Sitting of 22 January 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  MR SPEAKER'S ABSENCE
  The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the absence of MR. SPEAKER from this day's sitting, pursuant to leave given [18 January]
  Whereupon, SIR ALAN HASELHURST, THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table, and after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

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

    Accident and Emergency
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: What plans he has to reopen accident and emergency units that were closed during the last decade. [26359]
    Mr. Deputy speaker: Before I call the Minister, may I say that I shall be looking for short questions and concise answers.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Decisions about the configuration of A and E departments, including their closing or merging or the opening of new facilities, are a matter for local determination, taking into account local needs and clinical advice about safety and quality. The Government remain fully committed to Modernising and improving A and E services throughout the NHS, which is why we have made the biggest investment in them since the NHS was established in 1948.
    Mr. Wareing: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. One of the A and E units closed during the last decade was that at Broadgreen hospital in Liverpool, and I believe that that closure has contributed to the increasing strains on the Royal Liverpool and Fazakerley hospitals. It is necessary to review the situation in Liverpool, so I hope that my right hon. Friend will visit the city and reach the same conclusion as me: that Broadgreen A and E unit and its associated services should reopen.
    Mr. Hutton: I listened closely to my hon. Friend's comments, and obviously we shall consider them carefully. I have been to Liverpool recently and I saw the
    730
    A and E services at the Royal Liverpool hospital and the new walk-in centre at the Old Swan site, close to the old Broadgreen A and E site. Significant extra investment has gone into A and E services in his city, and all three hospitals providing A and E services in Liverpool are operating within their capacity limits. I am aware of his concerns and we are looking carefully at the situation.
    Dr. Richard Taylor: Will the Secretary of State advise on how the A and E department at the tiny Hexham general hospital, which is only a few miles from his home, has been maintained?
    Mr. Hutton: Let me make one thing absolutely clear: I live 110 miles from Hexham, so the hon. Gentleman should check his facts before making allegations of that kind in this House. The circumstances of Kidderminster and Hexham are different. At Kidderminster, we decided no longer to provide blue light services because of the advice from local clinicians about the safety of those services. Such concerns were not expressed about services at Hexham.
    Andy Burnham: Leigh lost its A and E department in the mid-1990s and people there are under no illusions about who is to blame for that. Although I accept that we cannot reopen an A and E department in Leigh, will the Minister give full consideration to the case for a new diagnostic and treatment centre at the Leigh infirmary site, using the spare capacity? It is well located, and separating acute services from elective admissions in the Wigan and Leigh trust makes good sense.
    Mr. Hutton: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The new diagnostic and treatment centres can make a positive contribution to elective and emergency services right across the NHS. We are considering a number of proposals to establish the new centres and we shall look carefully at his suggestion. An announcement will be made in the near future.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Yesterday, after four and a half years of Labour Government, the East Surrey hospital A and E department had to close to 999 calls because there were 40 patients on trolleys; Crawley hospital had to do the same. That has appalling consequences for people coming in for elective surgery and appalling consequences for my constituent Philip Sprake, who could not be found a place in that hospital and had to be sent to Bromley, which is an hour away, and for his family. The trust is bankrupt, so the issue is certainly about money and resources. When will money and resources get to the trust? After four and a half years of Labour government, what is happening there is an absolute disgrace.
    Mr. Hutton: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that very much more money and resources are reaching trusts in Surrey than was ever the case under the previous Administration. [Interruption.] It is no good him shaking his head, because he knows that that is precisely the case. I accept that the situation at that A and E is serious and we are looking closely into the exact circumstances,

    731
    but his solution more—money—is one that we have already embraced. I am afraid that it is a lesson that his party has not yet learned.
    Charlotte Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the excellent work of Government inspectors? They visited my local accident and emergency department in north Staffordshire recently and made 71 recommendations based on best practice. Does not that contrast with the days of the internal market when every hospital was in competition and best practice was not shared?
    Mr. Hutton: I agree. Such lessons were drawn out in Professor Sir Ian Kennedy's report. We have made a significant advance not only by establishing new national standards, including a new emergency care strategy, but by spreading best practice throughout the service.
    Dr. Liam Fox: Further to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) asked, I have the facts about East Surrey primary care group. It states that the accident and emergency departments in both Redhill and Crawley will be closed to all admissions from 4.45 pm until the review at lunchtime on 22 January. What would happen in the case of a major road accident or an accident at Gatwick?
    Mr. Hutton: I do not know the details, but there are well-established contingency plans to deal with large-scale emergencies. The plans remain in place.

    HIV
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: What steps he will be taking to monitor HIV prevention work after April. [26362]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): The Department plans to monitor local HIV prevention through the AIDS (Control) Act 1987 and through the NHS performance assessment framework. That will include monitoring expenditure for groups most at risk of HIV, and developing performance indicators to assess progress towards meeting the prevention target in the sexual health and HIV strategy.
    Mr. Gerrard: My hon. Friend knows that some anxiety has been expressed about transferring commissioning to primary care trusts. I appreciate her comments about the Government's continuing to monitor. Will she assure us that that will continue beyond the next financial year into the following year, when primary care trusts become wholly responsible? If it is found that spending is not maintained, especially on vulnerable groups, will the Government be prepared to intervene?
    Yvette Cooper: I can assure my hon. Friend that we envisage long-term arrangements for performance management on sexual health and HIV. It is right to bring that into the mainstream of the NHS, but we are not
    732
    considering only transitional arrangements. We must continue to monitor progress to ensure that we achieve the challenging targets.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: Can it really be true that nurses who are HIV-positive are being recruited? Do the Government believe that that poses no health hazard?
    Yvette Cooper: No, it is not true.
    Mr. Simon Burns: Does the Minister know about doctors' grave anxieties, especially in London, that female asylum seekers who come to this country from areas of high HIV infection are ignorant of the dangers of HIV and will not be tested? That means that those who are infected do not receive proper health care as early as possible and it places additional strains on the provision of health care by the NHS.
    Yvette Cooper: It is clearly important that people with HIV/AIDS receive treatment. We are keen to increase testing and to ensure that we reduce the amount of undiagnosed HIV. The hon. Gentleman is right that that affects asylum seekers and others who have travelled abroad. We are reviewing the procedures for providing health care and testing for asylum seekers to ensure that we deal properly with any problems that arise.

    Service Outsourcing
    Rev. Martin Smyth: How many health authorities purchased services outwith their region in the last 12 months. [26363]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): All 95 health authorities will have commissioned some services for their populations outside their region in the past 12 months, mainly for specialised services that are provided in relatively few hospitals in different parts of the United Kingdom.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the difficulty in assessing what is happening and I welcome the fact that some people have recently been treated in France. Is it possible that, instead of caring for patients, health authorities that could not deal with waiting lists have refused to purchase elsewhere in order to protect jobs in their areas?
    Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we want to move from the traditional position whereby hospitals choose patients to one whereby patients have a greater say about their hospital treatment. The scheme to treat some patients in France is only a pilot scheme. The hon. Gentleman would rightly be the first to express anxiety if quality of care lapsed or if we did not get value for money. It is important to test schemes and get them right. Although they will be an important option in providing more choice for patients, I suspect that many patients will choose not to choose.
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: My right hon. Friend mentions value for money in the context of

    733
    purchasing from the private sector and providers abroad. What steps are being taken to ensure that the NHS gets value for money from such purchases?
    Mr. Milburn: As I have said to my hon. Friend on more than one occasion, both in the Chamber and before the Select Committee, there is no blank cheque. It is important that we can guarantee the right things to patients and to taxpayers: first, the highest possible standards of care and, secondly, good value for money. When there is spare capacity in the private sector, we should use it for the benefit of NHS patients, provided that the private sector passes those two important tests. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend is well aware, capacity in the mainstream national health service continues to be built, involving more beds, more hospitals, and more doctors and nurses. I hope that my hon. Friend will do what I do, which is to contrast the growth in the national health service now with the reductions that took place under the Conservatives.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Is the Secretary of State not aware that patients cannot choose to use facilities in their own region, let alone in others, unless their health authority has contracted to purchase care at those facilities? Patients have to follow the money, but surely money should follow patients. If the Secretary of State has done a U-turn on this issue, is he aware that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents? We shall not believe that he has repented, however, until he withdraws the circular that forbids patients to choose care at a facility with which their local authority does not have a contract.
    Mr. Milburn: When the right hon. Gentleman was in government, he was never one to practise humility, as I remember. So far as the issue of money following patients is concerned, it is true that that is what the internal market, which he and his right hon. and hon. Friends devised, was supposed to achieve. But it never did. The money did not follow the patient; the patient ended up following the money, because the Conservatives had the absurd idea that the only way to raise standards in NHS hospitals was to foment competition among them. That was a failure then and, if we did it now, it would be a failure now.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the Secretary of State look carefully at the number of health authorities that actually pay for what they have purchased, rather than at those that purchase outside their area? In my area, two hospital trusts—the Queen's medical centre and Nottingham city hospital—regularly have to carry bills of about £1 million each for extra-contractual referrals from other areas. Those bills do not get paid. It is one thing to ask hospitals to meet their own targets; it is another thing to ask them to meet other people's targets using their own financial allocations.
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Incidentally, he has two very good hospitals in his city, as he well knows. The system of extra-contractual referrals has gone. It was part and parcel of the internal market, which has now been replaced by a new system. He is quite right, however, to say that there is a faultline in the new system. When a hospital takes patients from outside its area, we do not recompense it immediately.
    734
    Indeed, because of late payment, it has taken some hospitals up to two years to pay the hospitals that have taken their patients. We must change that, so that hospitals that treat more patients more quickly get more money more quickly.
    Dr. Evan Harris: The tests for use of the private sector surely include value for money and accountability. Would it not deliver better value for money to free up the beds currently blocked in the health authorities where the Secretary of State is paying private companies over the odds to treat patients abroad, before trying the latter option? How can he demonstrate accountability when health authorities will not release to the House the value of the contracts to treat patients abroad, saying only that it is less than the very high cost that they are paying—over the odds—for private care in this country? How can that value for money be demonstrated in an accountable way?
    Mr. Milburn: It is a nice, simple world that the Liberal Democrats live in, where there is always a simple solution to every problem. There is not a simple solution to the problems in the national health service. We have to grow the capacity in the NHS, use it where we can elsewhere, and put the reforms in place. It is not simply a question of using spare capacity in the private sector, or of freeing up capacity in the NHS. The hon. Gentleman is quite right; we are trying to get the number of delayed discharge patients down by investing more in social services, and by providing intermediate care, rehabilitation and other forms of care. We are doing all those things, not just one of them.
    The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the so-called secret contract between the primary care group and the hospitals in France is being evaluated. The primary care group will have to account for how it spends its share of the public money that it receives.
    Tim Loughton: I am sure that we were all pleased for the nine NHS escapees who hobbled off for treatment at the private clinic in Lille last week. They will have been waved off enviously by the 1 million-plus patients who remain on waiting lists at home, not least the 42,000 and rising who have been waiting for more than a year. Will the Secretary of State now have another go at telling us exactly how much the treatment in Lille costs, including the associated travel costs, compared with the treatment available at private and not-for-profit centres here? Given the press reports about looking at using hospitals in Turkey, Tunisia and Malta, will he tell us just how far afield he is prepared to send our constituents before he gets to grips with the worsening crisis in treatment at home and puts an end to this national humiliation?
    Mr. Milburn: I do not think that it is a national humiliation to get more NHS patients treated more quickly. I know that the Conservatives never managed to achieve that, but that is what is happening. I have a little tip for the hon. Gentleman: he should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. It will make him a very unhappy person—I candidly tell him that, on occasions, it makes me very unhappy.

    735
    There are no deals with other countries. We have one deal in a pilot scheme between one primary care group and one hospital in France. As for escapees from the national health service, there is one policy that the Conservatives would carry out: they would make every NHS patient an escapee, because they want to abandon the national health service.

    Derriford Hospital
    Mr. Gary Streeter: What assessment he has made of the capacity of Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, to meet the acute health needs of its community. [26364]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): In February last year, we approved plans for a £101 million major redevelopment in Plymouth, which will significantly increase the capacity of the hospital.
    Mr. Streeter: The Minister refers to a new hospital that will come on stream in six or seven years, but what about levels of care for my constituents in the meantime? Given that the Government's own commission reported at the end of last year that it has been discovered that activity levels at Derriford hospital in Plymouth are three times higher than the national average, but that resources for the hospital are less than twice as high as the national average, is not the problem of the long-term funding structure the real reason why it often performs at 102 per cent. of capacity, why doctors and nurses are so hard pressed, and why so many operations are cancelled? After five years of a Labour Government, how much longer must my constituents wait for proper acute hospital health care?
    Ms Blears: It is true that there are problems of capacity in this country, and it is no wonder, because under the previous Government 60,000 beds were cut. Between 1980 and 1997, the NHS lost 60,000 beds. That is why there is a problem with capacity. At long last, under this Government, we now have a scheme to rebuild Derriford hospital.
    What has already happened at Derriford? [Interruption.] Let Opposition Members listen to what has already happened at Derriford: £6 million for a new cardiac unit; £3.5 million for a new cancer centre; £1.5 million for a new breast care unit; £820,000 for additional critical care beds; £765,000 for A and E Modernisation; a new 10-bed observation ward planned in accident and emergency; four new wards for cardiac patients; and three wards to be released. That is just in Derriford. The rest of the country is also benefiting from the Labour Government, whereas people had to wait for years and years under the Tories.
    Linda Gilroy: Does my hon. Friend agree that primary care trusts have an increasingly important role to play in easing not just winter pressures but all the seasonal pressures that affect hospitals these days? Does she further agree that private insurance has absolutely no role to play in solving those problems and, indeed, would make matters worse for many of my constituents?
    Ms Blears rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the Minister that this question is about one particular hospital. I hope that she will not stray outside that.
    Ms Blears: Much as I am tempted to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not.
    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Getting hospitals to work well is not just the responsibility of the acute trusts; it also depends on primary care trusts, on social services working together and on the whole health community coming together to achieve that. I am aware that senior managers are working in each other's organisations. Anne James, chief executive of Plymouth City primary care trust, has recently spent some time working in accident and emergency. What better way for professionals to experience the problems that they all face across the piece? I am delighted that, in this area, people are looking to Modernisation and reform as well as investment.

    Sexual Health
    Sandra Gidley: If he will make a statement on the sexual health strategy. [26365]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): Consultation on the sexual health and HIV strategy ended on 21 December. An action plan is being developed. In addition, we have started to prepare for implementation by asking health authorities to undertake a baseline review, and by seeking expressions of interest in chlamydia screening.
    Sandra Gidley: Is not the truth that the long-awaited strategy is little more than an HIV/AIDS strategy with a teenage pregnancy policy added on? Worthy as those matters are, should not the strategy include issues such as sexual dysfunction and endometriosis, which have a huge impact on people's lives? Most damaging, there is little emphasis in the strategy on barrier methods of contraception. I am glad that chlamydia screening has been mentioned because chlamydia rates have doubled in the past five years, along with those for other sexually transmitted diseases. But is it not too little, too late? Is not the Government's record the sexual equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns?
    Yvette Cooper: I completely disagree. It is the first time that this country has ever had a comprehensive sexual health strategy. It covers issues around all kinds of sexually transmitted infections, contraception and abortion. It sets clear targets, including on preventing new transmissions of gonorrhoea. It has been widely welcomed across the country for focusing not simply on prevention but on integrating prevention and HIV/AIDS and sexual health services.
    Ms Meg Munn: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating young people in my constituency who have been involved in producing the local sexual health strategy? Does she agree that involving young people in producing such strategies is the best way

    737
    to ensure that they are relevant to their needs and deal with issues around sexual health and reducing teenage pregnancy?
    Yvette Cooper: I welcome the work to which my hon. Friend refers. It is true that a lot of the work on prevention is effective only when the groups at whom the work is aimed are involved in its development. With teenage pregnancies and preventing teenage pregnancies, it is particularly important to get teenagers involved. We are aware of the broad health impact of teenage pregnancies not simply on teenagers but on their children. That is why it is so important to keep on bringing the rates down.

    Caesarean Section Births
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the change in the proportion of babies born by Caesarean section in the last five years. [26366]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): The proportion of babies born by Caesarean section has risen gradually over the past five years. To help set standards on the use of Caesarean sections, the Department commissioned the national Caesarean section audit. The findings will form the basis of clinical guidelines to be issued by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the development of the national service framework for children.
    Dr. Cable: Does the Minister share the assessment of the Royal College of Midwives that the number of operations at present—approximately double the level considered safe by the World Health Organisation—is unnecessary, unwanted, a major drain on NHS funding and a risk to mothers? If she does share that assessment, why are the Government not moving more urgently to reverse the trend?
    Jacqui Smith: I think that I explained that the Government are moving urgently. There is no clinical consensus about the right level of Caesarean sections. Through NICE, we will be able to develop guidelines that mean that instead of focusing on overall levels we are able to ensure that the advice and the service that any individual woman receives, whether a Caesarean section or other forms of delivery, is appropriate. It is right that, building on the work that the Department has already done in gaining information, we now develop guidelines to ensure that the processes are appropriate for each woman. Alongside that, I am sure that the Royal College of Midwives recognises and appreciates the extra investment that the Government are putting into maternity services and into increasing the number of midwives available to support women.
    Ms Julia Drown: The Minister has spoken of the advice that parents should be given. The pregnancy book given out to parents-to-be says that the Caesarean operation is "safe", rather than pointing out that it is still a major operation and spelling out the risks, as the risks associated with other forms of childbirth would be spelled out. Will the Minister ensure that the guidance
    738
    is looked at again, so that parents-to-be can be told about the risks associated with what is, as I have said, still a major operation?
    Jacqui Smith: As I told the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), I think the information that individual women receive is crucial. Some of it will be given during discussions that they have with their obstetricians, and some will be published. One of the important jobs for the maternity component of the national service framework for children will be ensuring that the information we provide for women is available to them, so that they and their clinicians can make the best choices in each case.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Would not one way of reducing demand for Caesarean operations be to increase the supply of acupuncturists? At Derriford hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), only 7.5 per cent. of babies are delivered by Caesarean.
    The working group on herbal medicines established by the Minister's Department, under Professor Pittilo—[Laughter]—not my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo). The working group will be looking at the regulation of acupuncture. Does that change in Government strategy represent original thinking?
    Jacqui Smith: We wondered who would get the alternative medicine question today—but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the good work that is going on at Derriford hospital. When I visited a Walsall hospital maternity unit, I saw interesting work going on there as well. Midwives are being trained to use complementary therapies; indeed, more midwives are being trained throughout the country to use such therapies, and use them when appropriate.
    The remit of the working group under Professor Michael Pittilo—this is not, as some thought, a new job for one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues—will be to present proposals to make self-regulation statutory for practitioners of herbal medicine, and proposals to revise provisions in the Medicines Act 1986 relating to the administering of such medicine. The group's recommendations will form a basis for wider public consultation before proposals are finalised and put to Parliament. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will follow developments with the assiduity with which he follows all such matters.

    Nurses
    Mr. John Smith: What steps he is taking to improve the recruitment of nurses to the NHS. [26367]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Provisional figures show that 10,000 more nurses were working in the NHS in 2001 than in 2000. That is a consequence of better pay, improved child care and more flexible working.
    Mr. Smith: I welcome the good news about nurse recruitment, and congratulate my right hon. Friend and

    739
    his team on their good work. Does he, however, recognise the vital part played by the Royal College of Nursing in both recruiting and retaining nurses, given its principal role of representing nurses' interests? Does he agree that the college should adopt the same high standards in protecting its own employees as apply to its members in the NHS? It should not be in the business of diddling former employees such as my constituent Mrs. Marilyn Reed out of their pension entitlements.
    Mr. Milburn: The news about recruitment is indeed very good. I well remember that when we announced the NHS plan in the House, the Opposition said we would never hit the target of an extra 20,000 nurses by 2004. Now, at the beginning of 2002, there are already 16,000 more. We are not just on target; we are well ahead of target. The RCN has played an important part in that, as have Unison and the other trade unions representing nurses at all levels in the NHS. We work closely together precisely to try to get the policies right, and not just bring nurses into the NHS but ensure that they stay.
    As far as internal issues as concerned, I think that they are a matter for the RCN.
    Hywel Williams: There are 750 nursing vacancies in Wales. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that nurse training places are allocated to Wales to meet that need?
    Mr. Milburn: It is one of the joys of my life that I am not responsible for all things Welsh—not that all things Welsh, as personified by hon. Members of all parties, are not absolutely admirable. There is very good news about nurse training places. I note that the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service reports that the number of people applying for nursing degrees has risen by 18 per cent. in one year. The news is better with regard to applications for nurse diploma courses: they are up by 83 per cent.

    Radiographers
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: What action he is taking to increase the supply of radiographers. [26368]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Measures are being taken to improve the recruitment and retention of radiographers. They include improvements in pay and cost-of-living allowances, increased provision of child care and of other means of supporting flexible employment, and increases in the availability of training courses. We are also working closely with the Society and College of Radiographers, running recruitment and return-to-practice campaigns. There are now over 700 more radiographers working in the NHS today than in 1997, an increase of 6 per cent.
    Mrs. Campbell: I welcome the improvement in radiographer services at Addenbrooke's hospital. The provision of brand new linear accelerators has been very welcome, as they are much more efficient. They take longer to set up, however, which has increased the need for radiographers at the hospital. Will my hon. Friend
    740
    consider using trained staff to administer radiotherapy? Such staff, being less than fully qualified, would work under the supervision of fully trained radiographers.
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's words of support, and the answer to her question is yes. Addenbrooke's is one of the 13 pilot sites that are currently helping shape new roles for what we call assistant practitioners in radiography. They can make a powerful and important contribution to dealing with some of the problems that my hon. Friend has identified, and to improving the service available to NHS patients.
    Michael Fabricant: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there are variations in the recruitment of radiographers and nurses both within and between regions? That has a lot to do with the uncertainty about the continued existence of certain hospitals. On two occasions, the right hon. Gentleman was unable to see a delegation from Lichfield and Burntwood to discuss the future of hospitals in the area, where there is real uncertainty about the future of day surgery. We met the Under-Secretary of State in the other place, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in November. He promised to respond rapidly, but we still have not received a reply. When will we get a reply? When will we be able to recruit the nurses and radiographers that we need? This matter goes back to November.
    Mr. Hutton: The fact that I was unable to meet the delegation was not for want of trying, nor because I had no desire to meet the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman knows why I was not able to attend those meetings. On one occasion I had to travel to Ottawa to attend an international forum dealing with issues connected with bioterrorism. I hope that hon. Members would regard that as a pretty good reason. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman soon—
    Michael Fabricant: Soon?
    Mr. Hutton: Today, The hon. Gentleman will get the letter later this afternoon. However, he may be interested to know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to hold a meeting on expanding access to day surgery tomorrow. I shall keep the hon. Gentleman informed of progress.

