might increase the number of prosecutions. I can promise hon. Members that such a measure would effect an enormous improvement in the experience of these vulnerable victims and witnesses.
Mr. Mike Hancock: We are stretching a point, but I call Mr. Edna Garnier.
4.43 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: To call me Edna would be stretching a point, Mr. Hancock.
Mr. Mike Hancock: I apologise; I meant to say Edward.
Mr. Garnier: I begin by apologising to you, Mr. Hancock, and to those right hon. and hon. Members who have attended the entire debate, for my late arrival.
174WH
My excuse is that I was participating in a conference of the parliamentary all-party group on Spain elsewhere in this Palace, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). As one knows, to cross the right hon. Gentleman leads to all sorts of adverse consequences.
I want to make a number of points, but I shall do so quickly as I realise that I am trespassing on the time of this Chamber. I did not hear the beginning of the speech of the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), but I was certainly interested in the last part of it. As she perhaps knows, legislation is about to come into force that will assist with the further protection of vulnerable people in our courts, so it may well be that some of her fears have already been dealt with.
I hope that the Minister will encourage his colleagues in the Home Office to introduce fewer criminal justice Bills. There is far too much criminal justice legislation, which churns its way through the House largely inadequately scrutinised. That is not a party point; it attaches with equal force to the Government whom I supported prior to the arrival of the Labour Government in 1997. There is simply far too much criminal justice legislation. Most of it is useless in that it seeks to correct the mistakes of the previous year's Bill. I urge the Government to be more cautious in the way in which they pour legislation through the sausage machine.
I ask the Government to consider urgently the codification of the criminal law, which would prevent many of the problems from which courts suffer. I urge the Minister and his shadows on my side of the House—I excuse my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who as a Crown court recorder has some experience of the criminal courts—to make a point of looking at, visiting, and sitting with judges of the Crown courts and magistrates, so that they see the practical, day-to-day consequences of criminal justice legislation.
Again, I express my apologies for my late arrival and interruption of what must otherwise have been an entirely happy and harmonious occasion.
Mr. Mike Hancock: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman went that far, or spoiled the ambience too much.
4.46 pm
Mr. Keith Bradley: I start by thanking everyone for the high quality of their contributions. That is often said at the end of a debate, but this occasion can genuinely be said to have been a thoughtful and important debate, setting the context in which we are introducing many new policies and proposals. They will lead to legislation, but I hope that that will have a purpose and a meaning, tackling many of the issues that have been raised today.
I accept the reason given by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) for not being present throughout the debate. I think that he might have obtained great value had he been able to be here, because I know of his genuine interest in these matters. I take his point about introducing legislation that is practical and that will impact on the efficiency and co-ordination of the criminal justice system by examining what is happening now. Part of my job is to do exactly that, and I want to do it more so that I understand more

175WH
detail of how the system currently works. The changes that we make should impact on the criminal justice system with the sole purpose of restoring confidence in it and making the system fast and effective so that the stages between detection, charging and ultimate court decisions take place as effectively and efficiently as possible. That is how the public will have confidence in the system.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend the Minister give way?
Mr. Bradley: I shall, just once.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I am grateful for that.
In relation to the cases that I raised earlier, will my right hon. Friend examine the role of the police and the prompting and initiating of proceedings in the absence of contemporaneous or timely complaints by the victims concerned? Will he examine also the role and regulation of prison visits in that context, and the potential role of criminal justice, injuries compensation and civil litigation in the motivation and initiation of those cases? Importantly, will he examine the efficiency and effectiveness of police interviewing, file preparation, quality assurance and—bearing in mind the comments made about people with learning difficulties—training issues? Will he also examine the experience, expertise and tenure of officers engaged in specialist investigation work to ensure that they are adequately trained? Will he reflect on noble cause or simple corruption cases to ensure that they are monitored and managed according to risk in the context of the investigations to which I referred?
Mr. Bradley rose—
Mr. Mike Hancock: Order. I think that there is some pay-back on both sides, given the length of that intervention.
Mr. Bradley: Thank you, Mr. Hancock. Perhaps I may respond to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) and to her speech. I am aware that she has met my right hon. Friend the Minister of State with responsibilities for crime reduction, policing and community safety to raise all matters in relation to the investigation and the wider context of these important issues. I pay tribute to her for the assiduous way in which she is pursuing them. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is considering them. I shall ensure that the proceedings of this debate are brought to his attention and that these matters are pursued.
Several hon. Members have asked about the service now provided through Victim Support for victims and witnesses. We have rightly paid tribute to that organisation, and have had good examples at a local level of the work that its 15,000 volunteers undertake. Other organisations also work effectively for victims—for example, Victims Voice and RoadPeace, which has been mentioned. We must consider how in our review of the victims charter we can support such groups, to ensure that their invaluable work is properly recognised.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), leading for the Opposition, raised a number of matters from his valuable experience about the way in which the system
176WH
works. Sir Robin Auld, in his independent report, identified many of the issues, such as some of the reasons why trials crack. We are in a consultation process. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will contribute to that process. I know that he will join in the debate when we introduce the White Paper and, subsequently, legislation on these matters. It is important that we address the way in which cases are managed and attempt to make their administration more efficient so that justice is seen quickly to be done.
As regards intimidation in the courts, I recently launched a website which was a virtual walk-through of a typical court to enable the public to see how a court is laid out, what the processes are and who undertakes what, so that they can familiarise themselves in advance of being in a court room. As the hon. Member for Woking rightly said, it is an intimidating place. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) gave the example of the Old Bailey. That is at one end of the spectrum, but even at local level a court can be extremely intimidating. We hope that, through such information, we can take some of the mystery out of the process and help to make it not a pleasant experience, but one that people can cope with far better when they have a better understanding of the procedures and the supports that exist for them before and during their time in court.
Simon Hughes: Will the Minister talk to his colleagues in other Departments about the idea of a pilot scheme to televise magistrates courts proceedings and proceedings in other courts where juries are not involved? I share with him the view that the more people see and understand those proceedings, the more likely they are to feel comfortable. It would be hugely educative and no detriment to justice. Jury trials, I think, are different.
Mr. Bradley: I shall consider that point and what further mechanisms we can introduce to demystify the process and provide information to the public so that they understand and have confidence in the system.
I was asked about housing and the intimidation that can arise when someone is brought back into the local community where a crime has been committed. I am carefully considering resettlement arrangements to ascertain how agencies can work together to improve the process from prison back into the community.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey raised a series of matters in a thoughtful contribution. A context has been given to our debate on the criminal justice system through our responses to the Halliday and Auld reports and the sexual offences review. There will be big opportunities to debate those in greater detail. I will not respond now to the hon. Gentleman's checklist of issues for debate, but opportunities for debate will be offered in the coming months. I welcome the checklist, however. We will have consultations on sentencing, court reform and sexual offences, and respond to them by introducing White Papers and then legislation in the form of separate or combined Bills.
Although I accept the point about the extent of legislation, the issues that move forward the Modernisation of the criminal system and law are important. Where that progress is appropriate,

177WH
opportunities must be taken. I agree that to introduce legislation merely to plug weakness in previous legislation is not satisfactory. We must address that by ensuring that proper scrutiny and opportunity for debate exist before Bills are introduced.
Mr. Kidney: May we take that as an assurance that there will be debate in Parliament before legislation is introduced? The Minister said that we would have a full debate on the proposals. As regards pre-legislative scrutiny, does he think that he will be able to issue Bills in draft to allow that to happen?
Mr. Bradley: I am sure that the business managers would not want me to pre-empt the timetable. I fully appreciate the need for scrutiny and, where possible, pre-legislative scrutiny, so I will consider opportunities for debates on broad issues. However, I cannot give assurances because I am not in charge of the timetable for such debates.
Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way one more time?
Mr. Bradley: Yes.
Simon Hughes: This is not a point of contention. Picking up the points made by the hon. Member for Stafford and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), it seems that the Government will have one piece of legislation that deals with sentencing and criminal justice reform. That is an improvement. It is better to have what we need and to go through the consultative and pre-legislative process before legislation is introduced. In the end, that will give us better legislation and a speedier process. I support the two contributions and am willing to participate in trying to get things right between now and the other side of the next Queen's Speech.
Mr. Bradley: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments. My objective is to ensure that the legislation that is introduced is coherent for sentencing and court reform and addresses the problems in a way that makes sense out of the system.
I was concerned to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey about what his councillor friend said that the police were saying. I will look into that if the hon. Gentleman writes to me with specific examples. That situation is not satisfactory and we need to ensure that witnesses are supported at every opportunity so that they can give evidence in court and prosecutions are effective.
As always, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) made important points. I assure him that RoadPeace is part of our deliberation on the victims
178WH
charter and that we are engaging, as far as we can, with such organisations to ensure their views are taken on board. I was particularly interested in his comments on antisocial behaviour orders. A common criticism is of the time that it takes successfully to bring cases to fruition. I know that a review is under way to try to make the process more effective, but I will consider the hon. Gentleman's example because we can learn lessons from the project.
On personal statements, I hear the point about where they are brought into the process. The statements may be updated at a later stage because they are not a one-off opportunity. Again, because we are evaluating personal statements, we shall take the comments on board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and others have highlighted vulnerable witnesses' needs, and in particular those of people with learning disabilities. I support the view that training in these matters is of paramount importance. As I said in my speech, I shall be making further comments on the report "Speaking up for Justice", and I hope that the issues that have been raised today will be addressed at that time. I understand the need to recognise and support the role of carers and parents in that process, and the point, which runs throughout the criminal justice system, of ensuring good practice at local level. To obtain the most efficient and effective system, good practice must be rolled out throughout the country to ensure that people do not work in chimneys or in a vacuum away from agencies and other parts of the criminal justice system.
This has been an invaluable debate because it has set a clear context for our further deliberations on the criminal justice system, which I welcome. This will start a dialogue among us all as important policies and issues are brought before Parliament in the coming weeks and months. I welcome the recognition of these issues, many of which are not party political. We are all interested in ensuring that we have a criminal justice system that will be a credit to the Government, and that our constituents understand and feel part of it. The point about citizenship is extremely important because people must feel that they are part of that system, that they understand how it works and that there is integrity in the court and sentencing system. As a consequence, there will be a greater readiness to participate in the system, which is for society's general benefit. We have made a good start in that process, and I look forward to the further debates that we shall have on the reports, reviews and policies that we will be bringing forward.
Finally, I thank all Members who have contributed to our proceedings.
Mr. Mike Hancock: I thank all Members for their care and thought during the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Five o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Warship Support Modernisation Project
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the NAO's report into the organisation of the Warship Support Modernisation project to be published; if he will list the representations made to his Department on this matter; and if he will make a statement. [25867]

  Mr. Ingram
  The NAO were commissioned by the Warship Support Agency Management Board to undertake an assurance audit of the Warship Support Modernisation evaluation and value for money analysis processes. While NAO reports are normally conducted for Parliament after public money has been spent, officials have asked them in this case to act in advance of any expenditure and to advise them principally on the soundness of the assessment processes. This work is being undertaken for the Warship Support Agency and is not a formal NAO investigation which would be published and presented to Parliament. The assurance audit is continuing and it is expected to be completed before the end of this month. No decision has yet been taken on the publication of this report.

  Forces' Mail
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision is made for United Kingdom service personnel on active service abroad to contact their next of kin; and what assessment he has made of similar provision for United States service personnel. [R] [25352]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 8 January 2002,Official Report, columns 558–59W, to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).

  Cluster Bombs
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has been informed by his United States counterpart of the locations in which cluster bombs have been used by US armed forces in Afghanistan since the beginning of December. [26433]

  Mr. Ingram
  The US and UK have been in close political, diplomatic and military contact throughout the operations in Afghanistan. A wide variety of issues have been discussed, including the locations where cluster bombs have been dropped.

  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much progress was made at the Review Conference for the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons to reduce the hazard to civilians from(a) cluster bombs in particular and (b) unexploded ordnance in general. [26047]
  406W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Review Conference of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons agreed a mandate for a group of governmental experts to discuss ways and means to address the issue of explosive remnants of war and to submit recommendations at an early date to the State Parties to the Convention. The mandate covers consideration of all unexploded munitions, with a specific reference to sub-munitions, which include cluster bombs.

  Afghanistan
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance has been issued by Her Majesty's Government on the handling of prisoners in Afghanistan; and on which dates such guidance was issued. [26436]

  Mr. Hoon
  Appropriate guidance has been given to the UK forces operating in Afghanistan to ensure compliance with the UK's international legal obligations. I am withholding details of the dates guidance was issued in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 336W, on special educational needs, what percentage of children in schools operated by the Service Children's Education Agency have special educational needs. [27490]

  Dr. Moonie
  18 per cent. of children in schools operated by Service Children's Education have special educational needs between Stages 1 and 5 of the Code of Practice.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 336W, how many children of service personnel there are whose parents have voluntarily registered their children's special needs stages 1 to 5 on the Service Children's Education Agency's database. [27476]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are currently 3,257 children registered on the Service Children's Education (SCE) Special Educational Needs (SEN) database. The database includes details of service children with SEN whose parents are in receipt of Special Educational Needs Allowance, children who attend SCE schools worldwide and children who attend state schools in the UK. The database records only children who are at the Code of Practice Stage 3 or above. There is no requirement for parents to register children who are at Code of Practice Stage 1 or 2.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 336W, on special educational needs, how many children of service personnel there are whose parents have voluntarily registered their children's statement or record of needs on the Service Children's Education Agency's database. [27486]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are 1,222 children with a statement or record of needs registered on the Service Children's Education (SCE) Special Educational Needs (SEN) database. The database includes details of Service Children with SEN whose parents are in receipt of Special
  407W
  Educational Needs Allowance, children who attend SCE schools worldwide and children who attend state schools in the UK.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 336W, on special educational needs, if the Service Children's Education Agency holds information on the SEN needs of the children of service personnel. [27482]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information is held on the Special Educational Needs of children currently receiving special needs support within Service Children's Education (SCE) schools and for those children in other schools whose parents have registered their child's needs on the SCE Special Educational Needs database.

  Nimrod
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Royal Air Force's Nimrod MR2 maritime patrol aircraft. [27270]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Nimrod MR2 Maritime Patrol Aircraft is due to retire completely from RAF service in January 2009 and will be replaced by the Nimrod MRA4. The Nimrod MRA4 will represent a significant increase in capability for the RAF.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many TA commissions have been granted in each of the last four years;[R] [27196]

  (2) how many TA places at RMA Sandhurst have been unfilled in each of the last four years. [R] [27197]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of places on the Territorial Army commissioning course held at RMA Sandhurst that have been unfilled, and the number of TA commissions granted, in each of the last four years, are shown in the table.

  Course

  Capacity

  Attendance

  Places unfilled

  TA commissions granted

  1998

  320

  242

  78

  202

  1999

  360

  211

  149

  190

  2000

  360

  155

  205

  141

  2001

  360

  214

  146

  188

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many formed TA units have trained in Canada in each of the last four years. [R] [27198]

  Branch/Trade

  Requirement

  Trained strength

  ±

  Percentage

  Engineer Officer

  1,745

  1,745

  0

  0

  Engineering Technician Airframe

  4,510

  4,718

  208

  4.6

  Engineering Technician Propulsion

  2,544

  2,719

  175

  6.9

  Engineering Technician Weapon

  2,048

  2,149

  101

  4.9

  Engineering Technician Avionics

  3,305

  3,376

  71

  2.1

  Engineering Technician Aircraft Electrical

  1,922

  1,844

  -78

  -4.0

  Engineering Technician Electronics

  2,359

  2,104

  -255

  -10.8

  General Technician Electrical

  646

  591

  -55

  -8.5

  408W
  Dr. Moonie
  Two formed Territorial Army units have trained in Canada during the last four years. The Royal Yeomanry participated in Exercise Pond Jump West from 22 to 26 July 2000 and the King's Cheshire Regiment deployed on Exercise Fingals Cave from 1 to 15 September 2001.

  Russian Armed Forces
  Lembit öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Government have to facilitate the teaching of English to members of the Russian armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [27834]

  Mr. Hoon
  Within the 2002 Outreach defence diplomacy programme with Russia, the Ministry of Defence plans to continue the teaching of English to Russian officers at the Defence School of Languages and at the University of Ripon and York. As a further part of the Outreach programme, English language training is one possible course within our Russian Resettlement Project for retiring and recently retired Russian officers.

  Radiation Tests
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will grant the funds necessary to finance(a) blood and (b) saliva tests for radiation pioneered by Dundee university. [28058]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has been approached in the past to grant funds to Dundee university for such studies into the possible radiation exposure of nuclear test veterans. We have declined to do so because there are reservations about the capabilities of the proposed techniques for estimating historic radiation doses. Other studies using these techniques have found them to be inconclusive when there is a considerable time lapse since exposure, and where the exposure is low. These constraints were found to be particularly so in an age group typical of British nuclear test veterans.

  Armed Services Technical Personnel
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the establishment requirement in the Royal Air Force for qualified technical personnel responsible for the maintenance of equipment serviceability in operational units and maintenance depots, stating in each case the(a) specialty requirement, (b) manning levels and (c) percentage difference from establishment requirement; and if he will make a statement. [25897]

  Mr. Ingram
  The specific information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The table shows the requirement and trained strength, as at 1 December 2001, of RAF branches and trades involved in work relating to the maintenance of equipment serviceability.
  409W

  Branch/Trade

  Requirement

  Trained strength

  ±

  Percentage

  General Technician Ground Support Equipment

  745

  750

  5

  0.7

  General Technician Workshops

  123

  150

  27

  21.9

  Mechanical Transport Technician

  430

  437

  7

  1.6

  Not all personnel in the branches and trades listed are permanently employed on operational or maintenance units. Some are required to undergo other duties or further specialist trade training. Generally speaking, surplus personnel are employed in the ground trade posts that may be filled by trained personnel of any trade. Measures are being taken to ameliorate the impact of the deficits and surpluses wherever possible.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the establishment requirement in the Army for qualified technical personnel responsible for the

  Requirement1

  Strength2

  Shortfall ±

  Percentage

  Career Employment Group

  Artificer Aircraft

  88

  140

  +52

  59.1

  Artificer Avionics

  45

  60

  +15

  33.3

  Artificer Electronics

  91

  141

  +50

  54.9

  Artificer Instruments

  24

  52

  +28

  116.7

  Artificer Radar

  43

  72

  +29

  67.4

  Artificer Telecommunications

  28

  62

  +34

  121.4

  Artificer Vehicles

  478

  515

  +37

  7.7

  Artificer Weapons

  81

  122

  +41

  50.6

  Technician Aircraft

  580

  569

  -11

  -1.9

  Technician Avionics

  265

  272

  +7

  2.6

  Technician Control Equipment

  345

  336

  -9

  -2.6

  Technician Instruments

  215

  210

  -5

  -2.3

  Technician Radar

  191

  200

  +9

  4.7

  Technician Telecommunications

  210

  175

  -35

  -16.7

  Armourer

  643

  506

  -137

  -21.3

  Metalsmith

  229

  207

  -22

  -9.6

  Recovery Mechanic

  591

  457

  -134

  -22.7

  Shipwright

  29

  23

  -6

  -20.7

  Vehicle Electrician

  556

  363

  -193

  -34.7

  Vehicle Mechanic

  4,071

  3,136

  -935

  -23.0

  Total

  8,803

  7,618

  -1,185

  -13.5

  REME Officers

  875

  817

  -58

  -6.6

  Sources:

  1 DASA (Army)

  2 REME Manning and Career Management Division

  Currently the overall shortfalls are 6.6 per cent. officers and 13.5 per cent. soldiers. Staff in trades for which surpluses are shown are employed within trades that are currently undermanned.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the establishment requirement in the Royal Navy for qualified technical personnel responsible for the maintenance of equipment serviceability in operational units and maintenance depots, stating in each case the(a) specialty requirement, (b) manning levels and (c) percentage difference from establishment requirement; and if he will make a statement. [25898]

  Mr. Ingram
  The respective requirement, strength and percentage difference for each category of technical specialist in the Royal Navy are as shown in the table.
  410W
  maintenance of equipment serviceability in operational units and maintenance depots, stating in each case the (a) specialty requirement, (b) manning levels and (c) percentage difference from establishment requirement; and if he will make a statement. [25899]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME) are the qualified specialist corps responsible for the technical maintenance of equipment within the Army. The table shows the REME trades involved in work relating to the maintenance of equipment, as at 1 December 2001.

  Specialisation

  Requirement

  Bearing

  Shortfall (percentage)

  Weapon Engineer Officer

  746

  733

  -1.7

  Marine Engineer Officer

  652

  640

  -1.8

  Air Engineer Officer

  346

  312

  -9.8

  Weapon Engineering Artificer

  1,661

  1,523

  -8.3

  Marine Engineering Artificer

  2,050

  1,972

  -3.8

  Air Engineering Artificer

  984

  961

  -2.3

  Weapon Engineering Mechanic

  785

  762

  -2.9

  Marine Engineering Mechanic

  3,514

  3,225

  -8.2

  Air Engineering Mechanic

  2,240

  2,273

  +1.4

  Currently the overall shortfall is 3.38 per cent officers and 4.61 per cent. ratings. However, all the RN's operational seagoing engineer officer posts are filled, and operational capability is being protected by giving priority to filling front-line posts for ratings. A number of measures are in hand to improve the shortfall.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Indonesia
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Sulawesi, Indonesia, with particular reference to recent bombings of four churches in the area. [28062]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We continue to monitor events in the province of central Sulawesi closely. Sporadic clashes between Muslims and Christians in and around Poso, and more recently between Muslims and the security forces, continued after three Christian militia leaders were sentenced to death on 5 April 201 for their part in killings in May and June 2000. On 19 November 2001, the Supreme Court in Jakarta dismissed appeals by the three militia leaders against the death sentence.

  On 23 November 2001, our chargé d'affaires in Jakarta raised our concerns about the escalating violence with Bambang Yudhoyono, the Indonesian Co-ordinating Minister for Political and Security Affairs. Mr. Yudhoyono confirmed that police and military reinforcements had been despatched to Poso to help contain the situation. During a visit to Central Sulawesi on 5 December 2001, Mr. Yudhoyono announced that President Megawati had ordered a six-month security restoration plan for the province. The Indonesian Government subsequently brokered an agreement between the warring factions to end the fighting which was signed on 20 December. This appears to be holding up reasonably well, although four bombs exploded outside churches in the region on new year's eve. The culprits are unknown but both Christian and Muslim leaders have appealed for calm.

  HMG have consistently made clear their view that long-term solutions to regional conflicts can be achieved only through negotiation and consultation. We continue to work with the Indonesian authorities to promote reconciliation, begin wider reconstruction work and offer practical assistance where appropriate. As part of our effort to support conflict prevention initiatives, the British Government recently funded a series of Conflict Reporting training workshops for journalists in various provinces in Indonesia, which included participants from Poso.

  Karine A
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment he has made of the source of funds that financed the arms shipment on Karine A; and if he will make a statement; [28247]

  (2) what representations he has made to the Palestinian Authority over the arms shipment detected on the Karine A; and if he will make a statement; [28246]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the (a) source and (b) ultimate intended destination of the arms on the Karine A; and if he will make a statement; [28245]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the progress of his inquiries into the links between the arms shipment discovered on the Karine A and the Palestinian Authority. [28244]
  412W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The discovery of the arms shipment on the Karine A is a serious matter. We have seen evidence linking the shipment to Palestinian officials. But the extent of Palestinian Authority involvement and details of the origin destination and funding for the arms remain unclear. Israeli and Palestinian Authority inquiries are in hand. In a meeting with President Arafat on 15 January I urged him to investigate Palestinian involvement thoroughly and present his findings quickly.

  Meanwhile the parties should not be deflected from the urgent business of implementing the Tenet Security Plan and Mitchell Committee recommendations.

  Plan Colombia
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the value of Plan Colombia; and what plans he has to promote a similar plan in relation to Afghanistan. [28111]

  Mr. MacShane
  Plan Colombia is the Colombian Government's programme to tackle Colombia's interconnected problems of violence, social and economic inequality, abuse of human rights and drugs cultivation and trafficking. It is designed to produce results over a number of years.

  Neither the UK nor the EU has made a contribution to the plan. The UK is contributing to a separate EU package of assistance to Colombia worth euro 300 million over the period 2001–06. The package focuses on measures that support human rights, long-term economic and social development, including alternative development, and an end to violence.

  The Government currently have no plans to promote a similar plan in relation to Afghanistan.

  Gibraltar
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is Her Majesty's Government's intention to reach an accommodation with Spain about Gibraltar irrespective of the will of the citizens of Gibraltar. [28265]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) in this House on 27 November 2001,Official Report, column 822.

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Her Majesty's Government's policy is on a referendum of the residents of Gibraltar on(a) independence, (b) integration and (c) joint sovereignty. [28266]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 26W.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will put forward proposals for further integration of Gibraltar into the United Kingdom. [R] [28263]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) on 20 November 2001,Official Report,

  413W
  column 187W. Discussions under the Brussels Process have not included the possibility of integration of Gibraltar into the UK.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on discussions on independence for Gibraltar. [R] [28264]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) on 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 187W. A copy of the joint press communiqué issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs when they met under the Brussels Process in Barcelona on 20 November has been placed in the Libraries of the House. Independence for Gibraltar is not an issue being discussed under the Brussels Process.

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what possibilities Her Majesty's Government are studying for the future status of Gibraltar similar to Ceuta and Mellia. [28267]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) on 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 187W. Discussions under the Brussels Process have not included the possibility of integration of Gibraltar into the UK.

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for a referendum to be held in Gibraltar on an agreement with Spain about the status of Gibraltar. [28268]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) on 12 December 2001,Official Report, column 853W.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what public statements have been made concerning Gibraltar by British diplomats in the last 12 months. [28269]

  Peter Hain
  British diplomats have set out the Government's policy on many occasions in the last 12 months, including international fora.

  James McLintock
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he has been informed by the Government of Pakistan(a) on what charges and (b) in which prison James A. McLintock is being held; [28123]

  (2) if (a) he and (b) the UK High Commission in Pakistan has requested that James A. McLintock receive legal representation; [28122]

  (3) on what date the UK High Commission in Islamabad first requested information from the Government of Pakistan on the case of James A. McLintock; [28120]

  (4) what information has been received from the Government of Pakistan on the case of James A. McLintock; [28125]

  (5) when (a) he last contacted and (b) were his most recent discussions with the Government of Pakistan on the case of James A. McLintock; and what was the outcome of these discussions; [28121]
  414W
  (6) on what date representatives from the UK High Commission in Islamabad were first allowed consular access to James A. McLintock; and on how many occasions representatives have been granted such access; [28124]

  (7) what representations he has made to the Government of Pakistan on the case of James A. McLintock; [28119]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not been in contact with the Pakistani authorities about this case.

  Staff at the British High Commission in Islamabad first sought information about a detained British national, later identified as James A. McLintock, on 21 December 2001. British officials saw Mr. McLintock on 4 and 5 January 2002. Confirmation of his health and welfare was made and this information was relayed to his family by FCO staff in London on 9 January. Access to Mr. McLintock was given again on 16 January 2002 and more information was passed to his family. Mr. McLintock is being held in Islamabad and has not been charged. Our staff have not requested legal representation, but instead have advised the Pakistanis that if Mr. McLintock is charged he must have legal representation. We continue to be in consultation with the Pakistani authorities about Mr. McLintock's situation. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would, of course, be happy to see the hon. Member about this case if that would be helpful.

  Sellafield
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the representations(a) made to and (b) received from the European Commission by his Department in respect of the Sellafield MOX plant since 1 January. [19407]

  Margaret Beckett
  I have been asked to reply.

  Further to my answer to my hon. Friend on 10 December 2001, Official Report, column 681W, I understand that the European Commission wrote to the Department of Trade and Industry on 20 November 2001 about whether state aid had been granted to Sellafield MOX plant. The DTI does not believe that any state aid has been given to the plant and replied on 7 January.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on Government policy regarding the coal industry. [25554]

  Mr. Wilson
  Coal plays a key role in meeting UK energy needs. Future policy in relation to the coal industry will be informed by the PIU energy review, the Clean Coal Technology Review, and the House of Lords report into security of supply.

  Energy Policy
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions her Department has had with the European Commission on national energy policy. [25555]
  415W
  Mr. Wilson
  This Department is in continual contact with the Commission on a wide range of European energy issues affecting national energy policy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry met Mrs. de Palacio on 29 November last year when they discussed energy liberalisation, the Commission's Green Paper on security of energy supply, coal subsidies, the need to ensure fair competition in the context of ownership by vertically integrated companies, and nuclear energy including safety standards. I attended the Energy Council on 4 December during which discussion focused mainly on the internal EU market in electricity and gas and on the Commission's Green Paper on security of energy supply. The Council also discussed the proposal for a directive on the energy performance of buildings, on climate change and on the justification or otherwise for continued state aid to the coal industry after expiry of the European Coal and Steel Community treaty.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she has taken to ensure that the universal service provision is adhered to in the UK market for postal services. [25556]

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she has taken to ensure that the universal service provision is adhered to in the UK market for postal services. [25556]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer given earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) at column 417.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the Crown post offices which have opened since May 1997. [27651]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: understand from Post Office Ltd. that no new Crown post offices have opened since May 1997.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish the gross running costs of the Crown post offices in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 2000–01. [27652]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: I understand from Post Office Ltd. that the information is not available in the form requested.

  Steel Industry
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with steel industry management regarding the future of the steel industry. [25558]

  Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and my noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment have met senior management from Corus to discuss a variety of issues in recent months.

  Aviation Industry
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the commercial position of airports and aircraft companies following the attacks of 11 September. [25561]
  416W
  Ms Hewitt
  The hon. Member will be aware that the last four months have been a difficult time for those companies in the aviation and aerospace sectors. UK companies are working extremely hard to remain competitive. The current downturn in these sectors has regrettably resulted in job losses, but the long-term prospects for the industry remain good.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance her Department is providing to small firms affected by the downturn in the aviation industry since 11 September; and if she will make a statement. [25570]

  Mr. Wilson
  There is no specific support available from the Government for small businesses that have been adversely affected by these events.

  The Government do, however, make a significant financial contribution to the aerospace industry generally, in terms of launch investment, research and technology funding, and competitiveness improvement training.

  There are also other forms of generic business support available.

  The Business Link network provides advice and support for companies suffering as a result of a recent crisis. Business Links can also advise companies on a number of disaster management issues. Companies experiencing difficulties should contact their local Business Link office. The Business Link National Contact Centre, 0845 600 9006, will put small firms in touch with their local provider.

  Small businesses dependent on the UK airlines affected by 11 September will also benefit indirectly from the aid package provided by the UK Government to the aviation industry.

  Vehicles Directive
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her policy on the end of life vehicles directive. [25563]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Our policy is to implement with a light regulatory touch, achieving the environmental objectives of the directive without putting UK business at a competitive disadvantage. We are now assessing responses to our consultation document, and the recommendations of the Trade and Industry Committee.

  Restrictive Practice
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress with the Office of Fair Trading report into restrictive practice in the professions. [25564]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As stated in the pre-Budget report, published on 27 November 2001, the Government intend to remove schedule 4 to the Competition Act 1998, which provides a special regime for the exclusion of professional rules from competition law, in the forthcoming Enterprise Bill.

  The professions are conducting reviews of their own in light of the OFT report and some bodies have already announced positive changes as a result. On the remaining matters for Government from the report, the Lord

  417W
  Chancellor's Department is considering what further steps might be needed in respect of the market for legal services to ensure that competition issues are fully addressed.

  Mineworkers' Pension Scheme
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's entitlement to half of the surplus of the mineworkers' pension scheme. [25565]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am pleased to announce a new, additional benefit for members of the mineworkers' pension scheme on the lowest incomes, at a cost of £90 million. This will be funded out of the Government's share of the scheme's reserves.

  The package will help mineworkers' pension scheme members who have only very modest miners' pensions, despite many years of service to the industry before 1975. Help for that particular group was identified as a priority in discussions with the scheme's trustees. Now, thanks to gains in the scheme's value under the Government's guarantee, the Government and Trustees have agreed a package of benefits, which includes special one-off payments for up to 66,000 of these members, alongside the 9 per cent. bonus for all members agreed earlier this year.

  These lump sum payments will apply to members with at least five years service who left British Coal before or shortly after 1975 and who are on low pensions, defined on a sliding scale from not more than £5 a week after five years' service to not more than £10 a week after 10 or more years' service. The amounts they will receive will depend on their length of pensionable service and the current value of their pensions. Those with the longest service and the lowest pensions will receive the most. Payments, will range between £200 (e.g. for someone with, five years' service on £4 to £5 a week, or with 10 years' service on £9 to £10 a week) and £2,000 (for someone with 10 or more years' service on less than £1 a week). Details will appear in the next edition of the mineworker's pension scheme newsletter.

  Members will not need to claim the money—most of those eligible, including all the existing pensioners, are expected to be paid in May, with the remainder paid within the next 18 months.

  The Government and the Trustees of the two former British Coal pension schemes, the mineworkers' pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, have also agreed a joint statement agreeing a review of arrangements for the Government's guarantee of members' basic pension benefits. The text of that statement is as follows:
  "In 1994, when British Coal was privatised, the Government agreed to guarantee benefits already built up in the Corporation's pension schemes. These arrangements have served the members of the schemes very well, providing the basis for average pension increases of some 30 per cent. since 1994. Without the Government's guarantee, these closed schemes would have had to pursue entirely different investment strategies, based primarily on holding bonds, and would not have been able to pay anything like these increases.
  However, both the Government and the Trustees recognise that there have been changes in circumstances since 1994. They have therefore agreed to explore how these changes might best be reflected in revisions to the 1994 arrangements which would
  418W
  benefit members. In doing so, they recognise that any revisions will need to be based on an equitable sharing of risks and reward between the schemes and the Exchequer, and will need to be sufficiently robust to operate satisfactorily in a wide variety of conditions."

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received on the Government's share of Coal Industry Pension Fund surpluses. [25567]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have received seven representations on this issue over the last two months.

  Manufacturing Industry
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to encourage research and development in UK manufacturing industry. [25566]

  Alan Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) at column 411.

  Venture Capital
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to increase access to venture capital funds in the regions of England. [25568]

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to increase access to venture capital funds in the regions of England. [25579]

  Alan Johnson
  To increase access to venture capital in the English regions the Government are seeking to stimulate the creation of Regional Venture Capital Funds (RVCFs). Being developed on the basis of one in each of the English regions they are being established to demonstrate institutional investment in the "equity gap" and demonstrate to institutional investors that commercial returns can be made in this sector; to increase the supply of venture capital in amounts of under £500,000; and ensure that every English region has access to "equity gap" funds. All RVCFs will be commercially focused with fund management and all investment decisions undertaken by experienced fund managers. All funds should launch during 2002.