    Lymington Community Hospital
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on the future of the Lymington community hospital. [26369]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): New Forest primary care trust, which manages Lymington hospital, is developing proposals for a new hospital and plans to submit its outline business case to the NHS regional office next month.
    Dr. Lewis: I thank the Minister for that reply, although it is slightly uninformative. The existing health authority is to be wound up at the end of March, and replaced by a new strategic health authority. Is the hon. Lady aware of the New Forest primary care trust's concern that there is

    741
    a risk that the funding allocated for the new hospital under the existing health authority might not be carried forward as a commitment by the new health authority? The trust is also worried that what might be termed planning blight will add to the hold-ups that have bedevilled the project for so many years. Can the Minister give a reassurance that the New Forest will not lose out in funding and suffer further delays as a result of the changeover to the new health authority?
    Ms Blears: I am aware that it has taken time for the project to reach fruition, but I am delighted at another example of delivery. I am aware also of how much the hon. Gentleman's constituents will value that facility. I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the matter has been brought to my attention and that I will follow it through. The plans are well advanced for 113 beds, two theatres, an endoscopy suite, outpatient services, X-ray facilities, dental services, pharmacy and pathology. It will be a wonderful enhancement to the hon. Gentleman's community and I hope that this Government will be able to deliver it.
    Dr. Liam Fox: What will be the implications for Lymington hospital and other building projects of the south-east region being overspent by £60 million, which will have to be paid for out of next year's allocation?
    Ms Blears: No, it will not. Hon. Members have become a little excited at the prospect of the south-east's financial position. The deficit that the south-east region is facing is about 1 per cent. of its budget and one eighth of 1 per cent. of the overall NHS budget. Such matters arise from time to time; they will be resolved. The majority of the deficit—some £51 million—is the result of increases in prescribing. Many drugs are being prescribed to prevent ill health in the first place.

    Warrington, North (Appointees)
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Question 11, please.
    Helen Jones: What progress has been made in appointing more people from the Warrington, North constituency to serve on health authorities and trusts. [26370]
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is there a Minister willing to answer Question 11?
    Ms Blears: Sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The National Health Service Appointments Commission aims at ensuring that board membership reflects the geographical areas served by the bodies concerned. The criteria issued by the commission state that it is essential that candidates must live in the area served by the health authority or NHS trust—or in the case of a patient care trust, be registered as a patient of a general practitioner within the PCT area.
    Helen Jones: My hon. Friend is possibly looking for the word "none" in her answer. The health service cannot meet the needs of those whom it is meant to serve unless people in the most health-deprived areas are represented in decision making. It is nonsense for the commission to
    742
    argue that it cannot find suitable candidates to serve on NHS bodies from a constituency of more than 72,000 voters. My constituency and others like it have been badly let down. Most of the commission's recent appointments were from the wealthier areas of Warrington, South. It is a case of good chaps appointing other good chaps, and the golf club rules. What will the Minister do to redress inequality?
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend raises an important point. If the health service is to be redesigned around patient needs, it is crucial that a proper cross-section of the public serve on boards. The new Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health will be charged with finding people who want to serve on health bodies, patients forums and panels—and in the governance of future health service bodies—to make sure that people from a much wider range of social backgrounds become involved. I am concerned about that matter and mean to make progress. Considerable progress has been made in recent years in appointing not just women but people with disabilities and from a range of ethnic backgrounds, but there is much more to be done.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: Is the pattern of appointments to health bodies that serve Warrington, North the same nationally? The commission has appointed five times more Labour supporters than Conservatives or Liberal Democrats to NHS bodies—140 Labour, 30 Conservative and 31 Liberal Democrats. Those are the Minister's own figures, given in a parliamentary answer dated 8 January. What will the Minister do about the culture of Labour cronyism?
    Ms Blears: The commission does indeed appoint people on merit—people who properly represent their communities. The Commissioner for Public Appointments has just reviewed the appointments to primary care trusts, and she said that there was
    "no significant difference between the political activity of applicants and the political activity of the appointees".
    She concluded that there was
    "no evidence of any political bias in the appointments process".
    I am afraid, therefore, that Conservative Members will really have to do better and ensure that the appointments that are made on merit perhaps include some people with the ability to represent their communities.

    Norfolk and Norwich Hospital (Access Road)
    Mr. Richard Bacon: What discussions he has had with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Highways Agency concerning the provision of an access road for the new Norfolk and Norwich hospital; and if he will make a statement. [26371]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): My noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath has raised the issue of access to the new Norfolk and Norwich university hospital with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The Highways Agency has confirmed that the direct access road from the A47 to the new hospital cannot be approved, on grounds of safety.

    743
    The national health service has so far spent more than £4 million on improving road access to the new hospital site, and an additional £1 million has been earmarked for further improvements. Norfolk county council is now urgently considering other options for improving access.
    Mr. Bacon: Does the Minister agree, while recognising that he is in no sense to blame, that it is unacceptable to spend £229 million of public money building a major new hospital and then not ensure that high-quality road access is provided as an integral part of the development? Will he use his good offices to apply every possible pressure to those responsible, to ensure that a speedy solution is found to that very important problem?
    Mr. Hutton: Yes, I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance and we are working very hard to ensure that there is a sensible outcome. There is widespread consensus that improved and better access to the hospital site is needed. A taskforce of the four local authorities concerned has been set up. I understand that its first meeting is next week and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, if he is able to attend, would be welcome. If he cannot come, I will ensure that he is kept properly informed of progress.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: When looking at the road links, will the Minister also look at the A and E department of that hospital, which depends crucially on those road links? Did he see an article in the local newspaper the other day, headed, "Delays at A & E"? It said:
    "Patients were left waiting in a queue of ambulances outside a busy Norfolk casualty department because of a 'bottleneck' in dealing with patients, it emerged yesterday."
    Is it not a sad reflection on the Government that they cannot even build a brand new hospital and deliver for that hospital a proper, functioning, A and E department?
    Mr. Hutton: That is a very disappointing response from the hon. Gentleman. We do not want to stray too far into this territory, but his party had 18 years in which to build a new hospital for Norwich and it never quite managed to do it. We have built a new hospital. Yes, issues still need to be addressed, but my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have yet to hear one word of welcome for the new hospital from the hon. Gentleman.

    Disabled People (Croydon)
    Geraint Davies: What plans his Department has to support the provision of sustainable jobs for those with mental and physical disabilities in Croydon. [26372]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): Participation in employment is an important factor in promoting well-being and social inclusion. The Department of Health contributes to work in this area through a range of initiatives such as the welfare-to-work joint investment plans for disabled people, and the
    744
    prominence given to employment issues in the national service framework for mental health and the learning disability White Paper, "Valuing People".
    Geraint Davies: My hon. Friend will be aware of the very valuable work done by Crosfield Industries, which employs more than 100 people with disabilities, turns over more than £3 million of commercial revenue—
    Michael Fabricant: Calm down. [Laughter.]
    Geraint Davies: Thank you very much. It turns over more than £3 million of commercial revenue from windows, assembly and electrical work. It is supported by Government and council subsidy. Will my hon. Friend give her backing to continued Government support for providing sustainable jobs for people with disabilities—jobs which support them by caring for their physical and emotional needs and giving them a stake in the economy and society?
    Jacqui Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Unlike Opposition Members, who have reacted to it with such hilarity, I think that providing work opportunities and the support necessary for disabled people is a pretty important and serious issue. I certainly would commend the work that Crosfield and Crosslink do with disabled people. That is part of the Government's workstep programme, which helps and supports 22,000 people throughout the country, enabling them to get or keep a job, and I understand that at least 90 people in my hon. Friend's constituency are supported in that way. I hope that he continues his support for that important work in his constituency; the Government certainly will.

    Residential Care
    Mr. Nick Gibb: How many beds for elderly people have been lost in residential homes between May 1997 and the latest available date. [26373]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): The Department's figures show that there were 261,600 residential care home places for older people in March 1997. That figure had fallen by 1,500, to 260,100, in March 2001.
    Mr. Gibb: It is strange that the hon. Lady cites those figures, because experts appointed by her Department—Laing and Buisson—show 49,000 fewer beds in residential care homes since 1997, as a consequence of which almost 6,500 beds are now being blocked in NHS hospitals. Is not that an absurd misallocation of scarce NHS resources?
    Jacqui Smith: There are pressures on the care home sector. That, of course, is part of the reason why the Government are investing £300 million this year and next year, partly to help to stabilise the care home sector; but I really do not think that a discussion about this important issue is helped by Opposition Members' consistent misuse of figures. Laing and Buisson has no axe to grind, and the Laing and Buisson figures actually showed a net loss of 19,000 beds since 1996—a period in which there has also

    745
    been a considerable increase in the number of older people receiving intensive care packages at home. In other words, we are doing what older people want us to do—helping them to be independent.
    Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend is right to concentrate on intensive home care packages. Is she aware of the report in this month's British Medical Journal that suggests that, if the NHS could reduce the acute bed/day average down to levels such as those in the Kaiser organisation in California, we could save up to 17 per cent. of the NHS budget? Does not that send the message that it is important to have such acute home care packages and that we should concentrate on reform, rather than just pouring money into the health service?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the investment that has already gone into intermediate care and the £300 million that the Government are providing over this year and next year is buying not only more care home places, but more intermediate care to keep people out of hospital and help them move more quickly from acute beds to independence. It is also buying more intensive home care, so more people are receiving nursing and other support to stay at home. This is a time of transition in the care that we provide to our older people, and a mature debate recognises that and the extra support that the Government are providing to help to promote independence and to maintain capacity in the care home sector; it does not focus on misusing statistics to the benefit of no one.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I appreciate the content of the Minister's replies to the questions that she has been asked on this subject, does she not agree that there is a problem with residential care for the elderly and that a number of elderly people require residential care? Although home care packages can play a very important part, there is a problem because of the increased costs that residential care proprietors have to incur. Will she not accept that there is a problem with the costs incurred in certain areas of the country, not least in my own, where a residential care home provided by an independent body—County Lifestyle Services—has closed in Cheshire? Will she not take account of the fact that some people require care homes for their retirement?
    Jacqui Smith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Some people need care homes, and the fees and commissioning arrangements at local authority and local health service level are important for the publicly funded residents in those homes. That is why my predecessor set up a strategic commissioning group, to bring together representatives of local authorities and of independent health care and residential home providers to develop an agreement which the Government published at the same time as we invested £300 million in the system. The group also addressed the need for better commissioning and explicitly said that, when local authorities make decisions about fees, they should bear in mind the costs faced by care homes and the quality that we want for residential care provision.
    Decisions about fees are rightly made at local authority level. However, with the guidance and extra investment that the Government are putting into social services, it is
    746
    possible to remodel our services and to maintain the necessary high-quality capacity in residential care to give a real choice to our older people.

    NHS Dentistry
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the availability of NHS dentistry. [26374]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone who needs it can have access to NHS dental treatment. To support that, NHS Direct is now advising people on how to find dentists willing to provide NHS treatment in their local area.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that everyone has the right to be on the list of an NHS dentist? Does she also agree that the best way to improve dental health, not least in poorer areas, is to increase further the number of available dentists? What specific plans does she have to retain or to recruit more dentists who are willing to provide a high-quality NHS service, rather than do as they currently do—which is to spend an ever increasing amount of time on private practice?
    Yvette Cooper: I assure my hon. Friend that we are committed to increasing access to NHS dentistry. The number of dentists working in the NHS is increasing, and primary dental services have been established in his area. Through the use of dental access centres as well, we are increasing access to NHS dentistry for people in low-income areas. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that inequality issues also need to be addressed.
    Mr. David Heath: Despite the assurances that we have been given over the years, is it not true that there are still huge gaps in NHS dentistry provision, not least in my county of Somerset where people still come to me because they cannot get an NHS dentist? Do we not best serve the interests of acute and long-term care by concentrating on primary care and making sure that we have the practitioners available in dentistry, optometry and general practice to provide universal and comprehensive primary care for our constituents?
    Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that catching dental problems at an early stage is far better than palliative work later, and that the position varies across the country. We need to improve access at an early stage. However, we would be in a considerably better position now if hundreds of dentists had not left the NHS in the early 1990s, when the Conservative Government changed their contracts. We are putting in place incentive payments and improving things so as to bring dentists back into the NHS—but we would not be in this situation if previous decisions had not been taken.

    Hospitals (Leeds)
    Mr. Fabian Hamilton: If he will make a statement on the reconfiguration of hospital services in Leeds. [26375]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): The creation of the single Leeds teaching hospitals NHS trust in 1998 provided an opportunity to improve service configuration across the city. Two major capital schemes are in PFI procurement: a major new wing at St James's university hospital to house mainly cancer services, and the redevelopment of Wharfedale general hospital at Otley.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the already excellent oncology services based on the St. James's university hospital site are in urgent need of upgrading, and that it is important that the PFI scheme that is currently on the books be moved on quickly, so that the services provided to the citizens of Leeds and outlying areas can be extended to the whole of west Yorkshire and beyond?
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The new wing proposed at St. James's is a £160 million PFI scheme. I understand that building is to start in mid-2003 and that it will open at the end of 2006. It is crucial that swift and effective progress be made with the scheme, which is in line with our national priorities to Modernise
    748
    cancer services and to make sure that people, wherever they live, have access to the highest-quality services for such an important aspect of care.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Although the Minister is right to focus the Government's attention on that form of specialisation, does she share my concern that even if the patients are not travelling, the specialists are, as they move between three different hospitals—Harrogate, Leeds and York? Does she not see enormous difficulties in that?
    Ms Blears: It is always a case of achieving a balance between the need to provide centres of excellence and local access to facilities, and either patients or consultants have to travel. It is for the local health community to design the optimal service for local people. It is right, however, that specialists and consultants should travel to see patients if that is the appropriate way to organise the system. That problem is yet more evidence of the need to reform the way in which services work. We need to put patients at the centre and design the service around their needs rather than around those of the professionals or of the system itself, as happened all too often in the past. This illustrates the need for investment and reform.

Point of Order
3.30 pm
Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that there are strict rules regarding the use of the Lobby when the House is sitting and governing who may or may not come into it and what they may do when they are there. Are you aware that at least one Lobby pass issued by the BBC has not been issued to a journalist and has been used at least once—I understand from others that it has been used many more times—not to gain information on Lobby terms from Members of Parliament but to influence them to vote in a way that favours the BBC's corporate interests? Is that not a gross abuse of the Lobby pass? Will the House of Commons investigate the circumstances surrounding that and issue clear guidelines defining when a journalist is indeed a journalist?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that that matter is being investigated by the Serjeant at Arms.

Endangered Species (Illegal Trade)
3.32 pm
Mr. David Amess: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase penalties for offences under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976.
Just in case unkind Members have it at the back of their minds that the Bill is about hereditary peers or Conservative Members of Parliament, let me make it clear that it is nothing of the kind.
In common with other hon. Members, I am an animal lover. Indeed, when I return to my home the only thing that I can guarantee is that all my animals will be pleased to see me, pleased to be taken for a walk and pleased to be fed. The only sight more inspiring than my good wife bringing me a cup of tea in bed, which may or may not be laced with arsenic, is seeing wild animals in their natural habitat, and unless the House, the mother of Parliaments, takes endangered species seriously, we will no longer be able to enjoy seeing them in that habitat.
I wonder how many hon. Members realise that it is possible to be arrested for poaching a pheasant in the United Kingdom, but not for selling a tiger, and that it is possible to be arrested for poaching deer or even salmon, but not for trading in ivory or rhino horn, which are derivatives of some of the most endangered species on the planet. Under current UK legislation, trading in endangered species is not an arrestable offence, and that is what the Bill attempts to amend.
Globally, the illegal wildlife trade is estimated to be worth more than £5 billion a year, second only to illegal trafficking in drugs. It is estimated that in excess of 520 million animals and plants are traded each year, and about a quarter of the wildlife trade is thought to comprise illegal items.
The United Kingdom, to our shame, is a major consumer of endangered species. For example, in a police operation involving a series of raids across the United Kingdom on premises selling traditional east Asian medicine, more than 20,000 medicinal products containing derivatives of rare and endangered species were seized. A survey by the wildlife trade monitoring programme, TRAFFIC, of Chinese medicine shops in the UK in 2000 found that 64 per cent. sold products that contained protected animal and plant species, including leopard, bear, musk deer and costas root.
The impact of that trade on endangered species is huge. For example, the decline in the black rhino population is an appalling case study in the demise of an endangered species. In the early 1970s, the population was in excess of 65,000, but it has now fallen to just 2,500. The decline is partly due to poaching to fulfil the demand for rhino horn, primarily for traditional east Asian medicine. In 1998, a man was found to be in possession of 127 rhino horns, worth £2.8 million. Although he was found guilty of conspiracy to sell the rhino horns, they were returned to him on appeal. In 1998, the Metropolitan police raided a shop in Islington which was selling stuffed tiger cubs less than one week old; they were stuffed and mounted on a branch, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and I saw them earlier today.
In April 2000, UK police seized more than 130 shahtoosh shawls, which are made from the wool of a rare and endangered species of Tibetan antelope—the

751
biggest ever seizure of such items in the world. That haul alone is thought to be worth more than £350,000; the shawls are estimated to represent just 2 per cent. of the world population of the species. The growing demand for shahtoosh has left a trail of blood from the Tibetan plateaux to the celebrities who unfortunately choose to wear them. Up to five Tibetan antelope are killed to make just one of those wretched shawls.
In another case reported last week in the Daily Mail— I know that many hon. Members have talked about this—rare birds of prey were wedged into six-inch diameter plastic tubes in a bid to import them illegally from Asia. Twenty-three birds, all with their feet bound and with no access to food and water, had endured a 14-hour trip when they were discovered in two suitcases by customs officers.
The trade in exotic pets, especially reptiles and amphibians, is flourishing. Every year, millions of wild animals are trapped for use in the exotic pet trade; most die before reaching the pet shops. The World Wild Fund for Nature—to which, along with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, I am indebted—believes that that behaviour threatens the survival of many endangered species and damages their fragile ecosystems and habitats. Killing those animals denies local communities in their native countries the right to a sustainable livelihood. The aim of the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild flora and fauna is to restore the balance between humans and nature to ensure that people's use of wildlife is managed carefully so that it does not threaten either wildlife or the people who rely on it. The trade in endangered species seriously jeopardises that balance.
Bringing those animals into the UK puts the public at risk. RSPCA inspectors helped police to uncover a collection of eight deadly snakes in a raid on a Sheffield flat last February. Unbelievably, a four-foot alligator currently in the Heathrow animal reception centre was abandoned in a telephone box, only to be found by a member of the general public. As the Minister knows, it is also possible that many of these animals could bring in diseases infectious to humans, crops or farm animals. A variety of birds and reptiles can spread very dangerous diseases.
752
Yet the penalties for these crimes do not reflect their gravity. The company selling the shahtoosh worth more than £350,000 was fined only £1,500. The tiger cub trader was sentenced to only three months for selling a species that numbers only 5,000 in the wild. The maximum sentence for buying or selling an endangered species in this country is only two years—and the maximum sentence has never been awarded. Most criminals who are prosecuted for their crimes receive a fine that the World Wide Fund for Nature believes to be no deterrent whatever. Since these crimes are not arrestable offences, the police, who are responsible for enforcing international legislation protecting endangered species, cannot arrest these criminals. Bizarrely, they can only invite them down to the police station for questioning. Furthermore, as the offences are not arrestable, the police do not even record the statistics on these shocking crimes.
In conclusion, I believe that the House can address this anomaly by increasing from two to five years the maximum sentences for offences concerning illegal trade in endangered species. That would make the offences arrestable. An arrestable offence carries with it not only powers of arrest, but other powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which would provide the police with powers of entry without a warrant, powers of search and seizure and the ability to charge and bail people to court with conditions where appropriate. All hon. Members enjoy watching films about dinosaurs, but it would be a disgrace if the House were to do absolutely nothing and add to the number of dinosaurs. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Amess, Norman Baker, Mr. Ian Cawsey, Mrs. Helen Clark, Jane Griffiths, Mr. Mike Hancock, John Mann, Linda Perham, Mr. John Randall, Angela Watkinson, Miss Ann Widdecombe and Mr. Bill Wiggin.

Endangered Species (Illegal Trade)
  ENDANGERED SPECIES (ILLEGAL TRADE)
  Mr. David Amess accordingly presented a Bill to increase penalties for offences under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 April, and to be printed [Bill 84].
Opposition Day
[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Public Services
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): We now move to the main business. I should announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.43 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to move,
  That this House regrets the confusion over Government policy on the public services, which has contributed to a lack of morale and direction for those working within them and dependent upon them; urges Ministers to explain why they believe that greater private sector involvement and leadership will be good for the NHS but in their view was bad for Railtrack; requests the Secretary of State for Health to clarify whether it is his aim that there should be 'one monopoly provider' of health care or whether he believes that the NHS should 'no longer be a monopoly provider of care'; condemns the appointment of the unelected Lord Birt to preside over transport strategy; agrees with the Minister for Europe that Britain now has the worst rail network in Europe; deplores the fact that Labour Ministers failed to give priority to transport in their first term; further condemns the multiple failures of the Government's Education and Skills policy, including the collapse of the ILA scheme, the closure of Education Action Zones, and the reversal of the policy of exclusions, as well as the high numbers of teachers leaving the profession, the confusion over exam grades and the failure to consult over the future of student funding; calls for an end to the flow of paperwork and circulars from Whitehall which burden and undermine the professionalism of teachers; and, while paying tribute to the immense skill and dedication of many public servants, shares the public's disappointment that the standards of many public services are well below those prevailing in the rest of Europe.
  So, new Labour moves closer to its sixth year in office, but what has it meant for Britain's public services, for those who work in them and for those who use them? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want this debate to be conducted in an orderly manner and I certainly want to be able to hear hon. Members' contributions.
  Dr. Fox: How well has Labour matched its delivery to the enormous expectations that it raised before it was elected? Those are the questions that are central to our debate. The British public want to know what has happened to all the extra taxes that they paid for all the extra spending. Why is it that they have noticed no difference? We also want to examine whether there is any intellectual coherence in the Government's approach to policy making, or whether the constant proxy war of interference by Nos. 10 and 11 is making it impossible for Cabinet Ministers to exert any continuity whatever.
  It all began with such promise: education, education, education; tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime; 24 hours to save the NHS. But now teachers are increasingly demoralised and violent crime is rising. What of 24 hours to save the NHS? By summer 2000 that had become a 10-year vision in the NHS plan, and by autumn 2001 the Chancellor's Wanless report talked about a 20-year plan. Ministers feed us figures, send out glossy
  754
  brochures and spend millions advertising their wonderful achievements, but for the users of the services things are completely different.
  Phil Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: Not before I have said anything.
  It is anyone's guess whether one waits longer these days on a railway platform or on a hospital trolley. Street crime, particularly in the capital, is rocketing. Post Office workers are threatening to strike; train drivers are striking; the morale of doctors and nurses is at rock bottom. Exam papers have unanswerable questions. Health authorities are dangerously overspent and hospitals lack the ability to undertake basic infection controls, so we intend to send more patients abroad—that is if they can get as far as the coast on our ever-ailing railways. All this occurs under the leadership of a Prime Minister who seems constantly to be appearing in yet another part of the world where diplomacy fuses with fashion, and to be increasingly disinterested in domestic affairs or completely out of touch with the reality faced by the public.
  Phil Hope: Apart from the fact that an opinion poll gives the Prime Minister the highest approval rating since we got elected and the Leader of the Opposition a rating of only 13 per cent., the Opposition motion refers to
  "the closure of Education Action Zones"
  which will come as a bit of a surprise to my constituency, where the education action zone has just been extended. That is worth £2 million to Corby schools, Corby teachers and Corby pupils. The Opposition opposed education action zones, but they lament their closure and they are telling us lies because Corby's zone is being extended for two years.
  Dr. Fox: I can only suggest that the hon. Gentleman would be better off sticking to the questions given to him by the Whips, as he normally does, because the Government are abolishing the zones that he seeks to praise. Perhaps he should get his facts right before he intervenes.
  Ms Julia Drown: The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to examine the intellectual coherence of the Government's arguments, but he both expressed the wish to have the Government interfering less and referred to the problems arising from exam questions. Is he seriously saying that Ministers should be sitting down and writing exam questions?
  Dr. Fox: The hon. Lady should not bother to intervene at all.
  We are suggesting that the Government's whole approach smacks of utter incompetence in education, transport, health, law and order and most of the other public services.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Fox: I shall give way a little later to the hon. Gentlemen, if I can remember exactly who they are.
  The problems faced by our public services lie in the very ethos of new Labour. Like the Clinton Administration, its project is about coming to government

  755
  and staying in government, not about what one does in government. Consequently we get endless reports and reviews. It is little wonder that a senior United States official is quoted this week as saying that Tony Blair seems more concerned about finessing a problem than dealing with it. How very perceptive.
  Moreover, while the presidential style undermines Secretaries of State, No. 10 increasingly interferes in what Secretaries of State are able to do. We have just had the Treasury's Wanless report on the funding of the NHS. That was about cutting those options available to the Secretary of State for Health which the Chancellor did not like. Of course, as No. 11 had a report on health, No. 10 has now commissioned a report on health as well—the Adair Turner report on the structure of the NHS for the latest master plan—but no terms of reference have been published, and there are no plans to publish the report itself. Neither we nor, presumably, the Department of Health will be given the information on which the Prime Minister's interference in the Secretary of State's health policy is to be based. Lord Birt has been commissioned by No. 10 to review transport policy, and of course as the Prime Minister is having a report, No. 11 has to have one too, and we now know that someone will review transport policy for the Treasury. What is going on?
  We have all been entertained when the Chancellor's men, as they like to describe themselves, call the Secretary of State useless in lobby briefings and the Commons watering holes echo with the briefings and counter-briefings of senior Ministers against their colleagues, but that culture, especially the seemingly endless tussle between No. 10 and the Treasury and between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, is debilitating for the Government and has profound consequences for public policy.
  Mr. Eric Insley: First, does the hon. Gentleman not realise that education action zones were time limited in any event, so they will reach the end of their lives? Secondly, he talks about transport and the railways in particular, but can he explain why the Tory Government included a clause in the northern area franchise, which went to Northern Spirit, saying that the company had to reduce manning by 40 per cent? It sacked a lot of workers and drivers in particular. Now we have shortages. The privatisation was botched.
  Dr. Fox: First, more passengers have used the railways since privatisation, and passengers are what count on the railways. Secondly, hardly any Government policy has not been time limited and immediately overridden by a review—only a few weeks later in some examples—because the policies are so ill thought out. I shall take an intervention from the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell)—they are getting easier.
  Mr. Bill Rammell: Dream on. The hon. Gentleman referred to the role of policy advisers. One of the most senior under the last Conservative Government was Alfred Sherman, who wrote in The Guardian last
  756
  week that any improvements to the rail service should be paid for solely by the rail commuter. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
  Dr. Fox: Well, that is an intellectual step up. As someone once said, "Advisers advise; Ministers decide." I am sure that there is another one somewhere.
  Mr. James Plaskitt rose—
  Dr. Fox: Yes, I shall take that one.
  Mr. Plaskitt: The hon. Gentleman started his peroration by talking of no delivery across a range of services. May I tell him that 32 per cent. of Warwickshire primary school children were in classes of more than 30 in 1997 while today there are none in such classes? Does he call that no delivery?
  Dr. Fox: No Government can get everything wrong. Even this Government, by the law of averages, are bound to score the odd success, but up and down the country and right through the public services, which are far from being a great success with either service users or service providers, the Government are presiding over greater demoralisation than ever before among service providers and a greater lack of satisfaction than ever before among service users.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Fox: I must get on, especially as those who are intervening cannot understand the difference between perorations and little perforations.
  Nowhere is the failure seen more clearly than in health. The recent scandal, which is all it can be called, of the fiddled waiting list figures, which was exposed by the National Audit Office, is one of the most appalling stains on the Government's record. We, and in fairness other parties in the House, warned that their obsession with waiting list figures would result in clinical distortions. When asked whether clinical distortions occur, Nigel Crisp, the NHS chief executive, said:
  "No doubt there are specific incidents where that has happened, and I have no doubt that people can see an incentive in doing that".
  What an appalling admission. The Prime Minister tried to understate the issue by telling the House that
  "it is important to put this matter in perspective. Over a period of four to five years, 6,000 people were misallocated on the lists."—[Official Report, 19 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 281.]
  Only 6,000. They are not mere statistics; they are real people, sick people.
  Only last week, a GP friend told me that he had just returned from holiday only to find that his daughter had been taken off a waiting list because, while they were away, the health authority sent a letter saying, "If you don't write back within seven days, your name will be taken off the list." Now she has to go back to the end of the queue. What sort of system is that?
  In another hospital, the maxillofacial surgeons were forced to add patients to the waiting list and give a date of 23 December for treatment, knowing that no patient would volunteer to go in for facial surgery so close to

  757
  Christmas. Those patients were therefore temporarily taken off the waiting list. That is the extent of the scandal in the NHS.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I am sure that my hon. Friend will share the anxiety that I experienced after receiving a letter from a GP in my constituency. A consultant surgeon at the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital wrote to him to say that the hospital no longer took any notice of GP referrals when patients had deteriorated while on the waiting list. The consultant stated:
  "However, if even a single patient waits longer than 15 months there are enormous financial implications for the trust."
  The GP writes that he cannot interpret that in any other way than patients being treated by political diktat rather than GP referral.
  Dr. Fox: When I trained as a doctor, patients were treated on the basis of clinical need. That appears to have been abandoned under the current Government. My hon. Friend might be interested to know that the list of what the Government euphemistically describe as the "inappropriately suspended" consists of 75,000 patients. That means that 75,000 people in our country who need care are being denied it to make the Government's figures look better. That is a cause for national shame.
  The National Audit Office recommended that the Department of Health examined other trusts. It stated:
  "For example, they could investigate in more detail those trusts where more than 10 per cent. of patients are suspended and which have more than 2 per cent. of patients waiting more than twelve months for treatment. There are some thirteen trusts which currently meet both criteria."
  Have the Government commenced such an investigation? No. They do not want to know the embarrassing result. If the Secretary of State is genuinely anxious about the needs of patients who have been taken off the list for statistical reasons, I challenge him to announce immediately that such an investigation will be undertaken.
  More than 1 million people are on the in-patient waiting list. There are 2,000 more people waiting more than 12 months for their operations than in March 1997. There are 400,000 more people on the list for the waiting list. The Audit Commission stated that, in 1996, 73 per cent. of hospital patients were seen by a doctor in an hour. That figure has fallen to 53 per cent. The proportion of patients admitted to hospital in four hours was 90 per cent.; the figure has subsequently fallen to 76 per cent.
  Phil Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: No, once was enough.
  The Audit Commission was damning about the effects of Government policy on accident and emergency provision. Since 1998, a year after Labour came to office, it concluded that matters were not only getting worse but were doing so at an accelerating rate. The Secretary of State described that as "pretty disappointing". He was not half as disappointed as the 88-year-old man in Bristol who waited 22 hours on a trolley this week, or the patients who had the wheels taken off their trolleys so that they counted as beds, or those who circled hospitals in ambulances so that they did not start the accident and emergency clock ticking. That is more than disappointing; it is a disgrace.
  758
  What will happen to the community health councils, which provided the data on what was happening in accident and emergency? The Secretary of State dealt with them in his best Queen of Hearts manner—"Off with their heads." They are to be replaced by a more complicated, less understandable, more expensive and unwelcome system. The judgment has been that although some CHCs work well, all should be abolished because some are not working. I should love that to apply to the Cabinet.
  Geraint Davies: The hon. Gentleman knows that the National Audit Office report stated that up to 6,000 so-called fiddles may have occurred out of a total of 5 million patients. That is 0.1 per cent., and it applied to only nine out of 300 trusts. All the chief executives and chairs of those trusts have gone. Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the Government are committed to stamping out all such fiddles? He completely misrepresented the statistics.
  Dr. Fox: Ah, well then, it is only 6,000 fiddles and nine trusts, is it? If the Government were as committed to stamping out this pernicious practice as the hon. Gentleman suggests, they would hold a full public inquiry into what these figures mean, rather than failing to ask the questions to which they do not want to know the answers.
  On top of this scandal, we still have mixed-sex wards; thousands of patients are still contracting hospital-acquired infections and dying unnecessarily; and we still have the scandal of dirty wards in the NHS.
  Ms Drown rose—
  Dr. Fox: The hon. Lady is very persistent. I shall give way.
  Ms Drown: I want to point out that the same pressures to fiddle waiting lists existed under the Conservative Government. I was working in the health service at that time, and people came to me with the same suggestions. I hope that Ministers in that Government would have frowned on the practice and taken action. The hon. Gentleman needs to remember the background to these circumstances. The Labour Government have reduced waiting lists by more than 100,000. That is a fact, and it contrasts strongly with what happened under the Conservative Government, when waiting lists rose by 400,000.
  Dr. Fox: No, the hon. Lady fails to get the point. This Government have not reduced waiting lists; they have reduced the numbers on the lists. Those are two very different things. Sick patients are still waiting for treatment. What lies behind the Government's approach to this question is not just their obsession with numbers. For this Government, there is no such thing as truth and untruth; there is only convenience and inconvenience.
  Despite all these horrible statistics, one phrase echoes more than any other round Richmond House and the Treasury: "Where has our money gone?" Why are we all still getting letters saying that our constituents are waiting longer to see their GPs, waiting longer in casualty, and waiting longer for surgery? More people are coming to our constituency surgeries with these problems. If all this extra money is being spent, why are patients in the NHS not seeing any benefit?

  759
  I shall give the House a simple example, involving last year's settlement for the NHS. The Government spent an extra £3.8 billion on the NHS last year; no one disputes that figure. However, when we take away the money that was inevitably spent on pay review bodies, pay costs, pensions, the debt overhangs and the Government's ring-fenced projects, the total amount available to expand core services was a maximum of about £560 million. That calculation assumes that the Government's national service frameworks came in at the bottom level of expectations.
  That explains the picture presented by the experts at the King's Fund—these are not our numbers, but those produced by the King's Fund—who highlight how the Government's extra funding has had little impact on activity levels. The King's Fund has stated:
  "The implication is that any reduction in the waiting list in the last three years has been achieved not through treating extra patients, but through fewer people being placed on to the waiting list each year. The figures show that there has been a fall in the rate of increase in NHS activity, despite a large increase in funding for the NHS. The most recent quarterly evidence suggests a decline in NHS elective activity."
  In other words, more money is going in, but less is coming out. Why? This is primarily due to the combined genius of the Health Secretary and his Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), who have managed to lose—from the peak in 1996—49,000 care home beds, resulting in huge bed blocking right across the NHS. More than 6,000 NHS patients are stuck inappropriately in hospital at any one time—38 per cent. of them for more than a month, according to the Department's figures. There is a waiting list to get into hospital, and a waiting list to get back out. When they came to office, the Government claimed that the system had too little capacity; they have effectively managed to cut that capacity further. What a triumph!
  That triumph is matched only by the ability of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to survive in office.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Fox: I shall not give way. I am perfectly capable of mocking the afflicted myself. That right hon. Gentleman should have resigned over his failure to sack Jo Moore. That whole wretched episode brought shame on the Government, and the Government's failure to act brought shame on this country. The right hon. Gentleman should have resigned over his calamitous handling of Railtrack. The Government's original estimate that Railtrack would be in administration for between three and six months has proved to be hopelessly optimistic. The latest estimates suggest that it could be as long as August 2003 before Railtrack's replacement is up and running. A report in The Times, which went unchallenged, estimated that the administration of Railtrack is costing the taxpayer more than £1 million a day. Of that, fees for advisers connected with Railtrack are estimated at £500,000 a day.
  Mr. Ivan Henderson rose—
  Dr. Fox: I should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that that represents value for taxpayers' money.
  Mr. Henderson: May I give the hon. Gentleman some information that I received from the Library? I asked how
  760
  many White Papers the previous Government introduced to Parliament from 1979 to 1997, and was informed that they introduced four. Thus in 18 years they introduced only four White Papers, two of which were for rail privatisation—we all know what happened there—and another was for bus deregulation, and we know what happened there, too. What was the hon. Gentleman's transport plan in those 18 years?
  Dr. Fox: The concept that after 18 years in government we issued only four White Papers is absolutely astonishing. Clearly, numeracy is not a quality required for Government Back Benchers.
  It is a sad truth that Labour Members will have to recognise that, in the big boy's class, when one has been in government for two terms, one must answer for what one has done and for what one has promised and failed to provide. There is no point in the Labour party, in its second term in government, going on about what the previous Conservative Government might have done two Parliaments ago. The Labour party is on trial today, and will be in future, for its failure to provide the people of this country with what it promised them at two general elections.
  Mr. Clive Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: I think that I have given way perfectly sufficiently up until now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I am not giving way at the moment.
  Not only has the Secretary of State's incompetence cost the taxpayer huge amounts of money, but performance on the rail network continues to deteriorate. Since Railtrack was placed in administration, performance has plummeted. Delays and cancellations caused by track and signal failures have risen by 45 per cent. since early October when Labour pulled the plug on Railtrack. The Government's 10-year plan for the railways is in tatters: £34 billion for the railways was meant to come from private sector funding by 2010, but having seen what the Government have just done to Railtrack, the private sector is unlikely to want to do business with a Government who have just confiscated a private company from its legal owners.
  The strategic rail plan was a complete flop.
  Mr. John Redwood: My hon. Friend is making a magnificent and spirited attack on this lamentable Government and their performance on public services. Is he aware that they spent most of their first term trying to set up a Strategic Rail Authority—a new instrument of torture to destroy private interest in the railways—and are now spending their second term trying completely to reorganise it under a new chairman, because they accept that all that it did in the first term was a disaster?
  Dr. Fox: It is certainly very interesting, in the light of what my right hon. Friend has just said, to look at the different ways in which the Secretary of State for Health and the Transport Secretary are dealing with the results of their own incompetence. Both have reached the dizzy heights that they now occupy in the Cabinet on the third-way tide, yet the Transport Secretary now says that the third way was flaky and is busy reinventing himself as a born-again nationaliser.

  761
  Meanwhile, the Secretary of State for Health tells us that he is the arch Blairite Moderniser—in the words of the Transport Secretary, the chief flake now in the Cabinet—and he moves ever closer to a full-scale working amalgamation with the private sector, including using private sector management.
  I did not come to praise the Secretary of State for Health, and I shall leave burying him to his hon. Friends on the Back Benches, but he is the one who is heading in the right direction. He will need to be genuinely courageous in the face of not only Back-Bench but trade union hostility if he is to move in the right direction as he indicated last week. He will find that he will get a lot of support from many Labour commentators, who know that the policy of utilising the private sector more fully in our public services is the right one.
  As for the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, it is clear that she has been left a series of time bombs by the now Home Secretary. Teacher shortages, the chaos in student support and, the collapse of education action zones which the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) did not know about, and individual learning accounts are all examples of the Home Secretary's legacy. The policy is littered with inconsistency.
  Before 1997, Labour attacked Conservative education reforms as bureaucratic. Teachers now think that they did not know what bureaucracy was under the previous Government. The Secretary of State for Education and Skills said:
  "I say to the House and to head teachers that sending teachers less paper will neither raise standards nor satisfy them of our ability to give them the support that they need to do the job."—[Official Report, 10 January 2002; Vol. 377, c. 661.]
  Who is she talking to?
  The Government tell us that they want new powers to crack down on disruptive and violent pupils, but they ordered that exclusions from school should be cut by a third by 2002 for purely political reasons, which robbed heads and governors of their independence in excluding disruptive pupils. There is intellectual incoherence, inconsistency and incompetence, all underpinned by the Government's dishonest claims to want to depoliticise the delivery of public services.
  The Government announced the setting up of the NHS Appointments Commission. The results of that fair, impartial, objective commission were given in a parliamentary answer: of those appointed, 30 were Conservatives, 32 were Liberal Democrats, nine were independents and 140 were Labour—how independent, objective and fair! Long live cronyism, the hallmark of Blairite new Labour!
  Not only do we have a Government of intellectual incoherence, inconsistency and incompetence where the Prime Minister becomes ever more detached; we have a Prime Minister who appears to grow ever more contemptuous of his party, which seems to exist only to glorify the cult of his personality, spawning a ministerial culture of blame, spin and reannouncement. This Government blame the professionals, their predecessors in government, the third way—anyone but themselves. If that fails, they set new targets, shift deadlines and commission new reports.
  Our transport system is in a mess. Violent crime is rising. The NHS is an international embarrassment. The Government do not know the problems and they certainly
  762
  do not know the solutions. It is new Labour, new year, new panic, new policies—but never fear:—there will come a good day to bury them all.
  4.13 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'welcomes the Government's commitment to investment and reform in the public services and notes the contrast with 18 years of Conservative government, typified by under-investment and botched privatisations; recognises the progress being made on raising school standards, improving safety on the railways, cutting waiting times for NHS treatment and reducing levels of crime; wishes to see the ethos of public service strengthened in the country and recognises the importance of high quality public services to the creation of a fairer society; acknowledges the important role of public servants in achieving a fairer society and the contribution made to staff morale of growing staff numbers and rising staff pay; welcomes sustained investment in health, education, police, transport and local government and other areas of public service; believes that the Prime Minister's Principles of Public Service Reform are important to maximise the benefit gained from higher levels of public service investment; further believes that where public services do well they should benefit from greater decentralisation of power and resources, lighter inspection and greater local control; further believes that where public services fail to reach acceptable standards the Government has a responsibility to provide additional support and intervention whether that provider is in the public sector or, as with Railtrack, in the private sector; and contrasts this approach with that of the Opposition which tolerates failure in the railways, has no coherent plans to raise school standards, supports charging for NHS patients and wishes to cap government spending at 35 per cent. of GDP resulting in cuts to public services of at least £50 billion.'
  What a load of claptrap we heard from the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). He does what he always does: he reminded the House that he once trained as a doctor. In that case, he should know a case of selective amnesia when he sees it. He talks about the state of the trains and conveniently forgets that his party presided over the botched privatisation of Railtrack and the rundown of the railways. It is no good him talking about nurse shortages, doctor shortages or bed shortages. It was his party and his Government who created those shortages.
  Chris Grayling: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Milburn: I will in a moment.
  Labour Members are proud of our record on public services and on the NHS.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Milburn: I will in a moment.
  The Conservatives' problem is that they are ashamed of voting against the NHS in the first place, and of running it down over 18 years when they had the chance to build it. We know what the tactic of the hon. Member for Woodspring is: it is to try to air-brush his party out of history. Not even Joseph Stalin tried that.
  The hon. Gentleman should ask for a bit of help from some of his hon. Friends. Take the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who is sitting next to him. I wish someone would! According to his CV, the hon. Gentleman is an expert on Mesopotamian

  763
  archaeology. That means that he has spent a lot of time working with ancient relics from a bygone age, which is probably why he has a job on the Conservative Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman should get together with his friends. They can then unearth the true story of what the Conservatives did to the public services—run them down, cut them back, sell them off.
  Mr. Blunt: In 1996, a new accident and emergency department opened at East Surrey hospital. Is the Secretary of State proud of his record, given that yesterday that department shut because it was so full of patients on trolleys that it could admit no more patients? It was not open for 999 calls.
  Mr. Milburn: Of course there are problems in the national health service: there are bound to be problems. There are problems in Surrey—which, incidentally, is why we have just increased the amount of money going into the Surrey health authority area. There have been years during which the NHS has not had the necessary investment, and has not had the necessary capacity. [Interruption.] Before Opposition Members get too excited, they should remember that when their party was in office the number of nurses and GPs in training remained the same. Now the number is rising.
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: Perhaps that explains why, when I wrote to the Department about a constituent who had been waiting for 10 months for an investigatory operation relating to her bowel cancer, she was sent a letter telling her how wonderful the cut in waiting lists was. She has now been forced to pay for the operation. What a disgrace! Could the Department not have managed a better reply?
  Mr. Milburn: It is true that too many patients are waiting too long for treatment. How will we put that right? I will tell the House how we will put it right: we will put it right by investing more, and introducing reforms. The issue for the hon. Member for Woodspring and his party is this. Are they going to back the investment, and are they going to back the reforms? I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will do what his hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring has failed to do on successive occasions, and say that the Conservative party would match our spending on the national health service.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is never a good idea to tout for business in that way? I might conclude that he had finished his speech.
  Chris Grayling: I want to take the Secretary of State back to his comments about the railways. Can he explain, given what he said about rail privatisation, why the Strategic Rail Authority set up by his Government said in its report
  "The private sector was playing a full part in financing the industry and delivering improvements"?
  Mr. Milburn: What the hon. Gentleman fails to recognise is that Railtrack was a botched privatisation.
  764
  The hon. Gentleman should have a word with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the chairman of the Conservative party. He did a sterling job when he was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. He reminded the House, and indeed the country, that because of the Conservative party's policy not only was the privatisation botched, but the party managed to sell off a state-run national asset and lose £6 billion in the process.
  If the hon. Gentleman is proud of that record, he must be the only person in the country who is. The truth is this. The Tories doubled crime; we have cut it. They increased infant class sizes; we have reduced them. They increased hospital waiting lists by 400,000; we have reduced them by 120,000.
  Mrs. Theresa May: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us this. If the Railtrack privatisation was so botched, why are his Government proposing to leave Railtrack in the private sector and not to change the structure?
  Mr. Milburn: Our policy is extremely straightforward. According to the Tories' policy, what came first were the interests of shareholders. In our policy, the interests of the travelling public come first.
  Mr. Redwood: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Milburn: In a moment. On second thoughts, the right hon. Gentleman may intervene now.
  Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. Will he confirm that it takes three years to train a nurse, and that this Government have been in power for five? Why are we still short of nurses?
  Mr. Milburn: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is on this planet today but, if he was present for health questions earlier, he will have heard that there are 10,000 more nurses in the NHS this year than last year. Since this Government came to office, moreover, there are 27,000 more nurses in the NHS. The right hon. Gentleman should apply some compare-and-contrast strategies. When he was a member of the Conservative Government, the number of nurse training places was cut, as was the number of nurses.
  The Leader of the Opposition says that the Opposition's policy is based on principle. It is certainly based on Tory principles. It starts by talking down the public services. It continues with cutting back resources for the public services. It is completed by selling off the public services. The Tories' policy is the same as it used to be: talk it down, cut it back, sell it off. For 18 years, they had the chance to put in place the necessary investment and reforms, and they failed to do so.
  Talking of failure, I turn now to the Liberal Democrats. No doubt the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) will be on his feet shortly, complaining that we did not invest enough, soon enough.
  Dr. Evan Harris Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) indicated assent.
  Mr. Milburn: That is the hon. Gentleman's story, but his problem is that he has the same answer for every