  Miners (Medical Test Centres)
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the accessibility of medical test centres to former miners in the east midlands seeking compensation for COPD. [25569]

  Mr. Wilson
  There are six centres that are accessible to the 37,505 claimants in the midlands. These are located at Cannock, Chesterfield, Coventry, Mansfield, Nottingham and Stoke. One of the mobile testing units has been deployed at Mansfield since mid-October 2001. To date, these centres have assessed, through the full medical assessment process (MAP) over 5,130 live claimants, with a further 2,072 appointments being made.

  Claimants are usually invited to attend a test centre within a 25-mile radius from their residence. However, claimants are given the option to attend a different centre

  419W
  if a more suitable time is available. For those claimants who are not able to travel to a centre, and have a letter from their doctor, Healthcall, the company contracted to undertake the MAP can carry out home visits.

  There has been much focus on resources in this region and the Department, in consultation with the claimants' solicitors, is continuously reviewing ways of improving services and increase throughput. Plans to convert Mansfield into a double testing centre are currently under negotiations.

  As at the end of November, the Department had made 8,862 interim payments and settled some 3,322 claims. In total, the Department has paid out some £45.3 million in the midlands area.

  Clean Coal Technology
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she intends to publish the report of the working group on clean coal technology. [25571]

  Mr. Wilson
  I hope to be able to announce the publication of the report in the very near future.

  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to encourage the take-up of clean coal technology. [25576]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government are currently spending around £12 million over the three year period 2000–01 to 2002–03 on research and development into cleaner coal technologies. In addition to this I also expect to announce the conclusions of the review into the case for Government support for cleaner coal technology demonstration plant in the very near future.

  ALCOA Aluminium
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussion she has had with the management team at ALCOA aluminium to discuss the company's proposed redundancies; and if she will make a statement. [25572]

  Mr. Wilson
  None, although DTI officials have met ALCOA management at UK and EU level to discuss a wide range of issues. The company's proposal for 228 job losses out of a total UK work force of 4,100 would involve the closure of the Dolgarrog facility and employee reductions at the Swansea rolling mill. The proposed reductions in ALCOA's UK work force form part of a global restructuring plan involving 6,500 redundancies brought about by recent falls in world demand for aluminium products. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is working with the Welsh Assembly Government to minimise the impact on those affected.

  A task group comprising Conwy CBC, the Welsh Development Agency (WDA), the Employment Service, trade unions and other public agencies is seeking alternative employment for those made redundant. In addition, Conwy CBC and the WDA are jointly funding a study (supported by ALCOA) to look at the potential for continued production at Dolgarrog on a more limited scale. Dolgarrog is also part of an Objective 1 Assisted Area and so the Assembly Government and its partners will be looking to secure the maximum financial support available.

  Indo UK
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement about the work of Indo UK Partnerships and the Indo UK Round Table. [25573]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The UK's political and business relations with India, a key partner, are a very high priority for this Government. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit confirms this. We are making good progress, helped by the Indo-British Partnership for trade and investment and the UK/India Round Table for new thinking about our wider bilateral relations.

  The Indo-British Partnership (IBP) was created in 1993 by the then Prime Minister to promote trade and investment. During his recent visit to India my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met the British and Indian co-chairs of the IBP. Since its inception, the IBP has seen a substantial increase in bilateral trade. The UK is now India's second largest trading partner after the US. By the end of 2000 bilateral trade was worth £5 billion. That year UK exports to India grew by 32 per cent. The UK accounts for over 6 per cent. of India's total foreign trade.

  The UK/India Round Table, which meets again in April, was established in April 2000 by the two Foreign Ministers. It has produced a series of constructive recommendations for enhancing bilateral relations.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to ensure the development of renewable sources of energy. [25574]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government are taking active steps to ensure the development of renewable sources of energy.

  Introducing the new renewables obligation, exempting renewables from the climate change levy and protecting existing non fossil fuel obligation (NFFO) contracts will together create a long-term market incentive for renewables worth over £1 billion per year by 2010.

  We are underpinning the obligation with direct Government funding for renewables worth over £260 million between 2001 and 2004. We are setting up an extensive capital grants programme for offshore wind and energy crops projects, initiating a major photovoltaics demonstration programme, and boosting research and development.

  We recently introduced an order to allow locational flexibility for NFFO 3, 4 and 5 projects that have not yet been commissioned. This will allow more appropriate locations to be found in order to overcome problems in securing planning permission.

  We have initiated studies of each UK region's capacity to generate electricity from renewable sources. Once all these assessments are completed, it is expected that specific regional targets for renewable energy will be adopted across the UK.

  The Government are also exploring the scope for upgrading the electricity distribution system to enable the UK's huge renewable energy resources to be exploited to the full. For example, we have commissioned an initial

  421W
  study of the feasibility of an underwater cable to connect parts of the Western seaboard of the UK directly to the National Grid.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact on UK manufacturing of the opening of a new WTO trade round. [25575]

  Ms Hewitt
  On its own the opening of a new WTO trade round will have little impact on UK manufacturing. This is because the opening of the round merely launches multilateral negotiations. A fuller assessment of the impact on UK manufacturing and the UK economy overall should come after the hoped for successful conclusions of those negotiations. World wide reductions in industrial tariffs should, for example, lead to both improved market access for UK manufacturing overseas and lower cost sources of components. Negotiations start with an expectation of significant benefits. A halving of WTO members' tariffs, for example, could increase world incomes by around $200 billion a year. UK manufacturers could be expected to benefit significantly from such increases in world incomes.

  China
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to encourage UK exports to China. [25577]

  Nigel Griffiths
  As my hon. Friend knows from personal experience, China is a key market for British trade and investment. The Government, through Trade Partners UK, recently announced an extensive programme of supported activity for British companies in the China market for 2002–03, including 18 Government supported trade missions, 26 trade fair groups and 10 sector specific seminar initiatives. This is in addition to the regular ministerial visits to and from China including the visit by Chinese Vice-President Hu Jintao in November 2001. Visits from the UK during 2001 included the then Minister for e.Commerce, the then Minister for Trade, the then Minister for Construction, the Minister for Science, the Minister for Energy and Industry and the Financial Secretary.

  Trade Partners UK is also supporting a programme of major events in China aimed at promoting the UK's strengths as a competitive, technologically innovative economy and a strong business partner for China. This began with a large scale, award winning UK pavilion at the China High-Tech Fair in Shenzhen last October, visited by Lord Sainsbury. In October 2002 there will be a major programme of activity in Shanghai, followed by a wide-ranging series of events around China in 2003 centred on Beijing.

  This high level of activity in China is complemented by awareness-raising activity among British companies in the UK. Trade Partners UK, in close co-operation with the China-Britain Business Council, is engaged in a rolling programme of events to alert UK companies to business opportunities in China. This activity includes the formation recently of a Beijing Olympics Taskforce, which aims to maximise the contribution of UK business to the preparations for the 2008 Games.
  422W
  UK exports to China rose by 21 per cent. in 2000 and by a further 18 per cent. in the first 10 months of 2001. The work of Trade Partners UK, with the CBBC, is designed further to enhance UK companies' competitiveness in China.

  Employment Practices
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to encourage flexibility in employment practices. [25578]

  Alan Johnson
  Earlier this week the Government amended the Employment Bill to take forward the recommendations made by the Work and Parents Taskforce to place a duty on employers to give serious consideration to requests to work flexibly from parents of young children.

  Yesterday we also announced the fourth round of the Work Life Balance Challenge Fund, which will help employers introduce and develop flexible and diverse working arrangements. The aim of the fund is to raise employers' awareness of the business benefits of policies and practices that help employees achieve a better balance between work and the rest of their lives.

  Air Traffic Control (Tanzania)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the sale of the air traffic control system to Tanzania. [25953]

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

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much funding has been allocated to help start small businesses in Portsmouth, South in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [24942]

  Nigel Griffiths
  A breakdown of the information requested is not available by constituency and could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  Post Office Network
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the sum allocated in the Comprehensive Spending Review to preserve the post office network will be spent; how much has been spent in 2000–01; and how much will be spent in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [25372]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: In the Comprehensive Spending Review 2000, £270 million was allocated to Modernise and sustain the post office network over the three years 2001–02 to 2003–04. Of this, £15 million over three years was allocated to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to help sustain and improve post offices in deprived urban areas. A total of £35 million over three years has been set aside to pilot the concept of post offices as Government General Practitioners. The balance of the

  423W
  funding is allocated to supporting the restructuring of the urban network and to providing transitional financial assistance to rural post offices.

  In the current financial year, up to £25 million has been committed to funding of the cost of the Government General Practitioner "Your Guide" pilot currently running in Leicestershire and Rutland. The phasing of expenditure on the other planned schemes and initiatives over the spending review period will be determined in the light of the detailed arrangements for implementation as they are finalised.

  Food Retailing (Monopolies)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers(a) she and (b) the Competition Commission have to investigate local monopolies of food retailing; and if she will make a statement. [25557]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Fair Trading Act 1973 allows the Director General of Fair Trading or the Secretary of State to make a reference to the Competition Commission in respect of a product or service supplied to the UK market as a whole or to a part of it.

  Consignia
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with Consignia regarding recruitment of delivery staff in London. [26706]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Department has regular discussions with Consignia about a range of strategic issues facing the company. However, the recruitment of delivery staff is an operational issue for the company.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when a new Chairman of Consignia will(a) be appointed and (b) take up his duties. [26565]

  Mr. Alexander
  Arrangements are in hand to recruit and appoint a new Chairman of Consignia. Recruitment consultants have been engaged and the post has recently been advertised in the press.

  In the interim the Board of Consignia have asked Allan Leighton to chair the board.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what factors will affect her decision as to whether Consignia should pay a dividend to Her Majesty's Government for the current financial year. [26567]

  Mr. Alexander
  In line with the proposals set out in the White Paper "Post Office Reform: A World Class Service for the 21st Century", a number of commercial factors will need to be considered when deciding whether Consignia should pay a dividend to HMG.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she took to inform businesses affected by the foot and mouth epidemic as to the financial assistance available through the regional development agencies and other schemes; what the cost was of marketing such schemes; how many businesses applied;424W
  how much funding assistance they applied for; how much they received on average; and if she will make a statement. [27038]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: It was left to the discretion of regional development agencies and other relevant bodies to decide on how to inform businesses of the help available from them. Information is not available centrally either on publicity costs incurred or on how much assistance businesses applied for under the Business Recovery Fund or other schemes operated by the RDAs. As at 12 December some 5,700 Business Recovery Fund grants had been approved at an average of just over £4,000. No reliable information is yet available on take-up of rate relief.

  To date the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme has guaranteed 29 loans to businesses affected by FMD, with an average loan size of £50,258. Of these, 18 were made under the relaxed eligibility criteria introduced in April 2001 and publicised by Ministers. In addition, 84 requests for extended loan terms have been granted to businesses with existing SFLGS loans.

  The Small Business Service (SBS) produced and distributed a signposting leaflet to raise awareness of the assistance available to businesses experiencing difficulties as a result of FMD. Around 3.5 million leaflets were distributed through banks, post offices, trade associations and Business Link operators. The total cost of production, printing, storage and distribution of this leaflet was £77,628.

  Business advice fact sheets have been posted on DEFRA's website and they have also set up a helpline.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses affected by the foot and mouth epidemic applied for financial aid through the Business Recovery Fund in the south-west; how much they applied for; how much they received on average; and if she will make a statement. [27039]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: 1,199 businesses applied for aid through the Business Recovery Fund in the south-west.

  Each business was eligible for a grant of up to £15,000. Information is not held centrally by the RDA on the amounts applied for.

  The average grant size in the south-west was £8,006.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 17 December 2001,Official Report, columns 472–73W, on departmental expenditure, for what reason she is unable to provide reasons for spending outturns lower than planned in subcategories (a) 1 'Department of Trade and Industry: programmes and administration' and (b) 2 'Department of Trade and Industry: science'; and if she will make a statement. [26474]

  Ms Hewitt
  Full details of outturn against the 2000–01 voted provision for programmes and administration and science will be published in the appropriation accounts to be presented to the House of Commons by 31 January. The departmental resource accounts on an accruals basis will also be presented to the House of Commons by
  425W
  31 January. Updated estimates of the outturn for Departmental Expenditure Limits in 2000–01 on an accruals basis were published in the 2001 pre-Budget report (Cm 5318; Table B 16).

  Broadband
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of the Third Generator Licence fee money has been spent on broadband infrastructure. [26887]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 17 May 2000, Official Report, column 187W.

  Sellafield
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the representations(a) made to and (b) received from the European Commission by her Department in respect of the Sellafield MOX plant since 1 January. [19406]

  Margaret Beckett
  I have been asked to reply.

  Further to my answer to my hon. Friend on 10 December 2001, Official Report, column 681W, I understand that the European Commission wrote to the Department of Trade and Industry on 20 November 2001 about whether state aid had been granted to the Sellafield MOX plant. The DTI does not believe that any state aid has been given to the plant and replied on 7 January.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister for Women how many women have benefited from the national minimum wage. [25587]

  Ms Hewitt
  Around 1 million women, and about half a million men, have benefited from the new rates for the national minimum wage which took effect on 1 October 2001.
  426W

  Women's Issues
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Minister for Women if she will make a statement on her role on the promotion of women's issues in Government. [25588]

  Ms Hewitt
  As Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Minister for Women I am determined to ensure that the needs, and the contribution, of women, who make up nearly half the work force, are properly understood, and rewarded. Women have a valuable part to play in driving up the productivity and competitiveness of the United Kingdom. That is why I place great importance on encouraging flexible working practices and other measures which enable both women, and men, to make a full contribution at work and at home.

  Wealth Creation
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Minister for Women what steps she is taking to increase wealth creating opportunities for women in the most deprived areas. [25589]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Phoenix Fund, which provides grants to business to support projects for disadvantaged communities, has supported 21 projects which are specifically targeted at women, although the other projects also assist women entrepreneurs within their target groups. Devolved Administrations make their own arrangements in this area.

  Working Mothers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Minister for Women what steps she is taking to make it easier for those mothers who want to return to work to do so. [25581]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have introduced a range of measures, including the national childcare strategy, the new deal for lone parents and the new deal for partners, learn direct and the working families tax credit, all of which help mothers who want to return to work. The Employment Bill currently before Parliament includes a number of measures to enable more mothers to remain in the labour market.

WALES

  Health Consultation Document
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 183W, on the health consultation document, if he will request from the Welsh Assembly an analysis of the responses to the consultation document. [26727]

  Mr. Touhig
  This is a matter for the National Assembly of Wales and I understand that it is not the Assembly's intention to publish an executive summary.

  The Assembly received a substantial number of responses in the last three days of the consultation period, and for ease of handling decided to number and summarise these individually.

  Copies of these summaries were then placed in the Libraries of the House of Commons and the National Assembly. Also, further copies were made available in the Assembly's Publication Centre for ease of access to the general public.

  Ministerial Transport
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [28106]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I make regular use of the railway in connection with my official duties, and will continue to do so. My most recent journey was from Cardiff Central to London Paddington on Monday 14 January.

  Departmental Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will commission and publish an independent report on the reasons for the level of sickness absence in his Department. [26998]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  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.

  Remuneration
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the number of individuals in his(a) Department, (b) related agencies and (c) related non-departmental public bodies whose annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeded (i) £100,000 and (ii) £200,000 in each of the last four years. [26329]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The figures for the Welsh Office and its agencies (until 1999) and (since 1999) for the Wales Office, which has no agencies, are:

  In excess of £100,000

  In excess of £200,000

  1 April 1998:

  0

  0

  1 April 1999:

  2

  0

  1 April 2000:

  0

  0

  428W

  In excess of £100,000

  In excess of £200,000

  1 April 2001:

  0

  0

  Information on NDPBs is provided in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies".

  Memorandum of Understanding
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the costs to public funds of the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding and supplementary agreements. [24759]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Memorandum of Understanding and supplementary texts are agreements between the UK Government and devolved Administrations on how they intend conducting relations between the Administrations.

  It reflects administrative and policy best practice on issues such as co-operation, exchange of information, correspondence and parliamentary business. Supplementary texts add more detail for the international and EU fields, statistics and financial assistance to industry.

  A revised version of the MoU was published on 18 December as Command Paper 5240. 300 copies were printed, at a cost of £3,851. These costs were met from the Cabinet Office budget. The main distribution medium will be via the Cabinet Office's website www.Cabinet-Office.gov.uk.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Buildings Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her estimate is of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by her Department in each of the last four years. [27961]

  Clare Short
  The only refurbishment project that my Department has undertaken over the past four years was in relation to our new recently opened headquarters building at 1 Palace street, London.

  The expenditure on refurbishment and associated fees was as follows:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  0.24

  2000–01

  4.8

  2001–021

  22

  1 Estimate for whole financial year

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate her Department has made of the cost to its budget since 1 May 1997 of fraud; and if she will make a statement. [27294]

  Clare Short
  The estimated cost to DFID' s budget of fraud in the period 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2001 is some £250,000, of which £175,000 can be attributed to contractor fraud. Of the remaining sum, £22,000 relates to the theft of assets which, in line with Treasury
  429W
  guidance, has been classified as involving departmental staff either directly or through collusion. Details of suspected or proven fraud are provided to the Treasury on an annual basis. The annual report that the Treasury prepares on fraud is deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she intends to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 3 December 2001 with regard to Mrs. K. Khan. [27320]

  Clare Short
  We have received a very large number of letters about the situation in Afghanistan. I regret the delay in replying to my right hon. Friend and intend to send him a reply shortly.

  Leprosy
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what specific assistance she gives to help people suffering from leprosy; and if she will make a statement. [27156]

  Clare Short
  Leprosy is a curable disease, and treatment provided in the early stages averts disability. Three quarters of a million cases are still detected each year, of which about 70 per cent. are in India. Ten developing countries account for 90 per cent. of cases. An effective drug cure is available free of charge via the World Health Organisation (WHO) in sufficient quantities to treat all people diagnosed with the disease. The priority now is to get treatment to all who need it, especially in isolated rural areas. To eliminate the disease, political commitment in the key endemic countries is needed along with the successful integration of leprosy treatment into strengthened general health services. Our strategy is to support the creation of basic health care systems—encompassing the public, private and informal sectors—to improve poor people's access to the care, services and essential health products to safeguard their health. Within the foreseeable future it should be possible to reduce the prevalence of the disease to such a low level that it no longer constitutes a public health problem.

  Newspaper Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what has been the expenditure of her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title in each year since 1997. [26985]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development (DFID) expenditure on recruitment advertising in 2000 and 2001 is listed by publication on the spreadsheet. Figures for 1997–99 are not available.

  In addition, DFID commissioned a 12 page report in The Independent on the subject of globalisation to accompany the new White Paper on Eliminating World Poverty. The report was published on 12 December 2000 at a cost of £36,589, plus production and incidental costs of £3,687.
  430W

  £

  By calendar year in 2000

  By calendar year in 2001

  Accountancy Age

  6,280.00

  3,697.20

  Architect's Journal

  1,591.20

  1—

  Africa Health

  2,487.60

  British Medical Journal

  13,104.00

  9,199.80

  British Psychological Society Appointments Memorandum

  1—

  1,822.50

  Broadcast

  1,670.40

  1—

  Building Design

  1,698.00

  1—

  Business Day

  274.95

  1—

  Caterer and Hotelkeeper

  1—

  1,237.50

  Chartered Surveyor Monthly

  1—

  1,485.00

  Community Care

  1—

  7,748.36

  Computer Weekly

  1—

  12,577.50

  Contract Journal

  4,482.00

  1—

  Daily Mail

  1—

  12,280.50

  Daily News (Zimbabwe)

  1,805.04

  1—

  Daily/Sunday Telegraph

  21,501.00

  40,423.50

  East African Standard

  1,069.63

  1—

  Ends Report-Environment Data Services

  1—

  612.00

  Ethnic Media Group (Eastern Eye, New Nation, Asian Times and Caribbean Times)

  3,307.50

  6,268.50

  Evening Standard and Metro (London)

  1—

  15,411.60

  Far East Economic Review

  1—

  16,732.80

  Financial Times

  18,954.00

  30,064.50

  Flight International

  5,676.30

  1—

  Health Service Journal

  2,170.80

  4,489.20

  Independent and Independent on Sunday

  1—

  11,650.50

  Internal Auditing

  1—

  720.00

  Library and Information Appointments

  1,134.00

  3,594.60

  Mail and Guardian

  3,768.36

  663.84

  Metro London

  1—

  1,575.00

  Nature

  1—

  2,246.40

  New Civil Engineer

  13,186.80

  6,822.00

  New Scientist

  9,954.00

  34,198.10

  New Statesman

  1—

  1,620.00

  New Vision

  777.60

  1—

  Nine to Five

  1—

  1,350.00

  Noticias

  1,955.42

  1—

  Nursing Times

  2,016.00

  1—

  Opportunities

  1,063.13

  1—

  Ottawa Citizen

  1—

  761.00

  People Management

  1—

  2,025.00

  Personnel Today

  1—

  4,095.00

  Planning

  3,175.20

  3,956.40

  Police Review

  18,054.00

  1—

  Public Finance

  4,471.20

  8,663.40

  RSS News-Royal Statistical Society

  337.50

  1—

  Scotland on Sunday

  1—

  3,861.00

  Society of Archivists Newsletter

  1—

  180.00

  Sunday Times (South Africa)

  2,898.00

  1—

  Sunday Times (The Times)

  26,208.00

  1—

  Supply Management

  1—

  2,979.00

  Surveying World

  517.50

  1—

  Surveyor

  1—

  2,376.00

  The Daily Nation

  1,458.43

  1—

  The East African

  2,971.90

  1—

  The Economic/Economist Website

  324,850.20

  448,434.7

  The Globe and Mail

  1—

  1,823.47

  The Guardian

  178,289.40

  173,118.19

  The Guardian (Tanzania)

  1,281.33

  1—

  The Guardian Weekly

  16,855.65

  12,046.05

  The Herald (Glasgow)

  8,818.20

  22,113.00

  The Herald (Zimbabwe)

  972.90

  1—

  The Lancet

  3,978.00

  4,568.40

  The Lawyer

  6,328.80

  1—

  The Namibian

  269.10

  1—

  The Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday

  7,998.75

  5,338.13

  The Times

  5,733.00

  1—

  The Times (Malawi)

  829.44

  1—

  431W

  £

  By calendar year in 2000

  By calendar year in 2001

  The Veterinary Record

  1—

  1,053.00

  Times Educational Supplement

  4,363.20

  6,462.72

  Times Higher Educational Supplement

  12,538.60

  3,464.55

  Times/Sunday Times of Zambia

  875.07

  1—

  UK Tropical Forestry Forum

  135.00

  1—

  Zimbabwe Independent

  323.96

  1—

  Total

  751,972.46

  938,297.51

  1 Nil

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Solicitor-General what estimate her Department has made of the cost to its budget since 1 May 1997 of fraud; and if she will make a statement. [27289]

  The Solicitor-General
  There have been no instances of fraud within the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers during the period since 1 May 1997 and no cost to its budget.

  There have been no instances of fraud within the Serious Fraud Office since 1 May 1997 and no cost to its budget.

  Although the Treasury Solicitor's Department has suffered three frauds since 1 May 1997, none has involved any cost to the budget of that Department. The first, in 1998, was a fraud within Government Property Lawyers, which at that time was a separate agency, and involved the improper use of client money, resulting in a loss of £1.2 million to the Exchequer. The second, in 2000, was the theft of jewellery to the value of £250 which reduced the proceeds of Bona Vacantia to the Consolidated Fund. The third, in 2001, involved the misappropriation of £170,000 from the proceeds of Bona Vacantia through the use of forged wills. The loss was to the Consolidated Fund. Of the sum lost, £47,000 has since been recovered and action continues to recover further sums. Details of the three frauds are set out in the Annual Fraud Report, copies of which are available in the Library.

  There have been seven instances of fraud against the Crown Prosecution Service since 1 May 1997 involving a total cost to the budget of £8,426.98.

  Fraud is treated seriously by all the Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible. There are cost implications against budgets from maintaining proactive systems of financial control and governance seeking to ensure fraud against the Departments does not occur. Such costs are, however, an integral part of the general management of the Departments and are not separately assessable.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Solicitor-General when she expects to respond to the Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate report on the CPS in London; and if she will make a statement. [27279]
  432W
  The Solicitor-General
  The HMCPSI report on London was published 13 December 2001. The substance of any Inspectorate report is always the subject of discussion between the Law Officers in their capacity as superintending Ministers and the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is the Head of the Crown Prosecution Service. In this instance, the Attorney-General and I have been closely involved in decisions about the response to the report from the time when it appeared from the emerging finding that there were a number of issues of concern to be addressed. Additionally, I have undertaken a series of visits to units in London to establish at first-hand what have been particular problems which CPS London faces.

  The environment in which CPS London operates and has operated since its creation makes it different from any other CPS area—in particular, the transient nature of the population and the difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified and unqualified staff. Now that better funding arrangements have been put in place it should be possible to recruit staff "to the level required" and to ensure that basic systems are maintained. The area is currently involved in a rolling recruitment campaign to increase the numbers of lawyers and administrative staff employed in London.

  The area is currently involved in a rolling recruitment campaign to increase the numbers of lawyers and administrative staff employed in London.

  The area will be producing by the end of January a detailed "action plan" which will address all recommendations made by the CPS Inspectorate. The Attorney-General and I will take a close interest in the implementation of the plan, and this will be followed by a review.

  Senior management have completed a review which is now being implemented. This has meant an increase in the number of Assistant Chief Crown Prosecutors from three to five, who exercise firmer control of the units for which they are responsible.

  Much has been done already to address issues of concern, working with the police. These include dealing with the number of ineffective trials and the high rate of discharged committals. By adopting this approach the area should be able to build upon the many features of their operation which were commended by HMCPSI.

  Finally, a Ministerial Committee, which I chair, has been established which focuses on criminal justice system issues as a whole in London.

SCOTLAND

  Hogmanay Celebrations
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the impact on economic activity in regions beyond Lothian of Edinburgh's Hogmanay celebrations. [25912]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office makes no assessment of the economic impact of Edinburgh's Hogmanay celebrations. However, the latest figures available from Edinburgh city council state that the economic impact for Hogmanay 2000 was £28 million
  433W
  for the local economy and an additional £10 million for Scotland as a whole. This was generated by approximately 500,000 visitors and participants.

  NHS Resources
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she(a) has held and (b) plans to hold in the current financial year on the resources available to the NHS in Scotland with (i) the Scottish Executive and First Minister, (ii) the Secretary of State for Health and (iii) Treasury Ministers; if she will list the (a) items discussed and (b) dates of the meetings held; and if she will make a statement. [26202]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have frequent discussions with UK Ministers and the Scottish Ministers on a wide range of issues. Expenditure on the NHS in Scotland is a devolved matter for the Scottish Executive. Scottish Ministers are free, within the Scottish Assigned Budget, to determine their own spending priorities.

  Eurozone
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the impact on Scottish business of United Kingdom membership of the eurozone. [26704]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government have stated that the Treasury will complete an assessment of the five economic tests within two years of the start of this Parliament.

  Scottish Executive (Representation)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will agree to formal representation of the Scottish Executive in Dover house. [27735]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Executive have since devolution had an agreement with the Scotland Office enabling Scottish Ministers and officials to use Dover house.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps she is taking to encourage greater participation by Ministers of the Scottish Executive in European Council of Ministers meetings on matters of policy which are devolved. [27734]

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

  In accordance with these agreements, the Scottish Executive are involved in formulating the UK policy position on issues which touch on matters within their responsibility. They may also form part of the UK delegation at Council of Ministers meetings where matters with a significant impact on their devolved responsibilities are to be discussed, and speak for the UK in appropriate cases, with the agreement of the lead UK Minister.

  It is for the Scottish Executive to agree with the lead UK Minister on those occasions where they wish to attend. They have done so on a regular basis.

HEALTH

  Painkillers and Antidepressants
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his most recent assessment of(a) deaths and (b) other side effects resulting from the misuse, over-use or inappropriate prescription of (i) painkillers and (ii) antidepressants. [26029]

  Jacqui Smith
  As with all medicines, the safety of painkillers and antidepressants, including adverse effects associated with inappropriate use and overuse, is closely monitored by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

  We introduced specific measures in September 1998 reducing pack sizes of the commonly used painkillers, paracetamol and aspirin, aimed at reducing the toxicity from impulsive overdose. New warnings on the packaging emphasised the risks and action to take in the event of an overdose. Recently published papers provide growing evidence that these measures are having an important public health impact.

  The MCA is continuing to monitor the impact of these measures by examining a range of data, including hospital admissions, liver transplants and deaths from self-poisoning.

  Bristol Royal Infirmary
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action has been taken in response to the named civil servant in his Department, Dr. Peter Doyle, who was criticised in the report of the public inquiry into children's heart surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary, 1984 to 1995. [29079]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department commissioned independent assessors to lead a review of the inquiry report and other relevant information and make recommendations on whether or not any action should be initiated in respect of Dr. Doyle. The assessors were Lesley James, former Vice President of the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development and Sir David Carter, Vice Principal of Edinburgh university. Their overall conclusion was that Dr. Doyle responded appropriately to the information he was given by Dr. Bolsin on 19 July 1994 about poor results following paediatric cardiac surgery in the Bristol unit, taking into account the context in which he was operating at the time. They concluded that while it is possible with hindsight to question Dr. Doyle' s decision not to examine the detailed data he was given by Dr. Bolsin, any criticism has to be balanced both against the prompt and positive action he did take in writing to Professor Angelini at the trust, raising the concerns that had been drawn to his attention and seeking reassurances, and against the subsequent assurances he was given. The Chief Executive of the Department of Health, Nigel Crisp, has accepted their conclusions, including the recommendation that no disciplinary action is warranted and that Dr. Doyle should resume his current duties in the Department, working as the senior medical officer providing advice on renal services and transplant services—which he has done.
  435W
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the response to the report of the public inquiry into children's heart surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary, 1984 to 1995. [29078]

  Mr. Milburn
  I have today published our response to the Kennedy report (Learning from Bristol: The Department of Health's Response to the Report of the Public Inquiry into children's heart surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984–1995—Cm 5363) and copies are available in the Library and the Vote Office.

  Lung Cancer
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the survival rates for lung cancer are in(a) the UK and (b) other countries in Europe and the USA. [27457]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Dr. Jenny Tonge, dated 17 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question the survival rates for lung cancer in (a) the UK and (b) other countries in Europe and the USA. I am replying in his absence. (27457)
  Comparable information on cancer survival in the parts of the UK and Europe covered by the Eurocare II study was published in "Survival of Cancer Patients in Europe: the EUROCARE-2 Study" (IARC Scientific Publications No. 151); a copy is available in the House of Commons Library. Information on cancer survival in the USA can be found on the website of the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registries: http://www-seer.ims.nci.nih.gov/

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of lung cancer were reported between 1980 and 2000 in the UK. [27458]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Dr. Jenny Tonge, dated 17 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning how many cases of lung cancer were reported between 1980 and 2000 in the UK. I am replying in his absence. (27458)
  It is estimated that there were 800,000 newly diagnosed cases of lung cancer in the United Kingdom from 1980 to 1998 (the latest year for which data are available). This figure is based on the number of registrations of lung cancer in Great Britain in 1980–1998, and an estimate of the number of cases in Northern Ireland made using appropriate adjustments to the numbers of deaths from lung cancer in the period. Numbers of registrations of lung cancer in Northern Ireland are only available for 1993–1997.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Freight
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in what form his Department holds figures on the proportion of freight going by(a) road and (b) rail over the last 10 years. [22119]
  436W
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The Department compiles statistics of tonnes-kilometres moved and tonnes lifted by road, water, and pipeline. The Strategic Rail Authority do likewise for rail on a quarterly basis. Annual statistics for all modes over the last 10 years are published in the Department's annual publication "Transport Statistics Great Britain 2001", available in the Library.

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 2001,Official Report, columns 33–34W, on London Underground, how many lost passenger hours in 2000–01 were attributable to the Infracos and how many to London Underground; what is the total equivalent number of Infraco-attributable lost customer hours for the whole of 2001–02 so far; what penalty would have been incurred by each Infraco during 2000–01 as a result of the attributable lost customer hours; and what penalty would have been incurred by each Infraco for 2001–02 so far. [22751]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground have been "shadow running" the PPP contracts in the public sector since April 2000 to ensure they are robust for transfer to the private sector. In the light of that experience the initial performance benchmarks have been reset, generally to make the benchmark level of performance higher. This means that there will be realistic benchmarks in place from the start of the PPP contracts. As a result London Underground and not the Infraco will benefit from improvements in performance in the period before transfer of the infrastructure companies to the private sector.

  Data on lost customer hours and Infraco penalties are operational matters for London Underground, who have provided the information below.

  During 2000–01, 18 million indicative lost customer hours were attributable to London Underground. For the lost customer hour figures for the Infracos for the same period, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 19 November 2001, Official Report, columns 33–34W. For the period 1 April to 11 December 2001, 13 million indicative lost customer hours were attributable to the Infracos.

  For 2000–01, the abatement figures (penalty payments to London Underground incurred by Infracos) would, on the basis of the set of benchmarks then in place, have been: £6 million for Infraco BCV; and £2 million each for Infracos JNP and SSL.

  For the period 1 April to 11 December 2001, on the basis of the earlier benchmarks, the abatement figure for Infraco SSL would have been £9 million. Infracos BCV and JNP would have received bonus payments from London Underground of £3 million and £1 million respectively. Levels of payment would have been different, and generally lower, on the basis of the reset benchmarks. London Underground will shortly set the final performance benchmarks based on performance during shadow running of the contracts.

  UK-US Aviation Market
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) when
  437W
  and where officials from his Department last met US officials to discuss (a) an open skies agreement and (b) the proposed British Airways/American Airlines alliance; [R] [23898]

  (2) how officials of his Department travelled to their last meeting in the United States with US officials to discuss (a) an open skies agreement and (b) the proposed British Airways/American Airlines alliance; [R] [23899]

  (3) what plans his Department has to consult with the aviation industry ahead of an open skies agreement with the United States; [R] [23900]

  (4) what discussions his Department has had in the last four weeks with United States officials and politicians on (a) an open skies agreement between the two countries and (b) the proposed British Airways/American Airlines alliance. [R] [23897]

  Mr. Spellar
  I held informal discussions with the US Deputy Secretary of Transportation in Washington on 7 November 2001 on the prospects for liberalising the UK/US aviation market. An official from my Department met officials from the US Department of Transportation as part of these discussions. As I had a prior engagement in New York, celebrating the re-launch of Concorde services, I and the official travelled on the inaugural Concorde service, on the outbound sector of the journey only. Both tickets were paid for by my Department. We then completed our journey to Washington by train.

  My officials continue to be in regular contact, by telephone and by correspondence, with their US counterparts and will, as usual, consult UK aviation interests in advance of any formal talks with the US.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the state of bilateral negotiations between the USA and the UK on open skies. [27430]

  Mr. Spellar
  We remain keen to liberalise the UK-US aviation market on terms which will give UK carriers effective access to the large US domestic market.

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 495W, ref 23221, if this information will be provided to potential bidders for Railtrack. [26471]

  Mr. Spellar
  It is for the administrator to determine what information to make available to potential bidders for Railtrack.