  765
  question. He really is the man from Del Monte, who only ever wants to say yes. He says yes so often and so indiscriminately that I am surprised that it is not he who is getting engaged to the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
  If the Tories had their way, they would deny the public services the investment that they need, but the Liberal Democrats would deny the country the economic stability that it needs.
  Mr. Don Foster: The Secretary of State is boasting about investment, but does the Government's 10-year plan for the railways mean that they intend to spend more in real terms on the railways each year than did the Conservative Government, or less? It is a straightforward question: more or less?
  Mr. Milburn: Over the 10-year period, we are planning to spend more. In the previous Parliament, we spent double what the previous Conservative Government spent in their final Parliament. In this Parliament, we will spend more again. The investment is going in, and needs to be matched by the reforms that we have initiated.
  The problem for the Liberal Democrats is that they are all for the investment, but against the reforms. The problem for the Conservatives is that they are all for reform and the abandonment of the public services, but they are not in favour of investing in them.
  Dr. Fox: The worst thing about the confusion from which the Secretary of State suffers is his lack of insight. Treasury figures show that managed expenditure on transport as a percentage of gross domestic product totalled 1 per cent. between 1997 and 2001, compared with 1.7 per cent. under the previous Conservative Administration.
  Mr. Milburn: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman's fixation with the private sector makes it surprising that he has failed to count both public and private investment. He should recognise the total level of investment going into the railways, and what that total will be. Investment is going in and we shall also harness the skills, expertise and resources of the private sector.
  With regard to health, Britain is the only country in Europe where public services receive a bigger share of national wealth. We lag behind other European countries on health spending but the NHS is the fastest-growing health service of any major country in Europe. The hon. Gentleman said that the grass is always greener on the other side and that we should abandon our form of NHS funding and change to the French or German system. The hon. Gentleman should realise from his travels that France and Germany do not have a superior system but a superior level of funding. We are putting that right.
  As I said earlier today, I do not regard people receiving treatment abroad as a national humiliation or disgrace but as a way of getting more NHS patients treated more quickly. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was all in favour of choice, as I am. I want patients to have more choice from the NHS. The only difference between patients travelling abroad for treatment and the hon. Gentleman travelling abroad to look at other forms of providing treatment is that at least NHS patients are well when they return.
  Pete Wishart: The Secretary of State says that British hospitals are the finest in Europe. Is he
  766
  aware that there have been no new patient admissions to the Victoria Memorial hospital in Glasgow because of acquired hospital infection? Last week, an Indian journalist who investigated the situation in Scottish hospitals concluded that hospitals in India were perhaps better than those in Scotland. What does the right hon. Gentleman say to that?
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman does his constituents and the country no favours by falling for the trap set for him by the Daily Mail and others. He should go to Afghanistan or India to see what a third-world health care system really looks like. The British health service is being built up with more doctors, nurses and beds.
  There are problems with hospital acquired infection and I know that the Minister for Health and Community Care in Scotland takes them extremely seriously. The hon. Gentleman should not pretend that hospital acquired infection is solely a problem for this country's health service. It is associated with the greater range of prescribed antibiotics and other treatments and has occurred throughout the developed world. We have a good plan for dealing with it.
  Mr. Ivan Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last weekend, the first emergency operating theatre ever opened at Colchester General hospital, which is used by my constituents? Is he further aware of the major upgrading of the trauma theatre and that an MRI scanner is being delivered this weekend? Did my right hon. Friend know of the comment by Essex Rivers Healthcare trust in a press statement that it wanted to build an emergency theatre for many years but was hampered by lack of funds? Does my right hon. Friend believe the people working at the front line, who can see this Government deliver, or Conservative Members, who are always running the health service down?
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend tells an important story. Investment is being made and reforms are biting. Nobody pretends that everything is fixed but nor should anyone pretend that everything is broken. We know that there is a long way to go. The NHS will require sustained investment over a period of years. Only a fool or a Liberal Democrat believes that a few years of extra investment will put right decades of underinvestment.
  My hon. Friend may have seen the report published by the NHS Modernisation Board a week or so ago. Not even the hon. Member for Woodspring can claim that that board is stacked with cronies from the Labour party. Its members are from the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the royal medical colleges, Unison and patients' organisations. The board told the truth about the NHS today. It has profound problems but progress is coming through. In the past year alone, there has been a net increase of 10,000 nurses and the number of hospital beds rose for the first time in 30 years. More than nine out of 10 cancer patients are now seen within two weeks, when they used to wait months. In just one year, there have been almost 5,000 more heart operations and there are 17 per cent. more heart doctors. We do not claim that every problem is solved, but nor should anyone claim that progress is not under way.
  Mrs. Browning: The right hon. Gentleman may recall my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for

  767
  Woodspring about the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital. Will he please explain, because the doctors in my constituency would be interested in his answer, why a consultant orthopaedic surgeon feels obliged to write to a GP:
  "We are presently only operating on long waiters, much against our better judgement"?
  It is not that the surgeons are unsympathetic to long waiters, but clearly, in terms of clinical priority, the Secretary of State's judgment is now deemed to be more important than that of consultant surgeons or GPs.
  Mr. Milburn: If the hon. Lady thinks that clinical need is as important as I do—
  Mrs. Browning: Not me—the doctors.
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Lady raised the point, not the doctor. If the hon. Lady thinks that clinical need is as important as I do, why, when she was in government, did she not urge the then Health Secretary to do what this Health Secretary has done: put more money into shortening waiting times and improving cancer services and heart services?
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Milburn: Oh, there is a posse of them. They are all the same, really; I will take that one.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. The Secretary of State is planning a £150 million reorganisation in my constituency area. Is he aware that 15,000 people have marched against that proposal, because it will involve taking away our A and E, threaten the cancer centre currently located in Canterbury and, in the view of no fewer than 12 consultants who turned out at a few hours' notice, ruin the standard of health care in our area?
  Mr. Illsley: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Milburn: It is very tempting, but let me just deal with the point that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) raises, because it is very important. I know that there is concern in his constituency and that he joined many of his constituents in a sit-down protest the other day. Some of my hon. Friends would say that that was the best place for him, but that would be extremely uncharitable.
  I know that there is concern in the east Kent area about the situation. The hon. Gentleman has raised those concerns with me more than once. I will of course look at the issues, but he should not pretend that these issues have been brought about as a consequence of some sort of financial decision-making structure; they have not. As the hon. Gentleman knows, they have been brought about and led by clinical decision making. Sometimes that raises profoundly difficult issues in terms of access to local services. It raised difficult issues for the previous Government. It raises difficult issues for the present Government but we should not try to duck them.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Milburn: Now, who else? That one there.
  Mr. Gregory Barker: I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's statement on
  768
  investment in the railways. Can he commit the Government today to the £500 million that will be necessary to electrify properly the line from Hastings to London to enable the new rolling stock that has already been ordered by Connex to run? Without that commitment, the new rolling stock, which is detailed in the strategic rail plan of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, is completely worthless.
  Mr. Milburn: I have got the point. That is an issue for the Transport Secretary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We actually have a very good Transport Secretary. [Interruption.] Oh yes, we have a very good Transport Secretary and I know that he will more than happily reply to the hon. Gentleman's question.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Milburn: Who is next? That one.
  Mr. George Osborne: May I bring the Secretary of State back to the health service? Will he explain why a written answer that I received from his Department confirms that more than 35 trusts, including my local trust, have more than 10 per cent. of their patients suspended from the waiting list for an in-patient operation? Will he answer the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made and accept the National Audit Office's recommendation for an inquiry into those trusts where there is huge suspicion of waiting list fiddles?
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is slightly behind the times. We have actually gone further than the National Audit Office suggested. We have said that in future the Audit Commission, the other Government watchdog on public spending, will be able to spot-check waiting lists, not just in his trust but in any trust that it chooses in the country. But let the hon. Gentleman not fall for the fallacy being peddled by the hon. Member for Woodspring, that the reduction in waiting lists comes about as a result of fiddling figures. It does not. It comes about as a result of treating patients. Half a million more patients are being treated every year in the NHS.
  In health, the extra doctors, nurses and beds are providing shorter waiting times for patients. In education, the extra teachers and smaller classes are improving standards for pupils. In our cities and on our streets, the record increase in police numbers is helping to reduce crime. In transport, despite the obvious problems on the railways, more people are travelling by train, as well as by bus, than ever before. We do not say for a moment that our public services are as good as we want them to be, but the difference between us and the Conservatives is simple enough: we want our public services to succeed; they do not believe that they can ever succeed. We are putting in the resources; if they had the chance, they would take out the resources.
  Mr. Soley: My right hon. Friend is being very generous in taking interventions, but an increasing number of Labour Members are getting very angry about the interventions on investment made by Conservative Members, given that not only was there a history of intervention, but the shadow Secretary of State for Health

  769
  refused to answer the question about more investment on the "Today" programme. He refused to take an intervention from me that he knew would be on the same point, and until Conservative Members—whether Front Benchers or Back Benchers—are prepared to say, first, that they will not make the cuts that they made previously and, secondly, that they will match or increase our funding, no one, but no one, should take them seriously.
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Woodspring has had two chances today. He had a chance on the BBC's "Today" programme this morning to say that he would match Labour's spending on health. My hon. Friends gave him a chance to do that in Health questions, and I am happy to give way now to give the hon. Gentleman a third chance, if he wants one, to say that he will match Labour's spending on health.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). Can he make that pledge?
  Mr. Mark Francois: The Secretary of State mentions cancer patients, and I wish to ask him a specific question on that point. Will he please explain to the House why his Department has recently announced plans to run down the highly successful cancer service at Southend hospital? What have the people of Southend and the surrounding constituencies, including mine, done to deserve this Government reducing the level of cancer care available to them?
  Mr. Milburn: I am sorry to say that I am not familiar with the individual—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asks a question; I will give him an answer, and if he would care to listen, he might learn something. I am not familiar with the individual case that he raises. I will look into it, but it is simply wrong to say that, somehow or other, we not building up cancer services. We are building up cancer services—more money is going in than ever before. Indeed, one of the big differences between this Government and the previous Government is that we are ear—marking money specifically for cancer services. One of the eternal shames for the Conservative party when in government is that it did not put a penny piece aside for specialist investment in cancer services, and the legacy is with us today.
  Instead of learning from their history, the Conservatives are still living in it. For them, public is bad, private is good. The biggest problem in the public services for them is not lack of investment by the state; it is the size of the state. Only the Tory party could think that the best way to get more out of the public services is to put less in. The Tories, frankly—
  Adam Price: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Milburn: No, I shall not give way.
  Adam Price rose—
  Mr. Milburn: Oh, I will give way—why not?
  Adam Price: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am as surprised as he is to hear about
  770
  the Tories new-found enthusiasm for public services, but surely 18 years of Tory neglect is not a justification for five years of Labour complacency. Was not the Deputy Prime Minister right last week to refer to the cruel shambles of the state of public services in our poorest communities? They have the worst schools, the worst housing and the longest waiting lists. For 18 years, Labour canvassers used to tell us, "It'll be all right when we get a Labour Government." Well, we are still waiting, aren't we?
  Mr. Simon Burns: The right hon. Gentleman does not do Wales.
  Mr. Milburn: I do not do Wales, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says. However, I occasionally like to do people from Wales. The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) has fallen into the trap that the hon. Member for Woodspring set for him. Unless we solve every problem, no problem is solved. Is that what the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr is suggesting? Unemployment is lower, living standards are higher, the working families tax credit is in place, child poverty is being tackled, the minimum wage is in place and there is more investment in the public services. No, not every problem has been solved—amazingly enough—after four and a half years, but progress is being made. If we went back to the years of cutback and closure, not only would we have less investment in our public services but we would not have the reforms either.
  Mr. Illsley: I wish to drag my right hon. Friend back to a point that was made earlier about clinical priorities. It was suggested that the ability of GPs to refer people to hospital was being hampered. Does my right hon. Friend recall the situation that existed in Sheffield under the last Conservative Government? Sheffield hospitals refused to accept patients from non-fundholding GPs, because the money did not come with the patient. That was the result of the underfunding of hospitals in the Sheffield area.
  Mr. Milburn: I remember that very well. The tragedy is that that was not an accident but a deliberate act of policy. The policy then was to foment competition among hospitals, to split the NHS up and to fragment it. The result was clear for all to see. We did not even have competition and we certainly did not have higher standards in my hon. Friend's constituency or in mine. We have all learned the lessons from that, haven't we?
  The truth is that the Conservatives are still living in the past. The shadow Chancellor, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Home Secretary are all in search of a new holy grail. They have lost two elections, but they have found a new cause: reducing public spending to below 35 per cent. of GDP. Let me be clear about it. Reducing public spending to that level would require at least £50 billion of public spending cuts. That is the equivalent of the total NHS annual budget for the whole country. The Conservatives have the temerity to complain about our targets to improve public services, but their target would destroy public services.
  We stand for public services, because we stand for a fairer society. For Labour Members, public services are social justice made real. Without better schools, too many

  771
  children miss out on the best start in life; unless we tackle crime, the poorest communities always pay the price; and without a better NHS, too many patients face the dilemma of having to pay for treatment or wait for treatment.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring says that we should be clear where we stand. We stand where we have always stood—for an NHS that is paid for by all, that is available to all and that provides patients with care that is free and funded from general taxation and based on the scale of their needs and not on the size of their wallets. The former Prime Minister Lady Thatcher once famously said that she wanted the hospital of her choosing, on the day of her choosing and at the time of her choosing. That is what we want too; we want it on the NHS. That is why we are putting in the investment and the reforms: to get waiting times down and to allow patients to choose when they are treated on the NHS and where they are treated on the NHS, rather than forcing them out of the NHS.
  To Labour Members, improving public services has never been just about investment or just about reform. It is about both. So whether it is in health or in education, there will be tough national standards within which schools and hospitals will have greater freedom to deliver. Where services are doing well, there will be less intervention; where they are not, there will be more. In health, education and transport, we will use the private sector where it can help the public sector.
  If there are consistent failures in management—whether it be a failure in public sector management or in private sector management—our response will be the same. We will change the management. That is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has rightly done with Railtrack and what my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills have done with failing schools. It is what I will do if necessary with the small minority of failing hospitals. Whether it is patients, pupils or passengers, we will not tolerate second-rate services for some when the best should be available for all.
  This debate has exposed the Conservatives' cosmetic concerns for public services. It has demonstrated the determination of Labour Members to make the investment and reforms necessary to improve those public services. Public services and the people who work in them—the teachers, the doctors, the nurses, the police officers and the people who drive the trains—make a valued and valuable contribution to the fairer society that we seek to build. They are essential to the quality of life in communities and constituencies in all parts of our country. Yes, there is plenty more to do and there are improvements to be made, but improvements cannot come by cutting back the investment or by scaling back the reforms.
  It is the Labour party that believes in an NHS that is free at the point of need; it is the Conservative party that does not want choices for patients—it wants charges for patients. It is the Labour party that believes in putting more money into the NHS; it is the Conservative party that would take that money out of the NHS. Just as it was the Labour party that created the health service and the Conservative party that opposed it, so it will be the Labour party that reforms the NHS against a Conservative party that seeks to reject it. We know that the choice
  772
  before the country is the choice before the House; it is between Labour Members who would reform the public services and Conservative Members who would wreck the public services.
  4.46 pm
  Dr. Evan Harris: The noise, shouting and macho posturing in the Chamber can mean one of two things: either the Conservative and Labour parties are far apart on an issue or they are close together on it. I suspect that when it comes to dealing with the public services, it is the latter, and they are both wrong. They wish to disguise their unwillingness to tackle the issues, to disguise their unwillingness to own up to the cost of funding decent public services, and to disguise their uncritical love affair with the private sector.
  Only a fraud or a Labour Minister would claim to be able to save the NHS without significant sustained early extra investment. Only a fraud or a Labour Minister would claim that a headlong rush towards the private sector in many of our public services will not lead to problems of both accountability and value for money.
  Mrs. Browning: On the subject of the love of the private sector, why did the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) enclose a brochure on the Nuffield clinic in Plymouth in literature that he circulated to his constituency last year?
  Dr. Harris: I know little about the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I suspect, however, that I now know more about the weakness of the Conservative unit on the Liberal Democrats, and I hope that I sample more of that weakness during my contribution.
  In the 1997 Labour manifesto the Prime Minister wrote:
  "we have made it our guiding rule not to promise what we cannot deliver; and to deliver what we promise."
  That will be hard for people who use the public services to take. [Interruption.] If the Secretary of State listens, he will recognise that without putting in the funding early, patients, pupils and others will be let down. In the four years following that commitment, the funding provided by the Government for many public services barely exceeded—if at all—the funding provided by the Conservative party when it was in office. Yet expectations were hugely raised, and it is the failure to deliver on those expectations that has made so many people feel let down.
  Dr. Fox: In order to buy the hon. Gentleman some time so that the massed ranks of the Liberal Democrats can come to support him, in terms of early investment, how much was 1p in income tax worth in 1997?
  Dr. Harris: If the hon. Gentleman waits, he will hear me happily defend our tax proposals in the 1997 and 2001 elections. It is indeed those proposals and our menu with prices that set us apart from the two conservative parties that are opposing each other in the debate.
  One might ask why it matters that expectations were raised when the delivery—if it arrives at all—will be so delayed. It matters because the patients who voted for the Labour party in 1997, believing that it would save the NHS in two weeks, 12 hours, 24 hours or whatever the jargon was, had only one chance of treatment.

  773
  They cannot wait four, five, six, seven or eight years for the Labour party to deliver their health care. Children entering school have only one chance of education and cannot wait eight years for the Labour party to deliver its education promises.
  The Government wasted three years by sticking to Conservative spending plans. They said two things—that they would save the NHS and that no one would ever pay more tax under a Labour Government—in 1997. They therefore made two incompatible pledges. We know that they met their pledge to the better-off, but they let down pupils, patients and passengers to meet it, which they should never have done.
  David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman will not know this, but Inverclyde council has submitted a bid for £100 million of public-private funding to make much-needed improvements to schools throughout Inverclyde. The local Liberal Democrats, who are in opposition on the council, opposed that bid, although Mr. Ross Finnie, a Liberal Democrat Member of the Scottish Executive supports it. What is the policy of Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament? Do they support that extra funding for schools or do they oppose it?
  Dr. Harris: We are happy to say where we stand on the private finance initiative; we do not oppose it in principle, but it must pass tests—[Interruption.] That is what I mean about the uncritical attitude of Labour Members; if the word "private" is mentioned, they are told via their bleepers that they have to back it. Tests have to be met. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) would do better on scrutiny if he asked the people proposing that scheme whether it delivers value for money; whether there is adequate accountability; whether there is adequate risk transfer if it involves private finance; whether there is sufficient flexibility; and whether it will deliver those in the long term. I fear that he does not bother to ask those questions because he has been told from on high that he must support such initiatives. Liberal Democrat Members will always give practical scrutiny to such proposals—[Interruption.] I believe that I have answered that point.
  The first three years of the Labour Administration were wasted by sticking to Tory spending plans while our public services went down the pan.
  Mr. Martin Salter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Harris: No, I want to move on.
  Those three years were not entirely wasted by them because they were three years of spin; multiple reannouncements of funding and triple counting were used as a disguise for underinvestment. The final year of the Administration's first term, when they recognised that they had not delivered on their pledges, was a year of controlled panic; as they approached the election, there were longer waiting times for patients, poorer education and even more under-representation of poorer students in higher education. We are in the first year of the Government's second term, and it looks like there will be four years of uncontrolled panic, as they settle
  774
  for reannouncements, interference, reviews and micro-management of the NHS as a substitute for early investment.
  Mr. Salter rose—
  Dr. Harris: I can see that the hon. Gentleman, who is clutching a briefing, is desperate to intervene.
  Mr. Salter: It is a newspaper. I should have thought that even people in Oxford, West and Abingdon read The Guardian from time to time.
  The hon. Gentleman's criticism of the Labour Government for sticking to Conservative spending limits might be valid if—
  Dr. Harris rose—
  Mr. Salter: Wait for it; settle down.
  The hon. Gentleman's criticisms might be legitimate if we did not read in The Guardian today that the Liberal Democrat strategy for targeting areas such as Guildford and elsewhere in Surrey involves the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) holding out the prospect of tax cuts. How does that sit fair and square with the tax and spend ideology that the Liberals are now embracing? The one thing that we can guarantee with Liberals is that they will never ever be consistent on any single point of principle.
  Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman has made a fundamental mistake; he has read The Guardian, not the Liberal Democrat manifesto. Until he reads our policies, he cannot readily criticise them. What separates us from the Labour party is the fact that when we make commitments, we explain how they are funded and go into the election saying how they are funded.
  Mr. Rammell: In terms of clarity about how the Liberal Democrats fund their policies, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who said:
  "I think when we debate public services, when we look at the health service, we need to throw into the equation…you won't like this, we need to look at the issues of insurance, we need to look at the issues of charging"?
  Dr. Harris: Before we reject those propositions—I hope and believe that the Conservatives will not do so—we will give the reasons why they are rejected.
  Mr. Rammell rose—
  Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman has become excited now that I have answered his question. We approach all these issues—especially important ones such as how we fund the health service—on the basis of pragmatic tests of equity, value for money, accountability, access and so on. As I shall demonstrate—I shall deal with his point—I believe that, while the Conservative policy of charging for the health service is at least a policy—
  Tim Loughton: There isn't one.
  Dr. Harris: They are thinking about it. It is at least a policy, but it fails many of the tests that I have mentioned.

  775
  [Interruption.] I urge the hon. Gentleman to control himself, as I will scrutinise the policy that he is considering and offer some advice to him.
  The threat to the NHS comes not from the Conservative party, which people will never believe to be a friend of the NHS, but from the Government. Most murders happen in the family, and it is the Labour party, which is still believed by many people to have the best interests of the NHS at heart, that may well be sounding the death knell for the future of the health service. Through its failure to deliver, and especially its spin and multiple reannouncements about funding, it is leading many people to believe that a properly funded NHS has been tried and has failed.
  The Liberal Democrats argue that the concept of a properly funded health service that is paid for by taxation and is free at the point of delivery is currently failing only because it has never been tried. The health service has not been properly funded. Every time Labour Back Benchers, speaking out of loyalty, or Ministers, sticking to their press briefing, reannounce the funds and give an inflated impression of the money that is available to the health service, they drive a nail into the future of the NHS and its survival as a publicly funded service. Even in The Guardian, there will be people who believe the Government's figures and think that the NHS has been properly funded. That is the real danger. Pretending that the funding has gone in allows people to say "It's just a bottomless pit. The Government have put in a significant amount of extra funding and we are spending as much as other European countries, but we are still failing." It is not the health service that is failing, but the Government: they are failing to be honest about how much is going into the health service.
  Kevin Brennan: I speak not from a Back-Bench briefing, but out of personal curiosity. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the Tories were considering the introduction of charging in the NHS. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that the Liberal Democrats are considering charging as one of the options for the NHS? Yes or no?
  Dr. Harris: No. I do not know what part of the word "No" the hon. Gentleman does not understand. I can tell him that we will go into the next election with a commitment to fund the NHS in a fair way that leads to equitable provision of services. Charging is at least a policy, which is more than Ministers have, but it fails in terms of equity. It may provide extra funding in the short term, but it fails to pass the test of giving a long-term future for universal funding and ensuring equity of provision. Charging the sick and elderly to see a doctor is the sort of policy that the Conservatives may consider. I hope that they will reject it, although in a way, I hope that they will not do so. If the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer—or even both—suggest that Labour Members consider the option, they may do so. However, the Liberal Democrats have reached that point. We have looked at those options and rejected them on the grounds that I have set out. I am sorry if that is a disappointment to the hon. Gentleman.
  The question is this: if the NHS is underfunded, what is the appropriate way of funding it? It would be appropriate for an accountable, honest Government to say
  776
  before an election how much taxes will have to rise, rather than to claim beforehand that they will not increase taxes and then come scuttling to the Chamber afterwards to admit that taxes may go up. An accountable, honest Government owe it to patients, pupils and passengers not to rule out the fairest way of raising those resources. That is what this Government did in an attempt to bribe voters with their own money by ruling out a rise in the fairest tax, which is a direct, open tax—income tax. Instead, they chose to raise revenue through stealth taxes, indirect taxes and unfair taxes.
  Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way as he stumbles his way through his fascinating speech. Can he please tell the House whether the NHS is underfunded by 10, 15, 20 or 25 per cent.? He clearly feels that it is a big number, so can he tell us how big it is?
  Dr. Harris: Unlike the Conservative party and the Labour party, at election time we provide a costed manifesto, a menu with prices. For example, at the last election we pledged that we would raise the basic rate of income tax by 1 per cent., 1p, to raise additional resources—£3.1 billion, to answer the question that was asked earlier—for education. That does not mean that the money already included in Labour's spending plans would be burned by the Liberal Democrats in government.
  Whatever the Labour party says it wants to spend on education, we would have spent £3.1 billion more, saying to the electorate that we thought it was necessary and that raising income tax was the fairest way to fund it. That would have meant smaller average class sizes, a fairer way to fund student finances and more provision for nursery education. [Interruption.] That may not, as Labour Members say, be enough, but it is £3.1 billion more than they offered at the last election.
  Glenda Jackson: The hon. Gentleman has slithered away from the issue of funding for the health service and taken the lifeline that was thrown to him by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). He argues that Liberal Democrat policy is to view funding for the NHS in the long term, and that their manifestos are always costed on that basis. As the Liberal Democrats know from one election to another that they will never be in government, presumably they have already costed those manifestos. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would therefore be good enough to tell us how much they would spend on the NHS to ensure long-term funding at a level that they feel is necessary—
  Dr. Harris rose—
  Glenda Jackson: I am sorry, but I have not quite finished. Will the hon. Gentleman also tell us where the money will come from?
  Dr. Harris: The hon. Lady bases her question on a fallacy. [Interruption.] I shall deal with both of her points. She claims that the Liberal Democrats will not be in government. Well, that was said in Scotland, and in Scotland we are in government and, with our partners in the Executive, we are funding our commitment to a fairer system of student finance and our proposals for free personal care. I suspect that if the hon. Lady allowed

  777
  herself to say so, she would agree with those policies. It is wrong to argue that we make claims that we never have to fulfil in government.
  The Liberal Democrats are also the only opposition party to deliver an alternative Budget every time the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivers a Budget, so the hon. Lady will not be disappointed. I hope that when the Chancellor reveals his Budget proposals for funding the health service at the Dispatch Box, she will rise in her seat to thank us for publishing our specific alternative plans the day before. I look forward to that moment.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Harris: No, I want to press on with my speech. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I have been generous. He will have a chance to speak in the debate, and the less time he spends trying to intervene, the more time will remain for the debate.
  The Government, in their panic, have introduced distortions to the health service, and they have done the same in education. The rigidity of maximum infant class sizes has led to disappointment for individual children but no more gains than would have been made by putting resources, which we would have increased, into lowering average class sizes. The Government professed that they wanted more students from poorer backgrounds to go into higher education and then introduced a policy, which they denied during the 1997 election, to make poor students poorer in the hope that it would encourage more of them to enter higher education. We see from the National Audit Office and the Government's own research that that failed and failed miserably. It led to inequity and it goes against what many people felt the Labour party stood for.
  On the health service, as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, he and I and our predecessors pointed out the distortion of waiting lists. They can be cut by simply no longer offering operations, so when uncomplicated varicose vein operations were stripped out of the health service, it reduced the number of people on waiting lists at a stroke. The Conservative party must remember that it introduced the waiting list commitment, which the Labour party foolishly adopted. For the first couple of years, the Conservatives tried to hold Labour to a flawed commitment.
  The Government have done better with waiting times, but their fixation with maximums creates distortions in clinical priorities. Managers know that they will be marked—performance appraised—on the number of patients who have waited more than 15 months by the end of next March, regardless of how many intensive care unit beds they have to close to fund the maximum waiting time target and no matter how many patients who urgently need surgery have to be put off so that someone who would otherwise wait 16 months is treated in 15 to satisfy a political priority. The Government do not care, but patients will die as a result of those distortions of clinical priorities and their distortion of practice in A and E departments will have a similar effect.
  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who has done sterling work. His constituents recognise that he has been active in this area, perhaps more in opposition than in government, but Kent and Canterbury hospital in his constituency is so short of
  778
  beds and so terrified of being accused of having long waiters that it has created a ward in a corridor by sticking to the wall a sign signifying "Bed station".
  People no longer talk about the old lady who has waited a long time in the corridor for treatment—there were five when I visited the hospital—because they now refer to the lady in corridor bed A or corridor bed B. That "Milburn memorial ward" is testament to the Government's failure to invest in dealing with delayed discharges. More than 1,000 operations could be done in East Kent, West Sussex and the Isle of Wight if they tackled that problem. If some of the money being paid out for patients from those areas, over the odds in secret contracts with private hospitals in another country, went on tackling bed blocking, they would get through many operations that they feel they need to get through.
  On the two-week wait for patients with suspected cancer, the shorter the wait the better, even though evidence-based studies show that it does not reduce mortality from cancer; but if the funding to implement that policy is taken from treatment budgets, people will wait longer for radiotherapy. Furthermore, as the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) pointed out, people with confirmed cancer will wait longer for further investigation. Patients will die as a result of such a distortion of clinical priorities.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: In answering my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), the hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that the Liberal Democrats are in government in the United Kingdom. They help to govern 15 per cent. of the population and they share responsibility for many of the matters to which he is referring. Why is he not claiming credit, if credit be due, for improved performance on the very waiting list issues that might arise in the areas of the United Kingdom in which the Liberals share power?
  Dr. Harris: Liberal Democrats.
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is concerned with the organisation's name. I am concerned with how long people wait for delivery of service. Why is performance not better, and perhaps worse, where the Liberals are in government?
  Dr. Harris: If the hon. Gentleman cannot get his words right, his point has little substance. We believe in devolution and therefore Liberal Democrats in Wales speak for themselves. At the Welsh Assembly, where they share power, they speak for the Administration. Good luck to them.
  The Secretary of State claims that the Liberal Democrats are not in favour of reform. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have proposals to reform the response to clinical negligence and move to no-fault compensation. We want to reform the way in which social services are funded and to allow more extensive and rapid multi-skilling for nurses. We want to strip out political targets for the NHS and provide proper, local democratic accountability and reform inspections of quality in the NHS. Those are radical reforms.

  779
  I confess that we do not support pointless reform of the structure of the health service. That constitutes activity as a replacement for action. Patients and workers in the health service need another structural reform like a hole in the head.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman has presented a long list of radical reforms that the Liberal Democrats would carry out in the unlikely event of their getting anywhere near governing this country. He has told us that the health service needs radical reform and that it is underfunded. He also said that class sizes are too large and that the Liberal Democrats would alter the way in which students are financed. He said that such financing can be provided only through a rise in income tax. By how much will income tax need to rise to pay for all that, come the next general election?
  Dr. Harris: At the next election, we will tell the hon. Gentleman and the country by how much income tax needs to rise to pay for our commitment to public services. At the last election, we were clear. We wanted £3.1 billion more for education, and in addition we had a proposal, which may appal the conservative Members on the Labour Benches, to tax people who earn more than £100,000 at 50p in the pound.
  Dr. Howard Stoate: For the NHS?
  Dr. Harris: Yes. The hon. Gentleman will be disappointed by that reply. The money that the provision would have raised had two purposes. It would have given pensioners, especially older pensioners, a decent increase in their state pension. Not long ago, the hon. Gentleman defended an increase of only 75p. Our proposal would also have provided additional funding for training NHS staff. We had a costed manifesto; the Conservatives did not even have a sensible manifesto.
  However, we will support the motion. Although we have tabled an amendment to it, we will support it because it condemns a Government record that desperately needs condemning and because it says so little about Conservative policy. The less Conservatives say about their intentions, the less credibility they have. That matches the Government's lack of credibility, with their disgraceful record on our public services.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I have a slight cold, so I apologise if hon. Members cannot hear me very well. I want to pick up the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on his comment that the Liberals would support the Conservatives tonight. In an article in The Guardian yesterday, the leader of the Liberal party—
  Dr. Evan Harris: Liberal Democrats.
  Mr. Cunningham: Liberal Democrats, if the hon. Gentleman is so touchy about words. The article appeared to signal a change in stance. It suggested that the Liberal Democrats would not co-operate with the Labour party because the Labour party might not support proportional
  780
  representation. That applied especially to the Prime Minister. What a price they charge for support! The article also suggested that further changes might occur. Perhaps the Liberal Democrat spokesman can explain some of his leader's comments in The Guardian. The article stated:
  "In a surprising announcement, Mr. Kennedy says the Liberal Democrats would not necessarily stick by their pledge to raise income tax to fund public services".
  I remind the Liberal Democrats that many people, especially in the trade union movement, are under the impression that the Liberal Democrats would support proper funding for public services and, if necessary, tax increases.
  The article continues by quoting the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy):
  "'We might well go into the next general election saying that we favour lower taxes,' he says, though he insisted that he had no 'crystal ball' on what might happen in three and a half years time."
  If ever there was a change in policy, that is it.
  Phil Hope: Let me point out to my hon. Friend another aspect of Liberal confusion.
  Dr. Harris: Liberal Democrats.
  Phil Hope: Liberal Democrat confusion. They are touchy about what we call them. A "Liberal Future" pamphlet called "Pro Bono Publico—must the state always provide?", published only last year, stated:
  "Some already question the idea that the NHS can provide everything free at the point of delivery. Is it time to start making a charge for some…NHS procedures?"
  That is Liberal policy.
  Mr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend makes a good point. That provides a further clue. If the Liberals are thinking about going down the road of tax cuts, they might want to balance them by introducing charges. That is the clue that we are getting from them, signalling a change in policy.
  There is another problem, though, if we listen to the Liberal Democrats'—I had better be careful how I refer to them—spokesman. The hon. Gentleman described a number of conditions under which the Liberal Democrats would accept the private finance initiative, but many people outside the House—particularly those working in local government and the health service—think that the Liberals are against the PFI. They are not. If we listen to what their spokesman said, they will accept it, given certain qualifications.
  Since the 1997 general election, the Liberals have made much of the link between pensions and earnings; before the election, they pledged not to do anything about that, but after it, that changed. They keep moving the goalposts. At that election, the Liberal Democrats proposed to put 1p on income tax to fund education. We have put £40 billion into education and the health service in the intervening years. That is three or four times what the Liberals were proposing.
  I want to touch on one or two issues that seem to have been forgotten, relating to what we are doing for the national health service, that are important to the public. By 2005, we shall have 10,000 more doctors and 20,000 more nurses. We shall also have 100 new hospital developments by 2010—even the Liberals would accept

  781
  that we have to programme not only our developments but our expenditure. In addition, 3,000 general practitioners' premises will have been Modernised by 2004. Those are some of the positive provisions that the Government are implementing. In terms of capital investment, we have said that we will invest £7 billion. That is a considerable figure by any stretch of the imagination. If we add to that the investment from the private sector, it is a considerable investment in anybody's terms.
  The Tories mentioned bed blocking. Bed blocking is not new; it existed under Tory Governments. The reason for it is simple: there has always been a shortage of social workers. We have debated that issue over the years, and one of the problems that we inherited in the national health service is that often when elderly patients are ready to be discharged, they do not have a social worker to ascertain their needs. We have been addressing that issue; the Tories certainly did not do so.
  Tim Loughton: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the shortfall between the amount spent on social services by local councils and the amount that the Government are paying is now estimated at £1 billion? That means that, in parts of the country, there are vacancy rates of at least 30 per cent. for social workers. The situation is far worse than it ever was under the last Conservative Government, which is part of the reason why the problem of bed blocking is now worse than ever, and getting worse.
  Mr. Cunningham: I reject what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I shall give him an example from Coventry in relation to investment in public services, including social workers. Coventry lost something like £600 million under the last Tory Government. If we multiply that figure up and down the country, we shall soon find that we have invested considerably more—although, I accept, not necessarily enough.
  On transport, it was the Tories who privatised Railtrack. I remember the debates on that measure in the House. The Tories, not this Government, are responsible for the state that Railtrack found itself in a couple of months ago, when we had to take action. Under the Tories, one of the big problems was that the railways were heavily subsidised. At the same time as subsidising the railways, the Tories took money from bus services. In debates such as this, hon. Members do not always focus on the vital service that buses provide in this country. People wonder why many people will not use public transport. The reason is that, under the Tories, there was not only a lack of road investment but a lack of subsidies. I remember the Tories' attempts to privatise the buses.
  The question of student grants has been mentioned. I remember the Tories losing their nerve: it was they who abolished student grants and set up the Dearing inquiry. They set up Dearing because they knew that they were approaching a general election, and we all know what happened after that. We should have had a consensus from the Tories after Dearing, but we did not get one and, as usual, they reneged on what they had pledged to do.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said earlier that he did not want to talk about what Tory Governments had done in the past. That is the usual argument that we get from the Tories. They want to go back to Pol Pot's year zero as though there had never been
  782
  a Tory Government, only a Labour one. The Tories would cut some £50 billion from the public services and, as far as I can ascertain from the debate, although they say that they would do something totally different, they would return to the policies that they pursued for 18 years and which they have tonight tried to deny they ever pursued.
  My hon. Friends will remember negative equity, the 3.5 million unemployed, record interest rates, and the decimation of Britain's manufacturing base, particularly in the 1980s. But the Tories do not want to talk about any of that. Anybody who lived in Coventry at that time will remember the decimation of the car factories. Coventry used to be famous for its car factories. As I said earlier, not only was there a lack of investment in the NHS, but my hon. Friends will remember when the Tories cut the number of beds, cut the recruitment of nurses and training, and closed hospitals. Indeed, if I remember correctly, we even had crumbling hospitals and they failed to deliver on their PFI proposals.
  We had school closures. The motion before the House speaks of teacher morale. Nobody created lower morale among teachers than the Tories. I remember one Tory Secretary of State being heckled off the stage at a teachers' conference. The Tories are responsible for the low pay in education, whereas we are trying to put it right. On pensioner poverty, I remember sitting on the Opposition Benches when, Friday morning after Friday morning, one of my late colleagues presented a Bill for winter chill payments. Who talked it out? It was the Tories. At the 1992 election, they said that they would not increase VAT on fuel, but they did.
  In conclusion, I do not think that the Tories can attack the Labour party. We have demonstrated that we are taking the country forward and that the country does not want to go back to the bad old days of Thatcherism and Tory Government.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) has sat down after making a speech that was entirely concerned with an extraordinary, rather rapid attack on the history of the Conservative Government. He said that a Conservative Government abolished student maintenance grants. I am afraid that either his memory has gone or his sense of history is failing, because they were abolished by the incoming Labour Government.
  The hon. Gentleman's approach, which is a pale echo of that adopted by the Secretary of State for Health, shows that Labour Members are simply not addressing the serious subject before us: the future of the public services. In my opinion, it is the only serious subject that is currently engaging the attention of most of the general public.
  Mr. John Smith: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way once I have made a little progress—not straight away.
  We are in a curious political situation, largely because we have just had a general election and the Government have a huge majority, settling the government of this country for the next few years. A lot of the general public

  783
  have switched off from the party political debate altogether: almost half of them refused to take part in the general election. The one thing that is bringing people back to politics—they will be brought back on other things—is concern about the state of our public services. I do not think that I overstate the case when I say that there is widespread public anger about that. It is easy to detect a national sense of shame about the standards that are being achieved in some of our public services when one reflects that the United Kingdom is one of the wealthier countries in the world.
  A source of much of the public's disillusion with politics, politicians and party politics is that they despair of the ability of the political process to produce the improvement in services that they wish. Giving a litany that could have been prepared for the 1997 election—which I shall not debate, although much of it was totally false—or indulging in the cavalier exchange of slogans about the past, which was all the Secretary of State for Health was able to produce, does not remotely respond to that.
  Phil Hope: The right hon. and learned Gentleman comes to the House to lecture us about public services when has form in spades, which is a bit rich. I remind him that, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hospital-building programme came to a grinding halt, and as Secretary of State for Health he abolished free eye tests, so we will take no lessons from him. Does he support his party's view that it will not invest more in health services and will instead charge patients for services? What is his opinion on that?
  Mr. Clarke: I had two spells at Health and one at the Treasury. We hugely expanded the amount of money going into the NHS. We combined it with much radical reform, most of which is now grudgingly accepted by the Government.
  I have already said that the one thing that I shall not be drawn into is a ludicrous debate in which the Labour party tries to demonise the Conservative party's past. That is a grotesque caricature of our attempts to improve public services. Labour opposed every step we took, most of which it is now adopting.
  Mr. John Smith: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I will give way and then proceed with my speech. I have one clear memory of the hon. Gentleman. He won a by-election in Vale of Glamorgan by conspiring with the local branch of the British Medical Association to say that my health reforms would involve paying to see a general practitioner. That was grossly untrue. We now have a pale echo of that, whereby the Labour party is trying to put it to my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State that he is contemplating charging and cuts in expenditure. I am aware of no such policy. I do not believe that any Conservative has ever put that forward as our policy on public services, and I do not think they ever will.
  Mr. Smith: My thanks are on record to the right hon. and learned Gentleman personally for letting me win that
  784
  by-election in 1989, because it was a by-election fought on his reforms of the health service. But that is not my point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that this debate is about the future of public services. Neither the motion nor the opening speech by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made one reference to the future or to what his party would do instead.
  Mr. Clarke: I have already said that I want to move on to the future, yet I am faced with arguments from the past. I should have been interested if the hon. Gentleman had admitted after all these years that the proposition upon which he was first elected—that my reforms involved charging to visit a general practitioner—was false. It was not at any time contemplated. The hon. Gentleman's claim was a parody of what we were proposing, and fortunately the electors of Vale of Glamorgan were eventually able to realise their error and remove him.
  Mr. Smith: I am still the Member.
  Mr. Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman still represent the same seat? Good grief. I do not know how he has the nerve to face those who first elected him, but I hope that they have seen through the absurd proposition on the basis of which he was first returned.
  The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): While the right hon. and learned Gentleman is still dealing with the past and before he moves on to the future, can he tell us by how much the national debt rose under the Major premiership, for a considerable period of which he was Chancellor?
  Mr. Clarke: Under the Major premiership, national borrowing continued to fall. During my chancellorship, the public sector borrowing requirement fell regularly. It dropped steadily. We were well on course to balancing the budget.
  The Minister has adopted the absurd habit of a Labour Government four or five years into office who continually present slogans and caricatures relating to the position that they inherited. He should come and listen to some of the exchanges between my successor as Chancellor and me. We sometimes have difficulty in disagreeing, because we have considerable regard for each other, but the point is that the present Chancellor on occasion concedes that he inherited an extremely good record from the last Government. It should be no part of a debate about the future of public services to keep repeating the bizarre claim that public finances were not improving, and improving rapidly, when Labour took over. We were then well on course for a balanced budget and healthy public finances.
  Mr. Spellar: Is it not a fact that the national debt rose from £175 billion to £350 billion—which is doubling in anyone's money—during the Major premiership, for a considerable part of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was Chancellor? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that those figures are correct?
  Mr. Clarke: The Major Government, and I as Chancellor, tackled public finances in the teeth of opposition from the Labour party. We brought the public sector borrowing requirement under control, and at no

  785
  stage did the national debt become out of control and unsustainable. When presenting unattractive Budgets, Labour becomes obsessed with taking credit for repayment of the national debt. As I have pointed out in the past, the present Chancellor managed that largely by accident rather than by design, having got his forecasts wrong.
  The fact that, in a debate on the future of public services, the Labour party is interested only in the history of the national debt represents a strange transformation; but I will discuss the national debt on a more suitable occasion, as I have already made my case.
  I believe that the crisis in the public services is, in most instances, considerably worse than it was when Labour took over in 1997. There were problems then, but they have undoubtedly worsened—certainly in the national health service, and certainly on the railways. Members who shake their heads or, even worse, try to respond by means of what I have already described as a cavalier excursion into the party politics of the 1990s seriously misunderstand the public if they do not realise that that is the feeling out there. If most of my constituents had been able to hear the speech of the Secretary of State for Health today on such an important subject, they would be deeply worried about the outlook for the country. It is time that we saw something more positive emerge from the debate.
  In their rare moments of candour, the Labour Government actually seem to admit that they failed to deliver in their first term. Their excuse is that they need another term in which to try to deliver. That admission, when it comes—and not a whisper of it has come today—does a little credit to the Labour Ministers who have been responsible for public services. It amounts to an admission of what I believe to be the case: that the Government were elected as a party with many promises, but no policies of any substance to deal with the public services about which they had been so vociferous when they were attacking us.
  The failure to deliver was not the responsibility of the civil service, which Labour's spin doctors usually blame when they are pressed. It was the bright young men who were brought into the Downing street policy unit who failed to deliver. A series of White Papers, initiatives and reviews have been produced, against a backdrop of declining standards in our key public services. That ought to be acknowledged, but it is plainly not being acknowledged.
  I agreed with one observation made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) in his extraordinary and, in my view, entirely inadequate speech. He suggested that one thing the Labour party was doing following its latest change of policy—in some areas, particularly the health service—was grudgingly returning to the agenda of the Thatcher-Major reforms. There have been increasing echoes of the course on which we were set in recent ministerial pronouncements, or at least in the behind-the-scenes briefing that accompanies them. For reasons that are understandable if one looks at Back-Bench Labour Members, the Government are in a state of denial and cannot acknowledge that. The Secretary of State for Health had to exhume every cliché the old Labour book to defend himself, when in fact he is anxiously looking up Conservative White Papers of 10 years ago to see where he went wrong and how he should start again. The next election in the Vale of Glamorgan will be dramatically different, given the Secretary of State's plans.
  786
  However, the Secretary of State remained undaunted. At least he is resilient and can take a bold line to win over the House of Commons. He even dragged up the old argument about the Conservative vote against the establishment of the NHS in 1947. No old cliché was left unturned, but I suspect that most hon. Members present today were not even born when that vote was cast.
  It is downright foolish to assert that the Conservative party does not want to deliver better public services. Every sensible politician wants to improve them. The myths about cuts and charges are nonsense, and an attempt to detract from what really happened.
  Tony Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Hilton Dawson rose—
  Mr. Clarke: The obvious object of government, by any party, must be to improve the NHS, the education system and the transport network. I want to try out a few of the propositions on which any approach to the great public services of this country must be based.
  Experience shows everyone bar Liberal Members—or Liberal Democrat Members, as they are now, although the fact that the new party's proposals are as silly as the old party's used to be means that I am not greatly concerned about nomenclature—that the answer to improving public services does not consist solely in increasing funding. That lesson has been learned by every Government who have had to tackle the problem. Of course increased investment is needed, according to the capacity of the real economy to finance it, but everyone from the Prime Minister downwards in the present Government now accepts that a combination of finance and structural reform is needed in each and every case.
  Mr. Dawson rose—
  Mr. Clarke: That was what underlay the evolution of the reforms of the third Thatcher Government, and it is the agenda to which we all must return.
  He was not allowed to utter a word of it as he stood before his Back Benchers in the Chamber, but I thought that I had detected in some recent utterances from the Secretary of State the proposition that more diversity of provision was required, and that monolithic uniformity imposed centrally on a national level does not work. Why are the Government talking about specialist schools, for which the previous Conservative Government used to argue? Government briefings on education echo the words used in the argument on health.
  Dr. Stoate rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I also believe that it is clear that the Government acknowledge the benefits of some competition in provision, especially in health. That competition is one of the benefits that arise when people have that most valuable thing—the ability to choose. The words were slipped into the Secretary of State's diatribe, but it is clear that the Government aim to give patients some choice about when and where they are treated in the NHS.