  Rail Safety
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that worn-out train wheels are identified and replaced. [26072]

  Mr. Spellar
  The maintenance and replacement of train wheels is a matter for individual train companies working to industry standards and monitored by the Health and Safety Executive.
  438W
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place a copy of the October 2001 rail safety report by Ove Arup, prepared for Railtrack, in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [26062]

  Mr. Spellar
  A copy of the report has been placed today in the House of Commons Library. Action is in hand and the report acknowledges the significant positive efforts already made by Railtrack, the train operators and the rest of the industry.

  Housing (Illegal Immigrants)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what account his Department takes regarding illegal immigrants' housing needs. [26729]

  Ms Keeble
  None

  Housing Stock Transfers
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 9 January 2002,Official Report, columns 848–49W, what guidance he gives to (a) tenants and (b) local authorities on legal remedies available if the proposals in an offer document are not implemented. [27617]

  Ms Keeble
  The Department would advise tenants or the local authority to raise their concerns with the Housing Corporation as the regulator of registered social landlords. Should all parties be unable to resolve the matter and a legally binding contract is not being honoured then it is open for any party to the agreement to seek recourse in the courts.

  Multimodal Studies
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the report dates for the multimodal studies undertaken by the Government. [27412]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), gave to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on 8 January 2002,Official Report, columns 600–01W.

  Smoke Alarms
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage of dwelling fires attended by fire brigades in the Buckingham constituency occurred where a smoke alarm was installed but failed to operate. [27777]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Smoke alarms were installed but failed to operate in 8 per cent. of dwelling fires attended by Buckinghamshire fire brigade in 1999 (the latest year for which data are available). Data are not available below fire brigade level.

  Matthew Elson
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he met Matthew Elson prior to his appointment as transport adviser in the No. 10 Policy Unit. [27331]
  439W
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 14 January 2001, Official Report, column 89W.

  National Rail Model
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place a copy of the specification issued to interested parties for the contract to develop a national rail model in the Library. [27325]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: Yes, I have done so today.

  PFI Contracts
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the proportion of PFI contracts made by his Department where an amount in excess of 90 per cent. of the capital value of the asset is recouped by the lessor out of the capital element of lease payments over the lifetime of the contract concerned; and if he will make a statement. [27698]

  Dr. Whitehead
  No such estimate has been made. PH contracts are for the provision of a service in return for a unitary payment to cover the costs of the assets, their maintenance and operation. The unitary payment is not broken down into constituent parts. The Highways Agency's contract for the new Traffic Control Centre is the only PFI contract let by DTLR which allows the contractor to generate additional revenues to the income it will receive through the unitary payment.

  South Central Franchise
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the present position in respect of the South Central franchise. [27542]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: The Strategic Rail Authority is currently negotiating a new franchise agreement with GoVia in line with the heads of terms that have already been signed.

  Market Research
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what expenditure has been incurred by his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; and if he will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each. [27943]

  Dr. Whitehead
  This information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Braer
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the seaworthiness of the tanker the Braer when she left the Norwegian port of Mongstad on 3 January 1993. [27340]
  440W
  Mr. Spellar
  In its investigation into the engine failure and subsequent grounding of the Braer on 5 January 1993, the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) concluded that the vessel was seaworthy when she left Mongstad on 3 January. No evidence has emerged since to contradict this finding.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the opportunity the captain of the Braer was given of commenting on the Marine Accidents Investigation Board inquiry report prior to its publication. [27339]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) sent a copy of the draft report to the Braer's captain on 25 August 1993. It was sent to the address in Greece he had given to the MAIB inspectors. It was returned unopened and with no comment as to whether the captain lived there, had moved or that the address was wrong.

  The MAIB then contacted the managers of Braer who gave two telephone numbers through which they had contacted him. MAIB tried both numbers during the period 21 to 22 September 1993 but received no reply.

  Accident Inquiries
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make it his policy to publish the technical evidence along with the inspector's findings in future accident inquiries. [27341]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 1999 require the reports of all investigations conducted by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) to be made publicly available. Such reports refer, where applicable, to the technical evidence. The regulations do not require such evidence to be published and some categories, such as declarations made by witnesses, are specifically excluded.

  Director of Government and Political Relations
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he last met the Director of Government and Political Relations; and what was discussed. [28279]

  Dr. Whitehead
  My right hon. Friend meets a wide range of colleagues on a regular basis.

  Gas Safety
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many prosecutions were initiated by the Health and Safety Executive under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 in 1999–2000. [28053]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 replaced the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994. Both regulations are applicable, as some offences would have been committed before the 1998 regulations came into force.
  441W
  Each information laid relates to a breach of an individual legal requirement and a duty holder may be prosecuted for more than one of these breaches. Figures quoted relate to the whole of the United Kingdom.

  The number of informations laid under both sets of regulations in 1999–2000 was 210.

  Physical Agents (Vibration) Directive
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with industry regarding the physical agents (vibration) directive. [25559]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Since the summer the Health and Safety Executive has had discussions on the European Parliament second reading amendments to the proposed physical agents (vibration) directive with a number of industry organisations and employers including the Confederation of British Industry, the National Farmers Union, the Road Haulage Association, the Construction Products Association, the Quarry Products Association, the Construction Equipment Association, the British Cement Association, the Society of Motor Manufactures and Traders, the Engineering Employers Federation and RMC Group plc.

  Uniform Business Rates
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many businesses paid uniform business rates in the Uxbridge constituency in each of the last five years. [28477]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested is collected only at local authority level, so figures for the Uxbridge constituency are not available. Information for the London borough of Hillingdon, covering the Uxbridge constituency, is given in the table:

  Number of hereditaments as at 31 December1

  1997

  7,236

  1998

  7,269

  1999

  7,202

  2000

  7,274

  2001

  7,418

  1 The number of hereditaments for the years 1997 to 2000 are taken from the National Non-Domestic Rates Provisional Contribution to the Pool Return. The number of hereditaments for 2001 is based on information provided by the Valuation Office Agency. In addition to businesses, these include properties that are liable to non-domestic rates, such as schools and advertising hoardings.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Youth Parliament
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the Government will respond to the UK Youth Parliament's Manifesto. [24058]

  Mr. Denham
  I shall be responding shortly.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will respond to the UK Youth Parliament Manifesto; and if she will make a statement. [23324]
  442W
  Mr. Denham
  I shall be responding shortly.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money has been allocated to the UK Youth Parliament in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02; and what grant aid is planned for future years. [26096]

  Mr. Denham
  There has been no grant aid to the UK Youth Parliament. The Department for Education and Skills has supported UK Youth Parliament to develop itself as a voice for young people by funding consultancy advice; by providing support for the first sitting of UK Youth Parliament in February 2001; and by funding the secondment of a Departmental official to the UK Youth Parliament. In addition the Home Office made a grant in 2000–01 to fund a part-time Parliament co-ordinator. In 2001–02 the Connexions Service has commercial contracts with UKYP for work to conduct consultations with young people.

  The total value of Government support to the UK Youth Parliament is as follows:

  £

  1999–2000

  12,000

  2000–01

  264,000

  2001–02

  69,000

  The possibility of any future funding is still under consideration.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how much Capita Services has been paid by her Department in respect of its work on individual learning accounts; and what payments remain outstanding under the terms of the contract; [23110]

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 11 December 2001, Official Report, column 814W, on the individual learning accounts centre, if she will set out the key operational indicators which give rise to fees being paid to Capita Business Services Ltd. [23588]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: Payment to Capita Business Services together with the key operational indicators giving rise to these payments are confidential commercial matters for Capita Business Services Ltd. However, Capita announced to the London Stock Exchange on 25 July 2000, a contract value of £50 million in respect of work relating to individual learning accounts.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 814W, on the Individual Learning Account centre, (1) how many shifts were worked on 23 November; and how many people worked on each shift; [23589]

  (2) how many people were employed by Capita Business Services at the Individual Learning Account centre on 23 November; and how many of these were employed (a) full time and (b) part time. [23590]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: On 23 November, the ILA centre operated a four-shift period with coverage from 8 am to 9 pm Monday to Friday

  443W
  and 8 am to 12 noon Saturday. The number of full and part-time staff employed at the ILA Centre is a confidential commercial matter for Capita Business Services Ltd.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will accept students for registration under the individual learning accounts scheme who could not register by the deadline of 7 December 2001 because of a subsequent decision to close the scheme on 23 November 2001; what representations have been made to her about such closures; and if she will make a statement. [26476]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: The Department has received representations from hon. Members, learners and learning providers about the inability to register learning onto the ILA system between 23 November and 7 December.

  The ILA programme was closed down on Friday 23 November following evidence of serious potential fraud and theft and it is the Department's first duty to safeguard both public funds and the interests of individual learners. I do recognise the impact the decision to withdraw the programme will have on learners; however, because the programme is now closed, learning that was not booked onto the ILA system before 23 November will not be eligible for a discount. We cannot therefore accept account holders for registration who could not register by the deadline of 7 December because of the decision to close down the programme on 23 November.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what meetings she has had with those representing providers of training under the Individual Learning Accounts scheme since 23 October 2001; what representations they made to her; and if she will make a statement. [26479]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: Officials and 1 have met with a number of leading providers and provider representative organisations. They have offered us some helpful views on the previous ILA scheme as well as constructive ideas on what a new ILA-style programme might look like. We are now seeking the views of a wider group of providers and a range of other stakeholders.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 13 December 2001,Official Report, column 959W, on Individual Learning Accounts, whether further arrests have been made in relation to alleged fraud in the operation of the Individual Learning Accounts scheme; what further charges have been made; and if she will make a statement. [26501]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: No further arrests or charges have been made.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many people were employed by her Department on 23 November on the supervision of the contract between his Department and Capita Business Services Ltd.; [23578]

  (2) what assessment she has made of whether Capita Business Services Ltd. has operated in compliance with the contract with her Department in their provision of services at the individual learning account centre. [23579]
  444W
  John Healey
  The Department employed a team of four who were responsible for day-to-day performance monitoring, issue resolution, contract finance and budget management. These people, supported by specialists employed within the Department were also engaged in matters relating to the 7 December planned closure of the individual learning account programme.

  An assessment of the compliance of Capita Business Services in their provision of services at the individual learning account centre is integral to standard contract management arrangements.

  LEAs (Repairs)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the cost of estimated repair or renewal work needed over the next five years for each local education authority, as listed in the LEA asset management plans submissions to her Department. [24102]

  John Healey
  The table shows school premises repair or renewal costs over the next five years for each local education authority. The figures are derived from data supplied by LEAs from their asset management plans over the past two years. The costs relate to work needed to restore buildings to a serviceable state, but do not cover improvement, Modernisation or sufficiency issues. Costs have been adjusted to current prices and to take account of regional variations in pricing levels.

  Details have not been included for the City of London, Isles of Scilly and the 15 LEAs that are reassessing their condition needs following last year's AMP appraisal exercise.

  Repair or renewal costs over the next five years

  £ million

  Total cost

  Barking and Dagenham

  4

  Barnet

  45

  Barnsley

  36

  Bath and North East Somerset

  20

  Bedfordshire

  44

  Bexley

  29

  Birmingham

  135

  Blackburn with Darwen

  15

  Bolton

  50

  Bournemouth

  18

  Bracknell Forest

  11

  Brent

  34

  Brighton and Hove

  22

  Bristol, City of

  71

  Bromley

  28

  Buckinghamshire

  60

  Cambridgeshire

  64

  Camden

  13

  Cheshire

  49

  Cornwa

  1165

  Coventry

  34

  Croydon

  19

  Cumbria

  55

  Darlington

  19

  Derby, City of

  44

  Derbyshire

  143

  Devon

  86

  Doncaster

  71

  Dorset

  56

  Durham

  105

  Ealing

  36

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  82

  445W

  Repair or renewal costs over the next five years

  £ million

  Total cost

  East Sussex

  33

  Enfield

  49

  Essex

  164

  Gateshead

  17

  Gloucestershire

  45

  Greenwich

  33

  Hackney

  31

  Halton

  18

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  17

  Hampshire

  248

  Harrow

  19

  Hartlepool

  16

  Havering

  47

  Herefordshire

  15

  Hertfordshire

  84

  Hillingdon

  25

  Hounslow

  29

  Isle of Wight

  16

  Kensington and Chelsea

  7

  Kent

  120

  Kingston-upon-Hull, City of

  52

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  21

  Kirklees

  85

  Knowsley

  35

  Lancashire

  265

  Leeds

  141

  Leicester, City of

  40

  Leicestershire

  73

  Lewisham

  42

  Lincolnshire

  35

  Liverpool

  59

  Luton

  27

  Manchester

  91

  Medway

  24

  Merton

  19

  Milton Keynes

  28

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  71

  Newham

  45

  Norfolk

  75

  North East Lincolnshire

  45

  North Lincolnshire

  18

  North Somerset

  26

  North Tyneside

  33

  North Yorkshire

  44

  Northamptonshire

  64

  Northumberland

  52

  Nottingham

  53

  Nottinghamshire

  110

  Oldham

  61

  Oxfordshire

  64

  Peterborough

  32

  Plymouth

  40

  Poole

  16

  Portsmouth

  21

  Reading

  19

  Redbridge

  33

  Redcar and Cleveland

  27

  Rochdale

  54

  Rotherham

  63

  Rutland

  4

  Sandwell

  24

  Sefton

  51

  Sheffield

  71

  Shropshire

  25

  Slough

  19

  Solihull

  22

  Somerset

  52

  South Gloucestershire

  33

  South Tyneside

  31

  Southend-on-Sea

  13

  Southwark

  24

  446W

  Repair or renewal costs over the next five years

  £ million

  Total cost

  St. Helens

  24

  Staffordshire

  83

  Stockport

  73

  Stockton-on-Tees

  47

  Stoke-on-Trent

  65

  Suffolk

  42

  Sunderland

  54

  Surrey

  69

  Sutton

  16

  Swindon

  44

  Tameside

  33

  Telford and Wrekin

  35

  Thurrock

  19

  Torbay

  11

  Tower Hamlets

  28

  Trafford

  38

  Wakefield

  72

  Walsall

  64

  Waltham Forest

  28

  Wandsworth

  50

  Warrington

  26

  West Berkshire

  17

  West Sussex

  76

  Westminster

  24

  Wiltshire

  57

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  32

  Wirral

  58

  Wokingham

  25

  Wolverhampton

  44

  Worcestershire

  61

  Total

  6,383

  Note:

  Fifteen authorities are currently reviewing their assessments. More work is needed to confirm the data, but initial broad estimates are that these authorities needs total £635 million.

  Occasional Teachers
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will publish the number of occasional teachers working in each LEA area on the date of the 2002 census of teachers in service giving the percentage which this comprises of the total number of teachers working in that authority. [25955]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is not yet available.

  Provisional summary information on teachers in service at national and regional level at January 2002 is expected to be published in April or May, as in previous years. Information at local education authority level will be published later in "Statistics of Education, Teachers, England, 2002 edition"

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) when she will publish the number of teacher vacancies in maintained schools in each local education authority area in January; [26583]

  (2) how many teacher vacancies there are in England broken down by local education authority area; and in each case what the figure is as a percentage of the establishment figure at the time of the annual census of teachers in January 2002. [26400].
  447W
  Mr. Timms
  The latest available information on teacher vacancies in each local authority, for January 2001, is published in my Department's evidence to the School Teachers' Review Body in September 2001. This is also available on the DIES website at www.dfes.gov.uk/teachingreforms/rewards/teacherspay/strb_evidence/index.shtml.

  As in previous years, provisional summary data on teacher vacancies at national and regional level in January 2002 are expected to be published in April or May. Teacher vacancy information at local education authority level will be published in the DfES evidence to the School Teacher's Review Body in September 2002. It will also be published later in "Statistics of Education, Teachers, England", 2002 edition.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information she has collated on the number of teaching vacancies which have to be re-advertised. [28528]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department does not collect information on the number of readvertisements.

  Tuition Fees
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will compensate those students who have started their course after the introduction of tuition fees but who will not benefit from changes to the system that decrease student debt. [27157]

  Margaret Hodge
  There are no significant changes in student funding arrangements planned for 2002–03 academic year. Decisions on changes for 2003–04 academic year and beyond will be taken in due course.

  Teachers (Hillingdon)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and (b) secondary school teachers have left the London borough of Hillingdon education authority in each of the past five years as a result of (i) ill health, (ii) reaching retirement age, (iii) early retirement and (iv) to work for another education authority. [26940]

  Mr. Timms
  Qualified teachers leaving regular full and part-time service in maintained nursery/primary and secondary schools in Hillingdon to retire or work for another local authority are as follows:

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  1995–96

  Ill-health retirement

  4

  6

  Age retirement

  9

  1

  Premature retirement

  17

  19

  Working for another local authority

  43

  41

  1996–97

  Ill-health retirement

  5

  1

  Age retirement

  4

  4

  Premature retirement

  18

  14

  Working for another local authority

  46

  52

  1997–98

  Ill-health retirement

  2

  6

  Age retirement

  6

  7

  Premature retirement

  22

  21

  Working for another local authority

  73

  45

  448W

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  1998–99

  Ill-health retirement

  2

  3

  Age retirement

  2

  4

  Premature retirement

  6

  6

  Working for another local authority

  55

  54

  1999–20001

  Ill-health retirement

  5

  2

  Age retirement

  5

  4

  Premature retirement

  4

  11

  Working for another local authority

  54

  57

  1 1999–2000 data are provisional

  Note:

  The figures exclude 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. of part-time teachers not included on the Teacher Pension Scheme records.

  Student Support
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she expects to introduce a new system of student support for students in higher education. [27223]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have announced a review of the current student funding policy. No decisions have been taken on the timing of implementation of possible changes arising from that review.

  Education Action Zones
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she expects the East Manchester Education Action Zone accounts for the year ended 31 March 2001 to be published. [27684]

  Mr. Timms
  I expect the annual accounts for all statutory education action zones to be published by the end of April 2002. This reflects the Comptroller and Auditor General's intention to certify individual EAZ accounts with a clear audit opinion by 31 March 2002.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which education action zones have not published their accounts for(a) the year ended 31 March 2000 and (b) the year ended 31 March 2001. [27685]

  Mr. Timms
  For the year ended 31 March 2000, the accounts of eight education action zones have not yet been published. These are Plymouth, Sunderland, East Cleveland, Dudley, Weston, Birmingham Aston Nechells, Hackney and Camborne, Redruth and Pool.

  None of the accounts for year ended 31 March 2001 have been published.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what time limits are set down for the production of accounts by education action zones. [27686]

  Mr. Timms
  The Schools Standards and Framework Act 1988 requires all education action zones to submit accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General by 31 August following the end of the financial year to which they relate.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what reasons underlie the length of time taken to publish the East Manchester Education Action Zone accounts for the year ended 31 March 2000; and if she will make a statement. [27725]
  449W
  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: In their first year of operation some zones had difficulty in submitting auditable sets of annual accounts; East Manchester was one such zone. As a result the National Audit Office had to undertake considerable additional work on East Manchester EAZ accounts, including agreeing a significant number of amendments before these could be published on 9 January 2002.

  Sure Start
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made on the evaluation of the Sure Start programme begun in 2001; and if she will make a statement. [26817]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: The national evaluation of Sure Start will look at the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Sure Start in the short, medium and long term. Researchers from Birkbeck college, University of London are carrying out this work on behalf of the Government.

  A comprehensive programme of fieldwork is under way. Findings will be published on a regular basis starting with a report on the early experiences of setting up and implementing Sure Start, in spring 2002. The first findings on the impact of Sure Start on children, families and communities will be available in spring 2003.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when Warrington will be invited to submit a bid for another Sure Start project. [26818]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: Later this year we will invite more applications for Sure Start, bringing the total number of programmes announced to at least 500. The districts where these programmes will be located will be selected primarily on the basis of their levels of disadvantage and child poverty. I cannot say at this stage which districts will be included.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to abolish the requirement for schools to raise £50,000 from local sources before securing specialist status; what assessment she has made of the difficulties of raising such funding in areas of high deprivation; and if she will make a statement. [26539]

  Mr. Timms
  There are no plans to abolish the requirement on specialist school applicants to raise £50,000 sponsorship but we do keep the sponsorship criteria under annual review. We are aware that some schools find raising the required sponsorship more difficult than others and we grant aid the Technology Colleges Trust and Youth Sport Trust to provide advice and support to applicants, including in relation to raising sponsorship. There are specialist schools in all parts of the country and a wide range of areas. Nearly 90 schools have been designated in Excellence in Cities (EiC) areas since EiC was implemented.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have taken on specialist status in each quarter since May 1997, broken down by different specialist areas chosen; and if she will make a statement. [26542]
  450W
  Mr. Timms
  The number of specialist school designations by specialism from each competition since May 1997 is shown in the table.

  Competitions

  Arts

  Sports

  Language

  Technology

  Total

  May 1997

  3

  5

  —

  —

  8

  October 1997

  5

  6

  3

  18

  32

  March 1998

  6

  9

  8

  28

  51

  October 1998

  12

  11

  5

  15

  43

  March 1999

  —

  —

  9

  28

  37

  June 1999

  20

  24

  —

  —

  44

  October 1999

  —

  —

  15

  22

  37

  March 2000

  8

  7

  13

  31

  59

  June 2000

  18

  16

  —

  —

  34

  October 2000

  4

  1

  9

  25

  39

  March 2001

  12

  16

  18

  33

  79

  Total

  88

  95

  80

  200

  463

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what financial provision her Department has made in the next three years to support additional specialist schools; what her estimate is of the number of specialist schools in each quarter over the next three years; what her estimate is of the proportion of all schools which will be specialist-status in each quarter over the next three years; and if she will make a statement. [26543]

  Mr. Timms
  Financial provision for the specialist schools programme up to 2003–04 is provided in the table. Any future and additional funding will be considered as part of the 2002 Spending Review.

  Financial year

  £ million

  2002–03

  108.0

  2003–04

  127.0

  New specialist schools start operating as such in September each year. Current projections are for at least 830 by September 2002 (25 per cent. of maintained secondary schools), at least 1,000 by September 2003, (31 per cent. of maintained secondary schools) and at least 1,500 by 2005 (46 per cent. of maintained secondary schools).

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list schools which have been granted specialist status without having to raise £50,000 themselves from local private sources, showing the amount they raised locally and the sources of other moneys raised to meet the £50,000 threshold; and if she will make a statement. [26545]

  Mr. Timms
  All specialist schools have to raise £50,000 sponsorship. This may come from local or national sources in any combination. Information showing the amount of sponsorship raised from different sources can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Specialist schools raise sponsorship from a range of sources including national companies, local business, charitable trusts, parent teacher associations and individuals. They are supported by the Technology Colleges Trust and (in the case of sports colleges) the Youth Sports Trust.
  451W
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the application process for the next round of specialist school awards. [26546]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department is currently assessing applications received in October 2001. Successful schools will be announced in February. The next competition closing dates are in March. All applications received will be assessed against the published criteria set out in the guidance relevant to each of the specialisms.

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to extend the education maintenance allowance pilot scheme to the London Borough of Hillingdon. [28488]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We have no such plans at present. We will be taking decisions on any future extension of the scheme on the basis of the rigorous evaluation exercise, which is currently being conducted.

  Connexions Service
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on enrolment of personal advisers for the Connexions Service. [27667]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The numbers of Personal Advisers (PAs) working in Connexions Partnerships since the Service was launched in April 2001 have risen steadily as partnerships have established their infrastructures. At the end of November, 1,820 PAs were in post in the 15 partnerships that are fully operational, representing nearly three quarters of the first year's PA recruitment estimates provided by Partnerships in their business plans.

  PAs are being recruited from a range of backgrounds, including careers, education and youth services. Steps have been taken to widen the age and ethnic mix of PAs. Data from PA training records indicate that 12 per cent. of

  Academic years

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  (i) United Kingdom

  1 or more A* to C

  70.2

  71.4

  71.7

  72.7

  73.9

  74.8

  75.1

  5 or more A* to C

  44.4

  45.5

  46.2

  47.5

  49.1

  50.4

  51.0

  (ii) Somerset

  1 or more A* to C

  74.9

  75.6

  75.5

  77.1

  78.0

  79.0

  79.0

  5 or more A* to C

  47.7

  50.0

  48.9

  51.2

  52.7

  55.3

  54.6

  5 or more A* to G

  90.8

  91.4

  92.5

  92.3

  93.7

  93.4

  93.0

  (iii) Yeovil constituency

  1 or more A* to C

  76.2

  76.4

  76.4

  79.3

  79.9

  80.7

  79.8

  5 or more A* to C

  48.1

  53.4

  50.4

  52.6

  53.1

  56.8

  54.0

  5 or more A* to G

  94.6

  92.6

  93.5

  95.3

  94.3

  94.4

  94.7

  The information on those achieving five or more grades A* to G is not available for the United Kingdom.

  Local Network Fund
  Mr. Miliband
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will announce the areas that will receive funding in the second and third waves of the Local Network Fund. [28965]
  452W
  training participants are from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) backgrounds and almost 40 per cent. of all PAs are under the age of 35.

  Foundation Degrees
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many foundation degree places are available; and what proportion of them have been filled. [27666]

  Margaret Hodge
  A total of 2,123 student places were made available on 40 prototype foundation degree programmes. Of these programmes, 32 commenced in September 2001 and offered 1,539 student places. 85 per cent. (1,303) of these places were filled. The remaining eight programmes are on offer from January 2002. Figures relating to take up of these places will not be available until February 2002.

  In addition to the 40 prototype programmes, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) allocated 1,790 additional student numbers for delivery of a further 29 courses. These student places were funded through HEFCE's mainstream funding routes and information on the take up of these places is collated as part of their management information cycle. This information is expected February 2002.

  Examination Results (Somerset)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the proportion of pupils achieving(a) one or more A* to C, (b) five or more A* to C and (c) five or more A* to G grades was (i) in the UK, (ii) in Somerset schools and (iii) in Yeovil constituency schools in each year since 1994–95; and if she will make a statement. [27042]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The proportion of 15-year-old pupils achieving(a) one or more A* to C, (b) five or more A* to C and (c) five or more A* to G grades at GCSE or the GNVQ equivalent, in (i) the UK, (ii) Somerset and (iii) the Yeovil constituency since 1994–95 are:

  Mr. Denham
  I am pleased to announce that 30 new areas will be eligible for funding from the Local Network Fund in its second and third years of operation. The Local Network Fund is designed to tackle poverty and disadvantage among children and young people by making grants direct to local community and voluntary groups helping vulnerable children aged 0–19. £70 million is available over three years with second year areas operational from 1 April 2002.
  453W
  The Local Network funds are used to support local and community groups under four themes:
  Aspirations and experiences—projects that give children experiences, or help them achieve goals that more privileged children may take for granted.
  Economic disadvantage—projects that help families to improve their living standards and cope with difficulties that come from being on low incomes.

  Local network areas funding for 2002–03

  £

  Local network area

  Approximate allocation

  North East

  1,523,100

  Tees Valley (Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Redcar and Cleveland, Stockton-on-Tees, Darlington)

  437,500

  Tyne and Wear (Newcastle upon Tyne, Gateshead, South Tyneside, North Tyneside, Sunderland)

  644,500

  Durham (County)1

  275,700

  Northumberland (County)1

  165, 400

  North West

  3,684,500

  Merseyside/Halton (Knowsley, Sefton, Liverpool, St. Helens, Wirral, Halton)

  977,000

  Greater Manchester (Manchester, Salford, Oldham, Rochdale, Bolton, Tameside, Trafford, Wigan, Bury, Stockport)

  1,452,700

  Lancashire (Lancashire, Blackpool and Blackburn)

  726,500

  Cheshire (Cheshire, Warrington)1

  310, 400

  Cumbria (Cumbria)1

  217,900

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,566,700

  South Yorkshire (Doncaster, Barnsley, Rotherham, Sheffield)

  699,200

  West Yorkshire (Bradford, Kirklees, Calderdale, Wakefield, Leeds)

  1,137,400

  Humberside (Kingston upon Hull, NE Lincolnshire, N Lincolnshire, East Riding)

  478,500

  North Yorkshire (County, and York)1

  251,600

  East Midlands

  1,845,100

  Nottinghamshire (Nottingham and Nottinghamshire)

  525,800

  Leicestershire (Leicester and Leicestershire)

  389,200

  Derbyshire (County and Derby)1

  407,100

  Lincolnshire (County)1

  265,200

  Northamptonshire (County)1

  257,800

  West Midlands

  2,426,300

  Birmingham/Solihull (Birmingham and Solihull)

  825,300

  The Black Country (Sandwell, Wolverhampton, Walsall and Dudley)

  631,000

  Shropshire (County, Telford and Wrekin)1

  207,400

  Staffordshire (County, Stoke on Trent)1

  427,000

  Warwickshire (County, Coventry)1

  335,600

  East

  804,900

  Norfolk

  305,100

  Bedfordshire (County, Luton)1

  254,600

  Suffolk (County)1

  245,200

  South West

  1,327,600

  Cornwall (Cornwall with Isles of Scilly)

  252,600

  Devon (County, Torbay and Plymouth)

  452,200

  Former Avon (Bristol, Bath and NE Somerset, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire)1

  371,300

  Dorset (County, Bournemouth and Poole)1

  251,500

  South East

  1,472,200

  Kent (Medway, Kent)

  592,000

  East Sussex (East Sussex and Brighton and Hove)

  297,700

  Hampshire (County, Southampton, Portsmouth and Isle of Wight)1

  582,500

  London

  3,349,600

  All London Boroughs

  3,349,600

  1 New area

  Examples of projects funded in the first year of funding:

  Ashford Mobile Toy Library, Kent
  The library lends good quality toys to families with pre-school children. Over 100 children from around 70 families use the toy
  454W
  Isolation and access—projects that help children that are isolated or alone, or have trouble accessing services.

  Children's voices—projects that give children and young people the chance to express their opinions and give advice on matters that concern them.

  Examples of the type of projects funded in the first year of operation are shown in the table along with the full list of the new areas eligible for funding and the provisional budget for each area.

  library regularly. The Local Network grant helped to purchase new equipment and fund the costs of training new volunteers.

  The Mustard Seed Project, Cornwall
  Covering the Helston, Porthleven and Lizard areas of Cornwall, which have the highest rate of unemployment in the district, this

  455W
  project provides a range of services including evening club activities for 10 to 14-year-olds, a drop-in centre and coffee bar with cheap wholesome food. The Local Network grant helped provide outreach into rural areas to help isolated young people and their families access the centre and its information and support services.

  Alpha Grove Community Centre, Millwall, East London
  The Alpha Grove Community centre is working to help disadvantaged young people in the area, providing an environment where they can meet, learn, create, express and develop social skills. A Local Network grant will allow a local artist to work with these young people to produce artwork for the centre which reflects subject matter derived from debates conducted with them on the issues they feel are relevant to them.

  Tyne and Wear Youth Bank, Newcastle Upon Tyne
  YouthBank is a grant making scheme run by young people. The Local Network grant is redistributed by the young people to small projects in the Tyne and Wear area which are run by and for young people.

  Sefton Women and Children's Aid, Litherland, Liverpool
  SWACA was established 24 years ago to provide a range of services for women and children who are victims of domestic violence, including valuable one-to-one support to children aged 0–17 years. The new grant will enable the group to assess what impact this service is having on the children and whether it is meeting their real needs. It will run group sessions with children aged five and over, so that they can describe what they would like to get from the service, allowing them to discuss issues of concern to them.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Departmental Investment Strategy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the cost in 2001–02 of the Departmental Investment Strategy. [18977]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Departmental Investment Strategy for 2001–02 covers only the part of Department of Work and Pensions which was formerly the Department of Social Security.

  The cost of the former Department of Social Security Departmental Investment Strategy is expected to be in the region of £840 million.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what are the projected additional annual costs at current prices for each of the next 35 years for(a) the annual uprating of the minimum income guarantee in line with average earnings, (b) the pension credit, (c) raising the level of the basic state pension to the level of the MIG for (i) all pensioners, (ii) all pensioners over 75 and (iii) all pensioners over 80 years and (d) the annual uprating of the state second pension in line with average earnings. [20235]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested for the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit is set out in the paper "The Pension Credit: long-term projections" which has been placed in the Library today. Copies are also available in the Vote Office.

  The additional information requested is set out in the tables.
  456W

  Annual costs in 2001–02 prices of increasing the basic state pension to the level of the minimum income guarantee and then uprating by earnings thereafter

  £ billion

  All

  Over 75s

  Over 80s

  2002

  8.5

  3.8

  2.2

  2005

  10.7

  4.7

  2.8

  2010

  15.8

  6.6

  3.9

  2015

  21.3

  8.9

  5.3

  2020

  27.5

  12.1

  7.0

  2025

  36.8

  17.3

  9.6

  2030

  48.6

  22.2

  13.6

  2035

  61.0

  28.5

  17.1

  2050

  92.3

  51.4

  34.1

  Source:

  The Government Actuary's Department

  Annual costs in 2001–02 prices of earnings uprating state second pension

  £ billion

  State Second Pension

  2002

  0.0

  2005

  0.0

  2010

  0.0

  2015

  0.1

  2020

  0.3

  2025

  0.7

  2030

  1.2

  2035

  2.0

  Notes:

  1. The costs of increases in the basic state pension and state pension are net of income related benefit savings that would be generated by these increases.

  2. The costs given for earnings uprating of state second pension assume that expenditure on SERPS (accruals up to 2001–02) would not be affected.

  3. The costs of earnings uprating of the state second pension only begin to become significant by 2015 because S2P only begins accruing in 2002–03 and therefore the amount of S2P in payment will be negligible for some time after that.

  4. The costs shown for state second pension in the table have been calculated based on the estimated costs of S2P which were shown in the report by the Government Actuary on the Financial Effects on the National Insurance Fund of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill 1999 (Cm 4573). The costs shown are the increase in expenditure over and above the baseline projected S2P expenditure shown in this report.

  5. It has been assumed that the basic state pension and state pension changes would not happen together. If they did, there would be an interaction because the Lower Earnings Limit is linked to the basic state pension. This means that the cost of S2P would be reduced if the basic state pension and, therefore, the LEL were raised.

  6. Average earnings are assumed to grow in line with Treasury economic assumptions until the end of the Parliament and then 1.5 per cent. above inflation over time.

  7. The pensioner population is assumed to grow according to GAD's central population growth estimates.

  Source:

  The Government Actuary's Department

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what is the take-up rate for the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. [27668]

  Mr. McCartney
  Estimates of take-up for the minimum income guarantee (MIG) by pensioners were published in "Income Related Benefits—Estimates of Take Up in 1999–2000", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  As at August 2001 there were 1.736 million pensioners receiving the MIG.

  State Retirement Pension
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the value was of the state retirement pension as a percentage of the average weekly wage in(a) 1971, (b) 1978, (c) 1981, (d) 1988, (e) 1991, (f) 1998 and (g) 2001. [21750]

  Mr. McCartney
  The objective of the basic state pension, since it was introduced in 1948, has always been to provide a foundation for income in retirement on which individuals could build their own second pension or other savings income. The Government are committed to retaining the basic state pension in this role as well as making it easier to build up second pensions, whether through private stakeholder pensions or the new state second pension (which will particularly help people on low pay or with broken work records such as carers or disabled). In addition, the Government are committed to tackling pensioner poverty directly with the minimum income guarantee and ensuring that thrift is rewarded through the pension credit.

  The information requested is as follows:

  Percentage

  September 1971

  20.3

  November 1978

  23.2

  November 1981

  22.4

  April 1988

  18.8

  April 1991

  18.3

  April 1998

  16.8

  April 2001

  1—

  1 Not yet available

  Note:

  The percentage is based on the amount of a single person's pension

  Source:

  "The Abstract of Statistics for Social Security Benefits and Contributions and Indices of Prices and Earnings", 2000 edition published by the DSS, page 57.

  Issue date

  Consultation document

  19 July 2001

  Social Security Fraud Act 2001 Code of Practice on Obtaining Information

  23 July 2001

  Changes to Invalid Care Allowance

  23 July 2001

  Amending the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979

  1 August 2001

  The Occupational Pension Schemes (Winding Up Notices and Reports etc.) Regulations 2001

  3 August 2001

  Housing and Council Tax Benefits Verification Framework: Splitting the Verification Framework into Modules

  13 August 2001

  The Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Amendment Regulations 2001

  13 August 2001

  The Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Consultation Document) Amendment Regulations 2001

  13 August 2001

  The Minimum Funding requirement—The next stage of reform

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects to reply to the question of 3 December, ref. 21339, from the hon. Member for Buckingham on sickness absence. [24727]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 693W.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of occasions on which(a) an interview, (b) a benefit claim and (c) a claim review has been delayed as a result of the current industrial action. [25226]
  458W

  Minimum Wage
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of people who no longer receive(a) one and (b) more than one means-tested benefit due to the introduction of the minimum wage; and if he will make a statement. [24104]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. The number of people affected by the introduction of the minimum wage will vary year on year as people move off benefit and into work. For 2001–02 we estimate that up to 50,000 people no longer receive one or more of income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit as a result of the introduction of the national minimum wage.

  Notes:

  1. Estimate is for 2001–02 and is based on 1998–99 Family Resources Survey data, uprated to 2001–02 prices and benefit rates. Minimum wage and benefit receipt have been modelled within the Policy Simulation Model.

  2. Estimate is rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  3. Estimate is based on minimum wage rates of £4.10 for those aged over 21 and £3.70 for those aged 18–21.

  Consultation Papers
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 179W, if he will list the consultation papers released by his Department during the summer recess. [24220]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The list of consultation documents issued during summer recess is as follows:

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The contingency plans that have been put in place during the current dispute have meant that all new claims have been dealt with quickly with customers receiving appropriate payments.

  Claim reviews—including fortnightly reviews for claimants of jobseeker's allowance—have in general continued to be carried out during the course of the industrial action, although in some locations these have been deferred to ensure the most vulnerable customers are dealt with as quickly as possible. No figures are available centrally on the number of such deferrals.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many days each(a) Employment Service office, (b) Benefits Agency office and (c) JobCentre Plus office has been closed as a result of the current industrial action. [25227]
  459W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The number of offices closed as a result of the national industrial action taken on 12 and 13 December was 75 out of a total of more than 1,650 offices.

  The number of days on which offices involved in the continuous industrial action have been closed is 85, involving between four and six offices, up to and including 17 December 2001.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations his Department has made to Her Majesty's Treasury concerning the treatment of the receipt of digital hearing aids funded through the access to work scheme as a taxable benefit. [25366]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: The Employment Service has met with officials of the Inland Revenue and established the tax liability position of access to work beneficiaries with digital hearing aids, as set out in the answer given to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 11 January 2002, Official Report, column 1033W.

  New Deal
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of those leaving the new deal for the long-term unemployed left the new deal for unsubsidised sustained jobs; and how many did not return to claim jobseeker's allowance within(a) 26 weeks and (b) one year since the inception of the new deal. [25981]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Up to the end of October 2001, 49,010 new deal 25 plus leavers had gained unsubsidised sustained jobs. Of these, 42,280 did not return to claim jobseeker's allowance within 26 weeks, and 37,030 had not re-claimed the benefit one year after leaving the new deal.

  Notes:

  The figures quoted refer to people who entered the pre-April 2001 new deal 25 plus programme. An enhanced new deal 25 plus programme was launched in April 2001. The figures include those leavers who have been in employment for less than six to 12 months, but who have not yet returned to jobseeker's allowance.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 27 November 2001 with regard to Miss C. Fryar. [27319]

  Mr. Darling
  I replied to my right hon. Friend on 16 January.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, dated 3 December 2001 with regard to Miss A. Steeles. [27324]

  Mr. Darling
  I replied to my right hon. Friend on 10 January.

  Self-administered Pension Schemes
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the costs of registration of trustees under the Data Protection Act 1998 for self-administered pension schemes. [27669]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department has made no assessment of the costs of registration of trustees under the Data Protection Act 1998. The Act sets out the provisions under which data controllers are required to complete notifications to the Information Commissioner (formerly registrations under the Data Protection Act 1984). Trustees, as the people responsible for the administration of their pension schemes, are responsible for deciding whether they are required to send a notification to the Information Commissioner. A fee of £35 is payable for notification and the period of notification is one year.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will provide a breakdown of the forecast cost of the pension credit by(a) 2010, (b) 2020, (c) 2030 and (d) 2040. [21026]

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people will be entitled to the pension credit; and what the cost will be in(a) 2005, 2010, (c) 2015 and (d) 2020 if the minimum income guarantee element of the pension credit is uprated in line with earnings from 2003 and the basic state pension in line with prices. [21409]

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the(a) number and (b) proportion of people retiring who will receive a pension above benefit levels (i) this year, (ii) in 2005, (iii) in 2010, (iv) in 2020, (v) in 2030 and (vi) in 2040; and if he will make a statement. [25749]

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will estimate the coverage of the proposed pension credit scheme if the pension credit was uprated in line with earnings to(a) 2005, (b) 2010 and 2015; [20299]

  (2) if he will estimate the annual (a) cost and (b) coverage in terms of the numbers of pensioners in receipt of pension credit in each of the first five years after 2003–04 on the basis of his present proposals and their uprating in line with earnings; [27335]

  (3) if he will estimate the annual (a) cost and (b) coverage in terms of numbers of pensioners in receipt of pension credit, on the basis of his proposals and their uprating in line with earnings, at (i) 2010, (ii) 2020, and (iii) 2030. [27336]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answers 5 December 2001 and 16 January 2002]: The information requested is set out in the paper "The Pension Credit: long-term projections", which has been placed in the Library today. Copies are also available in the Vote Office.

  Child Care
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the(a) number and (b) cost of publicly funded child care places in each of the last 10 years. [24969]
  461W
  Margaret Hodge
  I have been asked to reply.

  In England, over 424,000 child care places, including pre-school and out of school child care places (including child minding places), have been created since April 1997. For the current financial year, 2001–02, a total of £188 million has been made available to support the creation and sustainability of good quality, affordable child care places and complementary special projects. Of the total, the Government have made £149 million available to early years development and child care partnerships, which includes £46 million from the neighbourhood nurseries initiative, and the European Social Fund has made £39 million available for special projects.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been spent by the Home Office on advertising in the past two years; what the cost and purpose of each advertising campaign was; which advertising agencies were involved in each campaign; and if he will make a statement. [27648]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) on 19 December 2001, Official Report, column 478W.

  There follows a more detailed breakdown of the spending on advertising.

  Over the past two years the Home Office has spent the following on advertising:
  In 1999–2000 £5.65 million was spent on the following campaigns:
  An information campaign encouraging people to register to vote—£575,000;
  An information campaign explaining changes to the voting system for the European Election—£1.87 million;
  An information campaign on how to obtain a passport—£545,000; A fire safety information campaign £1.675 million; and
  Police recruitment campaign (Accelerated Promotion Scheme for Graduates (APSG)/Special Constables)—£985,000.
  The advertising agency involved in all these campaigns is Euro RSCG Wnek Gosper.
  In 2000–01 £28.36 million was spent on the following campaigns:
  A campaign to inform people about new rolling electoral registration procedures—£3.34 million. Agency involved—Euro RSCG Wnek Gosper;
  A campaign to inform people about new postal voting procedures £3.2 million. Agency involved—Euro RSCG Wnek Gosper;
  A fire safety information campaign—£5 million. Agency involved—Euro RSCG Wnek Gosper;
  A campaign to make people aware of the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998—£800,000. Agency involved—(Collett Dickinson Pearce);
  A police recruitment campaign—£7.35 million. Agency involved & C Saatchi; and An information campaign to help reduce vehicle crime—£8.67 million. Agency involved—Rainey Kelly Campbell Roalfe/Y & R.

  All the costs listed include VAT.
  462W

  Environmental Audit Committee
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he has made to his Department's practice in respect of environmental appraisals to reflect the recommendations contained in the Environmental Audit Committee's 5th report of Session 1999–2000, HC 341. [27517]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: A section on environmental appraisals is included within the Department's Policy Checklist, which staff have been commended to use by the Permanent Secretary. The ministerial website also states that policy submissions should include a paragraph on environmental considerations.

  The Prison Service Management Board has agreed that all new policies and programmes should be subject to environmental screening and appraisal. This will apply to submissions to Ministers, papers to the Prison Service Management Board and Operational Policy Group and to business cases in respect of prison maintenance and construction work.

  Green Minister
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work completed by the Green Minister with his Department since the general election. [27506]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: The Department has continued to work to contribute towards the Government's sustainable development agenda. As the Green Minister, I have held meetings with lead officials to review progress. The main developments are as follows:

  (i) 13 key sites including all central London headquarters buildings now use 100 per cent. green electricity, with a further two sites using a 10 per cent. green electricity supply.

  (ii) SR 2002 bids are required to state which sustainable development indicators their bids will have an impact on.

  (iii) An excellent Buildings Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) rating was achieved at the Harmondsworth Detention Management Unit.

  (iv) Waste minimisation schemes will be introduced in all key core Home Office buildings by the end of March 2002.

  (v) Work is under way on the methodology to be used in energy efficiency benchmarking of prisons, college sites and laboratories on the HO estate.

  (vi) The Prison Service published its first annual environmental report in July 2001 and "Buying Green", a guide to green purchasing.

  (vii) A Prison Service Greening Conference in October 2001 was attended by around 3(X) delegates.

  (viii) The Prison Service has spent over £600 million on funding green initiatives covering such as energy efficiency, waste management, environmental management systems and biodiversity.

  Police Force Expenditure
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what police force expenditure has been for each police authority(a) in total and (b) per head of population in each year since 1989. [22981]

  Mr. Denham
  A table showing the information for England and Wales has been placed in the Library. The figures are taken from the Chartered Institute of
  463W
  Public Finance and Accountancy Police Statistics. Actual expenditure is used for years to 1999–2000. Latest available data for 2000–01 and 2001–02 are estimates.

  Deportation
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Government's policy is in relation to deciding which airline should be used for a deportation; and if he will make a statement. [27845]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: The powers relating to the removal of persons subject to immigration control are contained in schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (paragraphs 8–15).

  Where the cost of removal falls to be met by the company responsible for bringing the person to the United Kingdom, the choice of carrier would be a matter for that company. Where the cost falls to public funds, we would normally give directions for removal on the first available flight to the country concerned.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent research his Department has commissioned into the effect on race relations of illegal immigrants. [26728]

  Angela Eagle
  The Home Office has not commissioned any recent research specifically into the effect on race relations of illegal immigrants, but is considering a broad range of research on immigration including improving knowledge of the illegal population and improving the integration of refugees and other migrants into communities.

  The current year's research programme of the Research Development and Statistics Directorate, including the work on immigration, is published on the website, which can be found at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/resprogl.html.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated cost to his Department was of illegal immigrants in the last 12 months. [26841]

  Angela Eagle
  This information is not available as the Immigration and Nationality Directorate does not quantify the costs of illegal entrants separately from those of its other activities.

  Prostitutes
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 January 2002,Official Report, columns 893–95W, if he will make a statement explaining the nature of the public policy limitations which will enable the UK to prevent Polish, Czech and Slovak nationals establishing themselves as self-employed prostitutes in the UK despite the EU Court of Justice decision 268/99 published on 11 December. [27504]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: The European Union Court of Justice decision 268/99 ruled that a member state is entitled to rely on the public policy
  464W
  limitation aspect of the Association agreements where it adopts measures designed to combat prostitution carried out by its own nationals.

  The United Kingdom adopts a number of measures designed to combat prostitution. In particular, soliciting is an offence. Should a Polish, Czech or Slovak national seek to enter the United Kingdom in order to establish themselves as a self-employed prostitute they would, in order to conduct that business successfully, have to engage in an illegal activity. Therefore, the United Kingdom would be within its rights to refuse such an application on public policy grounds.

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Part 12 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 will take effect. [27481]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We intend that Part 12 of the 2001 Act will take effect on 14 February 2002, in accordance with a Commencement Order which will be made under section 127 of the Act.

  Asylum and Immigration Act
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of Judicial Reviews on asylum decisions have been successful since the Asylum and Immigration Act 1999 came into force. [27454]

  Angela Eagle
  Since October 2000, when the Asylum and Immigration Act 1999 came into force, 1,546 Judicial Reviews have been lodged against asylum decisions. Of the 645 Judicial Reviews where the final outcome has been made known, 69 applicants (10.7 per cent.) have been successful in obtaining the relief sought. By comparison, 110 applicants have withdrawn their applications during the judicial process.

  Departmental Staff (Home Working)
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to encourage staff to work from home; and how many staff do so on a regular basis. [21826]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Home Office is committed to the work-life balance of its staff as part of its commitment to the diversity agenda. A range of flexible working patterns, including flexible working hours, part-time working, job sharing, and home working are available to staff by agreement with their management.

  Guidance on the range of work-life balance options for staff was first published in a booklet, "Balancing Work and Home Responsibilities", in 1997. Subsequent developments reflect changes in technology which allow staff secure access to some Home Office systems remotely via laptop computers specifically developed for this purpose.

  Over 350 staff have laptop computers which have facilities for them to access the Department's information technology system remotely, and many more have equipment which allows them to read or write documents off-line. Information on the number of staff who do so is

  465W
  not collected centrally but managers are responsible for ensuring that staff working from home are properly authorised to do so.

  People Trafficking
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the UK Government have made a financial contribution to the Global Programme Against Trafficking in Human Beings launched by the Centre for International Crime Prevention. [26903]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  As major donors, the British Government contribute 5.58 per cent. of the United Nations Centre for International Crime Prevention's (CICP) regular budget. We are currently considering what additional donations we might make to CICP work during this financial year.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the(a) number and (b) percentage of asylum seekers who enter the UK as a result of third party traffickers who assist their passage. [26904]

  Angela Eagle
  Information about the numbers involved is not collected centrally. However, it is clear from the analysis of interviewing and debriefing conducted for intelligence purposes that the majority of asylum seekers are assisted in some way. I understand that this is consistent with the experiences of other European Union member states.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had in the past six months with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe about trafficking in human beings. [26902]

  Angela Eagle
  There are a number of initiatives on trafficking with which the Organisation for Security and Co-operation (OSCE) is associated, including the Anti-Trafficking Task Force of the Stability Pact for South East Europe. Officials from both the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have been in regular contact with the (OSCE) in Europe on this subject.

  Crime Report
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish Lord Birt's report on crime. [25973]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Lord Birt provides private advice to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on a number of issues. In relation to crime and the criminal justice system, Lord Birt's advice is reflected in the Government's strategy document, "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead" (Cm 5074), which was published on 26 February 2001.

  Zimbabwean Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Zimbabwean citizens seeking asylum in Britain have been deported since June 2000. [26620]

  Angela Eagle
  The latest available information relates to the period April to June 2001, during which an estimated 40 principal asylum applicants (to the nearest five) of Zimbabwean nationality are recorded as having 466W
  been removed from the United Kingdom. This includes persons departing 'voluntarily' after enforcement action had been initiated against them and may include some persons leaving under the Voluntary Assisted Returns Programme, but excludes dependants of those asylum seekers who departed at the same time, for whom nationality information is not available.

  Information on the destination of asylum seekers removed from the United Kingdom is not recorded centrally and could be obtained by examining individual case files only at disproportionate cost. Therefore it is not possible to determine how many of these persons were returned to Zimbabwe.

  I regret that a nationality breakdown of asylum seekers removed between June 2000 and March 2001 is not available due to data recording problems.

  Information on the nationality of principal asylum applicants removed in the period July to September 2001 will be published on 28 February 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.htm

  Heroin
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the change in the availability of heroin on Britain's streets if the Government bought the stockpiles and new production of heroin in(a) Afghanistan, (b) Burma and (c) Pakistan. [28117]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  None.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Television Licences (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many defendants were proceeded against at magistrates courts in England and Wales for offences under the Wireless and Telegraphy Acts in each of the last four years; how many were convicted; and what was(a) the total of fines imposed and (b) the average fine. [27690]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested in respect of prosecutions under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 is as follows. All prosecutions resulted in convictions.

  Number prosecuted

  Total fines imposed (£)

  Average (£)

  1998

  104

  20,265

  332

  1999

  103

  17,265

  288

  2000

  80

  12,830

  229

  20011

  26

  9,180

  399

  1 To 30 September 2001

  Millennium Dome
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost of the millennium dome
  467W
  is, broken down by category of expenditure, from conception to the date for which the most recent figures are available for each financial year; and what future finances have been committed from (a) public finances, (b) lottery funding and (c) other sources. [20190]

  £ million

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  1 April 1999 to 31 December 1999

  1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000

  1 January 2001 to 18 December 2001

  Total project

  Dome structure and associated Infrastructure

  74

  128

  77

  0

  -4

  275

  Dome exhibits and attractions

  4

  26

  149

  63

  0

  242

  Dome operating costs

  0

  0

  42

  61

  -1

  102

  Commercial communications and Marketing

  3

  10

  16

  12

  0

  41

  Set-up costs, staff accommodation IT, legal and corporate services

  8

  6

  29

  12

  -2

  53

  National programme

  1

  9

  17

  23

  0

  50

  Decommissioning and corporate wind down

  0

  0

  0

  6

  25

  31

  Grand total

  90

  179

  330

  177

  18

  794

  The cost of the Millennium Experience includes the National Programme of events and activities. Also included is the London Riverside new year's eve celebrations of 31 December 1999. Negative figures shown in the table against 2001 result from rebates and savings on costs provided for in previous years' account. In addition, from 1 July 2001, when the lease of NMEC ended, English Partnerships, the Government's urban regeneration agency, has incurred £1.5 million on care and maintenance related costs, £6.4 million on decommissioning the Dome contents in preparation for a future use and about £2.2 million in relation to the current sale process, up to 31 December 2001. The cost of the previous competition to find a long-term use for the Dome, which began in March 1999 and ended at the beginning of 2001, was £6.7 million. All these costs will be met from within English Partnerships' normal budget, and recovered from eventual sale proceeds.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been spent on fees for advisers to the(a) Government and (b) New Millennium Experience Company for the Dome project. [22693]

  Dr. Howells
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) paid £82,000 to consultants for specific advisory work in connection with the potential sale of the Millennium Dome. In terms of supplying details of all other advice for all aspects of the project, an accurate figure could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  English Partnerships, the Government's regeneration agency, responsible for managing the Dome sale process on behalf of the Government, is expected to incur costs in the order of £2.2 million for the current sale process up to 31 December 2001. This largely relates to consultants' costs for the market testing and other matters associated with the on-going sale process. The cost of the previous competition for the sale of the Dome, which began in March 1999 and ended at the beginning of 2001, was £6.7 million. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport incurred costs of £68,495 for legal advice relating to the sale process during this period.
  468W
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has advised that the total cost of the Millennium Experience, broken down by expenditure heading, by its financial year is as follows:

  An estimated (still to be finalised) £17,600 is likely to be incurred by DCMS for advice received in relation to the appointment of liquidators to NMEC in December 2001.

  Departmental Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will commission and publish an independent report on the reasons for the level of sickness absence in her Department. [26977]

  Dr. Howells
  The Cabinet Office already commissions and publishes an independent annual report "Analysis of Sickness in the Civil Service". This report includes details of the causes of absenteeism. The report for the year 2000 will be published shortly.

  DCMS is committed to managing sickness absence effectively and reducing sickness absence.

  Ministerial Transport
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she last used the railway service in connection with her official duties; what station she left from and what was the destination; and whether it is her intention to make greater use of the railways in future. [28098]

  Tessa Jowell
  I last travelled by train during the course of my official duties on 12 December 2001. I travelled to Leicester from St. Pancras in order to break the ground at the Bharat Football Club in Leicester.

  All travel by Ministers in this Department is 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. We will continue to do so.

  Sports Clubs
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to instruct local
  469W
  authorities to reduce rates and rental on sports clubs occupying sites in the ownership of their local authority. [27869]

  Mr. Caborn
  Local authorities are responsible for rents charged to sports clubs which are located on their property, and the Government have no scope to dictate the amounts charged.

  Local authorities can already grant discretionary rate relief of up to 100 per cent. to sports clubs, and the majority do so. However, sport's governing and representative bodies have asked the Government to provide greater certainty for local clubs. I therefore welcome the Charity Commission's announcement of 30 November 2001 that community amateur sports clubs may now apply for registered charitable status. Eligible clubs which successfully apply to become charities will enjoy a range of financial benefits including mandatory rate relief of 80 per cent. (which may be topped-up to 100 per cent. at the discretion of local authorities).

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to direct local authorities not to take into account improvements made to sports clubs occupying sites in the ownership of their local authority when agreeing a new lease. [27868]

  Mr. Caborn
  This is a matter for local authorities, which are responsible for setting the terms of leases of their property. However, the Government expect local authorities to take account of the special characteristics and needs of sports clubs when doing so.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Sustainable Development Summit
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proposals she has made for inclusion on the agenda of the World Summit on Sustainable Development; and which of these were(a) discussed and (b) recommended for inclusion on the agenda at the meeting of the UN Economic Commission for Europe Meeting in Geneva on 24 and 25 September. [132471

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]The United Kingdom has been working with European Union partners to develop a range of ideas on the agenda for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. In particular, we have pressed for the summit to address poverty eradication, and making globalisation a force for sustainable development particularly to help poorer countries. The UK has argued for specific action on access to fresh water and sanitation, sustainable energy, Africa, and strengthening UN institutions to promote sustainable development. These issues were reflected in the UNECE ministerial declaration.

  Electricity Consumption
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the most cost-effective ways in which(a) industry and commerce and (b) domestic consumers can reduce electricity consumption. [17429]
  470W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]We have carried out a wide range of detailed assessments of the most cost-effective options for saving energy, including reducing electricity consumption in both the business (industry and commerce) and domestic sectors. This includes research, demonstration and case studies of energy efficient practices and technologies. The resultant information is provided to business sectors, the building industry, landlords and local authorities, as well as to individuals, via the Carbon Trust, the Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme www.energy-efficiency.gov.uk and through the Energy Saving Trust's Energy Efficiency Advice Centres www.est.org.uk.

  Examples of the best practice advice and assessments provided can be found on these websites.

  Waste Disposal
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will issue advice on the storage of waste refrigeration equipment before 1 January 2002. [24166]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department issued guidance on the storage of waste refrigeration equipment, prior to CFC extraction, at the beginning of December 2001.

  Home Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many homes have benefited from completed warm front scheme installations; how many homes are in the process of being assessed; how many people have been turned down for upgrading of their heating; what the average wait is between application and installation; what has been the cost thus far to the public purse; and what assessment he has made of the efficiency of the EAGA partnership in delivering the scheme. [24951]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES), now marketed as The Warm Front Team, is administered by two scheme managers, TXU Warm Front Ltd. (responsible for the Eastern, East Midlands and Yorkshire and the Humber) and Eaga Partnership Ltd. (responsible for the rest of England).

  HEES provides households with packages of heating and insulation measures tailored to their circumstances and property type. Where the householder is eligible and the property requires heating; then it is provided. The precise package is discussed and agreed between the householder and HEES surveyor.

  Number of homes completed or orders placed with the contractor (June 2000 to December 2001): 274,000

  Number of homes awaiting assessment: 56,000

  Number of homes where insulation-only measures provided or currently being assessed: 285,000

  Current average waiting time between application and installation: 71 days1

  Total cost of the scheme (June 2000 to December 2001): £193 million

  1 Measured from date of call with respect of telephone applications, from date of receipt in case of postal applications or from date of e-mail. There is usually a period of 1–8 weeks between the date of actual installation and the receipt of the invoice from installers.
  471W
  The introduction of the radically improved Home Energy Efficiency Scheme in June 2000 represented a difficult challenge for both scheme managers. The national shortage of gas heating engineers has led to severe delays in some areas in the installation and repair of central heating systems. Both scheme managers have worked hard to recruit installers and to improve the quality of service provided to householders. The Department continues to maintain a close watch on their performance.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what provision there is within the warm front schemes to allow the most vulnerable households who are in immediate danger of risking their health because of lack of heating to queue jump the waiting list for grants during the winter months; how many households were allowed to queue jump in each month since April 2000; and what plans she has to review the first-come, first-served system of Warm Front grants during the present review of the grants. [25355]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: The Government's main programme for tackling fuel poverty in the private sector in England is the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES). HEES is marketed as the Warm Front Team. Two scheme managers, Eaga Partnership Ltd. and TXU Warm Front Ltd. administer the scheme.

  HEES has been developed to help tackle the problem of fuel poverty, those who spend 10 per cent. or more of their income staying warm. Fuel poverty is caused by a combination of energy inefficient housing and low incomes. Certain people are particularly vulnerable to cold-related ill health—the old, families with children, the disabled and the long term sick. HEES is targeted at these priority households and all applicants are therefore treated equally.

  We have no intention of removing the current first-come approach. Any prioritising system would be complex to administer and likely to dissuade households from the scheme. Instead, we believe it is better to concentrate resources on reducing the time taken to install measures on all households.

  Packaging
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will exempt re-usable wood packaging from the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997. [25342]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: There are no grounds within the Directive or the UK Regulations for exempting any types or items of packaging from their scope.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the cost of compliance to the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 by the United Kingdom wood packaging industry in terms of the percentage of the industry's average profits in the last year. [25343]
  472W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: The recovery of wood packaging waste has only been required by the Regulations since 1 January 2000. No assessment has been made of the cost of compliance with the Regulations to the wood packaging industry.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 on the re-use of products in the United Kingdom wood packaging industry. [25344]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: The Government have made no assessment of the impact of the regulations on the re-use of products in the UK wood packaging industry.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the number of companies evading the producer responsibility obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997; and what plans the Environment Agency has to prevent this. [25345]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: The Regulations place a monitoring duty on the Environment Agency. The agency continues to trace businesses which should be subject to the packaging regulations and they have the powers to monitor businesses which they believe should be subject to the regulations. It is impossible to estimate the number of businesses that might still be evading their producer responsibility obligations. However, comparison of the data derived from obligated businesses with estimates derived from materials organisations and making allowance for businesses outside the scope of the regulations because they do not satisfy turnover and packaging tonnage threshold limits, the amount of packaging not accounted for is probably less than 2 per cent. of the total. The Environment Agency's compliance plan for 2001–02 has provision to check on more than 2,000 businesses and the agency is on schedule to fulfil that commitment. The number of registrations under the regulations (which includes individual businesses and groups of companies) has continued to rise, from 5,451 at the end of 2000 to 5,629 now.

  Agency enforcement is steadily improving. There were 38 prosecutions in 2001 (a total of 72 since the start of the agency's enforcement programme in 1998). Fines are on average higher, with fines totalling £152,350 (average £4,000) in 2001, compared to only £63,878 (average £2,060) in 2000 in 31 cases. The highest fine last year reached £25,000. As fines increase, so does their deterrent effect.

  Bird Populations
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the percentage changes in British bird populations in the last three years, broken down by county. [26201]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's Quality of Life Counts indicator of wild birds uses an index of UK bird populations set at 100 for 1970. The values of the index for the last three years are presented in the table for all 105 bird species included. The index increased by
  473W
  3 per cent. in 1999 and by a further 4 per cent. in 2000. Further information on these statistics is published in the DEFRA News Release No. 303/01.

  The Department has also commissioned research from the British Trust for Ornithology and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to develop indicators of bird populations for England and Government Office regions. The indicators will show the percentage change in bird populations in the last 30 years. The results are expected to be published in the spring and a copy of the report will be placed in the Library of the House. Information on changes in bird populations for individual counties is not held centrally.

  Bird population index

  All birds

  1998

  100

  1999

  103

  2000

  107

  Compost Bins
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those local authorities which provide compost bins(a) free of change and (b) on payment to households in their areas; and if she will make a statement. [27145]

  Mr. Meacher
  Information from the 1999–2000 Municipal Waste Management Survey shows that 17 local authorities in England distributed home composting bins to households free of charge during 1999–2000.235 local authorities in England either charged some or all of their households for this service. The remaining 102 authorities either did not distribute compost bins during 1999–2000 or did not provide information.

  Authorities that distributed home compost bins free of charge in 1999–2000: 17

  Carrick District Council

  Eastleigh Borough Council

  Forest of Dean District Council

  Hounslow LB

  Kingston-upon-Thames LB

  Mendip District Council

  Merton LB

  North Cornwall District Council

  North Shropshire District Council

  Pendle Borough Council

  Restorml Borough Council

  Shepway District Council

  South Tyneside MBC

  Sutton LB

  Test Valley Borough Council

  Three Rivers District Council

  Trafford MBC

  Authorities that made a charge to households for some, or all, compost bins in 1999–2000: 235

  Adur District Council

  Allerdale Borough Council

  Amber Valley Borough Council

  474W

  Arun District Council

  Ashfield District Council Aylesbury Vale District Council

  Babergh District Council Barnet LB

  Barnsley MBC

  Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council

  Basildon District Council

  Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

  Bassetlaw District Council

  Bath and North East Somerset Council

  Bedford Borough Council

  Bexley LB

  Birmingham City Council

  Blaby District Council

  Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council

  Blackpool Borough Council

  Blyth Valley Borough Council

  Boston Borough Council

  Bournemouth Borough Council

  Brackness Forest Borough Council

  Bradford City MDC

  Braintree District Council

  Breckland Borough Council

  Brent LB

  Brentwood Borough Council

  Brighton and Hove Council

  Bristol City Council

  Broadland District Council

  Bromley LB

  Bromsgrove District Council

  Broxbourne Borough Council

  Broxtowe Borough Council

  Burnley Borough Council

  Bury MBC

  Calderdale MBC

  Camden LB

  Caradon District Council

  Carlisle City Council

  Castle Point Borough Council

  Charnwood Borough Council

  Chelmsford Borough Council

  Cherwell District Council

  Chester City Council

  Chesterfield Borough Council

  Chester-Le-Street District Council

  Chichester District Council

  Chiltern District Council

  Chorley Borough Council

  Christchurch Borough Council

  Colchester Borough Council

  Congleton Borough Council

  Cotswold District Council

  Coventry City Council

  Crawley Borough Council

  Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council

  Dacorum Borough Council

  Daventry District Council

  Derbyshire Dales District Council

  Derwentside District Council

  475W

  Doncaster MBC

  Dover District Council

  Durham City Council

  East Cambridgeshire District Council

  East Devon District Council

  East Hertfordshire District Council

  East Lindsey District Council

  East Northamptonshire Council

  Eastbourne Borough Council

  Eden District Council

  Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Council

  Elmbridge Borough Council

  Enfield LB

  Epping Forest Borough Council

  Epsom and Ewell Borough Council

  Fareham Borough Council

  Fenland District Council

  Forest Heath District Council

  Fylde Borough Council

  Gateshead MBC

  Gedling Borough Council

  Gloucester City Council

  Gosport Borough Council

  Gravesham Borough Council

  Gravesham Borough Council

  Greenwich LB

  Guildford Borough Council

  Halton Borough Council

  Hambleton District Council

  Harborough District Council

  Haringey LB

  Harlow District Council

  Harrow LB

  Hart District Council

  Hastings Borough Council

  Havant Borough Council

  Hertsmere Borough Council

  High Peak Borough Council

  Hillingdon LB

  Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council

  Horsham District Council

  Huntingdonshire District Council

  Hyndburn Borough Council

  Isle of Wight Council

  Islington LB

  Kennet District Council

  Kensington and Chelsea London Borough

  Kerrier District Council

  Kettering Borough Council

  Kirklees MBC

  Knowsley MBC

  Leeds City Council MBC

  Leicester City Council

  Lewes District Council

  Lichfield District Council

  Luton Borough Council

  Macclesfield Borough Council

  Maidstone Borough Council

  Maldon District Council

  Malvern Hills District Council

  476W

  Manchester City Council MBC

  Mansfield District Council

  Medway Borough Council

  Melton Borough Council

  Mid Bedfordshire District Council

  Mid Devon District Council

  Mid Suffolk District Council

  Mid Sussex District Council

  Milton Keynes Council

  Mole Valley District Council

  New Forest District Council

  Newark and Sherwood District Council

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council MBC

  North Devon District Council

  North East Derbyshire District Council

  North East Lincolnshire Council

  North Lincolnshire Council

  North Norfolk District Council

  North Somerset Council

  North Tyneside Council

  North Warwickshire Borough Council

  North West Leicestershire District Council

  Northampton Borough Council

  Norwich City Council

  Nottingham City Council

  Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council

  Oxford City Council

  Penwith District Council

  Peterborough City Council

  Plymouth City Council

  Preston Borough Council

  Reading Borough Council

  Redbridge LB

  Rochdale MBC

  Rochford District Council

  Rother District Council

  Rotherham MBC

  Rugby Borough Council

  Runnymede Borough Council

  Rushcliffe Borough Council

  Ryedale District Council

  Salford City Council

  MBC Sedgefield Borough

  Council Sedgemoor District

  Council Sefton MBC

  Sevenoaks District Council

  Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council

  Slough Borough Council

  Solihull MBC

  South Bedfordshire District Council

  South Cambridgeshire District Council

  South Gloucestershire Council

  South Hams District Council

  South Holland District Council

  South Kesteven District Council

  South Lakeland District Council

  South Norfolk Council

  South Northamptonshire District Council

  South Oxfordshire District Council

  South Shropshire District Council

  477W

  South Somerset District Council

  Southend-on-Sea Borough Council

  Southwark LB

  Spelthorne Borough Council

  St. Albans City and District Council

  St. Helens MBC

  Stafford Borough Council

  Stevenage Borough Council

  Stockport MBC

  Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

  Stroud District Council

  Suffolk Coastal District Council

  Sunderland City Council

  Surrey Heath Borough Council

  Swale Borough Council

  Swindon Borough Council

  Tameside MBC

  Tamworth Borough Council

  Tandridge District Council

  Teignbridge District Council

  Telford and Wrekin Council

  Tendring District Council

  Tewkesbury Borough Council

  Thurrock Council

  Tonbridge and Mailing Borough Council

  Torbay Council

  Torridge District Council

  Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

  Vale of White Horse District Council

  Vale Royal Borough Council

  Waltham Forest LB

  Wandsworth LB

  Warrington Borough Council

  Watford Borough Council

  Waveney District Council

  Waverley Borough Council

  Wealden District Council

  Wellingborough Borough Council

  West Devon Borough Council

  West Lancashire District Council

  West Lindsey District Council

  West Oxfordshire District Council

  West Wiltshire District Council

  Westminster City Council

  Wigan MBC

  Winchester City Council

  Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Council

  Wirral MBC

  Wokingham Council

  Worthing Borough Council

  Wychavon District Council

  Wycombe District Council

  Wyre Borough Council.

  Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what estimates she has made of the cost to(a) public funds
  478W
  and (b) land managers of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Uncultivated Land and Semi-Natural Areas) (England) Regulations 2001; [27140]

  (2) what consultations were undertaken, with whom, prior to the laying before Parliament of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Uncultivated Land and Semi-Natural Areas) (England) Regulations 2001. [27138]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: The cost to public funds and land managers cannot be estimated accurately without knowing in advance the number of projects subject to EIA. As part of the Regulatory Impact Assessment, it was estimated that the cost to DEFRA might be in the region of £0.1 to £0.2 million per annum. Costs to land managers will vary depending on the nature, size and potential impacts of the project and whether any changes need to be made in the light of the assessment. As an illustration it was calculated that the costs arising from 100 projects subject to an application, of which 10 led to preparation of an Environmental Statement prepared by a consultant, could be around £20,000 to £28,000.

  Two formal consultations were carried out in 2001; the first in May on the options for implementation elicited 42 responses; the second in September, with detailed proposals, received 32 responses. Respondents included statutory agencies (English Nature, English Heritage, Environment Agency and Countryside Agency) and bodies representing environmental and historic interests and the farming industry.

  Carcase Burial
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her decision to apply for planning permission for the mass burial of animal carcases at Great Orton. [27137]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: The mass burial site at Great Orton is Crown property and, as such, planning permission was not required for its use. However, to fall in line with best practice DEFRA applied for a retrospective Notice of Proposed Development and Environmental Statement on 4 December 2001.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the age and status are of children in a household for that household to be deemed vulnerable under the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy; and how many such households with children there are in(a) private sector housing and (b) public sector housing in England; [26425]

  (2) what age a person must be for their household to be classified as vulnerable under the fuel poverty definition; and how many such households there are in (a) private sector housing and (b) public sector housing in England. [26424]

  Mr. Meacher
  Householders aged 60 years or more, families with children under 16 and those that are disabled or suffering from a long-term illness are all regarded as being particularly vulnerable to cold-related ill-health.
  479W
  The number of fuel poor households in England in 1998 is set out in Table 4.1 of the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy. This shows that out of the 2.7 million vulnerable households in fuel poverty in England in 1998, 2 million were in private sector housing and 0.7 million in social housing.

  Chart 4.2 of the strategy shows that in 1998, some 14 per cent. or half a million fuel poor households had a child under 16. It is not possible to estimate the breakdown of this between different housing tenures.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many regulatory impact assessments have been produced by his Department since August 2001; and if he will list those produced(a) following initial consultation with affected parties about the most appropriate methodology for assessing costs and other impacts and (b) which set out full commercial impacts, including profitability, employment, consumer prices and competitiveness, as recommended in Good Policy Making. [28397]

  Mr. Leslie
  Full regulatory impact assessments are placed in the House Libraries.

  The Good Policy Making Guide recommends that policy makers take early soundings from affected parties. The results of these informal consultations are not required to be produced in a RIA at this stage. However, Departments are advised to include a partial RIA in formal consultations. Consultations can be accessed via www.ukonline.gov.uk/citizenspace/consultations/.

  The Good Policy Making Guide does recommend that as part of the RIA' s assessment of costs and benefits, any additional costs and indirect costs should be identified and quantified stating who or what bears them.

  There is no specific requirement in the Good Policy Making Guide to consult on appropriate methodology, nor is there a specific requirement to set out the information at (b). The information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

PRIME MINISTER

  Archbishop of Canterbury (Appointment)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister by what means bishops are asked whether they wish to be considered for appointment as Archbishop of Canterbury. [28179]

  The Prime Minister
  Any bishop in the Church of England, who is under the Church's age of retirement, is eligible to be considered. It is open to any bishop to indicate that he does not feel able to be called to this position.

  Civil Service Pay
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to increase civil service pay. [28085]
  480W
  The Prime Minister
  Responsibility for pay, outside the senior civil service, is delegated to Ministers and office holders in charge of Departments. Departments are required to operate their pay systems within public sector pay policy and in accordance with a framework set out by the Cabinet Office in the Civil Service Management Code. Annual pay negotiations are a matter for the Department or agency concerned.

  For information about senior civil service pay, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) on 10 January 2002, Official Report, column 993W.

  Energy Review
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of the Energy Review. [25562]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on 9 January 2002,Official Report, column 816W.

  James McLintock
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what representations he has made to the Government of Pakistan on the case of James A. McLintock; [28127]

  (2) whether he raised the case of James A. McLintock with the Government of Pakistan during his recent visit there. [28126]

  The Prime Minister
  I have not made any representations on this case.

  Staff at the British High Commission in Islamabad have had access to Mr. McLintock and are in consultation with the Pakistani Authorities about his situation. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office today at column 400W.

  Chief Surveillance Commissioner
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner appointed under section 91(1)(a) of the Police Act 1997 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement. [29077]

  The Prime Minister
  A copy of Sir Andrew Leggatt's report for 2000–01 is being laid before the House today in accordance with section 107(3) of the Police Act 1997 (as amended by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000). After consultation with the Chief Surveillance Commissioner material in an annexe to a report has been excluded from that copy under section 107(4) of the Act because its publication would be prejudicial to the prevention or detection of serious crime.

  For the first time the annual report covers Part II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

  I am most grateful to Sir Andrew and his colleagues for the work which has gone into preparing it.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) how many magistrates courts have closed in(a) England and Wales and (b) Yorkshire or Yorkshire and Humber since 1972; [27368]

  (2 how many magistrates courts have been closed in (a) England and Wales and (b) Yorkshire and Humberside in (i) the last 30 years, (ii) the last 20 years, (iii) the last 10 years and (iv) the last five years; [27472]

  (3) how many magistrates courts have been closed in (a) England and Wales and (b) Yorkshire and Yorkshire and Humber between (i) 1979 and 1983, (ii) 1983 and 1987, (iii) 1987 and 1992, (iv) 1992 and 1997 and (v) 1997 and 2001. [27406]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor's Department assumed responsibility for the magistrates courts in 1993, and conducted the first annual survey of courthouses in September 1995. Records do not exist for earlier periods.

  In England and Wales as a whole, seven magistrates courthouses closed between September 1995 and the end of 1995, 20 closed in 1996, 22 closed in 1997, 24 closed in 1998, eight closed in 1999, 13 closed in 2000, and 21 closed in 2001.

  During this period, the only closure in Yorkshire and Humberside was at Keighley in April 2000. This was associated with the enlargement of Bingley courthouse in the same Petty Sessional Area.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average distance travelled by an accused person attending trial at a magistrates court over the last 12 months. [27372]

  Mr. Wills
  This information is not held by the Department and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) magistrates clerks and (b) people were employed in magistrates courts in each of the last 25 years. [27369]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor's Department assumed responsibility for the magistrates courts in 1993, and conducted the first annual survey of staffing in March 1994. Records do not exist centrally for earlier periods.

  The information on the full-time equivalent number of justices clerks and all staff is in the table.

  Justices clerks

  Total staff including Justices clerks

  1994

  214

  11,022

  1995

  204

  11,015

  1996

  156

  10,819

  1997

  145

  10,720

  1998

  1881

  10,795

  1999

  1661

  10,570

  2000

  1411

  10,393

  2001

  1221

  9,774

  1 Includes Justices' Chief Executives appointed in a dual capacity

  Source:

  Magistrates Courts Division Ethnic and Gender surveys.

  Marriage and Relationship Support Programme
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much has been requested in grants from the Lord Chancellor's Department's marriage and relationship support programme for 2002–03; and how many organisations have submitted applications for grants. [27200]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor's Department received requests for a total of £9,370,556, from 69 different organisations.

  Pension Sharing Orders
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many pension sharing orders have been made to date. [27671]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Pension sharing came into force on 1 December 2000. My Department has been monitoring orders made in the courts and is aware of 133 orders that have been made to date in England and Wales. Six orders have been made in Northern Ireland. I understand that there is no record of any orders having been made by the courts in Scotland, however pension sharing by agreement is possible in Scotland and six such agreements have been recorded.

  Judges
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many judges he has admonished for falling asleep on the bench in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [27149]

  Mr. Wills
  None—according to records held by the Lord Chancellor's Department's Judicial Correspondence Unit.

  Departmental Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what estimate her Department has made of the cost to its budget since 1 May 1997 of fraud; and if she will make a statement. [27307]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chanellor's Department incurred the following costs to its budget since 1 May 1997 as a result of fraud:

  Financial year

  £

  1997–98

  4,838.52

  1998–99

  59,079.02

  1999–2000

  11,847.49

  2000–01

  91,214.39

  Total

  166,979.42

  Figures for the current financial year are not yet available.

  Departmental Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if she will commission and
  483W
  publish an independent report on the reasons for the level of sickness absence in her Department. [26966]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, on 14 January 2002,Official Report, column 37W.
  484W
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is committed to managing sickness absence effectively. A great deal of work has been undertaken to raise awareness of our Service Delivery Agreement targets and of the need to manage attendance in accordance with best practice policies.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

Sudan
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the situation in Sudan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, we remain focused on the situation in Sudan and are committed to helping find a peaceful solution to the conflict. Indeed, peace was at the top of the agenda for the visit of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development to Sudan last week. We are also working closely with the US special envoy to help to achieve progress on the humanitarian front.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but I fear that it sounds unduly complacent. Is the noble Baroness aware that just in recent days the Government of Sudan have unilaterally violated the ceasefire in the Nuba Mountains and have continued to bomb civilian targets in Bahr-El-Ghazal on 6th January, Eastern Equatoria on 10th January and have used helicopter gunships to attack aid workers? Can the noble Baroness give any more substantive evidence of positive outcomes of the British Government's policy of critical dialogue with a regime which continues to slaughter its people, Muslims, traditional believers as well as Christians, and is a strong supporter of the Al'Qaeda movement, international terrorism and the training of international terrorists?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that we are complacent. We have made it absolutely clear to the Government of Sudan that the bombing of civilians and aid workers is unacceptable. The noble Baroness will know that we have criticised the Government of Sudan, both bilaterally and in multilateral fora such as the UN. We continue with the EU/Sudan dialogue. It was agreed at the end of last year that there would be an intensification of that dialogue and that there would be joint regular assessments on the progress of democracy, human rights and peace. Finally, as regards the noble Baroness's point on terrorism, there is no evidence to suggest that Sudan is a state sponsor of terrorism.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, does the Minister recall the reply given in February last year to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on the issues of abduction, slavery and forced labour? Has she had a
1178
chance to look at the reports compiled by Anti-Slavery International and by the International Labour Organisation which state that up to 14,000 people are still detained and that the Sudanese Government have taken no action to ensure that any of those people will be released or that any measures will be taken against those who are responsible? As groups such as the Dinka minority have been particularly affected, can the noble Baroness tell us what progress is being made on those matters?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that we have seen some progress in terms of the work of the Committee for the Eradication of the Abduction of Women arid Children. In addition, we have seen some moderation in terms of the activity of the police and the security services. Progress is slow but our strong view remains that we must work for a peaceful solution to the conflict in Sudan. When my right honourable friend Clare Short visited Sudan last week she met the key parties engaged in the conflict. We impressed on all of the parties the importance of working towards a peaceful solution. We consistently make our position clear with respect to abuses of human rights and other abuses.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say anything about the bombing of civilian areas in November last year and whether that has been raised either at the IGAD talks which resumed on 12th January or through the European Union bilateral dialogue with Sudan? In that connection, can the noble Baroness say whether representations have been made to the Government of Sudan in the EU dialogue against the use of cruel and unusual punishments such as, for example, the woman who was sentenced to death by flogging for the so-called crime of adultery?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can confirm that we have raised those issues with the Government of Sudan either bilaterally or through the EU/Sudan dialogue. We raised the case that the noble Lord mentioned very recently.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, is the Minister aware that two months ago the special rapporteur on Sudan stated that the human rights situation had worsened further during the past month? Does that not show that the present policy of constructive engagement is not working and that it is now time for stronger action?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox; namely, that we have seen some shift in the position as a result of the constructive dialogue. Abuses undoubtedly occur and I in no way claim that they do not. However, the promotion of human rights remains one of our priorities. We believe that there has been some progress on human rights and democratisation in the past year. The council of ministers—the equivalent of our Cabinet—is more broadly based. The Umma Party is back and operating as an opposition party.

1179
There are new newspapers permitting a freer expression of political debate and there is some moderation of police and security activity.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, in November last year the Sudanese regime assassinated a number of community leaders in the Nuba Mountains, including Judge Agostino El Nur Shamila, as the latest tactic in the regime's onslaught against the people of the Nuba Mountains, to whom reference has already been made. Will the Minister indicate what response Her Majesty's Government are planning to make to that and in particular are there any plans to help the Nuba people as they face hunger and deprivation?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I say to the right reverend Prelate that we are continuing to assess the needs of the population in the Nuba Mountains. We are working with the US special envoy in his efforts to achieve a humanitarian ceasefire in order to facilitate the delivery of aid. We also continue to make it clear to both sides that we expect parties to the conflict to live up to their obligations not to attack civilians. When my right honourable friend Clare Short was in Sudan last week, she stressed that point in her meeting with the Sudanese Defence Minister.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the visit of her right honourable friend gives some grounds for optimism, particularly for development in the south? Programmes may be under way, especially through non-governmental organisations.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can confirm that. I also think that the visit of my right honourable friend made it absolutely clear that the UK can operate in an objective way in this conflict. It was very helpful that she was able to meet all the key parties associated with the conflict and have productive meetings while she was in Sudan.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the internal war has already claimed at least 2 million dead and displaced more than 5 million people and that the Sudanese Government who are prosecuting the war are now reinforced through oil revenue, which enables them to invest in far more effective killing machines than they are currently using? Will she also confirm that the trial to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred, of Abok Alfa Akok, was conducted entirely in Arabic, a language of which she has no knowledge, and that no translator was provided for her?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, on the trial being conducted in Arabic, I am afraid that I cannot answer the noble Lord but I shall check on that fact and write to him. On the other points that he raised, we are talking about the longest-running civil war in Africa and the largest country in Africa. Yes, this conflict has
1180
claimed far too many lives. The noble Lord will be aware that we have pressed the Government of Sudan to ensure that the revenues that they receive from oil are put into development. We shall continue to do that.

Speed Cameras
3.16 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that motorists should be subject to random police speed checks.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the police have long been empowered to ascertain the speed of any vehicle travelling on the public highway. But the Government believe that enforcement activity should normally be targeted only at accident hotspots.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware of a report from the Commission for Integrated Transport which said that illegal and inappropriate speed kills 1,200 and seriously injures 100,000 people every year? The regulations to which he referred surely mean that where there is not a brightly painted yellow speed camera, motorists can speed with impunity. Are not the Government condoning yet more road deaths for fear of upsetting motorists?
Lord Rooker: No, my Lords, the exact opposite is the case. The fact is that cameras should be located at accident problem areas—accident hotspots. They should be highly visible to motorists and they should be properly signed in advance. The idea is to slow down the motorist in the targeted areas where accidents occur; it is not to catch motorists per se or to collect extra money for the Treasury. The aim is to make those roads in particular safer.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, how many county forces have signed up to self-financing roadside speed cameras, and are there any plans to make such a scheme compulsory?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the pilot scheme was run in eight areas of the country and is due to be rolled out all over the country. The idea is to place cameras only at accident problem areas. The money from fines should finance the cameras; it will be netted off. The cameras are highly visible and well signed. There is a plan to make the roads safer; it will apply in those areas where there are known problems. Cameras will not be placed on certain roads, such as motorways, which are the safest roads in the country.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the new published criteria for siting and signing are much higher than those applied by many counties?

1181
They are so high that it is impossible to site cameras in the accident areas to which he referred. They are simply too high.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not have any evidence about that. All the evidence shows that the cameras have been extremely successful. When questioned, 70 per cent of motorists agreed that having cameras at such accident hotspots is a very good idea. The scheme is not a fund-raising affair and I hope that there will not be any difficulties. When the new scheme is rolled out across the country it will work to criteria, save lives and prevent accidents in the first place without being seen simply to penalise motorists.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very intelligent response to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. However, following on from the question raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, in relation to the introduction of self-financing, or self-funding, cameras by police forces, is this another case of creeping hypothecation?
Lord Rooker: No, my Lords. I believe that motorists and others have always complained that the fines go to the Treasury and that they are therefore simply intended to raise revenue. It is not the function of this programme to raise money for the Treasury. Through co-operation with magistrates and following a decision on where accident hotspots are located, the scheme is used initially to finance the cost of installing the cameras. If the cameras operate automatically, that will save police time and allow the police to do the job that they should be doing—that is, keeping our streets, our homes and our workplaces safe. At the same time, it will make the roads at those locations even safer.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, given the ever-increasing volume of traffic and the inadequacies of the national road network, does the noble Lord agree that the number of road accidents is remarkably low and that the beleaguered British motorist deserves to be congratulated rather than subjected to more interference from the nanny state?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not accept that. Motorists can become extremely angry. One once said to me that he considered the most unsafe car on the motorway to be a police car patrolling at 69 miles per hour because, as those of us who use the roads see, that causes bunching. Statistically, motorways are the safest roads in the country. The motorist is not beleaguered. We are trying to save motorists' and pedestrians' lives and, indeed, we are doing so in a targeted way. No surreptitious photography takes place. The cameras will be highly visible and they will be well signposted in advance so that motorists can slow down. That is part of the issue. If they do not slow down, they will be photographed and subsequently prosecuted.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that, although we have a very good record on
1182
road safety, our record on child pedestrian casualties is not one about which we should be complacent? I endorse absolutely the Government's priority in focusing cameras on areas with particularly high accident rates. But is it not essential to avoid diluting the overall message that excessive speed at any place can be extremely dangerous? That is why we need the types of advertising campaign being run at present.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Excessive speed on the road is a greater factor in respect of accidents than any other, including drink-driving. Some people believe that it is safer to drive at night because traffic travels at a greater speed, but all the other factors mitigate against that. Perhaps I may mention to the House the number of speed limit offences that have occurred over the past five years. In 1996, there were just over three-quarters of a million; in 2000, there were one-and-a-quarter million. There is a problem. We are trying to address it in a targeted way that is in the interests of everyone concerned.

Patient Care: Medicines Management
3.23 p.m.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they respond to the increased deaths and £500 million costs highlighted in the Audit Commission's report A Spoonful of Sugar.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we take this matter very seriously. The safe and effective use of medicines is an important issue for NHS trusts. Our controls assurance standards and the medicines management performance framework highlight the central role of hospital pharmacists in delivering this vital element of patient care.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, will he say what information the Government collect on the incidence of medication error at the level of individual trusts? Will he say, in particular, whether the Government award star ratings, autonomy and possibly even the new-fangled foundation status to trusts without knowing whether those trusts have an acceptably low incidence of medication error?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are very keen to ensure that information per trust is collected routinely, that it is robust and that it is, indeed, taken into account in future assessments of the performance of individual NHS trusts. In addition, the National Patient Safety Agency, which commenced work some six or so months ago, has set up a national authority to which NHS trusts can report on safety issues and near-misses. That will enable us to quantify the problem far better, which in itself will lead to action to reduce its incidence.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the report highlights the importance of prescribing skills and

1183
knowledge. Therefore, what on earth induced the department to terminate the funding for the Prescribers' Journal, leading to its closure, when it was such a valuable tool for prescribers?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my experience of the pharmaceutical and committee pharmaceutical network is that there is no shortage of information, advice and journals. The noble Lord will know that the training course for pharmacists was extended by one year to four years. We are also concerned that doctors should receive the appropriate training in this area, both in their undergraduate training and induction training in hospitals.
Earl Howe: My Lords, has the Minister read the section of the report that deals with automated dispensing? If he has, will the Government consider the merits of commissioning jointly with the Welsh National Assembly a national specification for robotic dispensing?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as ever, we stand ready to work in partnership with the Welsh Assembly. We are considering the recommendations of the Audit Commission on automated dispensary systems and shall bring forward our decision in due course. I certainly understand the potential of such dispensing. It is in its infancy in this country but we shall give it serious consideration.

Northern Ireland
3.26 p.m.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran asked Her Majesty's Government:
When and how they intend to address the increasing levels of lawlessness in Northern Ireland.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the level of lawlessness in Northern Ireland is the legacy of its violent past. The Government continue to provide the resources necessary to protect the vulnerable and bring the perpetrators to justice. They are moving to cut off the sources of funding of the criminal organisations and are joining forces with the devolved Administration to tackle the underlying social and economic issues.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for that Answer. But is he aware that morale in the police force is at an all-time low, especially among those who are out in the streets on the ground? Furthermore, is he aware that within the Province drug dealers and paramilitary gangsters are operating with complete immunity? As a result, the whole population is losing confidence in its police force. How and when do the Government propose to address this very dangerous issue?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, obviously when there are changes to any sort of institutional
1184
organisation, there will be difficulties of morale. I do not accept that drug dealers and armed criminals are operating with impunity. But as the noble Lord—I say this with great respect to him—knows a good deal better than I do, unless a police force in any society has the whole-hearted support of all sections of the community, it is exceptionally difficult to gain the intelligence and thereby the evidence successfully to prosecute people. I do not and cannot underestimate the seriousness of what the noble Lord says.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord give any comfort to citizens of the Province—public-sector workers, including teachers and postal workers, and Marks and Spencer workers—who have been threatened? What comfort can he give to such people who have been targeted by the paramilitary groups?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, a significant comfort on which I should seek to draw is the virtually unanimous revulsion and criticism expressed across all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. In fact, I believe that that has had an effect. Following the monstrous murder of Mr McColgan, aged 20, when on his way to work, there has been a significant and, I believe, heartening response from the public which has brought the Red Hand Defenders—whoever they claim to be—to disband themselves. Personally I regard it as offensive that they should take upon themselves that role. But I believe that the community generally—it will be shown by demonstrations tomorrow—is adamant that such action will not be tolerated.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, given the disbandment of effective policing, which has seriously weakened law enforcement throughout Northern Ireland, will Her Majesty's Government keep their promise to take no risks with security, and increase troop levels despite the regrettable overstretch of the Army?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course we take our promise seriously. The police grant for the current financial year was £656.8 million. A grant of a further £10 million was given to meet particular pressures. The GOC currently has 14 battalions under his command and 14,480 personnel. No government can afford to take risks with security.
Lord Renton: My Lords, has not the time come for the Government and leaders in Northern Ireland to bring together the most prominent Protestants and Catholics in each community and point out that, if continued, the conflicts which have gone on for many years will do only harm and will not do anyone any good, so that those leaders can be prevailed upon to get together to plead with their people to bring peace?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that has been and is the Government's strategy. One way to do that, which has been successful so far in outcome, is to have

1185
an assembly in Northern Ireland. Representatives of Sinn Fein have been elected and are taking their part with representatives of different strands of unionism. One can offer dialogue. However, part of the curse of Northern Ireland—I say this cautiously—seems to he "what aboutery". In other words, no one will admit their own wrongdoing; they want always to talk about what everyone else has done.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I live in South Belfast. Does the Minister share my concerns about the continuing violence in South Belfast? Recently, an 86 year-old woman was attacked in her home. Further, will the Minister join with me in welcoming today's arrest of some 16 persons in direct response to the crime wave, and voice our hope that the police will continue their vigorous actions to ensure that the situation in South Belfast, which has been somewhat overshadowed by that in North Belfast, will be brought under control?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with the comments of the noble Lord. As he knows, I shall visit Northern Ireland today. I shall have the pleasure of meeting not only colleagues but others who work there. The truth, which cannot be sufficiently plainly addressed, is that violence of any sort for whatever motive cannot be justified. We have a duty to ensure that ordinary citizens in a civil society are able to look to the protection of the law. I recognise that in significant parts of Northern Ireland, people do not have that comfort.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, as regards the murder of the young postal worker, does the Minister agree that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions is unwise to consider taking national industrial action as a method of opposing such violence, as, like the so-called Ulster workers' strike, that could set a dangerous precedent in the industrial life of Northern Ireland?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as someone who does not live in Northern Ireland, I would be very reluctant indeed to say to people who have been appalled and truly horrified at the murder of that unfortunate young man that they should not want to demonstrate their abhorrence. His partner is 17, and they have a small baby. She is a widow at the age of 17. I wonder who can justify that?
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that last year the Government's own Northern Ireland committee produced plenty of evidence to show that the problem is not one of confidence in the police but the fear of a population under intimidation of going to the police, which is a different matter? When will we hear what action the Government are to take on the committee's report? I tabled a Question on 4th December, to which I have not received a reply. By chance, I discovered that the Government's response had been published on 17th December, which I have read. The only concrete proposal or comment is that the citizens
1186
advice bureau would be a splendid organisation to advise families in exile. I should like the Minister's comments on that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Baroness did not receive a reply. This is no sufficient explanation, but because of the Christmas period, the normal time for replying to your Lordships' Questions was not met. I am not sure that I accept her paraphrase as entirely as dismissively as she phrased it. What was said—I paraphrase perhaps more benevolently—was that there are organisations which exist to help people in times of trouble. One of those, which does extremely good work, is the citizens advice bureau. I would not wish to be a party to anything which diminishes the regard one has for its work.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that recently there has been some improvement—I do not want to sound too optimistic—in the situation at the Holy Cross School thanks to the active intervention by local politicians of all parties? Is that not the best model, with government encouragement, for reducing the level of violence and terrorism in parts of North and South Belfast?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree. Holy Cross Primary School, which is where small children go for the early part of their life's education, was closed last Thursday. It reopened on Friday but I do not think that that is cause for congratulation. It should not have been closed in the first place. Children of four and five should not have as their continuing memory of their first day at school the fact that they arc spat at, that bombs are thrown at them and that they are abused; for what—being children?
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what is being done to bring together young people of different faiths in Northern Ireland? What cultural activities are used, such as music and drama? What support is being given to sport such as football and cricket between Catholic and Protestant young people?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is a range of social initiatives. However, I do not believe that anyone in your Lordships' House should overlook the fact that while social initiatives of the sort mentioned by the noble Earl have their place, that is in the rather gloomy context of centuries of hatred.

Business of the House: Recess Dates
3.37 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the usual channels have come to an agreement about forthcoming recess dates. I am sure noble Lords will be glad to hear that I am now in a position to confirm that we shall have a break in February this year. I can

1187
announce not only the timing of that break but also the dates of the Easter and Whitsun recesses. As ever, all the dates are subject to the progress of business.
For the February break we shall rise at the end of business on Friday, 15th February, and return on Monday, 25th February. For Easter, we shall sit at 11 a.m. on Maundy Thursday, 28th March, and rise at the end of business that day. We shall return on Monday, 8th April. For Whitsun, we shall sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday, 30th May, and rise at the end of business. We shall return on Monday, 10th June. I have already been asked the dates of the summer and Christmas recesses. However, I am afraid that it is a little early to give those. I thank the usual channels for their co-operation, which has enabled me to make this announcement so far in advance.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, after the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms has given the House such a welcome present, it would seem entirely appropriate to wish him on behalf of these Benches, I am sure, of the whole House, and certainly of the usual channels, a very happy birthday.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, if the arithmetic is correct—I am not at all sure that it is—it is a significant birthday. More importantly, we wish him many happy returns both of this day and of these fits of generosity.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Just to show that the Chief Whip has a heart, I would have made the announcement even if today had not been my birthday.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
3.39 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Incorporation of provisions of the Treaty of Nice]:
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 1:
Page line 9, at beginning insert "Article 1 (other than paragraph 1, subsection 1, revising Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union),"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1, standing in my name and that of my noble friends, concerns the wish to revise Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union. Before dealing with the amendment I shall make one or two preliminary remarks. All noble Lords would agree that, since your Lordships addressed the Bill in Committee, the context in which we are debating these matters has moved on considerably. Many aspects of the scene in relation to the European Union, its development, its policies and activities and this country's relationship with its European neighbours have evolved and altered.
1188
That demonstrates a point made in Committee, and which will be made again on Report, that the Nice Treaty, which the Bill seeks to enshrine, was not made of lasting material. In many respects its foundations were ephemeral. It brings home a fact, which is dawning on many of those who want to see the best arrangements for the best kind of future European Union, that the kind of treaty-making exemplified at Nice is not necessarily the best way to proceed.
We know that enlargement rolls ahead. Those negotiations are very active. There are many difficulties but matters proceed, as some of us always said would happen, with or without ratification of the Nice Treaty. Indeed, we argued that if the treaty had been confined only to the mechanics required for aspects of enlargement, the whole thing would have gone much more smoothly. At present, it is stymied or blocked by the Irish referendum.
I turn to the amendment. In Committee, some of your Lordships indicated that they were not entirely satisfied with the issues raised when we discussed the revision of Article 7. I have therefore felt it right to bring forward the amendment. There were clearly some questions that your Lordships felt should have been answered which were not. Specifically—as your Lordships will recall—the amendment concerns new provisions offered in the Nice Treaty whereby, if there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a member state of the principles outlined in Article 6.1 of the treaty, then, acting by a fourth-fifths majority, the institutions of the European Union and the Council of Ministers may take certain actions and restrict the rights of member states.
Noble Lords will recall from the Committee stage that attention was focused particularly at the time on the Austrian problem which had arisen some time before with the moments in power of Mr Haider and his unacceptable and unattractive views. But the broader issue remains. To what extent should the central institutions of the European Union intervene in dealing with the principles and methods by which member states are governed. Should the European Union intervene as it sought to do with unhappy results in the case of Austria, or should these matters be dependent upon the democratic vigour and internal politics and internal rules and laws of the member states' democracies?
No one doubts that the principles outlined in Article 6.1 are those which should inform and guide every democratic structure and entity, including nation states, unions and any other alliance or club or group of people seeking a pattern of good governance. But the question hangs in the air: does the duty of enforcing this fall to the higher institutions of the European Union or does it fall to the nation states? Behind that there is another question raised by the Laeken declaration and since the Nice Treaty. Who has the legitimacy to assert that these principles must be enforced? Is it the member states with their elected governments and whatever solution or pattern those elected governments may throw up, or does the Union

1189
have some higher legitimacy somehow acquired from loftier levels and not from the fact that member states have signed treaties bringing it into being?
The authors of the Larken declaration clearly adhered to this higher theory. They stated:
"The European Union derives its legitimacy from the democratic values it projects, the aims it pursues and the powers and instruments it possesses".
Well, yes and no. The last part is correct. It is given powers and instruments by the member states. But the idea that its values and therefore its right to make judgments on member state countries and their internal affairs derives from something that it projects and the aims that it pursues is a completely false theory. There is no justification that one can think of for arriving at that view except a self-justification, which is wrong.
We have seen what has happened as a result of the policies enshrined in this article being pursued—the difficulties over Austria. Since then there have been suggestions—only suggestions I concede—from the Brussels authorities and from the presidency that Italy is in some way "under observation". Indeed, there were quite vehement personal attacks on Italian political leaders following the resignation of Mr Ruggiero—a general insinuation that in some way the dogma of Europe was being questioned and that therefore Italy was behaving badly and should watch out because otherwise along could come—if not the revised Article 7 because we have not yet ratified the treaty—the earlier versions of Article 7 to put Italy under pressure.
The view from these Benches is that a Union in which too much energy is expended by its members lecturing each other on how their internal affairs should be conducted will not be a very happy club at all. I could not resist a perhaps improper smile this morning when reading that we were receiving a lecture in this country from German Ministers about economic weakness unless we joined the euro. That is a question that I certainly do not want to raise now. But it seemed a rather inappropriate lecture to be delivered from a country which is going through considerable economic difficulties to the detriment of the whole European Union.
We believe that these powers are unnecessary. They are part of a broader trend and tendency which we shall be debating later. This has led to the current very strong pressures for two things; first, the full adoption of a charter of fundamental rights—not just basic rights like these, but a vast range of social priorities and rights which, important as they are, many of us believe belong to member states, and, secondly, the move now definitely afoot, to go to a constitution. We shall during this Report stage look closely at how these moves are being organised and the nature of the convention being set up to carry them forward.
We question whether the energies of the European Union, if it is concerned with greater democracy, should be directed in these ways to the member states. We feel that perhaps it might do better to concentrate on the severe democratic deficiencies in the current EU
1190
structure which are giving cause for enormous concern and raise the whole question of the legitimacy of the Union—a matter which has been raised by the Commission in its paper on future European governance. Again, that is a matter we shall come to later.
If the European Union institutions want to be in the business of improving democracy, we must turn to the Bible and suggest that there is a little too much in this article of a mote in thy brother's eye and not enough of considering the beam in thine own eye. It is in that spirit that I move the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, when I saw Amendments Nos. 1 to 14, I thought for a moment that it was a comprehension test for the House of Lords to prove that we were a good revising Chamber. It is notable that Amendments Nos. 1 to 14 give no indication of the subject matter, but, thanks to due diligence, I have cracked the code.
There is a serious question about all the amendments to Clause 1; that is, whether we can incorporate into the definition of "the Treaties" and "the Community Treaties" in the European Communities Act 1972 the parts of the Treaty of Nice that do not give rise to Community rights and obligations. I may come back to that point in respect of later amendments.
Amendment No. 1 would move Article 1 of the Treaty of Nice into Clause 1 of the Bill and then strike out again the provision relating to the possible determination by the European Council of a clear risk of a serious breach by a member state of the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. The amendment seems perverse, because the treaty, as it stands, provides that the Council may determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a member state, and, if that is determined, the Council can suspend some of the rights of the member state. That is quite harsh.
The effect of the addition, which is in the Treaty of Nice, is to soften the harshness already in the treaty, because the Council must now listen to the member state and may then determine that there is not a breach, but the risk of a breach. That does not trigger any suspension of rights. For that reason, there is a slight improvement in the Treaty of Nice, so I cannot support Amendment No. 1.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we had a long debate about the subject in Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said, things have moved on somewhat since then. There has been an election in Italy, and we have seen a reaction from certain elements in the European Union that suggests that the only acceptable result of an election is one that the European Union finds acceptable. I am not sure that that is democracy. It is even less democratic when worries are raised about matters that have not even been mentioned.