  787
  That is only one example of a sinner come to repentance. The Government spent their entire first term trying to minimise such choice.
  Dr. Stoate rose—
  Tony Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I was hoping to establish a consensus, at least with the more loyal members of the Labour party. I shall finish my list of propositions, and then give way.
  The Government are also accepting, at last, that extra finance in public services over and above what comes from public funds must come from the private capital markets and from private finance.
  That sticks in the craw of most Labour followers and is not readily acknowledged by many Ministers but has plainly become central to the proposition. It has taken some time to convert them. All those are propositions to which the Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary of State for Health and probably the Secretary of State for Education and Skills are being grudgingly converted. Far be it for me to help those right. hon. Members with their followers.
  One has to tackle management in public services. The Government seem to have bought that concept completely in the case of London Underground. At least I prefer their proposals to giving public funds and credit to the likes of Ken Livingstone and Bob Kiley. I do not like the Government's proposals either but a history of mismanagement—which London Underground certainly has—is often at the root of many problems.
  Private sector management often has skills that the public sector has never produced. It is astonishing that the Secretary of State for Health completely avoided mentioning one of the biggest revelations that has come to him in the past six weeks. He did not mention it even en passant because he knows that the dead wood behind him finds the proposition impossible to bear.
  Phil Hope: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I am not finished yet. These are, I hope, consensus points. Localisation of responsibility for choosing priorities and making decisions is essential to great public services. It has taken the Government five years to realise that they cannot sit behind a desk in Whitehall listening to a lot of swivel-eyed young men from the party's research department and deliver priorities and targets nationally and monolithically. It has even been suggested that the role of Ministers has to change to one of monitoring and facilitating, but not to owning and micromanaging everything in east Kent, Oxfordshire and Nottinghamshire—as they have been trying to do.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: Having made those unkind references to the dead wood behind the Minister, the least I can do is give way to one or two of them.
  Dr. Stoate: In the interests of consensus, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about diversity. Surely he agrees
  788
  that when his Government introduced a measure such as GP fundholding, they failed to ensure that practices that chose not to be fundholders got a fair crack of the whip. Some fundholders forged ahead in innovative ways but only at the expense of others. That bred deep dissent and resentment in the health service, which did a huge amount of damage. If the right hon. Gentleman had been more interested in consensus, we might have got somewhere.
  Mr. Clarke: I am delighted with the hon. Gentleman's acknowledgement that he agrees with some of my propositions. I am sure that the promotion he so richly deserves is at hand. I am glad to have done the hon. Gentleman a service by helping to further his career.
  We offered the possibility to all general practices to become fundholders, and we were going to lower the patient number threshold. We adopted the same principle used for NHS trusts in trying to get clinicians on board. All the hospitals that chose NHS trust status did so voluntarily. When local management was tried out, it became so popular that by the time we left office, all had changed to NHS trusts.
  GP fundholding was fought by the Labour party and the British Medical Association, so we looked for volunteers because we needed doctors committing themselves to making the system a success. Having taken the step of volunteering, they felt under a compunction to make sure that fundholding worked. It was spreading and becoming popular with most general practitioners. It would have become the norm and a universal provision but an ill—prepared new Labour Secretary of State—who came in on a few slogans and nothing else—committed the great mistake of repealing that innovation.
  Tony Cunningham: I understand that for Conservative Members, 1997 was year zero—nothing happened before then and they cannot be blamed for anything. I will not concentrate on the past but will consider 2001—or year four, as far as the Opposition are concerned. In The Independent, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was quoted as saying:
  "This is electoral suicide. Five years before the next election, Duncan Smith is saying he will cut spending and force people to pay for NHS treatment."
  Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman still believe in that statement?
  Mr. Clarke: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on making the first Labour intervention that has not referred to the past—indeed, almost no speech has referred to anything but the past—and on being the first to have the nerve to glimpse into the future. I do not think that the quote is wholly accurate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] For the avoidance of doubt, I have repeatedly made it clear that I am completely committed to the national health service, which I do find an extremely attractive way of delivering health care. We must tackle the problems that are making it fail so badly at the moment.
  These debates, and Prime Minister's questions, get coloured by repeated assertions that the Conservative party is now committed to a policy of cutting public spending and introducing charges for health. As a member

  789
  of the Conservative party I have never heard any of my colleagues put that forward as the party's policy. It is not the policy.
  Mr. Salter rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I return to my consensus points, which no Labour Back Bencher has had the nerve to gainsay because they probably all wish to be promoted at some dim and distant time in the future. Given where we are now, the only reference that I will make to the past is to say that when we were introducing those propositions into public service, they were always described as privatisation. In election after election, not just the Vale of Glamorgan by-election, we fought a parody of the policies that we were putting forward. That continues to the present day to be the position of the Labour party because the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring was greeted by an attack which, whenever it referred to what we were proposing, bore not the slightest relationship to anything that I had heard my hon. Friend say from beginning to end of his speech.
  Mr. Salter rose—
  Phil Hope rose—
  Mr. Clarke: Let me make some progress if I may, because obviously others wish to speak and I obviously do not wish to continue to engage in further exchanges in which people try to attribute to the Conservative party policies and motives that are a myth, have always been a myth and are not what we are supposed to be debating today.
  Mr. Dawson rose—
  Phil Hope rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I have said that I will give way again soon, but I shall make some progress first.
  Having arrived at those basic propositions, Labour Ministers are having more than a little difficulty with them. One difficulty that they have to contend with is that they are finding it necessary to repair the damage that their predecessors in office did during the first four years of Labour Government. I cannot range over the whole field, but I probably give the Home Secretary the prize for being the Minister who is most rapidly disowning just about every policy of his predecessor in office from the same party. But the idea that the present Secretary of State for Health says a word that resembles any word ever uttered on the subject of health by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is fatuous. The current Ministers are finding it necessary to reverse policies, return to where they started and alter the agenda.
  Nowhere is that process more striking than on the question of funding. I have said that I believe that public services improvement depends on funding and structural reform, but the Liberal Democrats' arguments on funding must be addressed. The Liberal Democrats are the only people left, I hope, who will continue to mislead the public by trying to persuade them that the only debate that we need have on these issues is about who can spend more. That debate is characterised by sterile arguments in which party representatives say, "We spent more than you did" and
  790
  arguments about who increased spending by how much in a given year. We hugely increased the resources going into health—and most of the other public services—over our period of office. The real question is at what rate resources should be increased. In answering that question, it is essential to bear in mind the real economy and the wealth of the country. The answer to that question represents the actual division between the parties.
  The Government did make one terrible error in funding in the first Labour period in office, about which I have always agreed with the more sensible Liberal Democrats. The first two years were a complete disaster and the funding arrangements that the new Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the new Secretary of State for Health accepted were a disaster from which both services are still reeling. [Laughter.] Labour Members are busily laughing, but they invented the completely bogus claim that they took over the previous Government's spending plans, which they most certainly did not. The only decision that the new Chancellor took and imposed on his colleagues was to cancel the anticipated annual spending rounds on which the Red Book had been based.
  Anyone who says that Labour did what a Conservative Government would have done is presumably claiming that, having produced a Red Book in 1997, we would not have had an annual spending round and that we would not have revised or increased the figures. As someone who lived through every annual spending round for 18 years, I can only say that we never did that for 18 years and, when we settled the Red Book in 1997, not a solitary man or women in office thought that we would not revise or increase the figures. The then Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), is sitting in front of me. I know her well, and if I had suggested to her when I was negotiating in 1997 that she would have to live without a change in those figures in 1998–99, she would have gone to the then Prime Minister and said, "Either he goes, or I go."
  That fatuous proposition was imposed on naive Ministers by a Chancellor who was desperate to show the City that he was tougher than I was and that he was the iron Chancellor. Well, he ain't tough now—he is pouring out money. We have had two lean years, followed by four years of plenty, as the Government try to restore the damage, but a public spending round is coming up and that rate of increase cannot be easily achieved. A bitter spending battle will take place in the next month between the public service Ministers and the Treasury about the next three-year cycle. The Chancellor hints that he cannot maintain spending without increases in taxation and the Prime Minister will not hear of any increase in taxation, so the Labour party's policy on funding the public services is not out of the wood yet—a large number of difficulties remain to be resolved.
  The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The right hon. and learned Gentleman is clearly in denial. May I just remind him that at a recent meeting that I had with representatives of local government, they contrasted the continuous increases in spending since this Government came to power in 1997 with what happened when the Conservative party was in government? They specifically referred to a meeting that occurred in the period that he has just described in which the then Minister for Local Government, the right hon.

  791
  Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), came into the meeting and told them quite openly, "We have been stuffed by the Treasury." Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman like to recall the reality of those years and acknowledge that this Government operate quite differently?
  Mr. Clarke: If the present Chancellor is to maintain the level of health and education funding, he will have to stuff quite a lot of Whitehall Departments to avoid causing immeasurable damage to this country and raising taxation to an insupportable level. That is the job of a Chancellor. The right hon. Gentleman looks happy because he is responsible for local government, and the Government have taken the cap off local government spending and told those involved to go out and get the money through the community charge. I have to tell him, however, that the residents of my constituency are seeing the community charge increase year by year, beyond their capacity to pay. [Interruption.] I am in favour of capping local government expenditure, and in my opinion every party that wins government eventually gets converted to capping it, so I have not changed my mind.
  Phil Hope rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall not be diverted. Let me get back to my proposition, which, I am glad to say, no one has risen to challenge and with which one hon. Member rose to agree. What I described—it is a wonder of wonders, given what the Secretary of State for Health says—is a set of the basic propositions on which the Government will have a second go at structural reform of the public services, but they will have some difficulty with their own people, as has been made only too clear in this debate.
  I shall resist the temptation to gloat—welcome is any sinner who repents. I shall try to be constructive because it is important to realise that someone—it is more likely to be someone who sits on the Conservative Benches—has eventually got to deliver those propositions in a serious, joined-up and worked-out way. That includes, for example, depoliticising many of the key decisions that take place. That is why we privatised, why we brought in the private sector and why we tried to devolve.
  I always used to think it absurd that, whenever a site had to be chosen for new hospital, there would be a Conservative policy, a Labour policy and a Liberal policy in the locality on where the hospitals should be built. Whenever some new rolling stock needed to be ordered, one party had one proposition on where it should be ordered from and the other party went about it another way. That is an absurdity, and it is one reason why those public services for which Governments are most responsible are bedevilled. One has to allow patients' needs, pupils' and parents' needs, passenger priorities and the views of those who have responsibility for managing and delivering the services in the locality to have some freedom from the kind of political knockabout in which every Labour Member, including Ministers, who has spoken in this debate so far has found it irresistible to engage. Let me try to be constructive, but I am bound to be sceptical.
  My scepticism about the Government's ability to deliver has been strengthened in the past hour just by listening to Labour Members. I believe that I am right to
  792
  say that they have been converted in principle to what I have said, but the conversion is more dramatic than that of St. Paul on the road to Damascus for most of those on the Government Front Bench. I can remember most of them sounding off when those propositions were first introduced to an extremely unwilling Labour movement, and they have not all been converted by their first four years of centralised planning, initiatives, spinning and re-presenting, and so on.
  What about the poor Transport Secretary? He—alas, poor soul—has not noticed that St. Paul has seen the light. No light has struck him. He is left—for a very short time in future, I suspect—wandering off down the same road, holding himself out to the Labour party as a hero who has renationalised the railway industry. However, the small print shows that he has not renationalised anything; he has just put the infrastructure company into a state of limbo for 12 months and made it more expensive and more difficult to raise the private sector capital that he needs. Only the Liberal Democrats are left with the policy of tax and spend and the reactionary old left agenda. A lot of Labour Members love to recall their old battles and wish that their party was back where once it was.
  Let me put some more flesh on the bones—which the Liberal Democrat spokesman certainly did not do for any of his proposals. Let me give some examples of why I think that funding is not the problem and how we shall make progress. First, the basic proposition that we have to bear in mind when listening to what the Secretary of State for Health says is that the purchaser-provider divide has been left in place. That is the key to the reforms; it sounds very technical, but it would have a very practical and very human consequence if it could be put properly into practice. The Labour party called it the internal market and used to denounce it. When the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was Secretary of State for Health he used to claim that he had abolished the internal market, but, fortunately, he never did any such thing.
  The Government's proposition is now that primary care trusts—the successors to GP fundholders—will be responsible, they say, for disposing of 75 per cent. of this country's health budget by 2004. We are told that the PCTs will be given much more freedom, that they will be monitored and that their performance will be managed by the new strategic health authorities that are being put in place and will take over by April 2002. If the Government make that change without causing chaos and confusion, it sounds like a promising step back in the right direction. That is what the temporarily silent Labour Members call the internal market, and it is being taken further by the present Secretary of State than I was ever able to go—thanks to obstruction in the Vale of Glamorgan and elsewhere—when I was in office.
  One good thing is that at last the Government recognise the key role of primary care providers in the health service, which is always forgotten in such debates. One of the great strengths of the British health system is the general practitioner. A huge range of other people are involved in delivering primary and community services. The Government's proposal will do what we in the Conservative party always wanted to do—put the GPs back into the driving seat in relation to local priorities—so long as the Secretary of State generally lets go and allows them to do that. The proposal will repair some of the damage done by the abolition of GP fundholding—

  793
  GP fundholding would have been better than the current policy, but let us proceed with what we have. I hope that Ministers can protect the proposal from the Treasury—Mr. Wanless and all—because it never likes such a degree of devolution. It likes central control and, as the Chancellor is working on his policy for the health service, I have a feeling that the proposal may run into difficulties.
  I am sceptical about the Government's abilities to deliver their promises for devolution given their position on the purchaser-provider divide, but I have some questions for them. How much genuine devolution of responsibility will there be? How much genuine competition and choice will they allow to take place? What incentives will they give to the Cinderella services and to prioritise the treatments that are required? The Government are made up of lifelong control freaks who are trying to put devolution into practice. On their past form, I do not think that they will succeed.
  How will the Government manage the confusion and overload that their repeated conversions have imposed on the system and that are causing widespread disillusion and despair in the service? They believe in permanent revolution. Even though this conversion may be one of the more desirable ones, they are handling the abolition of the health authorities, the setting up of the new primary care trusts and the negotiation of GPs' contracts with those who manage the service. There is a fantastic amount of overload and, if one talks to people in the service about it, one learns that their reaction is one of total despair that such a great deal of work is being thrown upon them.
  What about all the recent burdens imposed on people in the service and with which they are meant to contend while they carry out the revolution and introduce the new internal market by early next year? What about all the local Modernisation reviews that they were asked to carry out last year? The NHS Modernisation Board is supposed to be supervising all that. What about contracts with Downing street? Only in December last year, the Downing street delivery unit set more than 100 targets and milestones for the service to achieve. What about the public service delivery targets that have been agreed with the Treasury and what about—heaven help us—Mr. Wanless, who only two or three months ago dominated the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement with a new blueprint for the health service? I am not sure that a great deal will be devolved.
  On 10 December 2001, an article in the Financial Times described the state of affairs that the Government have produced. It explains why I am sceptical about their ability to deliver devolution. The report states:
  "One senior civil servant said: 'Not even Margaret Thatcher when she got involved in the NHS review in the 1980s tried to micro-manage the NHS like this. Number 10 is involved in the day-to-day detail in a way that has never been seen before.
  Another added: 'The secretary of state is now doing the right thing by the service [in devolving power and responsibility], but Downing Street is doing the wrong thing by him.
  The Department is trying to protect the NHS from all this, and trying to reconcile the conflicts between the public service agreements and the delivery unit's contract.
  But if the going continues to be as tough as it has recently…then it is going to be very difficult to hold the line. NHS Modernisation won't work if we revert to command and control."'
  That was said just weeks ago and explains why the Labour party's conversion has not reached the point at which it will be able to deliver on its promises.
  794
  I will not go on about the hospital service. The Government accept the private finance initiative, and more than 100 hospitals are being Modernised or refurbished. That Conservative policy was opposed by Labour when it was in opposition. However, the benefits are now being delivered by this Government.
  The Government have even welcomed the idea of private sector management, but their approach to it is extraordinary. Private sector management is held up as a kind of punishment to be imposed on failing hospitals. The idea of giving more freedom to hospitals and providing them with a little more competition and choice is complicated by the ridiculous star system and the endless demand for streams of statistics, priorities and targets that Conservative Members have already said cause so much difficulty.
  For the first four years in government, the Labour party did damage and it is only just beginning to realise how it has to swallow every word it has uttered and to return to reform. It is like the Vandals and Huns who sacked Rome. They are now trying on the togas and trying to erect the pillars in the right place. However, as they all say different things on different occasions, they will not succeed. They must correct the public misconceptions about reform of services that they did a great deal to create.
  My prediction is that the Government will not succeed. They began this Parliament in the same foolish way as they began the last one. The Prime Minister immediately raised expectations that he has no prospect of delivering. He will not deliver them in this Parliament and he may not ever deliver them unless he undergoes a further considerable conversion on how to go about reform.
  A Conservative Government will eventually be able to return to their agenda and they will find that the political climate has been changed by the utterances of the past few months. Labour politicians will no longer be able to deny the basic tenets of reform in the way that they did in the past. However, at the present rate of progress, better public services of the standard that we deserve may take a generation to achieve. So far, the Labour Government have done more harm than good and I see precious little sign of real progress in the right direction.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Michael Foster: I am pleased to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and to hear him refer to conversion, particularly his conversion to depoliticising decision making. I suspect that, when a former Chancellor considers the depoliticisation of decision making, it is because he has plans for a long-term career permanently in opposition.
  The test raised by the debate is whether there have been improvements in public services since May 1997, and that is the point that I will consider in my speech. I will describe what the people of Worcester have seen the Labour Government do since May 1997.
  In the battle against crime, police numbers have gone up. In the 12 months to September 2001, an extra 88 police officers were found for West Mercia and, just last week, a further 13 extra were allocated to the Worcester division from the crime fighting fund. The distinguished newspaper, the Worcester Evening News, proclaimed:
  "Thin blue line getting thicker".

  795
  I accept that the West Mercia police authority has relatively few police officers per head of population. It is important in the battle against crime to see a greater and more visible police presence on our streets. Therefore I pay tribute to Chief Superintendent Simon Adams of Worcester division for his innovative work on Operation Terminate, which was specifically designed to put police officers in highly visible clothing into the city centre late at night when many disturbances take place. That helped to cut crime in Worcester city centre considerably.
  I said that West Mercia has relatively few officers per head but, since May 1997, funding for the authority per head of population has risen by nearly 22 per cent. That is against an average of almost 17 per cent. We are starting to make up ground, and my constituents and I are grateful for that. The chief constable of West Mercia wants an extra 100 police officers, and I support his view. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to take note and to support the chief constable in his aims.
  Extra police officers are only part of the answer. In Worcester, a Home Office grant provided £640,000 for investment in closed circuit television. That will make the city centre and the car parks servicing the city centre safer. The system will be run from the brand-new police station that was opened by Her Majesty the Queen in March last year. A new police station, new closed circuit television and extra police officers are all contributing to the fight against crime.
  Antisocial behaviour orders also support the police in the battle against crime. However, I have to point to their non-use in Worcester. West Mercia has the highest rate of issue of such orders per head of population, but only one has been issued in Worcester. The Conservative-controlled city council, with its independent lapdogs, claims that the procedure is at fault and that this explains the failure to issue such orders. I disagree and, more important, so does the chief executive of Worcester city council, who wrote to me on 11 December 2001 to say:
  "The failure by"
  Worcester city council
  "to secure an ASBO cannot be attributed to procedural shortcomings…What we have not been able to do is allocate the resources which other Authorities have dedicated to ASBOs. Some training of staff has been undertaken but we have not got officers dedicated full time on this which is, I believe, the case in"
  neighbouring
  "Wyre Forest. Any ASBO work has been undertaken by officers in addition to their other duties."
  It is the lack of commitment by Worcester city council that is responsible for the lack of the issue of ASBOs.
  On the health service, much has been said in the House and outside about health care in Worcestershire. I do not intend to reopen old wounds as regards the debate surrounding acute services, but more nurses, doctors and consultants now work in the NHS in that county. They deserve our full support and our help in tackling the challenges that face us. Waiting lists and waiting times are falling, but I accept that there is much more to do before we have a national health service that we want our constituents to thank us for.
  The House has a long history of listening to Worcester Members of Parliament who want assurances on the future of the new district general hospital. The people of
  796
  Worcester have been on a promise for more than 40 years regarding a new hospital. The Conservative Government promised, promised and promised again to build the new hospital, and they failed to deliver. They introduced the private finance initiative, and failed to build a single hospital. In the 1997 general election, I supported the PFI as a way to build Worcester's new hospital.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: To be fair, Worcester's new hospital was one of the principal objectives that we had in mind when we developed the PFI, and we had advanced discussions on that. New hospitals are not built in four years flat. Worcester has a new hospital because the plans that began when I was in office and the Conservatives were in government came to fruition in Worcester. It is absurd to pretend that that was suddenly invented after 1997.
  Mr. Foster: The manifesto platform on which we stood for election was to reform the PFI to make it work. I well remember Conservative health spokesmen saying in that general election that Labour would not deliver the new hospital. We said that we would, and I am pleased and proud to say that in two months' time patients will start to move from the Victorian building that is Castle Street and the second world war Canadian army hospital that is Ronkswood into a new hospital that will be the envy of the country. It is just short of four years since the first sod was cut by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). The hospital has been delivered on time and it should be seen as a model for the way in which health care will be delivered.
  Two years ago I was pleased to participate in the launch of a new CT scanner for Worcester's hospital, which represented a £400,000 investment, paid for by the NHS. It replaced the CT scanner that was bought in 1988 which was financed by public donation. In 1988, begging bowls had to be sent around Worcester to collect money to pay for a vital piece of health care equipment. That is another example of the difference between the Conservative party when it was in power and the Labour party when it is in government.
  I like to think, as a former member of the teaching profession, that I have a great understanding of education. I pay tribute to teachers and support staff for the improved results in our schools since May 1997 at key stage 1, key stage 2 and GCSE level. Worcester has always benefited from consistently good A-level results at Worcester sixth form college and Worcester college of technology. More than anything else, the Government are delivering higher standards for our young people. We are also delivering better buildings and a better environment in which pupils can learn and teachers can teach.
  Chris Grayling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the concerns that are being expressed by head teachers and teachers around the country about the burden of bureaucracy that the Government have imposed on them? I hear that again and again when I visit schools. I do not think that I have been to a single school without that issue being raised. Can the hon. Gentleman really be confident that the Government's policies are doing the right thing for the education profession when our teachers are so frustrated with what they are doing?
  Mr. Foster: Before I was elected, I was a school governor at a high school in Worcester. I remember the