1191
It happened in exactly the same way in the case of Austria. Austria was warned not to do things that she did not propose to do. That seems to be putting the nation states, which are supposed to be the backbone of the European Union, under threat, if not blackmail. That is why the provisions are a serious undermining of the rights of the nation state and of accepted democratic norms. Therefore, I support the amendment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton. said, it is difficult to sort out exactly what one is doing when we discuss Bills relating to the European Union. In the amendments, we cannot set out what we mean to say, and, therefore, any members of the general public who might take the trouble to read our amendment paper will have absolutely no idea of the seriousness of the proposal.
Many people will say that fundamental rights are fundamental, but what is regarded as fundamental depends on who is in power. While a certain political doctrine is in the ascendancy in Europe, the fundamental rights will be acceptable to the group that holds that view throughout the Community, but what happens if that changes? If most European Union member states have Right-wing governments, and they decide that extreme Left-wing governments are not acceptable, what will happen? That is why it is absolutely essential that the basis of the European Union should be the nation states and the constitutions that govern them and, as in the case of many, including this country, have governed them for a long time.
This is a serious amendment. It is serious in more than one respect. There is a punishment for a country that is found to be offending: it will lose all its rights and privileges. That may be all right, but the trouble is that that country must keep on paying the cost. Although it loses its rights and privileges, it must still make a contribution to the running costs of the European Union. That is not fair either.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, referred to the article in today's newspapers saying that the Germans are saying that this country has no future without joining the euro. Of course, they can have an opinion, but, in many respects, that might be considered as gross interference in the affairs of a member state. I am not sure that that should be countenanced, especially as Germany has an interest in seeing that this country does not act independently. The Germans have intervened because they are jealous of the success that this country has enjoyed since 1992, when we left the exchange rate mechanism. Having got rid of their own financial and, probably, economic independence, they are afraid—now that they have had time to think—of having another country in the European Union that has not lost that independence and will still be able to act independently in respect of monetary policy, without inevitably being forced to accept the fiscal regime that is bound to follow economic and monetary union.
1192
The amendment is important. It raises great issues. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, will press it to a vote. I hope that he will, and, if he does, I shall be delighted to support it.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, can I be forgiven for expressing a little bafflement about the arguments used by the supporters of the amendment? My bafflement is caused by the fact that the Council of Europe, which has been in existence for over 50 years, has rather more extensive powers on this matter and has used them frequently. It has suspended a number of countries from the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe and from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. No one is suggesting that the Council of Europe is not an intergovernmental organisation, so I am a little baffled as to why this terrible incursion into the rights of nation states has suddenly been discovered in 2002, when it has existed since 1948 in another organisation.
My second point was made by my noble friend Lord Williamson. It is that part of the Treaty of Nice to which objection is made is a careful effort to ensure that the policy-making on the wing which occurred at the time of the Austrian election is not repeated. It is therefore an effort to systematise and make more objective the procedures which will be followed in any circumstances of that nature in the future. That is an act of wisdom and it would be unwise to try to strike it out.
Finally, as regards a certain amount of criticism flowing around the European Union between one government and another, I always thought that criticism and the ability to take it was one of the essences of democracy.
4 p.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, recall to my mind my early attendance at a meeting of the Council of Ministers at the Council of Europe when the rights of membership of the Greeks in the parliamentary assembly were withdrawn. That was back in the 1960s when I was a PPS. I remember my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf speaking most eloquently in support of the move for suspension and on that occasion doing so on behalf of the German government.
Be that as it may, I share the view expressed by the two noble Lords who have spoken from the Cross Benches. However, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has raised an issue of some importance to which we will want to return not in the ambit of the Bill but in the negotiations leading up to the constitutional settlements for which we look in 2004.
It may well be that the measure which is encompassed in the replacement to Article 7 does not, strictly speaking, flow from the necessities underlying the desire to facilitate effective enlargement. None the less, the Community has been faced with a present difficulty and in proposing the new Article 7 those who are seeking to reach agreement have sought—and have to some measure accomplished satisfactorily—to

1193
provide for due process. They have sought to consider an allegation that there has been a serious breach by a member state of the principles mentioned in Article 6.1 of such seriousness that it might give rise to the possibility of members, individually even if not collectively, contemplating the necessity or desirability of suspending certain of the rights deriving from the application of the treaty.
That seems to be an admirably pragmatic response and one which should have the support of Parliament.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I intervene only briefly. First, as regards the German intervention, my interpretation of the article in today's newspaper is exactly the opposite of that described by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. I swore that I read that the Germans were saying that they needed us in, and welcomed us in, as much as we needed them. It was not a one-sided view; it was very much a point of saying how welcome we were and how much the writer wished we had been a larger part of the process. Indeed, I believe that he expressed a view about there being space on the new currency so that Her Majesty's picture could appear prominently on it. In other words, I took it as a positive rather than an unwarranted interference in our way of life and in our democracy.
I have a logical point to make which has arisen previously and I would like to hear the view of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on it. I had understood the point to he that we have fairly stringent criteria, which we are about to apply to additional nations, as regards the conditions which must be met in order to join the Union. That is taken most seriously. The logical question arises—and it has troubled many of us whether we are pro or anti—is what happens if the internal governments and way of life of those countries change to the extent that if they were previously in that state they would not have gained entry. Rightly, member states are saying, "That is an interesting question and one that we ought to think of seriously".
We became involved in the Austrian case ad hoc and everyone has rightly recognised that that was wrong. Therefore, I support noble Lords who have said that this is a more gentle and generous way of enabling one to ask of countries, "What do you think you are up to in going against certain conditions which you met before you joined?". I would like the view of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on how he would approach the matter if he does not like my suggestion.
If other member states are not in a position even to query that with a view to taking action, I would like to hear from other noble Lords who support the amendment what they would do in those circumstances. Would they merely shrug if a particular member state moved in the direction of totalitarianism? I would hope not.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I want to express a puzzlement at what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I am sure that my puzzlement comes purely
1194
from ignorance, but I understood him to draw an analogy between the Council of Europe and the European Union.
I may be wrong, but surely the difference is that the Council of Europe, in comparison with the European Union and the Council of Ministers, is a talking shop and always was. To use an analogy which would be more familiar to the noble Lord than to me, the General Assembly of the United Nations is a talking shop whereas the Security Council of the United Nations has real powers of international law. I do not understand the point which the noble Lord has made.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, wants to reply—
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I would he happy—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thought that he could if he were asked a question.
It seems to me that the arguments of the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Tomlinson, fall into one of the categories of classic justification for the whole dreadful European saga. However, they have come in at the end of the saga and said, "Well, this was here anyway and bits of it were worse before. The Council of Europe is worse in its procedure than the European Council and therefore it is justified because two wrongs in the advancement of European unity always make a right.".
Perhaps I should remind your Lordships of the process which seems always to happen with new European initiatives which would be unpopular with the people of Europe were they revealed in their full horror at the start of their progress through the tortuous processes of the Treaty of Rome. One could apply that to the policy on social policy, for instance, and one could certainly apply it to corpus juris. Indeed, I have Answers from Ministers in your Lordships' House which confirm that process.
When a gang of academics, with the Commission somewhat secretly in attendance in the case of corpus juris in Spain, meets to discuss the new European legal order which is to be subtly and stealthily forced upon us, the first reaction is always to say, "Oh, no, the initiative does not exist. This is just the febrile imagination of lunatic Eurosceptics. Of course the European Community is not going to invent a social policy or a common legal area, corpus juris", and I could list many others. Therefore, the first thing is to say, "Oh, no, it does not exist". So we all go away and read the papers and scratch our heads and say, "Well, actually, it does exist and this is the proof of it".
The next stage from the Eurocrats is to say, "Well, yes, there is something going on in this area, but it does not mean anything like what you lunatic Eurosceptics say it means."

1195
When a policy has been developed a little further, we go back and say, "Well, actually, it does." The next response from Her Majesty's Government over many years seems to be along the lines of, "Well, yes, it does exist, but don't worry because Her Majesty's Government do not agree with it. Lots of our partners do not agree with it either. Of course it won't happen. Go away, relax and stop bothering us".
However, that creates a little difficulty because, as we know, all these initiatives are hatched in secret by the various sub-committees of the Council, the Committee of Permanent Representatives—COREPER—and all the paraphernalia of the stealthy law-making processes of the European Communities. As I have said, we are given to understand that Her Majesty's Government may not agree with this initiative. The same is true for the other members and so we may relax.
However, inevitably the thing moves forward. It is put to a vote in the Council in one form or another, or often we do not put it to a vote because we know that we are going to lose. The line then taken is always the same: "Well, Her Majesty's Government fought valiantly for this one. We have made enormous improvements to it and there is to be a time delay". The Minister concerned is always able to come back with the comment: "This won't come into force for three to five years". The palliative of the time delay is always offered in the cancerous progress of European legislation. Once again, we are supposed to relax.
Finally, the time delay expires and the wretched thing happens. It becomes law and this Parliament is powerless. Then, of course, we Eurosceptics jump up and down and say, "This has happened. It is an outrage". We are told, "Well, it's too late. Of course it has happened. You were warned. It is there and you have nothing more to say about it".
It seems to me that the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, and to some extent those of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, fall into this latter category.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I think that the element of caricature has become a little extreme. The point that I sought to make about the Council of Europe was that it is an intergovernmental organisation which long preceded the European Community. When it was set up it was given certain powers that related to the observation of human rights and democracy. The exercise of those powers has in some cases involved the suspension of a member from participation either in its Council of Ministers or in its parliamentary assembly—and, incidentally, in circumstances in which the member concerned still has to pay its subscription.
I think that those who are moving the amendment are making something of a meal of an element which has been a standing factor of European organisations, even of one whose founding father was no less than
1196
Sir Winston Churchill, who I do not believe had a great deal of difficulty in recognising the importance of the nation state.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. If he wants me to exonerate the situation in the European Council to some extent. I am quite happy to do so. After all, we are talking about the European Communities and the Council of Ministers here.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, are we not talking about a European Union, the deprivation of membership of which could in theory result in very serious steps against the country concerned, subjecting that country, for example, to tariff barriers which they had escaped as members. There are no comparative sanctions which could possibly apply as a result of someone having his membership of the Council of Europe taken away from him.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for making the point so much better than I could have done. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, pointed out, paragraph 3 of Article 7 states:
"The obligations of the Member State in question under this Treaty shall in any case continue to be binding on that state".
Thus they are stuck with the costs of the thing as well.
However, what I do not understand about the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson—I do apologise—I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Treaty of Nice is new. The whole thing is new. There is no doubt that we are moving into the area where the Council, acting with a four-fifths majority, may determine that there is a,
"clear risk of a serious breach".
Under the old Article 2, the Council had to act by unanimity on a proposal of one-third of the member states. There is no doubt that the thing is moving in the direction to which my noble friend Lord Howell objects.
I cannot see how anyone can advance the usual Europhile argument by saying, "Well, it is just as bad somewhere else. It has been here before and it was pretty awful. This really improves it". It does not do so. We are moving into an area where the Council can decide that there is a risk of something before it has happened. Whether it has any effect on the Austrian situation or, more recently, the Italian situation, I very much doubt. But I think that the attempt to give the Council these new powers is very regrettable and clearly anti-democratic.
4.15 p.m.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, in moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said that the context of our discussion on this matter has moved on considerably since the Committee stage. The European Union is founded on certain principles.

1197
Those principles include a common respect for fundamental human rights. In a continent which has seen so much division, so much conflict and so much strife in the past half century, the European Union has indeed been a beacon of stability, peace and respect for human rights.
Countries to our east have looked enviously at the rights enjoyed by individuals in the EU. We have rightly come to expect the highest standards of respect for human rights from all the EU member states. Our collective record adds weight to our efforts to see the same high standards observed elsewhere in the world. If the EU is to continue to provide a model of stability, we must ensure that others continue to have faith in our commitment to individual freedoms and, of course, to fundamental rights.
The ability to suspend the voting and other rights of a member state which does not live up to those expectations already exists in the treaties before Nice. After some of the contributions which have just been made to the debate, I rather feel that that point has been somewhat glossed over. It was introduced in the Treaty of Amsterdam. Nice does not change the procedures for action against any member state that has persistently breached human rights. What it does do is to introduce an early warning mechanism.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said that the article allowed the EU to intervene in what he termed a state's "internal affairs" on the grounds of speculation. If that statement really were an accurate reflection of what the Bill is trying to achieve, that would indeed give grounds for the unease which the noble Lord and some of his noble friends have expressed. I thought that that point was strongly reiterated in some of the contributions we have just heard.
Perhaps I may try to explain why I do not believe that that is an accurate position. First, there is no possibility of intervention in a state's internal affairs over and above what exists already. The treaty does not change the procedures agreed in the Amsterdam Treaty for suspending the rights of a member state which has seriously and persistently breached human rights. The noble Lord said that the EU would be intervening in an internal matter of a member state. However, there is no additionality in this treaty over and above what is already in the treaties that we have ratified. However, there is a new early warning system.
Perhaps I may also respectfully point out to the noble Lord that the suggestion that this is done on a speculative basis is also misconceived. After all, a speculation is an opinion which is formed without definite knowledge and without definite evidence, whereas the whole point of this procedure is to garner such knowledge and evidence and to investigate the possibility of a serious infringement of human rights before such breaches are committed—the better of course to prevent that happening again. So there are fundamental misconceptions about this article—some of which, sadly, we have heard repeated today by some noble Lords.
1198
It has been claimed that the article will be used to suspend the voting rights of those who do not share, for example, the same political vision, the same federal vision or the same left or right politics. Other noble Lords have implied that the article may be used to intervene in British politics and in some of the decisions that your Lordships and others further down the line will have to take in regard to other matters on the European agenda. But, I reiterate, this article relates solely to serious and persistent breaches of fundamental human rights. It cannot be used in the contexts described by some noble Lords. That is stated very clearly in the treaty—and the treaty would be the fundamental basis on which nations would proceed.
I repeat, a four-fifths majority must be obtained to establish the risk of a breach of human rights. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, implied that this was to establish a breach. That is not so. It is merely to establish the risk—and the risk in itself does not automatically lead to suspension. Not at all. There would still have to be a different decision based on the same unanimity minus one that we have already in the Amsterdam treaty. Of course these are exacting hurdles—so they should be—but it is perhaps a somewhat cavalier attitude to imply that the four-fifths majority would establish the breach.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I agree with the Minister about the four-fifths majority establishing the clear risk. That is what we are worried about. But it is a clear risk of a "serious" breach. There is nothing about a "serious or persistent" breach; it is a single serious breach. We should get that straight.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the wording in the previous treaty referred to "serious and persistent". I agree that this is about a "serious" breach. However, I reiterate, a four-fifths hurdle is quite considerable and there is no change at all in unanimity minus one when establishing the breach itself.
The Government believe very strongly that breaches of human rights cannot and should not be tolerated in the EU. The clause gives the strongest possible message not only to member states but to applicant member states and the outside world that we mean what we say on this issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, raised the question of Italy, an issue picked up by other noble Lords. There is no suggestion that human rights are being breached in Italy. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, went on to say that this was perhaps a question of left and right in politics. If that is a serious view held by some noble Lords, I am not sure that we have clearly understood what the article is about. The fact is that this has nothing to do with the political nature of any government—whether of the left or right—or with the subject matter under discussion, whether it be the euro, fiscal rectitude or whatever. This is about fundamental human rights.

1199
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, was worried about what would happen where there was a change in the nature of the government of a country after that country had acceded to the European Union and whether that might trigger any proceedings under this article. It would if the new government offended, and was seen to offend, against human rights. It is not a question of the politics of the government but of what the government do in relation to human rights.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, when we discussed Austria two years ago, my understanding was that a political decision was taken because a government-sharing party had been elected of which the member states did not approve because it was too right wing. That is the reason why Mr Haider was so harshly treated by his fellow Europeans, some of whom went around wearing anti-Haider buttons at meetings and so on.
Broness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is one thing to criticise a government one does not like; it is a quite different thing to move towards anything resembling a suspension of that government and that country from the EU. I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord that whatever happened two years ago in relation to Austria is not an issue for us here. What is in issue here is what would trigger a suspension. A suspension would be triggered not because of the political colour of a government and whether it was considered to be left or right, but only if such a government compromised fundamental human rights. That might be equally true of a government of the extreme left or a government of the extreme right. The politics are not at issue. What is at issue is the challenge to human rights—and that could happen to a government of any political colour.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked who decides whether there is such a breach. Article 7.2 sets out the procedure for establishing breaches of fundamental human rights by member states. This does refer to,
"a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the principles mentioned in Article 6.1."
The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, helpfully reminded us that Article 6.1 states:
"The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States".
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister referred to me and to some of my remarks. She will appreciate that Article 6.1 was in place when the Austrian people, on a 28 per cent vote, elected a party which then took a very junior part in the government. When that happened, outrage was expressed by the then presidency of the EU—I believe it was Portugal—and the attitude of various people in the Council changed. For example, the lady who was Foreign Minister—I cannot remember her name at the moment—was shunned and people refused to shake hands with the president of Austria. I believe that the European Parliament passed a resolution against
1200
Austria and things happened which worried many people throughout the European Union. That is why we are concerned to have a discussion about this particular provision in the treaty. I hope that the noble Baroness does not mind the House discussing it and probing it as far as we have.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, may I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that I have twice explicitly answered his exact point? Nothing will impede a country from criticising another country if that is what it wishes to do. The question at issue is whether such criticisms automatically put us on an inexorable, slippery slope to suspension through the treaty. The answer is no, it does not. Criticism of a government because you do not like some of their policies is a very different issue from proceeding to suspending a government from the European Union because of a fundamental breach of human rights. I cannot be more explicit. I am convinced of this and other noble Lords may be convinced of it, but I am afraid that the words do not exist in the English language to convince some noble Lords on that point.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, as happens often, although not invariably, the Minister has given the House some thoughts which I find illuminating and, to some extent, reassuring. Perhaps I may be permitted, under our rules, to comment briefly on one or two points which have arisen.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, shrewdly and characteristically, raised the question of the need for rules. I should say, as perhaps a not entirely valid but slightly valid counter argument, that if you have too many rules and mechanisms for deciding who you chuck out of the club, you may find that when the situation arises the mechanisms do not fit the situation. A classic example of that at the moment is the Commonwealth and Zimbabwe. If there were not such a rigid rule about who should be excluded from the Commonwealth, I have no doubt that we would have chucked out Zimbabwe long ago. But rules can be too tough as well as too loose.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has vast experience in these matters. He refers to the Council of Europe. Contrary to my noble friend Lord Marlesford, I think that it is more than a talking shop; it has been a fine citadel and influence for democratic rights and freedoms throughout Europe. But the more strongly one states that the more the question cries out to be asked: why on earth do we need to duplicate it yet again and create yet another institution? The treaty not only repeats that the body is embedded in these principles—that is fair enough—but it is then given powers not merely to criticise but, under certain circumstances and with safeguards, to take actions against those it has criticised.
I sometimes wonder whether in the minds of some people there is any end to the need to create new institutions and new powers to tell us how to run our affairs and discipline us if we do not. One can go too

1201
far on that front. Perhaps we are almost going too far in this case. That is why I believe that it is a legitimate matter for your Lordships to debate again.
I do not disguise that the amendment was moved in a spirit of inquiry and seeking assurance rather than a clash of will. I do not know whether the discussion has made the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, happy. He is sometimes hard to please as a number of people have found out. He is right when he says that it is a critical issue. However, even more critical issues for discussion on Report lie ahead. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, at beginning insert "Article 1 (other than paragraph 2, subsection 1, revising Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union),"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall address some of the amendments grouped with it. They involve the development of a common defence policy and the moving forward of what have been called European security and defence policy issues.
As in the general European context, a great deal has happened since we last discussed defence and security matters in Committee. It is right to take that into account in seeking to explain concerns about the Bill and to press amendments. However, neither a European security and defence policy nor a rapid reaction force has yet come into being. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said at the Dispatch Box only a few days ago, there is no RRF. Indeed, if reports in the newspapers are right, even the capabilities to make the RRF a reality have not been fully pledged and a third of them do not exist.
It is true that other aspects exist. The treaty adds the words "and security" to the title of the political committee. There is a military staff. I do not know whether the numbers are in the tens or hundreds; I believe that they are quite high. They have a new building but no troops. We have the old pattern of the ships and admirals: the fewer the ships the more admirals. In this case, that is carried to extreme. We have no RRF but we have a military planning staff, with papers and undertakings flying around and no doubt planning being undertaken.
In Committee, the noble Baroness said:
"There is a great deal of confusion about the issue of defence and the Nice treaty".—[Official Report, 15/11/01; col. 718.]
She is right. There is a great deal of confusion not only in the minds of politicians but of those who rush into print and write articles or declare themselves for or against various aspects of European development. The noble Baroness explained—she was right again—that the ESDP is not triggered by this treaty. The show was rolling already. Article 1 of the treaty gives encouragement to the progressive framing of a common defence policy and adds the words "and security" to the label of the standing Political and Security Committee.
1202
Our worries are ongoing and are further triggered by what is involved in the treaty and the Bill. Those worries are reinforced by what has happened since we discussed these matters and the saga of events leading up to the mobilising of the counter-terrorist campaign following the horrors of September 11th. At that point the presidency of the European Union wanted the ESDP, and perhaps the RRF, to come into being. The plea was that the RRF should become operational and get ready to go to Afghanistan. It was soon clear that that was a hopeless endeavour and a fantasy: that no such aim could be achieved. Nevertheless, it demonstrates the degree of confusion about whether and how the body will go forward. In parenthesis, I hope that noble Lords will forgive my slightly croaky voice. As have another 11 million people, I have had the standard cold which does not improve one's oratory.
We have had the remarkable mobilising of the grand coalition and the remarkable activities of the Prime at speed and gave some significant dinner parties to organise these events and give practicality to the security and defence aspects. Dinner parties are tremendous fun to give but they are dangerous. The people you do not ask are those who become a little concerned and sometimes hostile. That occurred with regard to the Prime Minister's dinner parties. Those who had not been invited became extremely critical. They asked why they were not involved in the defence and security arrangements being organised and in the alliances and coalitions being mobilised with such energy by our American friends, and the Prime Minister in London.
It demonstrates—it is hardly a lesson the Government need because they recognised that reality as they set out on their tasks—that in dealing with defence and security matters, whether in the European theatre or in the wider global context, the need is for what Mr Michael Ancram called in another place a layered response to the different aspects of a new security situation which may be full of complexities, as Afghanistan has proved to be, which require different arrangements. Heavy and arthritic institutions and elaborate systems and pyramids of organisation cannot deliver those at speed. The doctrine and philosophy lying behind the yearning for the autonomous army, as the French called it, or the European security and defence capability begin to look tattered.
The Times cannot necessarily be condemned as a newspaper always criticising European matters. However, on 3rd December it wrote a devastating editorial stating,
"At best, the ESDP is a military irrelevance; and it is unlikely that the EU's many hawks, doves and birds of indeterminate feather would agree what to do with it".
It continued:
"At worst, the ESDP will be a political disaster, an assertion of EU power to counter-balance the US that Washington might choose to test by reducing its commitment to Nato".
It added for good measure that the assigning of capabilities to the RRF was a,
"senseless mortgaging of Britain's military flexibility".

1203
Those are devastating criticisms. They accord very much with the feelings of some of us that many of the energies devoted to this whole exercise—both in the treaties (further encouraged in the Nice treaty) and now being carried forward in further speeches, arrangements, planning, papers and so on—are energies diverted from the real interests of the security of Europe and from its security capabilities in contributing to global peace and stability.
Yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, fairly justifiably asked this side of the House if it wanted a better disposition of defence and to avoid overstretch, where we would cut out capabilities. My small contribution—it would not make much difference in terms of hardware—is that, just for a start, we should spend less time in "senseless mortgaging" of our capabilities.
Perhaps we should let this whole RRF business fall back into the context (into which it will fall back in the end anyway) that its contribution to security and defence will be marginal and that it will detract to a considerable degree from the European security and defence which is necessary, which must be backed by greatly increased defence budgets throughout Europe and which should be closely integrated with NATO at all points, as the Americans have always argued, and as we on this side of the House have always argued. That would be much the best way forward.
If, in proposing this amendment, we can bring to the attention of the House the view of those of us who want a strong European defence, and a strong European support pillar of NATO, that some of these efforts and treaty intentions are a diversion from the main task—which is a very important one—the amendment will have served its purpose. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, many of us are aware that the whole idea of a European common defence policy has great dangers. I cannot accept with equanimity the new impetus given to it by the treaty in the amendments to Title V.
I do not subscribe to the view that the more we are integrated in Europe, the greater will be our influence abroad. The events following 11th September show how disastrous it would have been had there been in place a fully developed European defence policy, if, indeed, the wish of the German Chancellor had been fulfilled, and national sovereignty in foreign and security policy had finished up as no more than a product of the imagination—which is how he had described it in a speech shortly before the events of 11th September.
Europe is an essential part of the coalition against terrorism—the coalition so painstakingly and, I have to say, successfully put together. It was possible to put it together because states in Europe were able to respond in different ways and at different levels—some much more enthusiastically than others. When one thinks of all the different attitudes to the crisis that began with the events of 11th September, what chance
1204
would there have been of an EU which was responsible for defence and security giving the kind of support to the fight against terrorism that Britain has given? Italy condemned the whole idea of bombing right from the start. Ireland said that it was neutral and could take no part. Sweden was wringing its hands and saying that it could not do anything either. The whole idea fills one with a great deal of dismay. I repeat that if there had been a European common defence policy, there could not possibly have been the response to the events of 11th September which in fact took place.
The European defence policy has never been about creating an additional military resource available to the EU. Recently, certainly, it has been about the EU having a say in how existing forces are used, and particularly how our own forces are used. It is about our committing to a European force a substantial part—perhaps the larger part—of our operationally available fighting forces, and the risk of our gradually losing the power to use those forces without the approval of our European partners.
We should be looking not just at the immediate effect of what was agreed at Nice, but at the general direction in which we are going. There is reason to be worried. The real risk is that we shall gradually be drawn into a European defence policy which prevents our acting unilaterally in support of America or in our own interests. The point made by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch is particularly apt in relation to this amendment and when one considers this particular proposal. It is easy to look at the fine script and say, "What are you worrying about? We have a veto over this. We could deny them their wishes when they ask for a commitment of British troops". But the more we create a framework like this, the more we take on obligations, and the more difficult it is to resist the taking on of more obligations. I am very worried about the whole direction in which European defence policy is going. I repeat that we are jolly lucky that we did not have such a policy in place on 11th September.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in support of my noble friend's amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister to specify the new meaning of two provisions which were already in the treaty as agreed at Amsterdam—that is, they were not new at Nice—but which may be given a new meaning and impetus by what is new in the Nice treaty.
As my noble friend Lord Howell said, what used to be the Political Committee of the European Union, which judged and guided military and other interventions, is now the Political and Security Committee. There must be some significance in that.
More worrying are the new words, as I read them, in Article 25 of the Nice treaty:
"Within the scope of this Title, this Committee shall exercise"—
that is now the Political and Security Committee—
"under the responsibility of the Council, political control and strategic direction of crisis management operations".

1205
That seems to be a new departure and is clearly a big step forward, in terms of the powers of the military and other structures of the European Union, however useless they may eventually turn out to be. At present, we are dealing with the "European army"—as Mr Prodi so rightly insists on calling it—only in theory.
Bearing that development in mind, how does the Minister believe it will affect two clauses which, as I say, were already in the treaty? They are to be found in Article 17.2, which states:
"Questions referred to in this article should include humanitarian and rescue tasks"—
that is probably fair enough—and,
"peacekeeping tasks"—
I suppose so. Then there comes the phrase that we have queried before and which is now possibly more worrying given the departures to which I have just referred. It reads,
"and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking".
I wonder whether the Government can tell us, if not now, certainly at the final stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House, what the people who design these frightful treaties have in mind by saying "crisis management" and "peacemaking".
Perhaps I may refer the Minister to Article 17 paragraph 4. Again, this was largely dealt with in the Treaty of Amsterdam. It reads,
"The provisions of this Article shall not prevent the development of closer co-operation between two or more Member States on a bilateral level"—
Presumably, that means two of us can collaborate to do something—
"in the framework of the Western European Union and NATO",
which is new. Then there are the words which I really want to query in their new context:
"provided such co-operation does not run counter to or impede that provided for in this Title".
That is, co-operation between one or more of us to do something in this field. To many of us that seems to possibly restrict the activity of Her Majesty's Government quite considerably in view of the new parts of the treaty which I read out earlier. Such words would certainly appear to be capable of severely restricting our action in future if we meet an international situation which we might even wish to deal with on our own. That might run counter to or impede what the others have decided to do under Title V. Two or more of us might wish to take action. Under these provisions it appears that we are prevented from doing so. It would be very helpful to have a clear elucidation of what the treaty means in this regard.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I find it rather strange that noble Lords opposite keep praying in aid the American relationship and saying that all these matters are going to make our relationship with the United States more difficult. If that were the case, one would have thought that they would have said so, but they have not. They have said exactly the opposite. They have welcomed these arrangements.
1206
As regards what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has just said, I remind him that the commitment of national assets to any EU-led operations would be based on "sovereign national decisions". So what is the problem? I do not believe that it is good enough for noble Lords opposite to continually tell us that all of this undermines our relations with the United States and undermines NATO. If that were the case the United States would have said so and they have not.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I do not know whether I may reply to the noble Lord.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I cannot. I shall do so later.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I would like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that I am not speaking on behalf of my noble friend. But I do know the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, himself because he is often on his feet. I intervene briefly on these amendments because they are important, dealing with defence and security. Despite my earlier due diligence I do not intend to intervene on all the amendments that we are discussing at Report stage.
The amendments bring us back to the point which I mentioned before and which is set out very clearly in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill which state that,
"The new paragraph does not provide for those parts of the Treaty of Nice which concern co-operation in the sphere of foreign and security policy or police and judicial co-operation".
That is because they do not give rise to Community rights and obligations. So we have to be careful that we do not try to incorporate what is actually inter-governmental into treaties which deal with Community obligations.
Furthermore, in Amendment No. 10 there is a proposal to carry a "declaration" into the list of treaties under the European Communities Act. A declaration does not have treaty force and I believe it is bad law if not totally inadmissible because the other parties to the treaty would not recognise the declaration as having treaty force. I make that point, but as we are at Report stage we need to be a little careful about how we propose to legislate.
I now turn to the substance of the amendments. The principal effect of the amendments to Article 17 of the Treaty of European Union is to take out many references to the Western European Union. I do not see any difficulty about that. Time has moved on and we do not need those detailed points in the treaty any more.
It is true of a number of the amendments, but I shall take Amendment No. 3 as an example. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, will be absolutely delighted to learn that its effect is to take out something which was included in the treaty by the Treaty of Amsterdam. That is where it came from. We

1207
ratified that treaty not very long ago. The words which it is now proposed to exclude through Amendment No. 3 are absolutely identical to those we ratified as a result of the Treaty of Amsterdam. We are reversing a situation. I do not want to do that, although some might wish to. We need to be quite clear as to the effect of Amendment No. 3 which we are now discussing.
I have one other point. I am sometimes a little sad—a feeling which I believe is shared by other members of Select Committees—because we work a long time on some of these issues. There was a very extensive examination of the European security and defence policy and in particular the proposed rapid reaction force, known in specialised circles as the rapid reaction capability, I believe. We reported to the House in July 2000 and again in December of that year. We are about to report again to the House in a matter of weeks. So there has been an extremely thorough look at these issues.
Quite rightly, the committee had some reservations and I shared them. It wanted the defence policy to create capabilities to strengthen and not to rival the alliance, but, subject to certain reservations, it welcomed the initiatives which had been taken. There was a thorough examination. It has been discussed in the House. I believe that the development of policy, subject to some of those quite justified queries and reservations, seems to have been generally welcomed. I welcome it myself. I would not wish to have added to the Bill the amendments we are now discussing.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that we do not want to talk ourselves into a situation where European defence co-operation goes further than we want it to. But the problem for some of us is that, while we want desperately to believe the Government when they say that there is absolutely no question of building a European army or a European rapid reaction force, unfortunately other people in Europe of great stature and power are saying something rather different. They are saying that what is being constructed is a European army.
I wish that the noble Baroness would absolutely assure us that she is right and that all these other potentates in Europe are completely and utterly wrong; that there is no prospect of a European rapid reaction force being set up, nor a European army; that this is simply about European co-operation which will be under the control of the British Government and, in the ultimate case, the British Parliament; and furthermore that we have the troops and the resources to contribute to such a force anyway.
5 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was quite right to quote me from Committee stage when I said that there was a great deal of confusion about defence in the Nice treaty and indeed we have seen that demonstrated again here today.
1208
Let me start from his point about a rapid reaction force. That is not a standing force. It is a capability rather than a standing force. It is a capability which can be called upon. As the noble Lord almost implied in his remarks—and I hope he will forgive me if I put the point to him—there is no question of there being a group of service people—Army, Navy or Air Force—waiting somewhere to be called upon. It is a capability which can be produced from the member countries when it is decided that it is needed. The noble Lord said that it was not ready and waiting, but I would remind him that some 104 out of the 144 capabilities which were specified in the headline goal have now reached the point where they might be called upon.
The noble Lord of course was quite right to remind us that the arrangements for the European security and defence policy are not in the Treaty of Nice, and again he was right that a declaration attached to the treaty makes clear that the treaty does not need to come into force for the defence arrangements agreed by the EU member states to become operational. That is, I hope, common ground between us. I hope what is also common ground between us is the removal of references to the WEU in the treaty because they no longer reflect reality.
The other new element in the treaty is the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, referred, which is the reference to a new political and security committee which is already up and running and to which the Council will now be able to delegate the running of a crisis management operation. The committee is referred to in Article 25 and it is one of the lynchpins of the CFSP and the ESDP. It is a permanent committee of national officials based in Brussels. It is chaired by a representative of the Presidency and its role is to monitor issues that come within CFSP and then to make recommendations to the Council on action. It is also being charged with monitoring the implementation of policies already agreed and overseeing the work of the military committee, the committee for civilian aspects of civilian crisis management and various other working groups. I hope that that answers the points that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, raised.
From some of the points raised, not only by your Lordships but by others, it is hard to imagine that somewhere in the treaty there really is not an article which sets up a permanent euro army under the control of all sorts of people, including some foreign nationals, which either forces our Armed Forces into campaigns which we do not want to be in or refuses to allow us to participate in campaigns that we do want to be in.
The European security and defence policy is really about improving the military capabilities of European nations to conduct certain EU-led military operations. Let me reiterate, those operations are humanitarian; they are peacekeeping; they are crisis management; and they are operations in which NATO as a whole—that is, all NATO acting together—decides that it does not want to be engaged.