  797
  head teacher's frustration at having to decide which members of the teaching staff to make redundant. It was not a case of facing the challenges of recruiting extra teachers and support staff to our schools. The Government are making a difference to educational opportunities for young people.
  Worcester college of technology has just bought the old police station in the town to provide more classroom space. Worcester sixth form college recently had a new teaching block opened by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), who was a former member of staff at the college. The education maintenance allowance, which is being piloted in Worcestershire, means that more 16-year-olds are staying on in our colleges. Their results are better, not only in terms of their achievements, but in terms of their retention rates. I am keen to see that rolled out across the country.
  University college Worcester has just had a £2 million sports hall built for community and student use. It will house national and international teams. Importantly, it plays a big part in a project, with which I am associated, to widen participation in education. It uses sport as the tool to get young people from disadvantaged backgrounds into university and on to the campus so that they get a taste of university life. In that way we raise the aspirations of young people in all our schools.
  The school system has undergone a remarkable investment programme in Worcester city. Let me give a few examples of the extra investment that has gone into capital infrastructure projects as a result of the new deal programme for schools. Elgar high school now has a lift for the disabled. Bishop Perowne school refurbished its craft, design and technology facilities. Perdiswell primary had all its warm air heating replaced. Cherry Orchard primary implemented a £75,000 project to refurbish its library. Christopher Whitehead high school completely refurbished its showers and changing rooms. Pitmaston primary, Dines Green primary, Redhill primary, Our Lady Queen of Peace primary, St. George's Roman Catholic primary, Cranhan primary and Ronkswood junior all received emergency replacement of their fire alarms and safety equipment which was necessary because of the state of their buildings.
  Pitmaston primary has replaced its mobile classrooms. Nunnery Wood primary has a new classroom extension and Gorse Hill primary has two new classrooms. Lyppard Grange also has two new classrooms and Northwick Manor is in the process of completing a three-classroom permanent replacement of mobile classrooms. Nunnery Wood high school is about to have two new science laboratories built. St. Barnabas primary will have four new classrooms completed later this year, and St. Clement's primary will have two new classrooms completed.
  Those examples are testimony to what is being delivered by the Labour Government. The acid test is what has happened since 1997, and we are seeing improvements. However, I must tell Ministers—I know that they are sympathetic to this—that there is concern in Worcestershire about revenue funding for education and the standard spending assessment. I am pleased that the Government intend to reform the SSA. The indicative increase in SSA this year of 6.1 per cent. is a record for the county. Worcestershire has never had an increase that large. I am delighted that we can make a real comparison
  798
  between the increased investment in schools and the cuts that we experienced in Worcester in the 1990s. The legacy of underfunding in our schools is holding back educational achievement in our county, but it is not the only reason for a lack of achievement.
  In the early 1990s, when the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was Secretary of State for Education, we had a Conservative-controlled county council that was proud of its record of low spending. It boasted that it returned money to the Government and spent less than the standard spending assessment. That decision cost schools and pupils in Worcestershire nearly £50 million. I cannot remember whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman objected to the decision by the locally elected Conservatives—he may tell me—which ensured that Worcestershire did not have adequate nursery provision. Only now is nursery provision starting to be enhanced by the Labour Government's investment. All four-year-olds have places at nursery schools and, increasingly, three-year-olds have places as well, which will help us to deliver a better education service. The budget for adult and community learning was cut in the 1990s because it was discretionary expenditure. As a result of that cut, poor nursery provision and a low base of revenue funding, Worcestershire does not do as well as it should. With the support of the Government, I am determined to raise educational standards in the county.
  The debate about the state of public services should have taken place in the early 1990s, but Conservative MPs from Worcestershire kept quiet. If they were ambitious, they realised that that was in their best interests; if they held office, they boasted about the low funding of Hereford and Worcester county council. To them, value added, which should be a measure of educational standards, meant delivering average educational performance from below average funding. In government, the Tories were good at low spending and low achievement. We must guard against that in future and never ever let people in Worcestershire forget.
  Chris Grayling: Could I take the hon. Gentleman back to a recent report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which praised this country for its pupils' educational achievement? I remind him that the pupils who were measured in that survey went through key stages 1 to 3 under the Conservative Government following the reforms that they made to the education system. Those results were a tribute to the achievements of pupils ensuing from the reforms. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the contribution that the Conservative party's education reforms made to raising the standard of achievement and delivering an excellent result in an international survey?
  Mr. Foster: I am about to conclude my contribution, but I want to tell the hon. Gentleman that Worcester is a relatively prosperous city. We have relatively low unemployment and are classed as middle England, so much so that, in 1997, Worcester woman was seen as the archetypal person whose support had to be attracted if we were to win the general election. Does the hon. Gentleman expect five of 12 wards in the city to appear at the bottom of a league of 2,000 for educational achievement? The Conservatives should not be proud of that record; I am not proud of it, and I want it to improve.
  6.23 pm
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate because, as has been demonstrated already, it has raised issues of enormous interest to both to the public and to the many dedicated people who work in the public services. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on his success in securing an Opposition debate on these matters and on his introductory speech.
  The speeches so far have been of great interest. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) for his obvious dedication to education in his constituency—his knowledge of the subject clearly comes from past experience—and for the little spiky touch that he put in, just reminding Ministers that all is not entirely well yet. I was entranced by the presentation of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) of himself as a master of consensus; I never thought I would live to see the day. His description of our discussions on the funding of education in the final days of the Major Government was much more his line on consensus than that which he has been attempting to preach today. He may have had his tongue in his cheek, but he did not seem to elicit many consensual responses from Government Members.
  I may do better, but I am not certain that I will, as I wish to begin by making some fairly hard points. I hope that today's debate will help Ministers to grasp a number of important facts. There has been more investment in public service during the life of this Labour Government and the previous one, elected in 1997. Investment is not as great or as new as Ministers would have us believe. Their hyping of that investment, their exaggerated claims—"24 hours to save the NHS" and "Education, education, education"—and their announcements and reannouncements of extra spending have been so blatant that the public have stopped listening and do not believe a word of what they say about improvements to public services. If I were in government, I would take careful note.
  It would be nice if the Government began to accept responsibility for the fact that they are in government. Things that are happening now, especially in practice, must be considered their responsibility. I intend to describe some of those things. It is a little tiring for the public to hear Ministers continuing to try to visit deficiencies in the public services entirely on the legacy of previous Conservative Governments.
  Mr. Rammell: Given that, during 18 years in government, the Conservative party constantly referred to the winter of discontent, is not the right hon. Lady's criticism a bit rich?
  Mrs. Shephard: That is a rather off-the-wall intervention, but it gives me the opportunity to remind the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that today's debate is about the record of his Government and what they have done. No Opposition Member will make any apology for drawing attention to those matters.
  I hope that Ministers will note that announcing extra resources, while at the same time making complicated announcements about earmarking and ring-fencing those same resources, apparently with no idea of how contradictory policies will impact on one another,
  800
  is rapidly becoming a discredited exercise. The public's daily experience, particularly in rural areas, of those same public services, is so far removed from ministerial hyperbole that the Government should stop describing what is happening and try sampling it instead.
  As I said, more money has indeed been allocated to public services. However, little effort seems to have been devoted to making sure that services work: to ensuring that behind the flattering headlines there are genuine improvements that people experience daily and that policy intentions announced in one area do not cancel out improvements in another—in short, to ensuring that resource allocation is underpinned by practical and workable strategic thinking. Consequently, every time the public hear yet another hyped announcement, they say, "Where is the money going? We can't see the benefits for us." That is a relevant question for the public to ask, because it is their money.
  Mr. Dawson: The right hon. Lady properly acknowledged that more money had been spent on the public services, but criticised Labour Members for hyperbole. Is she seriously suggesting that her constituents have not received any of the benefits of that extra public spending? Will she tell us what new public sector resources are available in her constituency?
  Mrs. Shephard: I shall most happily do so. Indeed, I shall be devoting my entire speech to that matter, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to stay and listen.
  In short, there is a mismatch between Ministers' claims and people's daily experience, and that is what I intend to demonstrate. Understandably, this debate has been majoring on the shortcomings of the national health service. I say to the hon. Gentleman that I intend to make some observations about the way in which it is working in my own rural area. However, local people are as concerned about teacher shortages, lack of school places and police funding as they are about the health service.
  Ministers' pronouncements on those matters give no indication that they have the remotest idea of what it is like to try to access public services in a rural area. Travelling from the village where I live to the nearest GP's surgery means making a round trip of 15 miles. Ministers say that they understand. Indeed, they produced a rural White Paper and countless quangos to try to demonstrate their understanding, but sadly, their policies still show no sign of demonstrating in practice that the lesson has gone home. The point is that rural sparsity has implications for the delivery of all public services. That is the case whether we are talking about the NHS, schools or the police.
  Dr. Stoate: I agree that there are difficulties with GP practices in rural areas. The right hon. Lady said that some of her constituents had to travel seven miles to a GP's surgery. What does her party suggest that we should do about that? The Government are increasing the number of GPs and investing in the Modernisation of their surgeries. We are even investing in improved public transport links. What would her party offer that this Government are somehow failing to achieve?
  Mrs. Shephard: It is, of course, under this Government that the cost of motoring—the only alternative that is open

  801
  to many of my constituents—has risen sky high. I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that and to bear in mind the fact that, as I said, we are talking about the achievements of his Government.
  Mr. Dawson: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Shephard: No, not at the moment. I have given way a number of times and I shall certainly return to that point.
  Ministers should be congratulated—this is a consensus point that I draw to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe—on embracing the PFI principle, on the basis of which all £229 million worth of the Norfolk and Norwich hospital is being provided. It is a good Conservative principle. It has certainly delivered the hospital in good time and people in Norfolk would be delighted about it, were it not for the implications of the accelerated opening of the hospital. Its opening has been brought forward from March to now and has been marked by local press headlines such as "Disaster looms" and "Crisis talks over hospital beds shortage". I accept that some of those problems result from a combination of severe winter weather and staff illness, but it would be interesting to know why the opening has been brought forward from its scheduled time in March. Has that happened because of the requirements of the PFI contractors? If so, it might have been better for health managers—I assume that that must include Ministers—to avoid the problems of winter and illness, and keep to the timetable.
  It is a disappointment and a pity that the memory of Norfolk people of the opening of the hospital—after all, it was conceived and planned under the Conservative Government—will be accompanied by memories of the huge problems associated with the shortening of the timetable. Norfolk people are also asking whether the hospital will be adequate for Norfolk's needs. Access is one of their main concerns. I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) take his place; he is right on cue. Ministers should be concerned, like the people of Norfolk, that only one access point to the new Norfolk and Norwich hospital has been planned. When the Minister visited Norfolk to celebrate the beginning of dualling on the All in my constituency—he was very welcome—I asked his officials to drive him past the site of the new hospital, so that he would be able to see for himself the problems of accessing it through a residential and suburban area. Activity is now under way on that front and I think that we are getting help from the Highways Agency, but to the people of Norfolk, it seems a bit wasteful to spend £29 million on a hospital that one cannot get to in a rush hour, especially because by definition in a rural area, easy vehicular access is an absolute requirement.
  The new hospital is one thing, but the knock-on effects of its provision are quite another. It would be interesting to know whether the hon. Member for Worcester, who described provision with regard to the new hospital in his constituency, is experiencing any of the same problems. The Wayland hospital, which is situated near Attleborough in my constituency, is to be sacrificed to help provide funding for the new hospital. This much-loved hospital, with its 70-plus beds and strong
  802
  local support, is to close in April, despite the fact that its closure will mean that there is no community hospital provision in the whole of the southern half of the county of Norfolk. People will be expected to undertake a round trip of 60 miles to Norwich for community hospital care. In response to the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), I point out that that is not a policy that was born of a former Conservative Government. We wished to retain the hospital precisely because of the travel implications of its closure.
  Mr. Michael Foster: Let me intervene to put the right hon. Lady's mind at rest on one point. The community hospitals serving Worcestershire have not been affected by the building of the new PFI hospital. Indeed, they are part of the strategy to allow acute treatment to occur in the new district general hospital. Patients can be treated there and move into community hospitals at a later date. In terms of the acute service reconfiguration, all the options under discussion included the building of a new hospital, because, quite frankly, it was 40 years overdue.
  Mrs. Shephard: I am delighted to have that elucidation from the hon. Gentleman. He and his constituents are much more fortunate than my constituents and me. It is an extraordinary irony that people are being expected to travel 60 miles for community hospital care. What are we talking about? No replacement facilities have yet been provided, and even when they are provided, there will be no local community beds, as was originally promised. Instead, the health authority is
  "exploring options for providing such beds in nursing homes".
  That is a deeply fruitless search, as I shall go on to demonstrate. An increasingly elderly population will be left having to travel scores of miles for services—where they exist. I cannot believe that that is the sort of improvement that has been so much vaunted by Ministers, but it will be the daily experience of people in my constituency and in Norfolk as a whole.
  As if to rub the problem in, during the recent crisis at the new Norfolk and Norwich hospital—I emphasise that it was a beds shortage crisis—the chief executive of Norfolk health authority, Neil Wilson, made this bland announcement:
  "There are a number of community hospitals throughout Norfolk. Some patients who also need further care after being discharged from the Norfolk and Norwich are transferred to community hospitals to continue their recovery".
  "But not in the southern half of the county, "he might have added", and nor can the pressure on the new flagship £229 million hospital be eased by care in the community provided by social services". That is why I began by emphasising that Ministers need to think out how one set of policies impacts on another: there can be unintended consequences.
  Liz Railton, the director of Cambridgeshire social services, is quoted in Public Finance this week as saying that the flagship hospital cannot rely on social services because the Government grant is inadequate. She says:
  "Social services spending is increasing rapidly, but neither central government nor councillors are matching the increase with their budget allocations. There is now…an annual £1 bn deficit between what is allocated in the spending round…and what local authorities budget for social services".
  In another example of micromanagement, the propensity of Ministers to set local authorities' priorities in social services, namely for child care, means that their own announced health policies are not working.

  803
  What about residential homes? Two years ago, I initiated a debate in the House on the implications for bed numbers in residential homes of the Government's approach to uniform standards in those homes. I said then that although everybody supported proper standards in residential homes, they have already had to contend with the impact of the working time directive, huge hikes in fuel costs and cuts in social services. I added that having to cope with the uncertainty and confusion surrounding the Government's new proposals would drive many out of business altogether, with a devastating effect on frail and elderly people, their families and in turn the NHS, which would have to cope with the result. Oh dear, that has proved to be all too true.
  According to Laing and Buisson, also quoted in this week's Public Finance,
  "some 12,600 beds in care homes were lost in the fifth straight year of reduced capacity."
  That figure is significant because it is
  "equivalent to more than 10 per cent. of the total number of NHS beds. If people whose care requirements can no longer be met stay longer in hospitals, bed blocking will get much worse."
  Care home owners are not being paid their inflation costs, which are between 5 and 7 per cent., and receive instead an annual increase of about 2 per cent. That is why many are going out of business. Just as serious is the fact that, many are being redesignated as residential rather than nursing care homes precisely when the national need is for more nursing care in residential homes.
  We can add to those bleak facts the additional problems in rural areas—I look at the hon. Member for Dartford—where closures occurring under this Government mean more travelling for families and staff, less choice for residents and a greater concentration of jobs in towns. One is obliged to ask if Ministers meant things to turn out this way—or has their concern always been the slick headline rather than what is happening to people?
  Mr. Brazier: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way in the middle of her powerful case. Given that it costs between three and four times as much to fund an NHS bed as it does a typical bed in a nursing home, does not the experience of an area such as mine, which has lost 15 per cent. of its nursing home beds in just 12 months, show that it is possible for a really incompetent Government to raise spending and lower standards of care?
  Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend's point is borne out by the comments of Liz Railton, who said:
  "The whole thing calls for a much more strategic approach, underpinned by financial planning".
  Ministers' commitment to spend more of people's money is being eroded by the fact that they fail to think through the impact of one set of policies and headlines on the delivery of other services.
  By no group is that more clearly perceived than by GPs. I recently did a survey of GPs in my constituency to find out their views on hospital provision and bed blocking.
  804
  Their replies were very instructive for Ministers. Dr. Barton of the Campingland surgery in Swaffham replied:
  "We have never experienced so many 'Red Alerts' throughout the summer months, whereby we are implored to find solutions other than admission to hospital. The closure of beds was due to a lack of trained nursing staff."
  I hope that Labour Members noted his use of the word "never"—his comments apply not to a Conservative Government but to this Government. He continues:
  "While we welcome the new Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, there will be fewer beds than at the existing hospital. We find it difficult to believe a lower number of beds will improve an already difficult situation."
  Many of his patients would agree.
  Dr. Grace Barlow of the Necton surgery wrote in December:
  "Of great concern to us in General Practice at the moment"—
  not five years ago but now—
  "is the apparent shortage of acute beds within the local hospitals. Although we have in no sense moved into a 'winter pressures' situation, both the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn and the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital have been on red alert and closed to all but the most urgent cases on a number of occasions recently. Even when there has not been an official red alert, on a number of occasions when seeking a medical admission for a patient we have been told that there are no beds in the acute admission ward and the patient has had to wait in Casualty, often for a considerable number of hours.
  Having now worked in the Health Service for over 25 years, I am deeply saddened by the erosion in the level of care that I can provide for my patients…I would be delighted for any pressure you can bring to bear in Parliament to rectify this situation."
  Well, there is fat chance of that, but it is worth reminding Ministers of their responsibilities in these matters.
  Dr. Young of Watton says:
  "We feel that bed blocking is the result of insufficient beds and is just part of the general difficulty of providing treatment in the secondary sector. There needs to be a system for discharge from acute hospitals into intermediate care—which would probably require additional hospitals, or the development of existing hospitals in this sector."
  Those are the views of GPs in my constituency, and they contain small comfort for Ministers. It is, perhaps, not strange but a little sinister for them to find, at every hand's turn, that professionals and the public seem more aware than they do of the effects of quick-fix headlines combined with a lack of strategic direction.
  Most recently, the pressure of population increase locally has caused one surgery to announced the complete closure of its facilities in Brandon. That will affect many hundreds of my constituents in the nearby villages of Weeting and Hockwold. On 14 January, Mr. Tunstall of Weeting, in an interesting letter, wrote:
  "After watching our globe trotting Prime Minister in an interview with David Frost I thought I would take the opportunity of writing to you to express my concern about the general state of our country's facilities.
  Mr. Blair and his colleagues certainly seem aloof and out of touch with the basic problems and wastage in this country including the Millennium Dome, Wembley Stadium, Railways, Education, NHS Structure, the Police Force"
  and so on. I wish that Mr. Tunstall were here because I think that if he were a Member of the House, Ministers would be having quite a rough ride. He encapsulates

  805
  perfectly the views of the millions who experience daily the mismatch between what Ministers say and what they, the public, see.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: The right hon. Lady has given us a snapshot of her constituency. In my constituency, for 18 years under her Government the GP in the ex-mining village of Craghead held his surgery in a terraced house with a leaking roof. Last week, he moved into a £250,000 purpose-built facility provided by a Labour Government. That snapshot of Durham is certainly not the same as the picture that she is trying to paint.
  Mrs. Shephard: I am delighted to hear of the good fortune of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. He speaks as he finds. So do I, and so do my constituents. It is a matter of great mystery to them that they hear Ministers vaunting the improvements in the NHS and other public services made under this Government while their daily experience is a surgery closure. Frankly, while one would not want a leaky roof on a doctor's surgery, that is better than no surgery at all, which is the experience of my constituents under this Government.
  Ministers have been approached by dentists from my constituency and they will have received a letter dated 31 December 2001 from Mr. Carmichael of Downham Market. His practice has served that area of west Norfolk since the mid-1940s and he recently lost one of his associates. As a result, and despite six months of expensive advertising, he has had to
  "deregister over 3000 patients and reduce staffing and it is unlikely that these Patients will find another Dentist."
  Of course, dentist problems are not new. We too had difficulties in government, but under this Government 3,000 patients have had to be deregistered and they will not find another dentist. Given Ministers' hype, the public could be forgiven for wondering why that little problem was not solved in the 24 hours left to save the NHS. Either way, for people on the ground the problem is gross.
  It is a pity that no Health Minister is here, but, in passing, I draw it to the Minister's attention that I made an innocent inquiry of Norfolk health authority to discover how many bodies are responsible for administering health in my constituency and in Norfolk. In 1987, there were four or five. There are now 16. Each has a chief executive, a glossy annual general meeting report, a chairman, travel expenses, premises—everything. Of course, that represents but a flea-bite in the overall NHS budget, but these things too are noticed by the public.
  Turning to education, in no other field have expectations been so raised and exaggerated or so dashed. Consider the daily experience of parents and teachers in Norfolk. In my constituency a year ago, it was revealed that a head was regularly teaching classes of 94. That was disavowed by Ministers and the Labour-controlled local education authority. Alas, it was the case, although it is no longer. That scandal was drawn to my attention by the parents, who said, "Why are they going on and on about class sizes of 30? We have 94 in ours."
  I also draw Ministers' attention to a letter to me dated 10 December 2001 from Dr. Brian Slater, Norfolk's director of education. He states that 30 of Norfolk's 52 secondary schools are over-subscribed, which means
  806
  that if people happen to move to a town in which one of those schools is located, their children cannot be educated in that town. What does that extraordinary situation mean for rural investment, jobs, economic regeneration, children and parents and the schools themselves? It means more expense for council tax payers, bussing out of the county for many pupils and the end of choice. Talking of strategic planning, how can that have happened after five years under a Labour Government and, up to last June, eight years under a Labour-controlled county council? These people's priority is "education, education, education", but do not try to get a child into one of those 30 secondary schools because he or she will not get in. Apparently, these paragons—these enthusiasts for education—did not notice planning permissions, house building and new developments.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Shephard: Not at the moment.
  It could be argued that, by definition, authorities have 11 years' notice of the need for a secondary school place, but that was not enough. The situation is without precedent in my 30 years' experience of the education system and it represents the most extraordinary lack of strategic planning. It is a marvellous example of the mismatch between ministerial claims about public services and people's daily experience, and the blame must be laid at the door of the Labour Government and the Labour county council.
  On police funding, my constituency was deeply affected by the Tony Martin case. In its aftermath, anxieties about the level of rural policing, the pointlessness of reporting crime when the police are so stretched and the fear of crime all surfaced only to be allayed by ministerial pronouncements on what would be done, but what we were told bears little relation to the chief constable's current perceptions. He has written to all Norfolk Members of Parliament to point out that there is a £162 million gap nationally between Government support next year and police need and that the Government propose a 3.6 per cent. budget increase in Norfolk even though the police authority calculates that it needs 4 per cent. just to stand still.
  The debate has been informative and it is illuminating to hear the experience of Members from both sides of the House. It is to be expected that Labour Members will find constituency examples, which are perfectly accurate, of course, to support their Ministers' claims. Alas, public perception has moved on and they are sick to death of ministerial hype, which often bears no resemblance to their experience.
  Ministers have only themselves to blame for the disbelief—or worse, cynicism—in the public mind over the state of the public services. Ministers make overstatements and exaggerated claims of improvement, but they have failed to grasp that there is a mismatch between what they say and what people experience. They will pay for it.
  6.57 pm
  Dr. Howard Stoate: I am grateful to be called in this important debate, but I am disappointed with the contributions made so far, particularly those of Conservative Members, who have failed to grasp the