1209
The ESDP is making a real difference by obliging member states to consider their own capacity for action. That must be good for everybody who believes in strong defence. When I had the honour of being the Minister for Defence Procurement, on numerous occasions I received many complaints about the inability of our European partners to put their money where their mouth was over some military capability. This focuses them on precisely building up that capability. Of course member states have committed to overcoming the important shortfalls that have been identified—shortfalls that are discussed regularly in your Lordships' House—such as the shortfall in strategic airlift. The capabilities improvement conference in November was a further and critical step in that process.
One of the most common objections to ESDP is that there is somehow a confusion or a conflict in the command and control structures that we are setting up. There really are no rival military structures to NATO. We have said that, and to avoid any doubt that anything has changed, I repeat it to your Lordships. Where NATO is not engaged, the EU may decide to lead an operation. The EU will clearly exercise political control, as the committee which I have just referred to would indicate, over any operations that it leads but it will use NATO's military operational tools or it will use national tools. Again, we have discussed the role of DSACEUR, the role of SHAPE, or the role of a national capability such as our own PJHQ. There is no stand-off here between NATO and the European Union. There is no rival operational structure.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked me again for some reassurance on what he quoted to us from European politicians and asked whether I could really give him that assurance. Perhaps I may I quote what the European Council agreed at Nice. It is not in the treaty. It is in the report on the European security and defence policy. That report was approved by all heads of state and government at Nice. The noble Lord said, "Here is what a European politician is saying", but I ask him to look at what the heads of government, the heads of state said, what they wrote down and what they all agreed to. They said:
"This does not involve the establishment of a European army. The commitment of national resources by Member States to such operations will be based on their sovereign decisions. As regards the Member States concerned, NATO remains the basis of the collective defence of its members".
We have emphasised that point over and over again. The agreement went on:
"The development of the ESDP will contribute to the vitality of a renewed transatlantic link."
This again acknowledges the transatlantic link which is so vitally important to us. It continued:
"This development will also lead to a genuine strategic partnership between the EU and NATO in the management of crises, with due regard for the two organisations' decision-making autonomy."
1210
It is explicit in giving the very assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, sought of me. He asked me; I assured him. But somehow in the back of my mind I have a doubt that however explicit I am and whatever I can produce that is explicit from the leaders of the governments involved, nothing will convince the noble Lord on this point.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I really am most obliged to the noble Baroness for giving way and indeed for the full manner in which she answered my question. Can she go a little further and say whether the statement she has just made is a complete repudiation of the statement made by Signor Prodi on Friday 4th February in an interview with the Independent newspaper, that you could call it what you liked but as far as he was concerned it was a European army?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord that the heads of government say that it does not involve the establishment of a European army. It is explicit. That is what I believe to be true. I have said that unequivocally. This is hardly the first time I have done so but I say it again to all your Lordships; and that is what was signed up to in the documents which are not in the treaty but in the report on the European security and defence policy.
We believe that the defence policy that we are putting in place will be good for Britain, good for Europe, good for NATO and good for the United States. That is why the United States so strongly supports it.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, referred to the action in Afghanistan and the reticence of some of our European partners about the bombing. The US bombing of Afghanistan was not a Petersberg task. Everything that we are talking about relates to Petersberg tasks. The bombing was not humanitarian action or crisis management. The International Security and Assistance Force now going in could be described as a Petersberg task. It is for individual countries to decide, through a coalition of the willing, whether they want to participate in it.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, returned to what we mean by a Petersberg task. Petersberg tasks cover humanitarian conflict and peace keeping. The noble Lord asked what we mean by peace making—an issue that we have discussed on many occasions.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, and crisis management.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I suspect that that is rather easier. Crisis management might be, for example, going to the aid of flood victims in countries such as Mozambique. I have used that useful example before.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is valid to point out that the events of September 11th showed how difficult it was to secure agreement among all members of the

1211
European Union on the correct response to a particular event? Surely that is relevant when one comes to consider the implications of a common European defence policy that looked after the defence of Europe. That was my point.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I was trying to point out to the noble Lord that what has happened might be described as over and above a Petersberg remit. It was a matter for the international community and for a coalition of the willing. The ESDP is not a treaty issue, but the noble Lord seemed to imply that ratification of the treaty would somehow impede us from taking the action that we took. That is not the case. We would still be able to exercise our sovereign right, as would any other country in Europe if it wanted to support such action, as we have seen. Nothing in the treaty would impede that. If the noble Lord genuinely believes that what he said implied that it would, I hope that I can assure him that it would not, because the tasks involved are rather different.
I understand the problem about Petersberg tasks raised by the noble Lords, Lord Waddington and Lord Pearson of Rannoch. It is an old problem that we have discussed over and over in your Lordships' House and in the WEU, when it existed. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, invited me to write to him about the issue. I take it that he would like me to do so before Third Reading. I shall willingly and happily do so. I do not know how much further I shall be able to take a definition of peace enforcing, but I shall do what I can to meet him on that point and to send him a letter. I know that this is rightly a matter of considerable interest to your Lordships, so I shall put a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, when the noble Baroness is so generous as to do that, will she also cover the question that I raised about paragraph 4 of Article 17? The provisions were in the treaty before, but they have a new significance now. They say that closer co-operation between two or more member states on a bilateral level is not prohibited,
"provided such co-operation does not run counter to or impede"
what the others may have agreed under that title. That seems to have acquired a new significance and we should be very clear about what we are talking about.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I shall certainly cover that in my letter, but if action does not run counter to that provided for in the title, it does not run counter to that provided for by the definition of Petersberg tasks. That brings us back to the previous point. That is what I understand to be the purport of those words, but I shall write to the noble Lord and confirm that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, quoted an interesting article of recent date from a journalist working for The Times. I am sure that there are many interesting contributions from very able journalists across the
1212
spectrum of the UK press, but I should much prefer to rest on the judgment of the President of the United States, who said in June 2001:
"All nations should understand that there is no conflict between membership in NATO and membership in the European Union. My nation welcomes the consolidation of European unity and the stability it brings".
Then, significantly, he said:
"We welcome a greater role for the EU in European security, properly integrated with NATO".
That is quite right. As the European Union acknowledged, it must be properly integrated into NATO.
I also prefer to stand on the judgment of Colin Powell, the United States Secretary of State, who said:
"The risk to NATO, to the transatlantic link and to the Euro-American relationship, does not stem from what Europe is building. The risk could only come from Europe not doing it".
The noble Lord is a sensible, erudite and enormously well-read man. Does he really believe that the judgment of a journalist on The Times is better than the judgment of the President of the United States and of the United States Secretary of State? If the noble Lord does not believe them, surely he can believe General Sir Charles Guthrie—recently the Chief of the Defence Staff and now a very welcome Member of your Lordships' House—who said last year:
"I am interested in what is good for defence and security. It makes eminent sense. It is not a question of the Euro-sceptics or the Europhiles, it is about what is best for the country".
I believe that those are much more authoritative statements than what one journalist says one day, particularly as we all know that journalists can often say something completely different in subsequent articles. I would prefer to rest my case on authoritative comments from our real allies. I hope that when the noble Lord considers the amendments, he will decide not to press them.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, as I explained, the article to which the Minister referred is an editorial from The Times. That does not make much difference, but it was not just one journalist firing off; it was a considered piece by a team from a fairly distinguished newspaper. However, there is not much to be gained by contrasting that with a string of quotations about the importance—an importance that I fully endorse—of a stronger European contribution to defence. The question is how that should be engineered and whether some of the things that have been planned and said are a diversion from that.
The best measure of a stronger European contribution to defence is, in this case, budgetary. I do not always believe that more money produces better results, but in the case of defence it almost certainly does. When we look around, that is not what we see. The UK Government have made some steps in the right direction, but I see no sign of that elsewhere in Europe.

1213
We are just as concerned as Secretary Powell and the President of United States, who have carried colossal burdens with great ability. Their concern is for a better European contribution to defence and so is ours. I am at one with the noble Baroness in welcoming the capabilities improvements and the increased interoperability between European equipment and tanks and those of American and other NATO forces. Those measures have been necessary for a long time and it is high time that they were given a more vigorous push. The only issue is that some of us question whether, in doing that, one needs to set up the elaborate pattern of not only making the EU a military power, promptly integrated into NATO, but beginning to develop what our French colleagues have called an autonomous and independent force.
The battle for quotes goes on. I listened with some incredulity to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, who said that the Americans have not said any of that. I have a file absolutely jammed with quotes from senior American officials, both in office and out of office, who all—at the time of St Malo, and after, and until quite recently—were expressing considerable concern that there might be rivalry with NATO and that that would weaken rather than strengthen European defence.
The result of all these pressures and people flying to and from Washington to reassure the Americans that there would not be a split of NATO, a weakening and duplication, and that we were able to get the Turks on line and involved and not feeling that they have to obstruct everything, has been some rowing back by Ministers. That is not a party political point, it is on the record. Following St Malo, ministerial statements here have been modified very considerably towards the very important point, reiterated quite rightly by the Minister today, that the developments must be properly integrated within NATO. That is what we believe should have happened from the start. I think that, whenever we see signs that that is going to be reneged upon and we are drifting back towards the dreams of the independent and autonomous force proclaimed at St Malo, we are right as an Opposition to seek to call a halt and to seek to move amendments to express our feelings.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned St Malo, which of course long predated the Nice treaty. Does he not accept that what we are debating now in the Nice treaty is a reflection of a policy to which the Americans have been able to sign up?
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I can only say that one hopes so. However, one's doubts are based on considerable disappointment. There is a constant danger, and there are constant pressures from certain quarters—with which I suspect the noble Lord is more familiar than I am—to push this whole project back towards the independent, autonomous force. It is a question of constant vigilance and constant warning that we do not drift that way and weaken the integration in NATO that the Americans rightly felt was necessary from the start, as did we.
1214
The Minister said that double-hatting does not involve any movement of forces or reallocation of troops, and that is technically correct. However, as she knows from her defence experience, producing capabilities at short notice or undertaking to do so—double-hatting, in fact—requires huge preplanning and flexibility arrangements. It also requires adjustment of other plans. One cannot simply lift a whole division or group of manpower and equipment out of the current pattern of defence unless it has been previously crafted and redesigned as a module that can be lifted out. It requires huge effort and, I suspect, considerable expenditure to design the modules of our defence forces so that they can be made ready to go here, there and everywhere.
It is a little disingenuous to say that nothing is involved by happily double-hatting, thereby treble-hatting, some of our troops. A great deal of planning is involved, as all those who have been involved in these matters know very well.
Like many institutions, the institutions that have been created and that are given further encouragement in the treaty—they are effectively blessed by the Bill—have been carefully built up in response to events that have already happened. Rather like generals, these institutions tend to be planned for the last crisis and the last war. Our fear is that the more flexibility is taken away and the more one creates the new planning staff, the new military structures, the new arrangements, the new double-hatting and the new modules that can or cannot be moved at great speed here and there, the more difficult it will be when allies, the coalitions of the willing and nations of goodwill, determination and responsibility have to come together to meet the next crisis that we have not foreseen. We have no idea how those crises will shape up.
We, too, want what is best for the country and what makes Europe strongest in its contribution to global stability, security and defence. We remain full of doubts that the type of proposition in the treaty will help in that direction. Therefore, as we wish to express those doubts, we should like to test the opinion of the House on the matter.
5.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 158.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Caithness, E.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Attlee, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Blaker, L.

Colwyn, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Burnham, L.

Craigavon, V.

1215

Denham, L.

Moynihan, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Naseby, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Noakes, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northbrook, L.

Elton, L.

Northesk, E.

Ferrers, E.

Norton of Louth, L.

Fookes, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Fowler, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Freeman, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Glentoran, L.

Quinton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hambro, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Hanham, B.

Renton, L.

Higgins, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hooper, B.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Home, E.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Hooper, B.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Howe, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kimball, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Kirkham, L.

Stewartby, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kirkham, L.

Strange, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Lucas, L.

Thatcher, B.

Lyell, L.

Trefgarne, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Vivian, L.

Waddington, L.

Marlesford, L.

Weatherill, L.

Marsh, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Monson, L.

Windlesham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Desai, L.

Addington, L.

Dholakia, L.

Ahmed, L.

Dixon, L.

Alderdice, L.

Donoughue, L.

Alli, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Amos, B.

Dubs, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Elder, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Bach, L.

Ezra, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Berkeley, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Filkin, L.

Billingham, B.

Flowers, L.

Blackstone, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Borrie, L.

Gale, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Geraint, L.

Bragg, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Brett, L.

Gilbert, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Brookman, L.

Golding, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Burlison, L.

Goodhart, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Goudie, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Chandos, V.

Grabiner, L.

Christopher, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Greaves, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Grenfell, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Grocott, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hamwee, B.

Cobbold, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Crawley, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Harrison, L.

David, B.

Hayman, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

1216

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Peston, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Plant or Highfield, L.

Hoyle, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Puttnam, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Radice, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Redesdale, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Jeger, B.

Rennard, L.

Jones, L.

Richard, L.

Judd, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Roper, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Russell, E.

Layard, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Sandberg, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Sandwich, E.

Lipsey, L.

Sawyer, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Serota, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Sewel, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Sheldon, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

McNally, L.

Simon, V.

Maddock, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Mar and Kellie, E.

Temple-Morris, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Miller of Chilthome Domer, B.

Tope, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mitchell, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Walmsley, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Whitaker, B.

Newby, L.

Whitty, L.

Nicol, B.

Wilkins, B.

Patel, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Pendry, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.36 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 9, at beginning insert "Article 1 (other than paragraph 7, revising Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union),"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come now to Amendment No. 5 with which is grouped Amendment No. 6. Both these amendments concern legal matters where I move with caution having been denied the inestimable benefit of a legal training. We are, of course, particularly focusing on Article 31 of the treaty which is given heavy reinforcement and encouragement by the Nice treaty and, therefore, by this Bill. In fact, the Eurojust idea, although it existed before the Nice treaty, was officially recognised and given body and substance at Nice. Here again, as in other areas, a number of developments have occurred subsequent to the Nice treaty and, indeed, subsequent to our Committee discussions on the Bill; notably the emergence of the proposal for the common European arrest warrant, which has been strongly advocated with its proposed 28 possible infringements under

1217
which arrest warrants can be issued. However, some of us felt at the time, and, I suspect, still feel, that the unhappy saga of the plane spotters in Greece did not give great encouragement to some of the central suppositions and assumptions behind the common arrest warrant idea.
As I understand it, the new principle behind the arrest warrant is that there should be automatic recognition of judicial orders for arrest made in another member state. That is a radical thought and obviously there were initial reservations, particularly in Italy, but I believe that those have been modified. Our own committees of this House had a scrutiny reserve on that idea going forward. However, I understand that that was brushed aside which is a reminder of something we shall debate in more detail in a further amendment; namely, the crucial need for national Parliaments to have a stronger and more adequate involvement in the whole process of decision-making in the EU in relation to all pillars but particularly in relation to pillar three proposals.
I shall not spend much time on this issue at this stage, I merely ask the Minister some questions. It was said—I think before Christmas—that the common arrest warrant idea within the Eurojust framework and the framework of the European judicial network—I frankly never understood the difference between Eurojust and the European judicial network—would come before Parliament within an extradition Bill. I should like to know what happened to that Bill. Is it on its way? Some of us expected to have seen it by now. When will it appear? Will the 28 infringements that were originally listed in relation to the issue of warrants for arrest remain the same? Does there remain a danger about arrest for and being tried for crimes for which one has already been tried? Is there any test of a case to answer being incorporated into the whole procedure? Those are the questions that arise out of developments since the amendments were first moved and since we first examined the Nice proposals, which carry into being the Eurojust framework.
At the end of such debates one is left with a vague unease about the momentum behind the idea of a Europe-wide judicial system. Over Christmas I read an excellent book by Mr Andrew Roberts comparing Napoleon and Wellington. It was Napoleon's dream to have a European system—a European code of laws and a European judiciary. Noble Lords will probably regard it as a fair comment to say that we should follow those ideas with caution. We were not aware that they had won but it appears that they are winning now. The amendment is intended to seek some answers to those questions. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, in time we will be able to consider legislation dealing with the question of a European arrest warrant. I have one important question to put to the Minister: does acceptance, of Title VI, as amended—that is, acceptance of Articles 29, 30 and 31–mean that we are accepting in principle the idea of extradition from this country for offences that are unknown in this country? I pose my question
1218
because—I am sure that the Minister will agree—Article 29 specifically refers to preventing and combating racism and xenophobia and Article 31 refers to common action to facilitate extradition between member states. Is it not plain as a pikestaff that before we have even come to a Bill dealing with the European arrest warrant we have agreed to a whole raft of proposals that have cut the ground from under our feet? Those proposals amount to our having conceded that it is rather a good idea to have arrangements for extradition, including arrangements for extradition in respect of offences that are unknown in this country.
When I have previously mentioned xenophobia, the Minister has more or less accused me of having an obsession with it. I see that she is certainly not now willing to give that impression. I merely mention xenophobia as an example—it is the simplest example. One has to look no further than Article 29, which refers to an offence of racism or xenophobia or acts that, under the law of other countries, amount to an offence of racism and xenophobia.
I repeat my question: how can we accept those articles, as amended, with an easy conscience when they have that effect? Surely it is wholly unacceptable that we should commit ourselves to facilitating the extradition of British citizens from this country to face charges that relate to offences that are entirely unknown in this country and which we have never thought proper to stigmatise as criminal conduct. That is our objection to the European arrest warrant, which we shall be able to express even more forcefully when the legislation comes before the House. My point is that we are dealing with the principle of that issue here and now. That is why we should express our opposition to the amendments to Article 29.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long. I invite the Minister to comment on Article 31. It must be recognised that the third pillar arrangements do not call for great anxiety in so far as they remain matters that can be subject to national decision-making. Article 31 refers to common action on judicial co-operation in criminal matters. In particular, it refers to the progressive adoption of measures establishing minimum rules relating to the constituent elements of criminal acts and to penalties in the fields of organised crime, terrorism and illicit drug trafficking.
I have to admit that I find it difficult to understand the purpose of that provision. It is clearly desirable that there should be co-operation in the prosecution of cross-border crimes and of organised crimes in particular. Determining the minimum rules that will apply seems very vague. I doubt whether it should affect or influence our own law-making in those spheres. Is it—was it—the concern of Ministers in reaching the agreement that there were lacunae in the criminal law of individual member countries, or that the standards of law were in some ways inadequate and Ministers were seeking subsequently to replace those standards with other common standards?

1219
I understand entirely the desire to expedite judicial processes and to remove conflicts about where jurisdictions are but, as to the substantive law and the amendment of that law, I am a little unclear about what were the objectives of the treaty.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I have two questions for the Minister. First, there have been speculations in the febrile Eurosceptic press that the new European police force—Europol—will have immunity for its actions. I have not been able to find that in the treaty, annexes, declarations or whatever, but I may not have been sufficiently studious. I wonder whether the Minister could set our minds at rest on this point.
Secondly, in view of my earlier remarks about the consistent gradual progress towards the EU mega-state that many of us are convinced lies at the end of this process of treaty-making, does the Minister agree that the framework decision to which my noble friend Lord Waddington referred, and which has been so roundly condemned by many people in this country, is the first step on the way to corpus juris? Corpus juris, as Latin scholars among noble Lords will be aware, was the name given to the body of law by which the Romans controlled their empire. Therefore, the ambition and arrogance of our friends in Brussels when they name the whole process of judicial co-operation "Europol", "Eurojust" and all the other confusing ways in which they express it appears to have in mind a body of law which controls the new federal European state.
As to the arrest warrant itself, I understand that there is a framework decision, some of which—perhaps the noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong—has already been agreed one way or another in COREPER or in events surrounding the Laeken conference. As I understand it, the elements of the framework decision on the arrest warrant which have been agreed are that a United Kingdom citizen can be extradited from this country to stand trial without habeas corpus or a jury in any of the other European countries purely on the say-so of the issuing magistrate in that other country. I also understand that the crime of xenophobia, to which my noble friend Lord Waddington referred, and, indeed, the crime of trafficking in rare plants, and several other crimes which are not defined in British law, such as swindling and so on, will be defined purely by the issuing magistrate. A British court will have no say over whether it is satisfied that a crime has been committed, and the Home Secretary will lose his discretion as to whether a British citizen should be extradited.
As I understand it—again, perhaps the noble Baroness will correct me, although I know that it is not quite her field; I fear that it may be more a Home Office matter—the Government have said that they are bringing forward the arrest warrant as part of primary legislation in an extradition Bill. But I fear that that is not being wholly honest with the British people if the elements to which I referred in the framework decision have already been agreed. I accept
1220
that they must be confirmed by the European Parliament. But I cannot see that Parliament turning round and disagreeing with any of these elements because, after all, the measure advances the European dream, or nightmare, as one prefers to see it.
Therefore, the Written Question which I asked this week, and to which I received an Answer that I do not understand, is: what is left for the national parliaments to decide on the arrest warrant? The elements that I have laid before your Lordships are, I believe, now set in stone, or at least the cement is drying very quickly. What do we have left to decide? Can we, for example, decide that we cannot be arrested for a crime abroad which is not a crime in this country? Can we be extradited for one crime and tried for another? Or can we be tried for a crime which we committed in this country but which is not a crime in this country? If the noble Baroness is able to give them, those would be helpful answers because it would show your Lordships and the world at large just how far down the road towards corpus juris we have already travelled, whether we like it or not.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, there is a good deal of concern in relation to these provisions and what many people term the "creeping corporatism" of the EU. Many offences have already been removed from the ability to be tried by jury. But the Government have not yet finished. They say that they will not accept the view of this House, expressed. I believe, on at least one occasion, that we do not want to see any further whittling away of trial by jury. However, the Government say that they are not prepared to accept that and that they will bring forward further measures to reduce the ability of people who are accused to be tried by their peers.
Many of us are concerned that that is all part of the idea of European judicial and, indeed, policy co-operation. I should like the noble Baroness to say whether trial by jury and the further whittling away of the ability of people to be tried by jury is part of what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, described as "progress towards corpus juris".
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, mentioned a number of matters which concern him. He is concerned that when the Nice treaty goes into operation we may move towards a situation where matters which we have almost laughed at in this country will be considered to be criminal offences; for example, xenophobia. Damn it, not so very long ago very few people in Britain knew what xenophobia meant. Now we find that we may be arrested under the European arrest warrant, to which reference has been made, because of the crime of xenophobia. God knows what it will mean, but there it appears among the huge list in the framework document, which I have obtained from the Printed Paper Office.
I have to say that when I read that document I was amazed at the scope of the arrest warrant. I believed that it would be confined to certain issues such as trafficking in human beings, drug trafficking or illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives. But that is not so. Corruption is one of the offences

1221
included. It is true that we have different standards of corruption in this country compared with other countries, but why is corruption included? Why is swindling included? As has been pointed out, there is no crime of swindling in the British body of law. Of course, our old friends racism and xenophobia are also there, together with counterfeiting, product piracy and, indeed, robbery. That just about covers everything.
I believe that we are completely right to be concerned about the extension of jurisdiction within this treaty. Although I realise that inter-governmental co-operation is still required, there is a creeping attempt to bring the whole matter within the treaty. Once it is within the treaty, it will grow and grow like Topsy until we sacrifice our own tried and tested system of law and adopt a system which, in the view of many, including myself, is totally unsatisfactory, undermines the freedom of the individual and does not guarantee a fair and free trial.
6 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it was the Tampere European Council in October 1999 that agreed to set up Eurojust. As the Nice Declaration makes clear, the intention was to improve co-operation between national prosecutors, aiding criminal investigations into serious organised crime. It does not, as one noble Lord suggested during our exchanges, try to establish a supranational euro police force. It is about inter-governmental co-operation for the good of all our citizens. Therefore, expressed very simply, Eurojust is a structure intended to facilitate co-operation between governments.
Perhaps I may further reassure your Lordships by quoting the declaration, which states that Eurojust is,
"a unit composed of national prosecutors, magistrates or police officers of equivalent competence, detached from each member state … having the task of facilitating proper co-ordination between national prosecuting authorities and of supporting criminal investigations in organised crime".
That seems to be an entirely unexceptional position and an unexceptional structure.
The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, then asked what is the purpose of Article 31(e). Organised crime long ago stopped respecting national boundaries. We strongly support Eurojust and the benefits it will bring in tackling organised crime more effectively. In quoting Article 31(e) the noble Lord answered his own question. It is about progressively adopting measures establishing minimum rules relating to the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the fields of organised crime, terrorism and illicit drug trafficking. It is about those very crimes which are all too often, if not international in nature, international in the way that they are conceived and carried out. Sadly, that is one of the horrible truths that we face at the beginning of the 21st century.
Eurojust will not mean, as I have seen reported—clearly, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has seen it reported, although I point out it was the noble Lord who spoke of the "febrile press" on this occasion—interference by the EU in national
1222
investigations and prosecutions. It will not mean an end to British traditions in our legal procedures. I believe that that covers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. This is nothing to do with trial by jury. Eurojust will not be a body which investigates and prosecutes in its own right. It will not mean a centralised European prosecutor. All those accusations have been made about Eurojust.
Investigations will be conducted by national authorities. The role of Eurojust will be to aid cross-border investigations by the co-operation of national authorities. It is a body designed to crack down on international organised crime, in the specific way pointed out to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, to help put an end, if that is possible, to the terrible misery caused by traffickers in drugs and human beings, and also to bring money launderers to book.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned the European arrest warrant. Naturally, there are connections in all our minds with that. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that this is not about the European arrest warrant. It is about co-operation. As we have said, the arrest warrant will be the subject of Home Office legislation. The Government are committed to enacting the common arrest warrant legislation this year. I should like to be more specific to the noble Lord, but I cannot. I can give him an assurance that it will be this year, but I cannot state the exact date.
Much of what your Lordships are concerned about—certainly the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and, to a certain extent, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch—is whether this prejudices the consideration of that legislation. In that respect, I hope that I can help both noble Lords and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. It does not prejudice the position of the Home Secretary in what he puts forward in that legislation and will not prejudice the views of both Houses of Parliament in considering what that legislation should cover. These are sensible measures about international co-operation. They do not set up police forces or international prosecutions. They are there to help national authorities pursue the kind of crime which, unfortunately, is so much a characteristic of the 21st century.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I accept that she wants to leave the questions on the arrest warrant to further deliberation and perhaps even the presence at the Dispatch Box of her noble friend Lord Rooker. However, I asked whether the new European police force, Europol, will have immunity. It is already in the treaty. Article 29, paragraph 2, indent 1 states all the marvellous objectives of standing up to crime in the European Union which are to be achieved through,
"closer co-operation between police forces, customs authorities and other competent authorities in the Member States, both directly and, through the European police office (Europol), in accordance with the provisions of Articles 30 and 32".

1223
Therefore, Europol does exist. There has even been a squabble about where in the European Union its wretched head office should be. If the noble Baroness does not have the answer now, perhaps she could let me know whether or not Europol is to have immunity.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is not the rule that there should be short questions for elucidation? Is not the noble Lord going a little beyond the rule?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, that must be for the opinion of the House.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, perhaps I can reassure the noble Lord. Nothing in the establishing of Eurojust trespasses on the Europol issues which the noble Lord has raised. I shall do my best to put some more flesh on the bones for him, if that is possible at this stage. I understand why the noble Lord is so concerned. After all, this has been the subject of a great deal of discussion in your Lordships' House in the context of our anti-terrorism legislation. However, this is an entirely different issue. That is what I sought to do in stressing the structure of Eurojust and the purposes for which it is being created.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the Minister accept that it is wholly unacceptable that a person should be extradited from this country to meet charges for offences which do not exist in this country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, these are policy issues which are being discussed at present in relation to the legislation which my right honourable friend will bring forward on the European arrest warrant. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, will bear with me. I am not an expert on that issue; I am sure that he would not expect me to be. It is a matter which we know causes concern. Together with my colleagues, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I have listened carefully to the points raised on the anti-terrorism legislation. Both the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and I took that legislation through your Lordships' House. We know that this is a matter of great concern. However, I cannot say to the noble Lord that in every single instance the United Kingdom Government would be in a position of not wanting to bring forward that legislation. The noble Lord will have the opportunity to debate that fully. Nothing that we are discussing here will prejudice his ability to do that.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I realise that we have strayed a little into policy issues and, indeed, debates which lie ahead, although they are in this field of the third pillar on justice and home affairs matters. As the noble Baroness sought to explain in answer to our questions, a Bill will be introduced which will presumably contain matters which have been decided—if that is the right word —by prerogative at a Council of Ministers operating in the JAHA
1224
framework. We, in the two Houses of Parliament, will be asked to accept it. It will be a treaty matter which we cannot change.
There remains more than a vague worry. These are vastly important areas. I refer not only to the coming debates on the common arrest warrant, but to judicial co-operation which is promoted and developed by the whole Eurojust concept. There is a worry that such matters are decided in ways which do not give our Parliament adequate say early enough over what is happening. I know that we have a scrutiny reserve procedure. However, I am not sure that we should not be thinking in terms of even earlier debates on ideas which then give birth to legislative instruments and proposals before they come back for scrutiny reserve to this House, before in turn they go for approval—debate in the House—or they become law.
In the third pillar area of inter-governmental co-operation, we lack adequate national parliamentary involvement in the way that such schemes are developed. We shall have to come back to that matter and give it a good deal more thought in the future.
Having said that, the noble Baroness has sought to answer—she has not done so completely—a number of our questions. In the light of the need to make progress, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 9, at beginning insert "Article 1 (other than paragraph 11, revising Article 43 of the Treaty on European Union)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can deal with this matter briefly because we discussed it fully in Committee. Our objection, the noble Baroness and your Lordships will recall, was to the qualified majority voting element which has been brought into the enhanced co-operation procedure; also the fact that it appears that at Nice the Government agreed to the enhanced co-operation procedure and to the abandonment of the veto on it despite the important principles involved if a smaller number of nations are to go forward with a certain project without getting anything in return. So we had that debate.
What remains is a query as to how the enhanced co-operation idea, which is very important in relation to the future structure of the Union and the way it works, is getting on. Further, perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us what proposals are being considered whereby we in this country might try some enhanced co-operation? Have we any ideas for taking seven or more other member countries towards certain goals that we have for the European Union? The other day the Prime Minister said that the European Union "is going Britain's way". I have seen reports that at the spring Council in Barcelona it will all be beneficial for Britain because the European Union is shaping our way, a union of states, not quite a Europe des patries but a union of states rather than a federal structure. That is what he said. But in order for that to happen we must see various aspects of enhanced co-operation vigorously developed.

1225
I should like to hear what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office policymakers are beginning to think about this matter. Those ideas can be shared with us, with discretion. I do not want to feel all the time that in the Quai d'Orsay they are brewing up initiatives while our Foreign and Commonwealth Office is left running behind. That is the impression that one gets over the years. The clever French, particularly in the Quai d'Orsay, are very good at creating new initiatives, some of them absolutely questionable but some of them ingenious, for various forms of co-operation and further integration, and we are left on the defensive, saying, "No, no".
Another question that is worth asking at this point is: can enhanced co-operation operate in a sense negatively? Can we co-operate with a number of other countries in not going ahead with certain propositions that are being put forward in the name of the Union as a whole? I hope that this does not sound too trivial. Could we opt out of the new directive on "lumpy sauces"? That is the question of how many vegetables one needs in a sauce before it ceases to be a sauce? Could we opt out of the directive on dumping redundant fridges, which is coming in much too quickly and which will cause considerable problems in this country? Could we get some enhanced co-operation with other member states in avoiding some of the ill-thought out propositions that occasionally come out of the European institutional machine?
I hope that those questions do not sound frivolous. This is a very important area on which there was much debate before Nice and on which there will be much debate in the future. We should like to know how it is working. That was my purpose in moving the amendment. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the EEC was set up to deal with post-war problems. The problems facing Europe today, following rebuilding, reconciliation and economic growth, are very different problems. What has made the European Union a success over all these years is its ability to develop and change—its flexibility. But its ability to apply that flexibility and to make effective decisions is tested every time more member states join. In an EU that is expanding in the way that it is, it is increasingly difficult to get agreement to move ahead in all areas with all member states, as we know.
It is sensible that we look at ways where groups of countries can take action where some others cannot, do not want to, or are not ready to. But we are clear that this should not challenge the overall authority of the treaties governing all member states. The aim of enhanced co-operation is to create a mechanism aimed at facilitating effective decision-making in a Union of 27, as we hope that we shall be. It may possibly be 28. At the same time, we must guard against the creation of a two-speed Europe by allowing enhanced co-operation in whole new areas not covered by the treaties. That is the purpose of the general principles on enhanced co-operation which this amendment seeks to strike out of the treaty. I appreciate that the
1226
noble Lord has moved the amendment in a probing sense, but it is necessary to explain to your Lordships what in fact the effect of the amendment would be.
I am sure that the noble Lord does not really want enhanced co-operation with no safeguards for individual member states, and with no bar against operating in whole new areas, or with no entrenched right for all member states to be given the chance to participate. I am sure that that is not his position.
The provisions for enhanced co-operation already exist. They were introduced in the Amsterdam treaty, but they have not yet been used. What Nice does is to make them easier to use for those who want to, while strengthening the safeguards for those who do not. That is a sensible move to prepare for a successful enlarged Union. I stress to the noble Lord that in the view of the Government this is one of the building blocks which will be so important in that enlarged Union.
As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in his speech in Warsaw last year:
"Enhanced co-operation is an instrument to strengthen the Union from within, not an instrument of exclusion."
The safeguards here are very important. Perhaps I can remind your Lordships of them. Enhanced co-operation must be a last resort. It is not the rule. As many member states as possible will be encouraged to join in. Those wanting to join an existing enhanced co-operation action should later be given every opportunity to do so. Enhanced co-operation may not harm the rights of those not participating. Again, that is a very important provision. Finally, actions under enhanced co-operation will not form part of the acquis—what I said when we last debated this matter I thought was the position; I confirm that it is—or basic rules of the EU, so neither existing nor new member states will be required to take part.
It was right to strengthen the safeguards. It was right too, as we did at Nice, to amend the procedures so that—provided the safeguards are respected—no one state can veto a proposal for enhanced co-operation. There are of course exceptions around CFSP.
A great deal has been made of this change. I hope that I am not misreading the noble Lord's moving of the amendment, but I thought that he spoke in a rather different way than in our previous discussions. I stress to the noble Lord that we are clear that it is not reasonable in an enlarged EU for one member state to hold up those wishing to proceed with enhanced co-operation, provided that those rigorous conditions, which I stressed to your Lordships a moment or two ago, have been met.
The noble Lord asked for examples. Were we leaving it all to the Quai d'Orsay or had we got some jolly good ideas coming out of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Perhaps I can take an example from each of the pillars where we might want to see enhanced co-operation being used to take matters forward where there was not entire unanimity.
In the Community pillar, for example, the UK might want to join an initiative on scientific research which some other member states do not. That is a very

1227
important part of the Government's policy. My noble friend Lord Sainsbury, the Minister for Science, has been working a great deal on this matter through the DTI. There may be initiatives that we are able to co-operate in with other member states. We might want to participate in an initiative to improve transport links between the United Kingdom and neighbouring states. That may be something that could go forward on this kind of basis.
I shall now turn to the second pillar. With regard to CFSP, the United Kingdom might want to join with other interested member states to implement a common EU policy in Africa, such as managing election monitors. That might be a kind of co-operation towards which we and others who have close links with Africa for various historical reasons might feel more impelled.
The third pillar is justice and home affairs. It is possible to imagine the United Kingdom perhaps joining with a group of member states to agree tough action on an issue that directly affected only a small group of us. An example might be drug trafficking across the North Sea, a matter in which we and some of our European neighbours would have some specific interest, while other colleagues elsewhere might not.
I hope that that will give the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, some examples and some reassurance that the Foreign Office thinks closely about such things. I am sure that the noble Lord needs no reassurance on that point; he knows that the officials in the Foreign Office are an enthusiastic lot, who will be thinking of ways in which the interests of this country can be furthered through such a mechanism.
All in all, the improved and enhanced co-operation arrangements are a valuable feature of the treaty. We strongly support them. I hope that I have not misread the way in which the noble Lord moved the amendment, and I hope that he will agree that we should not throw those arrangements out of the treaty. I hope that I have responded to the noble Lord's probing amendment in a way that is helpful to him.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I would like to refer to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford, perhaps with his tongue slightly in his cheek.
I listened carefully to the Minister's reply, and I do not think that it will emerge from the pages of the Official Report that enhanced co-operation does not have any sort of reverse gear. I would be grateful if she could confirm that, if it is true. In other words, groups of countries can co-operate in one direction only, towards greater integration. The Minister mentioned the acquis, and that is what it says. Articles 2, 3 and 6.4 of the Treaty on European Union and Protocol 30 of the Treaty establishing the European Community make it absolutely clear that the process can never go back. My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford asked whether it would be possible for half a dozen of
1228
us to get together and happily avoid the worst effects of the whole project. It would be nice to have a clear answer from the Minister to the effect that it would not.
Under any form of enhanced co-operation, we cannot avoid the directives to which my noble friend referred. We cannot avoid the vibration directive, under which no one can drive a tractor for more than two hours a day, the new directive that requires someone to be at the bottom of a ladder when one goes up it and, I am reminded, the directive on the use of chainsaws. Finally, there is a directive on dietary requirements for sedentary workers on the way. No doubt, that will interest your Lordships in due course.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there is no mechanism for enhanced co-operation to go into reverse in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has just described.
Enhanced co-operation must take place within the provisions and scope of the treaties. However, if the noble Lord were to collect a sufficient number of his friends and colleagues in the EU who did not agree with a specific element of enhanced co-operation, he could block it thereby. No mechanism exists in the form that the noble Lord suggested. We went through the numbers involved and the rather different mechanisms on different pillars of the European Union's activities, as the noble Lord knows. The answer is not to take part in enhanced co-operation in cases in which one chooses not to and to seek for others to think likewise.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for answering my queries in such specific detail. The areas that she mentioned sound very interesting.
The Minister's answer—and the intervention of my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch—prompted the thought that the rules set out in revised Article 43 are fairly rigid. First, eight members must be found. I hope that eight could be found for some of the attractive ideas that the Minister put forward, but it might be difficult. The Minister reminded the House, when she identified precisely what enhanced co-operation meant, that the conditions required for enhanced co-operation are fairly austere. Such co-operation must reinforce the process of integration and the acquis communautaire must not be touched in any way.
To many of us, those are extremely old-fashioned, centralised sentiments, which do not relate to the kind of network Europe or more flexible Europe that, many feel can come into being, provided that we have the confidence to push for it and do not fall in too easily with the old, backward-looking and centralising tendencies and hierarchical ideas that may have served the European Union in the past but will not serve it in the future.
However, the Minister was very forthcoming in responding to my questions. As I said, we debated the matters fully in Committee. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 9, after "10," insert "other than Article 2, paragraph 19, revising Article 191 of the Treaty establishing the European Community,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come now to the proposal in the Nice treaty—and, therefore, enshrined in the Bill—for new regulations governing the distribution and handling of the procedures for funding European political parties. That is in Article 191 of the treaty establishing the European Community.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in his usual reassuring manner, told us that the proposals in the treaty were excellent and that there was no need to amend them, because they closed up a few loopholes that had been abused. That would make everything so much tidier, so that the public funds involved—funds provided by the taxpayers in this country and others—would not be spent in dubious ways. He put that case persuasively, and, at the time, the Committee was inclined to accept it. Certainly, we did not vote on the matter.
Since then, however, I have done a little more research, and a few facts have dribbled into the public domain. In fact, the background to the issue is shocking. Perhaps we should have pressed—and I shall certainly press now—a little more vigorously to find out why those abuses arose and whether the loopholes have really been sealed off by the new regulations.
We learn from debates in the European Parliament about the matter that the problems were numerous. European political parties would provide staff for their own corresponding national parties back home and would then carry the cost of the staff on their budget and use the funding available to them for European purposes for national purposes. That was considered to be deplorable, and, not surprisingly, the Court of Auditors came down on it extremely hard and said that it was totally inappropriate. I suppose that that is what gave birth to the idea that the matter required more attention, which is what it received at Nice.
There was another wheeze. I am not sure whether it is addressed by the regulations. In order to attract funds, some small parties—there was a major debate on how small was "small" and how many votes they had—could come together for the afternoon, as it were, call themselves an alliance and say that they were, therefore, entitled to funds. As soon as they received the money, they could share out the spoils and disintegrate again. That was also identified in committee work in the European Parliament as a thoroughly undesirable trend.
Do the regulations deal effectively with such abuses? If we must have such arrangements for funding Europe-wide political parties, do we now have in place a mechanism for proper verification of budgets and party expenditure? Is there a clear threshold for deciding what is a European party? How many states have to participate in a political party before it
1230
becomes a genuine European party? At one stage our Austrian friends were arguing that the answer was one. They had one Austrian party which they said was nevertheless a European party and was entitled to funding from these sources. I do not know how the matter is now to be settled. Is it three, as some have suggested, five, or what?
Running alongside that issue is the question whether other enterprises, private corporations, can be permitted to contribute to the European political parties. Our French neighbours take a vigorously negative view on the matter. They do not like the idea at all and I believe that it is still being discussed. If we are dealing with the matter and if there have to he such arrangements, those questions arise.
I say "if" we have to have such arrangements. I do not fully understand why European political parties, their encouragement and funding should he a purpose of the European Union. I know what the doctrine is; that somehow, somewhere a European identity must be manufactured, riding over and above the nation states, which will give some additional legitimacy to the central institutions of the EU. That is an entirely wrong way of looking at the EU, where the democratic thread comes to the Union through the nation states and through national politics.
The commissioner, Chris Patten, described the original draft of the regulations which gave birth to the whole arrangement as flawed in principle, unworkable in practice and discriminatory in effect. Even now, I am not sure that those criticisms have ceased to be valid. They cut out parties which happen to have decided as of right—as has my own party—that they do not want to be trans-national multi-parties with branches in other European countries. They do not want to be European parties in that sense; they want their politics to be organised through legitimacy of the nation state and for the nation state to delegate the appropriate powers, instruments and legitimacy to the European Union and its institutions. Despite many proclamations to the contrary, that is the way in which it should work and indeed does work.
Therefore, what are the Government going to do to help decide which are the trans-national parties? Is it right that small parties which are not trans-national should be left out? Is it right that the arrangement should exist? The changes which we are discussing are in the Nice treaty, which is not yet law. Therefore, on what grounds are abuses being tackled at this moment? Are there legal grounds for halting some of the goings-on, the curious customs, the thoroughly undesirable misuses of hard-earned taxpayers' and public money? There certainly should be.
Even if and when the Nice treaty is ratified in law, and that is obviously some time ahead, what is to be done in the meantime to check a clear abuse of a system which has many questionable attributes? I question whether it should have been arranged at all, but it exists and it ought to be made to work in an honest, open and transparent way. I am not entirely convinced that these regulations or the existing legal structure are achieving that. For those reasons, I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I am not sure that the debate provides us with an opportunity to discuss the regulations so much as the regulation-making power. I would not therefore propose to consider the adequacy of the regulations but rather to raise the question whether it is the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, to deprive the Council of that power because his own party does not want to take advantage of arrangements that are being devised, by common acceptance, to apply to the majority of political parties which operate within Europe or at a European level.
The need for transparency and accountability is clear. We can make our own arrangements domestically to ensure that moneys received by our own political parties are properly deployed according to the purposes for which they have been voted. However, following the line of reasoning about non-intervention in the internal political affairs of other countries which has been deployed in respect of other amendments, it might, if we were to accept that, deprive us of the opportunity of investigating the misuse of funds voted by the Community if such trans-national laws were not adopted.
We have a great interest in ensuring that the regulations are equitable and fair; that they are being applied according to the purposes which underlay their distribution; and that the measure marks a useful addition to the armoury of the Commission to take effective action where the Court of Auditors or any other EU authority draws attention to what looks like misfeasance on the part of a political party.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I object to the state funding of political parties. I object as a matter of principle. I object to being required to support a party whose views may be anathema to me and may be attacking the values I hold most dear. I also object in practice because I believe that a party which is firmly based on the contributions of its members is far more likely to reflect the wishes of the electorate, or a part of it, than a party which is the recipient of funds which it has in no way earned.
If I object in principle to the public funding of political parties in this country, it is not surprising if I also object to the public funding of parties in Europe. I am blessed if I see why I should be required to support financially a European party which may be dedicated to destroying Britain as a nation state.
I believe that the particular proposal—the amendment to Article 191—is a threat to democracy. It is said that the amendment to Article 191, which states:
"The Council acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251, shall lay down regulations governing political parties … and in particular the rules regarding their funding",
is necessary in order to stop abuse. That may be true, but no one can deny that the power taken in Article 191 is immensely wide. It is so wide that it would never be acceptable in domestic legislation.
1232
The article is certainly wide enough to allow regulations which denied funding to, or even banned, parties which opposed the ever-closer union referred to in the treaty. It is wide enough to ban parties or deny funding to parties taking the wholly acceptable view that closer union than the one we have at the moment would involve a wholly unacceptable erosion of the sovereignty of nation states. And how can it be said that the risk does not exist when one reads Article 191 as a whole? The article, including the amendment to allow the regulation of political parties, begins by stating:
"Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union. They contribute towards forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union".
What about democratic parties which do not want further political integration? That is the question which must be asked. They do not seem to be covered by Article 191 either before or after amendment.
I take no comfort whatever in Declaration 11, to which I would draw the attention of the House. This was referred to in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of the terms of that declaration. It states that:
"The conference recalls that the provisions of Article 191 do not imply any transfer of powers to the European Community and do not affect the application of the relevant national constitutional rules".
I do not see what that has to do with the points that I have raised or how it in any way dispenses with my worries. I know of no national constitutional rules which have any bearing whatever on the funding of parties in Europe. Which national constitutional rules have a bearing on this subject? What on earth has Declaration 11 to do with the matter we are debating today? It is absolutely plain that, if properly used, the power which is sought in Article 191 will engender no mischief. However, no one can deny that it is an immensely wide power which could be misused. That is why I am frightened about it.
I am against the funding of political parties. I am against the funding of European political parties. As a taxpayer in this country I object very strongly to being required to cough up to support European parties which are out to do something which is anathema to me. I therefore object strongly to this proposal and that is that.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in supporting the amendment I agree with my noble friend Lord Waddington that the aim of this article is absolutely clear:
"Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union".
I know that my noble friend has quoted that statement, but I have repeated it because the noble Baroness really must start by getting around that one. I agree that the statement was included in the treaty before Nice, but there it is.

1233
Now, by the usual process of Eurocreep, we have the new procedure added by Nice, which I should point out to your Lordships is under Article 251, covering the co-decision procedure of the Communities. That starts off with qualified majority voting in the Council, which then has to be ratified by the Parliament. Thus the regulations we are presently talking about could in effect be decided beyond our control.
I should like to make a final comment on Declaration 11, the first sentence of which my noble friend Lord Waddington quoted to the House. There follows a truly amazing statement, even by the standards of our friends in Brussels:
"The funding for political parties at European level provided out of the budget of the European Communities may not be used to fund, either directly or indirectly, political parties at national level".
If ever I have heard of a pious hope, it is that one. How does one differentiate between the travel expenses of a political party? Who will audit this? Clearly it is impossible to separate. shall we say, the Labour Party or, indeed, the Conservative Party in this country which is funded for its European interests not to use those moneys or not even to have to raise money for something else that takes place in this country?
As usual, the object of the exercise is perfectly clear. Our Eurocratic friends in Brussels want to control the political parties. I would remind noble Lords that that was how the Soviet Union was controlled. There was no bar on political parties: you just could not stand at elections or receive funds. If you spoke your mind, you went to the gulag. I expect that eventually that will be on its way here, but I think that we should test it now.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that those noble Lords who had the pleasure of sitting through the Committee stage of the Bill will agree that this was a question extensively debated at that stage. Furthermore, as one might expect on an issue of this nature, it was extensively debated in another place.
In Committee my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey explained that negotiations are already well advanced under the provisions of the present EC treaty on a regulation which will provide for funding and to ensure—this point lies at the root of the problem identified by the noble Lord, Lord Howell—proper transparency and accountability. I could not agree more with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord about ensuring that that is the case. That regulation will have to he agreed unanimously and we hope that it will be agreed to soon.
As the noble Lord said, it is important that we put a stop to the abuses which have been recognised and which have, I believe, received a good deal of publicity. That is the reason for looking at the regulations under the current legislation before we move on to looking at any further regulations under the legislation before the House.
1234
I can assure noble Lords that the details of funds received by the European political parties under these arrangements will be made available to the House. That forms an important part of the scrutiny. Indeed, I would suggest that they already have been. The present draft regulation, which proposes total annual funding of £4.6 million for European political parties, has been made available to, discussed in, and cleared by, the European Union Committee of this House. An opportunity has been provided for those noble Lords serving on that committee to scrutinise the regulation.
This regulation requires annual reports on the funds received by European political parties under it. Those reports will continue to be made available to the House. I hope that that will be a welcome assurance.
The regulation now being negotiated will expire two years after its entry into force. Another regulation will then be agreed, following a report from the Commission. We would expect that to be agreed under the new provisions; that is, the provisions of the Nice treaty, provided that the treaty has entered into force by that stage.
Both the future regulation and the Commission's report will be deposited for parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way. This House and another place have effective means of scrutinising European Community documents. Of course Her Majesty's Government will continue to support that scrutiny.
Thus Members of this House have had and will continue to have all the relevant information on this issue. Furthermore, I hope and believe that your Lordships have had and will continue to have ample opportunity to debate it. However, the fact is that Nice provides a new legal base for a measure to regulate European political parties, in particular their funding arrangements.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. The provisions provide for an amendment to Article 191 and it is the amendment to that article which we are discussing here. It creates a legal base for a statute to regulate European political parties. Of course the parties are not new; nor is their recognition in the treaty; nor is the funding new. I think that the noble Lord objects not so much to what is now in the treaty by means of regulation, but to the fact that some of those provisions already exist. Of course he is perfectly entitled to his opinion and many may agree with the cogent points he has made as regards the ways in which political parties are funded. However, what we are discussing here is the regulation of that funding. Surely the noble Lord would agree with his noble friend that the regulation of that funding is enormously important, in particular in light of what has been said by the Court of Auditors.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the Minister should understand that what I object to, among other things, is the gobbledegook in Declaration 11. We were told by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that we had nothing to worry about because the regulation power would be seriously circumscribed by the wording of Declaration 11, which refers to the fact that

1235
Article 191 does not imply any transfer of powers to the European Community. That is sheer nonsense. How can the funding be taking place at the present time unless there has already been a transfer of power to the European Union? What relevant constitutional rules exist which have any bearing on the subject at all? I object to that.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, this is about funding to political groups within the European Union, not to the European Union itself. What is at issue here is the leakage that there has been from the legitimate passing of those funds and the kinds of abuse referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in moving the amendment.
The problem is the steady growth in the importance of the groupings and the parties—we have both groupings and parties, as your Lordships know—and the consequent need to ensure that they are properly regulated to meet the point put forward by the European Court of Auditors, which has said that these abuses must be dealt with. That is what the amendment is designed to do.
Many believe that it is right that people should be able to form parties at European level as well as at national level if that is what they wish to do.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the Minister is missing the point I was making. I ask again whether Declaration 11 circumscribes the power—and is therefore something from which we can take comfort—or am I right in saying that Declaration 11 is completely meaningless and in no way circumscribes the power?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend Lord McIntosh was right in the point that he put to the noble Lord. I shall check exactly what my noble friend said. I have the relevant Hansard but, as I am on my feet, perhaps the noble Lord will bear with me. I shall read very carefully what my noble friend said in Committee and look again at the point made by the noble Lord. When the noble Lord intervened previously, I thought the point that he was making was that the funding somehow helps the European Union. I shall have a welcome opportunity to discuss this point with my noble friend later and to read what he said. I hope that I have not misunderstood the problem drawn to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that this might be funding which would somehow go to the European Union and not to the political parties or the groupings within it. I make that distinction.
I then endeavoured to make the point that this problem has increased because of the growth in such parties and the consequent need to ensure that they are properly regulated. There are many opinions about the growth of these parties but, none the less, it is the right of individuals and those in the European Parliament and elsewhere to form such parties if they wish to do so.
1236
The problem has come forward very starkly, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, pointed out. The political groups within the European Union receive money from the European parliamentary budget for their day-to-day organisation, and it does indeed leak to the European political parties. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that we need to stop this and to ensure that the funding of European political parties is fully transparent and properly audited. Regulation was therefore recommended by the European Court of Auditors in order to combat the financial mismanagement about which the noble Lord was so concerned.
The principles of this regulation are supported by the Party of European Socialists and the European Liberal, Democratic and Reform Group—to which the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats respectively belong—as well as by the European People's Party, which may be of more interest to the Benches opposite.
Explicit language is used in a declaration at Nice that no EC money going to European political parties would be transferred, either directly or indirectly, to national political parties. That is explicitly stated and is made clear in the draft regulation which we are currently negotiating. I can assure your Lordships that not a penny will go to the Labour Party or to any other domestic UK party. Nor are the funds for federalism, which is perhaps another point at issue for the noble Lord, Lord Waddington.
There will be no discrimination against parties because of their attitudes to EU integration. The noble Lord did not make that point explicitly, but I suspect that he was worried that this would somehow seep back into the integrationalist tendency, if I can so label it. I can assure the noble Lord that I do not believe that that is an issue about which he need be overly concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was worried about smaller parties. I know that there is a feeling that the arrangements discriminate against the Conservative Party, but this is about the funding of European political parties, not national ones. The fact is that—for the best possible reasons, I am sure—our colleagues in the Conservative Party have chosen not to join a European political party. That is their choice. If they wish to join a European political party—or, indeed, form a new one—which meets the objective criteria laid down in the regulation, that, too, is up to them and they will be free to do so.
The noble Lord asked how many are needed to form such a party. The proposed regulation that we are discussing at the moment states that there must be three or more member states and each party must have 5 per cent support in national or European parliamentary elections. Those seem to be sensible safeguards and thresholds and I hope that we will be able to agree that. The money will be allocated annually and there will be a verification mechanism to counter any abuse.

1237
I have done my best to answer the series of question that have been asked. As to the one outstanding issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, I shall check the text, come back to him and endeavour to put a letter in your Lordships' Library before we next have the pleasure of discussing these issues.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the Minister may have been guilty of a slip of the tongue in answering a question that I put to her or I may have misunderstood what she said. I believe she said that these regulations will be agreed by unanimity and then brought to Parliament here for scrutiny. Obviously, we can scrutinise them as much as we like but we cannot change something which has been agreed by regulation. Perhaps we can get this straight because it is very important. The new wording at Nice states:
"The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251, shall lay down the regulations governing political parties at European level and in particular the rules regarding their funding".
Article 251 relates to qualified majority voting, so the whole process could be taken out of our hands in any case.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, let me be absolutely clear. There are two sets of regulations. The regulations that we are currently discussing fall under current treaties and will be decided on the basis of unanimity. As I have indicated, those will lapse in two years' time. This of course raises questions about ratification of the treaty, but let us leave that point on one side. Further regulations will then come forward in a way that covers the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, drew our attention—the amendment to Article 191—and these regulations will be agreed under the qualified majority voting procedure provided for in the Nice treaty. I am sorry if the noble Lord did not follow my reasoning. There will be two sets of regulations. The first set will be decided unanimously; the second set under qualified majority voting because they fall under this treaty.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister to pursue a point raised by my noble friend Lord Waddington. The first sentence of Article 191 states:
"Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union".
When you read that with the amendment or the new provision that we are discussing, which states that,
"'The Council … shall lay down the regulations governing political parties",
that refers back to political parties which are a factor for integration. Will the regulations deal only with those parties, or is there some vague possibility—
Baroness David: My Lords, my noble friend has answered the question.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, will these regulations be framed to make it more difficult for parties that oppose integration? At the moment it reads as though it is saying, "Yes, you can get this funding under the rules, but only parties which are in favour of integration and forming a European awareness". One does not want to form a European awareness. Will the regulations allow one to oppose the European dream, or nightmare, according to taste?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, let me be categoric. I hoped that I had made this point in relation to the matters raised by the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Waddington. These are not funds for federalism. There is no discrimination against any political party or group of parties on the grounds of their attitude to European Union integration. European political parties which oppose the EU hook, line and sinker, or those which oppose further integration, are every bit as eligible as those which think the opposite.
I hope that that reassures the noble Lord. The matter has nothing whatsoever to do with the attitudes taken by the parties but with their performance in elections—the 5 per cent threshold. There must also be three supporting member states. Those are the thresholds. The regulations we are debating at present will be agreed by unanimity. The issue has nothing to do with the policies of the parties about integration. I hope that I have answered the point as explicitly as I can.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for telling us that the details of the procedures under these regulations will be made available to this House and another place, as is right and proper.
I can set out simply our attitude to what the noble Baroness said. I do not for a moment question her sincerity and determination that the funds should go, without discrimination, to parties regardless of attitude, and so on. Nor do I question the right of people to form trans-European or trans-national parties of any group of countries. They are perfectly entitled to do so. The question is: by what argument can one justify them being handed taxpayers' money to the tune of £46 million? We do not like that.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I think that the figure is £4.6 million.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I do not like the figure of £4.6 million but I should like it even less if it were £46 million. We question whether the concept of Europe-wide political parties is the driving force in creating a true democracy in Europe where the need for democracy is so great, the democratic deficit so large and the legitimacy so strongly questioned. It is on the nation states and the political processes within them that the future acceptance, existence and development of a democratic Europe will depend.

1239
We do not like what is being done. We do not like the exclusiveness of the arrangements. We do not like the implication. The noble Baroness has vigorously denied it, but however one reads it there is an implication that parties which want "integration"—it is a very old-fashioned, centralised concept, as we have said again and again—will be all right.
We do not like the ambiguity in the treaty and declaration about the transfer of powers, to which my noble friend Lord Waddington has drawn attention with such characteristic clarity and robustness. Is something hidden here? We are left uneasy about this use of taxpayers' money promoting such activity at European level. We hope that the abuses will be halted. However, experience tells us that abuses tend to occur where large sums of money are splashed around and made available at European level for parties which have national connections. Perhaps it is possible to build a wall between the two, but we have not been told how to do so or whether the regulations will work. In order to express our disquiet, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
7.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 128.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Jopling, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kimball, L.

Attlee, E.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Kingsland, L.

Blaker, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Lucas, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Burnham, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mancroft, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Marlesford, L.

Colwyn, L.

Monson, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Moynihan, L.

Craigavon, V.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Noakes, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Northbrook, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Northesk, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Elton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Erroll, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fookes, B.

Rees, L.

Fowler, L.

Renton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Geddes, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Glentoran, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Hanham, B.

Selsdon, L.

Higgins, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Home, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe, E.

Stewartby, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

1240

Strathclyde, L.

Waddington, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Wilcox, B.

Thatcher, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Vivian, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Addington, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Alli, L.

Amos, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Jeger, B.

Bach, L.

Judd, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Berkeley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Layard, L.

Billingham, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Blackstone, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Borrie, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Bradshaw, L.

Bragg, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Brennan, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brett, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Brookman, L.

McNally, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Maddock, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Chandos, V.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Mitchell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Newby, L.

Crawley, B.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Pendry, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Desai, L.

Puttnam, L.

Dholakia, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dubs, L.

Razzall, L.

Elder, L.

Rea, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rennard, L.

Filkin. L.

Richard, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gale, B.

Roper, L.

Geraint, L.

Russell, E.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gilbert, L.

Sandwich, E.

Golding, B.

Sawyer, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Goodhart, L.

Serota, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sewel, L.

Grabiner, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Greaves, L.

Sheldon, L.

Grenfell, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Grocott, L.

Simon, V.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Harrison, L.

Tope, L.

Hayman, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Walmsley, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Whitaker, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wilkins, B.

Hoyle, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Disposals of Dwelling- houses by Local Authorities) Order 2002
7.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) rose to move, That the draft deregulation order laid before the House on 29th November be approved [8th Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the order will amend Section 135 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, allowing local authorities on a housing transfer programme up to two financial years in which to complete a housing transfer. The legislation currently requires local authorities on a housing transfer programme to complete the transfer within one financial year.
My department has fully complied with the required procedure. The order was laid before the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House and the Deregulation Committee of the other House on 31st January 2001 for initial scrutiny. Reports were made by both committees confirming that they were satisfied with the proposed procedural change. A small amendment of a technical nature in reference to the drafting of the order was accepted by the department and the draft order was amended accordingly. The order was subsequently laid for final scrutiny on 28th November 2001 and a Motion to approve the order was passed in the other House on 19th December 2001. Passing this order today will complete the process.
Housing transfers or disposals, as they are referred to, involve the sale of a local authority's housing stock to a registered social landlord. Where such a transfer involves more than 499 dwellings over a five-year period to the same landlord, it requires a place in the annual housing transfer programme.
The purpose of the order is to improve the administration of the programme, making transfer a more time-efficient and cost-effective process for all those involved.
Transfers are complex and time consuming, involving a range of private sector organisations, including funders, solicitors, professional consultants and advisers, surveyors, and RSLs. All of these groups offer a service to the local authority and new landlord which is potentially adversely affected by the current requirement to complete a transfer by the end of the financial year. The year-end pressure increases costs, as additional personnel are required to keep pace with the workload. Also, because of the limited period, the
1242
majority of new landlords seek funding at much the same time as each other, which we believe may impact adversely on the terms of the loans.
The new arrangements contained in the order will overcome this. From the current year's programme local authorities will have up to two financial years in which to complete transfer, enabling them to develop their proposals further and to work to more realistic timetables. The transfers will be spread out over a two-year period, alleviating the bottleneck currently experienced in February and March when a large number of local authorities are trying to complete at the same time. This will lead to a more efficient use of personnel, as authorities will not be competing for their services and, in turn, may bring down the costs of the transfer and the terms of the loans which may previously under the current arrangements have been adversely affected. The department will agree timetables for each transfer with local authorities to ensure that all transfers do not slip towards the end of the second financial year.
This provision is particularly timely, as transfers are now taking place in larger urban authorities with local authorities and new landlords are being required to develop and implement far more complex schemes. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft deregulation order laid before the House on 29th November be approved [8th Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, had this been yesterday, I should have said to the noble and learned Lord that the transfer of property from local authorities to RSLs provides a good reason why RSLs should be on the face of the Homelessness Bill. But as it is not yesterday, all I shall say is that this seems to be an extremely sensible measure and I have no possible comment to make on it.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I, too, am thoroughly supportive of the order. I have "lived the experience". In the municipal year immediately prior to taking my place in this House, I was the cabinet member for housing and community services of Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council. We went through this very experience, and concluded it in that year.
We were always watching the clock and asking whether we could get the transfer completed within the year. There was the whole business of working up the scheme, consultation with tenants, the decision as to when the ballot should be held—we had to be careful not to hold it during the holiday period—and so forth.
This is an important matter. The order is about attempting to achieve a quantum leap in the country's housing stock and to put some extra resources in so that many houses can be improved. It is important that the funding packages are available from those who will lend the new shadow board, then the board, the money, and so forth. Therefore, the idea that there is an artificial bunching of several councils which are all

1243
up against this difficulty, and the whole business of it all having to be done and the "scrum" taking place in February and March is not good news. Therefore, I am thoroughly supportive of the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2002
7.20 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th December 2001 be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these draft regulations make detailed provision for holding elections for a directly elected mayor under Part II of the Local Government Act 2000. They set out the necessary requirements to ensure that mayoral elections are well conducted and put in place the technical provisions required to ensure that they run smoothly. They follow very closely existing provisions for the conduct of a local election set out in other legislation and take account of recent developments in the electoral process.
There are a few exceptions to this general approach where the Government feel that the particular nature of the post for which the election is being held justify the use of provisions more in line with those established for the election of the Mayor for London. In particular, these departures from usual local elections practice lie in the requirement for a candidate's deposit on nomination, the issue of an election address booklet by the returning officer and the right of a nominated candidate to have an election address included in that booklet without having to contribute to the costs of delivery of that booklet, and the use of the supplementary vote system that the Act already establishes in principle.
A mayoral election is required to be held where the electorate of a local authority has voted in a binding referendum to move to a new council constitution involving a directly elected mayor. Some local authorities are already in this position and, subject to parliamentary approval of the draft, will hold elections using these regulations in May of this year. Other local authorities may be moving towards a mayoral election following referendums that are due to be held in the coming weeks and months.
These regulations will, subject to parliamentary approval, form an integral part of the Government's modernisation agenda for local government and will allow councils to continue to progress their implementation of new constitutions giving effect to the wishes of local people expressed through a referendum. In line with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2000, we have consulted the Electoral Commission fully on the draft. Additionally, I would like to place on record that I am satisfied that these regulations comply with the Human Rights Act 1998. I commend the regulations to the House.
1244
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th December 2001 be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, these regulations are largely uncontroversial and the procedures, as the Minister has explained, are by and large those well-rehearsed procedures for any election.
We welcome the proposal that there should be a free election booklet with the election addresses of all candidates included. We particularly welcome that since it was first tried out in the Greater London elections, but only after a hard-fought battle had been waged which the Government finally accepted when amendments were put forward by Members on these Benches. Clearly, it was a successful addition to the new procedures which now arise as a result of the small number of elections which will need to take place for mayoral candidates.
We consider that the deposit of £500 seems now to be about right, although I am aware that there has been concern that independent candidates, not supported by party structures, might find that a bit steep. However, as all candidates will be entitled to limited election expenses, as well as the free post election leaflet delivery, it should not provide an impossible hurdle, but will perhaps be a sufficient deterrent to prevent all but the most determined rogue candidates in the larger mayoral constituencies.
The only question we wish to raise regarding these regulations, therefore, relates to the rationale not to vary either the deposit or the number of electors required to support a candidate's nomination. Whether the election for mayor is to take place in a small borough, large metropolis, district or county—where the populations and consequent responsibilities are vastly different—the deposit and the number of voters required to support the nomination remains the same at 30 voters. Does not the Minister believe that it would be a better safeguard to recognise those differences and have a variable deposit and number of supporters depending on the categority of authority? In saying this, I am taking into account the only mayoral election which has yet been held for the Mayor for London. In that case I believe that a deposit of £10,000 per candidate was required together with 330 signatures of voters in the constituency—that is to say, 10 per borough of the 33 boroughs which make up Greater London. While the size of the deposit may have been excessively cautious, it seems that the size of the population and its distribution was taken as being a significant factor. I appreciate that London is different because it is split into a number of boroughs, but some of the bigger metropolitan areas, if they subsequently decided to go from there, would have a population probably about half that of London, but still very substantial. I shall be grateful for the Minister's comments on that aspect.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I am far less enthusiastic about these proposals and the new role of managerial mayor. But the die is cast as far as that is

1245
concerned. I am less enthusiastic about the particular form of voting. It seems to me that one could well have circumstances where there are three main party candidates and a very well known independent who all receive substantially the same number of votes and yet the play-off will be between the top two. I am not keen about that either.
As regards the nomination papers, Members on these Benches over many years have taken the view that a reasonably good number of nominations such as 100 or 1,000 or something of that order, would be far better because it would show a real commitment. Therefore I am not too keen about the amount of money that has to be put up as a deposit. I believe that many more names would carry more conviction.
I am slightly concerned also about the booklet election address. It seems to me that two sheets of A5 paper and a mugshot which has to be approved by the returning officer, will be a pretty sterile document, rather like a "Wanted" poster. It would be far better if the regulations were such that several sheets of paper which suited the candidate were sent out rather than stapled together in a booklet and the person in the booklet has some bearing on the poll. A far better way would have been to give provision for a more exciting document rather than a rather formal A5 booklet. The die is cast on this. The great thing is that not many people have taken advantage, as they may see it, of standing for the elected mayor.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome from the noble Baroness and for the slightly more grudging welcome from the noble Lord. As regards the question asked by the noble Baroness about varying the number of signatures and the amount of deposit required by reference to the nature of the local authority area in which the ballot is taking place, the £500 is for the individual. It is to deter the frivolous candidate. The figure of £500 is directed to the individual. It should not vary in terms of the size of the borough.
1246
We consulted about the number of signatures. The original proposal was for 10. As a result of the mixed consultation responses the figure was increased to 30. Nobody suggested a varying level of signatures. It seems to me that it would be much too fiddly to have a different number of signatures when one is talking of about 30. That seems to be a sensible way to deal with the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, wanted no deposit and many signatures. Some balance has to be reached in that regard. I believe that a sensible ballot was conducted. He raised questions about the form of voting. Again, there has been a sensible compromise which ensures that support spread more widely across the parties or the electorate as a whole would be achieved as regards the winner of the mayoral election.
The noble Lord asked about the booklet. It seems to be a sensible provision, when one is dealing with a cross-borough election, to give all the candidates an opportunity to put their point of view in a freepost drop. Some balance has to be struck and it seems to be a sensible one.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, may I ask about the London elections? I do not know whether the order will to extend to the next London elections. If so, it will be seriously out of kilter if it is still demanding a £10,000 deposit and 330 signatures. Is that now operated under different regulations or will this regulation cover all cases? I appreciate that there has been consultation on the numbers game. I knew that the Minister was going to say that. However, as I got in first, it seems to me that the Minister might have thought that it was a better idea. I do not want him to think that I think that mayoral elections are a good idea, because I do not.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the order does not apply to the mayoral election in London. It applies only to mayoral elections under the Local Government Act 2000. The mayoral elections for London are dealt with under a separate Act.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.

  Eritrea
  Eritrea
  Firearms Control Protocol
  Firearms Control Protocol
  UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
  UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
  Afghanistan
  Afghanistan
  Suspected Terrorists: Decisions on Extradition to Stand Trial
  Suspected Terrorists: Decisions on Extradition to Stand Trial
  Criminal Compensation
  Criminal Compensation
  Balkans: Small Arms Proliferation
  Balkans: Small Arms Proliferation
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Environmental Statements
  Environmental Statements
  Waste Recycling
  Waste Recycling
  Pennine Cycleway
  Pennine Cycleway
  Street Works
  Street Works
  Bus Lane Contravention
  Bus Lane Contravention
  Bristol Royal Infirmary
  Bristol Royal Infirmary
  Language Learning: Ministers and Officials
  Language Learning: Ministers and Officials
  Equality of Treatment: Election Candidates
  Equality of Treatment: Election Candidates
  Chief Surveillance Commissioner's Report
  Chief Surveillance Commissioner's Report