  807
  opportunity to draw out important public sector issues. I for one was looking forward to hearing what the Conservatives have to offer for the public sector. It is no good shadow Minister after shadow Minister ranting on about how terrible things are. We want to hear what they have to offer instead.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) appeared to want a spirit of consensus and appeared to lead the debate forward into constructive areas, but, unfortunately, all he really wanted to do was defend his record and knock the Government yet again—on and on and on he went.
  I speak as the only practising doctor left in this honourable House and as one who has some expertise in the health service. There, as in so many areas, size does indeed matter. I shall not rehearse all the arguments made this evening, but it is impossible to defend the claim that the Government have not been funding the health service properly. Look at the figures: £49 billion for 1999–2000 and a projected £68 billion for 2003–04. That represents a real-terms increase of about 35 per cent., which must be the largest ever sustained increase in health service expenditure.
  Chris Grayling: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the possibility that the Government may have increased spending, but delivered no results? On running the health service, has he considered the possibility that the Government might not be doing the right job?
  Dr. Stoate: Oddly enough, the hon. Gentleman is beginning to engage in constructive comment. Perhaps we should be considering that matter. I want to focus on the way in which we should deliver services. Sterile debates about putting a penny on income tax, which party would put the most money in—
  Mr. Barker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Stoate: I want to make progress before giving way again.
  I cannot understand the point of such debates. We go round in circles, trying to score points off each other. For example, the Liberal Democrats say that they want to put 1p here and 50p there. It simply does not make sense to people.
  It is not only size that matters, however, but what we do with it. I want to consider reforms that the Government could introduce to improve the NHS and provide services with which not only hon. Members but the public are happy. We need to reform. Opposition Members have gone on and on about the Government's failure to deliver; they should suggest methods of putting that right. I want to try to tackle that.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an interesting statement about the three Ps, and said that we believed in patients, pupils and passengers. At least that is a constructive way of looking forward, and it is different from Conservative Members' three Rs—rant, rave and rhetoric, which get us nowhere. Opposition Members spend too long talking through their "Rs" and too little time on methods of improving things.
  808
  The NHS is a complex and convoluted organisation. It has taken 50 years of custom and practice to get where it is today. My right hon. Friend's leadership and vision is beginning to cut through that. The monolithic structure of the NHS is one of its problems because its size and complexity make it difficult to steer. The analogy with a supertanker is therefore apt. The Government have shown vision, determination and bravery in setting some of the units in the health service apart from others to ascertain whether they are able to provide services in a way that has not previously been done. That affords us an opportunity to find what can be provided. I welcome some of the pilot schemes that the Government are currently undertaking. They may show how far the NHS can go and the number of new initiatives that can be introduced.
  I want to focus on some comparators. This week's British Medical Journal contained an interesting article, which compared the Kaiser Permanente group in California with the NHS. The group is a non-profit-making health maintenance organisation, which serves a similar population to the NHS and is largely based in California, where it has 6 million members. The paper in the British Medical Journal considers whether anything can be learned from comparing the organisations. It states:
  "The per capita costs of the two systems, adjusted for differences in benefits, special activities, population characteristics, and the cost environment, were similar to within 10 per cent…Kaiser members experience more comprehensive and convenient primary care services and much more rapid access to specialist services and hospital admissions."
  The most important finding was:
  "Age adjusted rates of use of acute hospital services…were one third of those in the NHS."
  We talk about bed numbers as though they were the linchpin of whether the NHS can deliver, yet an organisation in America that covers a similar population and has broadly similar funding and pressures can somehow provide a service that uses only one third of the bed-day numbers per 1,000 people a year.
  Chris Grayling: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's reference to the work of Kaiser Permanente. Does he believe that it is right to explore the management of the NHS, and would he support Conservative efforts to think out of the box about health care in this country and consider solutions that could provide genuine options for it rather than sticking to the old paradigms?
  Dr. Stoate: Would that the comments about the Conservative party were true. What have we heard from Conservative Members about their vision for the health service? Nothing. We have also heard nothing from the Liberal Democrats. I was looking forward to a constructive debate on the health service because the people of this country expect nothing less from a Parliament of this stature on the world stage. Yet Conservative Members have simply ranted about the way in which we have spent less than they might have spent. I want a constructive debate on providing services.
  The Kaiser Permanente study bears close examination because of the much shorter bed stays and fewer bed occupancy days a year per 1,000 of the population. It invests far more money in primary care, information technology and communication technology to enable that to happen. It provides a seamless service from admission

  809
  to convalescence. The Government and the NHS could learn from that. Rather than ranting about the differences between the Labour party and the Conservative party, we should consider improving the health service for people in this country and matching the achievements in other parts of the world.
  The conclusion of the paper in the British Medical Journal stated:
  "The widely held beliefs that the NHS is efficient and that poor performance in certain areas is largely explained by underinvestment are not supported by this analysis."
  That is a fascinating statement because it contends that underinvestment is not the problem. We recently heard that the NHS underspent last year. Throwing money at the problem did not solve it because structural difficulties meant that we were unable to spend the money that was given to the health service. Rather than concentrating on the sterile argument about cost, let us consider provision, types of services, improving efficiency, communication technology, wiring up GPs' surgeries to hospitals and wiring up hospitals to social services to ensure a seamless transition for patients through the service.
  Mrs. Shephard: If the hon. Gentleman looks at all the nods and smiles from Conservative Members, he will realise that he is bringing us dangerously close to consensus. I congratulate him on his constructive approach.
  Dr. Stoate: Those congratulations are unexpected and welcome. I am happy to accept consensus. We do not have to confine ourselves to a sterile, narrow debate, which upsets people, turns them off politics and damages us all.
  Mr. Barker: I share the enthusiasm of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and I, too, welcome such thoughts from Labour Members. It is a refreshing change from the usual ideological rant on the NHS. However, the big difference between Conservative and Labour Members is that Labour Members constitute the Government. They have been in office for almost six years. When will people in this country experience an improvement in the service after Labour Members have grasped the idea that simply throwing money at the NHS is not the answer?
  Dr. Stoate: It is so disappointing to listen to Conservative Members. They have nothing to say on the subject. I offer them a chance to set out part of their stall and present their alternative policies, yet all they say is, "You've been in for six years and we're not getting anywhere."
  Mr. Salter: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend, whose speeches we always enjoy. As an acting GP and health professional, perhaps he would care to comment on Conservative policy as set out on 12 November in a memorandum from the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), the shadow Treasury spokesman. It fortuitously landed on my desk and is now on those of many other hon. Members. It states:
  "The reforms, which we will be proposing, will end the NHS monopoly and will entail those who can afford it making some payment for healthcare services."
  810
  What does my hon. Friend believe Conservative Members mean by that? How much will the sick have to pay under the Conservatives should they ever return to power?
  Dr. Stoate: I thank my hon. Friend, but he should look on the bright side: at least the memorandum set out a policy, which is more than we have heard from Conservative Members this evening. Of course, I disagree with it. It would be interesting to hear how much they propose to charge. Conservative Member after Conservative Member has refused to admit the existence of the so-called charges. One of their spokespeople admits to the prospect of charging, yet others refuse to own up to that. I wonder if any of them are brave enough to admit to the policy.
  Chris Grayling: Kaiser Permanente, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is part of a health care system in which there is no NHS-style monopoly, as described in the memorandum, and to which individuals make a financial contribution. Has the hon. Gentleman not admitted that it provides better-quality health care than the NHS?
  Dr. Stoate: The programme fascinates me because it is a managed care programme that works on a non-profit-making basis and is therefore similar to our NHS. People contribute to it throughout their lives, and it is a pooled risk system. That means that few people in it need to buy top-up private health insurance because it covers all their needs. Even more interestingly, the Kaiser Permanente system does not allow specialists to work outside the organisation. No consultants rush off to the private sector to top up their incomes; they cannot do that. We could learn from that.
  I want to consider wastage. I chair the all-party group on pharmacy.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that an important aspect of policy is blunder avoidance? One of the Government's great blunders is that they have ended up with massive bed blocking because they have lost 49,000 care home beds, which is something about which the Opposition warned them.
  Dr. Stoate: The care home sector is extremely important, but the hon. Gentleman fails to recognise that the net loss of beds in the sector is only 19,000—though of course that is still serious. The hon. Gentleman also fails to take into account the Government's policy of care at home and managed care in the community, which reduces the need for beds. He is right to say that we need to address the problem of so-called bed blocking, and to move people on through the system much more effectively. I get irritated when my local hospital has so-called blocked beds, reducing the flow of patients. Of course that is irritating, and we have to look at the problem. That is why I am proposing a system in which the patient pathway from entry to exit should be seamless, as has been achieved in the Kaiser Permanente system.
  David Taylor: Is it not the case that, over this year and next, we are investing £300 million to tackle bed blocking head on, in a way never seen under the Conservative Government?

  811
  That should allow at least 2,000 elderly people to leave hospital, rather than blocking beds while they wait for parts of their treatment to be completed.
  Dr. Stoate: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Select Committee on Health, of which I was a member, carried out a study into reducing the Berlin wall between health and social services, and we were able to work with the Government to enable that to happen, and to allow shared budgets and the pooling of resources so that the unblocking of beds could begin. That has been quite successful. My hon. Friend is right to say that the £300 million being put in for that purpose will make a big difference. It will allow a lot more packages of care to be bought not only in nursing homes but in terms of care at home—which is, after all, where people want to be, with their family and friends.
  We have not concentrated on the problem of wastage of medicines. As I said earlier, I chair the all-party group on pharmacy. One of the reports that we considered showed that about £220 million-worth of drugs a year is handed back to pharmacists. If we assume, as is reasonable, that that is only the tip of the iceberg, the figure will probably be much higher. One report that we examined showed that about 50 per cent. of people did not take their medication precisely as prescribed by their doctor. There could therefore be enormous wastage in the system.
  I am pleased that the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), is on the Front Bench at the moment, because I know that he takes a great interest in this issue. I would like to see how the Government can work with the pharmacy profession to tackle issues of medicines management and medicines concordance in a way that would significantly reduce wastage. If my figures are even partly right, there is a significant amount of wastage of the £5 billion budget that the NHS currently spends on drugs each year. That wasted money could be put to much better use.
  I would like to see a scheme in which primary care physicians and nurses can work with pharmacists, and with patients, to ensure that patients take the appropriate medication, to check that that medication is being used appropriately, and to ensure that patients get the chance to discuss with their pharmacist and their GP exactly what they should be taking and when, thereby freeing up significant resources for other uses. There could be enormous benefits from that. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) had a debate in Westminster Hall only this morning to discuss issues relating to pharmacy.
  David Taylor: Ten per cent. of the almost £60 billion cost of the NHS is devoted to its drug budget. About 25 per cent of that £6 billion—£1.5 billion—is the cost of generic drugs. A review is under way to determine ways of driving down the cost of generic drugs, because too much of our investment in the health service is leaking out to inflate the already large profits of the pharmaceutical companies.
  Dr. Stoate: I thank my hon. Friend for his expertise. He has an interest in this matter and has been examining
  812
  it closely over the last few weeks, during which time I have discussed it with him. These are exactly the issues on which we should be concentrating.
  We also need to find a way of freeing up far more resources into primary care. Working as a GP, I find that increasing the number of community nurses can reduce the number of hospital admissions quite dramatically. In my own practice, when we are fully staffed with district nurses, our admission rate to hospital is extremely low, and our ability to take patients back into the community after they have finished their treatment is extremely good. When there is a shortage of nurses in the community, however, our hospital admission rate goes up, and our ability to take ill patients back when they have finished their treatment is hampered. Such shortages make life much more difficult. I would like to see much more real work done to increase the number of community nurses and other support staff, so that we can keep patients at home, and in some way emulate the Kaiser Permanente system, under which the average bed-stay is about three days, as opposed to our average of about five.
  Mr. Redwood: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed how people are turning more and more to alternative therapies and herbal remedies? What does he think GPs and the NHS should do in response to that movement?
  Dr. Stoate: That is a very big question, and slightly off the subject of the debate on public services. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that people are turning more to complementary medicines, which certainly fulfil a need for some. I have a lot of respect for people who carry out research in this field, and who are trying to find out which alternative therapies have something to offer. I have no problem with such therapies, and it would be helpful if GPs were better informed on some of these issues, because they could then explain to their patients which remedies might be of use. However, this is far too big a subject to discuss in detail in a debate such as this.
  We can improve the efficiency of the public services, particularly the NHS, if we can determine where the cost-pinching and blockages are occurring—for example, in accident and emergency, or in relation to discharges or waiting times to see consultants. If we examine those pinch points, try to develop alternative strategies to smooth them out, take advice, and examine information and studies of alternative health care systems throughout the world, we should be able to introduce a far more seamless care system in this country.
  I want to reassert that this is not just about money. Size matters, but it is not the only factor. It is what we do with it that really matters. The Government have made a brave decision to consider alternative ways of freeing up hospitals, PCTs and individual practices to provide different models of care, and to learn from and disseminate best practice. That is the way forward, and I am sure that, as a result, we shall see the genuine improvement that people in this country have a right to expect.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Peter Lilley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to address the question to which this debate enables us all to respond. It is the question that the public are putting to all parties,

  813
  and to every Member of the House. The public want to know how this country can have world-class public services. They are puzzled as to why, despite the claimed—and in some cases, real—injections of additional money by the Government, those services appear to be getting worse in many sectors.
  The public are puzzled, and they want a thoughtful, reasoned answer from people in the House. They will be profoundly disappointed by the response from the Secretary of State today. They will not be pleased that his reply consisted only of negative, bad-tempered, partisan attempts to blame everything that is happening now on the past and on his predecessors. They have a right to expect something more reasoned, thoughtful and forward-looking from the Secretary of State, particularly as he has vouchsafed to the media outside the House his thoughts and inklings of his plans, which he failed to mention here today.
  I want to try to address some of those issues. I hope that I can claim some respect across the House for being not exactly partisan on this matter. My departure from the Front Bench and from the deputy leadership of my party was precipitated by a speech that I made on the importance of focusing on and improving public services, and the limited role that private enterprise would have to play in that process. That evoked anger and horror in The Times and other organs of extremism that now relish reflections of what I said when they are uttered by the Secretary of State for Health.
  Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), I seek consensus, but I shall begin by spelling out a few facts as they appear to my constituents, based on their experience of public services in Hertfordshire. I shall focus on health in due course, but I shall start with education, and with the size of classes and the pupil-teacher ratio in maintained secondary schools in my constituency.
  I was worried about what appeared to be happening, which seemed to contrast with what I was hearing from the Government, so I tabled a question asking what had happened to the pupil-teacher ratio since I was first elected in 1983. The answer showed that the pupil-teacher ratio improved during the period in which the Conservatives were in office, but in the secondary schools of Hertfordshire it has deteriorated every year since the Government were elected.
  Class sizes have got bigger. A Government who told us that their top three priorities would be education have given us bigger classes, bigger classes, bigger classes. That may be partly because of the difficulty of recruiting teachers. Hertfordshire is a high-cost area and, despite the fact that our schools are attractive places in which teachers would generally like to teach, we have recruitment difficulties.
  I therefore tabled another question asking how many teacher vacancies there were in Hertfordshire. The Minister for School Standards came back with the figures, on the central definition that he used, and said that there were just 50 unfilled vacancies in Hertfordshire. I issued a press release to that effect and, to my embarrassment, the local newspapers came back asking, "What do you mean by this? There are far more than that." Indeed, the county council figures show that the actual number of vacancies is more than four times as high as that revealed by central Government. [Interruption.] The figure
  814
  recorded and collected by officials at Hertfordshire county hall is 209, not 50, and they believe that that understates the position because it does not include temporary cover in certain circumstances.
  On transport—
  Mrs. Shephard: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject, can he throw any light on the reasons for such a discrepancy? He was enjoined by Labour Members to give facts, and he seems to be in possession of two kinds.
  Mr. Lilley: It could be that the Government's rhetoric is not accurate.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Lilley: This causes such horror among the loyalists anxious for promotion that I must give them their chance.
  Mr. Rammell: Totally fortuitously, I happen to have information on teacher vacancies in Hertfordshire in my possession, because some months ago I was making a comparison between Hertfordshire and Essex, where my constituency is based. The definition of a vacancy has not changed. The figure for Hertfordshire in 2000 was 17, whereas in 1990 it was 216. Can we have some credibility and frankness on this issue?
  Mr. Lilley: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman's figures are as unreliable as, and rather similar to, those deployed by the Government.
  Mr. Rammell: They are from the House of Commons Library.
  Mr. Lilley: I am comparing figures given by Ministers with those given by county hall officials. I have got hold of the questionnaire used by the Government, and it applies a more restrictive definition than that used by county hall officials, which explains how it is possible to get the figures that the hon. Gentleman is deploying. The head of teacher recruitment came to Hertfordshire for a one-day think-tank seminar on how to recruit extra teachers, and he acknowledged that the figures used by Government generally across the country are only a third of the number reported to local education authorities. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to elaborate a little on that point.
  David Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley: No. I now wish to move on to transport.
  We were told that Thameslink 2000 would produce more train services and thus ease some of the problems on the already overcrowded line from Hitchin to King's Cross and from Harpenden down the existing Thameslink line. The cost of the project has risen from £250 million when it was first proposed to an estimated £2 billion now, yet the Strategic Rail Authority, a Government-created body, which made this proposal, now admits that the £2 billion will not, as formerly believed, result in any extra services. There will not be a single extra train at peak hours down either line. It will allow those trains to go further through London, and that is welcome. It will

  815
  also make the service more attractive, but there is no point in attracting more passengers if there is not room for them on the trains because there are no extra trains to carry them.
  Although those facts have emerged during the public inquiry, the effective renationalisation of Railtrack has so bemused and paralysed management that they have been unable to respond to it or to produce alternatives, which would have given us a little extra capacity for the £2 billion worth of public finance that it is proposed to put into this project.
  As I said, I want to focus above all on health, so let me give a few facts about the situation affecting the NHS in my constituency. In 1997, we were told that it would take just 24 hours to save the NHS. Since then, I am afraid that in some material respects, things have got worse in Hertfordshire. There are now 60 vacancies for GPs in the county, and that figure has risen 20-fold in a year. The shortage of nurses has become so worrying that it has been necessary to close not just the special care baby unit but the maternity unit and the children's unit at Hemel Hempstead and transfer them all to Watford. We are awaiting the outcome of an inquiry, which may have reported to the Minister today, on whether that move will go ahead and, if so, whether it is likely to become permanent. If so, we fear that it may precipitate the undermining of Hemel Hempstead as a viable general hospital with its own acute and accident and emergency units.
  That problem springs from the current shortage of nurses and the difficulty of recruiting staff.
  Andy Burnham: Given that it takes more than four years to train both nurses and doctors, surely those problems were created by the previous Conservative Administration and can be nothing to do with the current Administration.
  Mr. Lilley: The Government have been in power for more than four years. More importantly, there is in this country a substantial number of nurses who are qualified but not working in the NHS. There is therefore a vast pool of nurses from which recruitment could be made. However, rather than doing that, the Government have often recruited from the Philippines, as has been done for units elsewhere in Hertfordshire.
  Andy Burnham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way again?
  Mr. Lilley: I have already given way once. The hon. Gentleman has done his duty by his Whips.
  We then have the issue of waiting times. In 1997, the national figure for the proportion of patients waiting for more than a year was just over 2 per cent. Now in Hertfordshire, it is three times that proportion. Although improvements have been made in some areas during the 50 years in which the health service has been in existence, on a number of key issues things have got worse. The broad move forward that we were promised has not happened in the NHS and people are worried about what is happening.
  The Government's response is to promise more money, and then to go on promising more money in the future. They have set a target that this country should raise
  816
  spending on health as a proportion of national income to the European average. That is an absurd target to set. Surely one should set a target—I hope that my hon. Friends will agree that this is their ambition—to match or surpass the standard of care achieved by comparable countries, not simply to spend as much money. Anybody can spend money without necessarily achieving improvements or higher standards.
  Mr. Dawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley: I shall give way in a moment.
  When my right hon. Friend the leader of the Conservative party illustrated that point, the Prime Minister had no response to it. My right hon. Friend said that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland already spend a higher proportion of GDP on health than the continent spends, which is the target that the Government want to attain. Does anyone pretend that the quality of care, of health outcomes, in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is one that we should seek to emulate and universalise across England? Does any Labour Member say that his or her ambition is to make the English health service as good as the Scottish health service and no better? None of them does, but that is the Prime Minister's ambition. That is why we believe that the answer does not lie just in spending targets.
  The problem with the NHS, now and in the past, is that it is too centralised; Labour has made it even more centralised. Again, in my area, one sees that. The Government have taken away the right of the patient and GP to choose which hospital to go to. My area is surrounded by five general hospitals. We used to be able to choose which hospital to attend, despite some obstacles, but we can no longer do so.
  Instead, the Government gave that responsibility to primary care groups. They then merged primary care groups into bigger primary care trusts. They merged the four health authorities in Hertfordshire in twos, so that there were just two. Those were merged into a single one for Hertfordshire. Now that is to merge with Bedfordshire. There is constant merger and increase in size. Across the country, about 95 health authorities are to be merged into 28 big ones.
  Dr. Stoate: May I inform the right hon. Gentleman that it was his Government who got rid of the freedom of GPs to refer someone to whichever hospital they liked? Following the 1990 health reforms introduced by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), I phoned up Guy's hospital because I had a patient with a very rare type of leukaemia. The specialist said, "Have you got a contract with this hospital? If not, we cannot help you." It was the only hospital in the area that could help. In the end, I won my case but it was the Conservative Government who ended the right of GPs to refer patients to where those patients wanted to go.
  Mr. Lilley: That is not the case. [Interruption.] I am sorry. What ended that practice was the circular that I have in my hand: circular 177 from 1999, which abolished extra-contractual referrals. The hon. Gentleman said that he achieved his aim in 1991—an extra-contractual referral.
  Dr. Stoate: In fact, I had to argue my case. A very kind consultant from Guy's said, "I will bend the rules for

  817
  you." I had lost the automatic right to refer a patient with a very rare form of leukaemia automatically to the hospital of my choice. I had to move through a very circuitous route before I was able to win. I had to persuade the consultant to accept my case.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman cannot say that we abolished that right and he none the less achieved it. It may not have been as easy as he would like or as I will propose, but the practice was certainly abolished as a right by the circular issued in 1999. Since then, my constituents have not been able to choose which of the five surrounding general hospitals to go to.
  I have had deputations of surgeons and specialists saying that the problem of specialist care has been intensified and exacerbated by that policy change. That was repeated by the president of the Royal College of Surgeons, who said that it had seriously undermined the provision of specialist care of the kind that the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) mentioned.
  Centralisation has been going on in the health service under this Government, at least up to now. It has culminated in central Government specifying in micro-detail what hospitals and parts of the local health service will do. My local hospitals are set about 248 targets. That is an archetypal sign of Stalinist centralisation: the belief of the people at the top that they can micromanage by laying down directives from on high, which all hospitals have to meet.
  Nowhere in the Modern world attempts to manage large organisations such as that. The lesson from most large organisations is that, increasingly, one should take the opportunity to delegate responsibility locally, to give much greater autonomy, to make much more use of flatter, leaner management structures and of the opportunities that Modern management methods and information technology make possible. However, that has not happened under this Government.
  That is partly because the mindset of the left is to centralise; it believes in central planning and control. That perhaps explains to some degree what has been going on, but it does not explain why new Labour Ministers who thought that they had shed the centralising tendency, or at least who were open enough to recognise that it had been at fault in the past and who declared themselves to be free of it in the present, have been involved in centralisation: the attempt to control everything from the centre. It is partly because of that other aspect of new Labour Ministers: they are initiators. They demand an initiative a day or a week to get the headlines. The simple way to get a headline is to launch an initiative from the centre, which inevitably involves some central decision imposed on the people at the sharp end of the service. That is why all those ring-fenced funds have been established, all those targets have been set, all those central directives have been laid down—so that new Labour news managers can get cheap and initially favourable headlines at the expense of a much more centralised, rigid and inefficient health service. That is what has happened in the health service.
  I have been advocating a move in the opposite direction. I published a document, which is already going through its nth print run, called "Patient Power". I recommend it particularly to the hon. Member for Dartford, who did not remember accurately the history of how these things have come about.
  818
  I have advocated that we return power, decision making and choice to patients and to the GP who advises them. That is the most important direction in which power should move. We should restore the right of the patient to choose which hospital to use, certainly for all normal operations; for more specialist procedures the choice will inevitably be limited.
  As I say, from 1999, that choice was removed by circular 177. It has meant that, instead of the individual patient making a choice, the local health bureaucracy, the primary care trust in most cases, enters into contracts with hospitals, and patients follow the money rather than the money following the patient.
  It is important to enter into the history and to acknowledge that the problems have not always been recognised, even by my own party. Choice existed before the establishment of the NHS and was perpetuated when it was established. It was recognised that patients could choose whichever hospital they wanted, although normally they went to the local one, which was right and proper.
  However, patients should have the right, if they want, to go to a hospital with a shorter waiting list and to which the journey is shorter. They should have the freedom to go to a hospital that is nearer relatives should they want that. If they want to go to a hospital that specialises in the operation that they want, or has a particularly good record in it, they should have the right to choose that hospital, even if it means a longer wait than if they went to the local hospital. If they want to go to a hospital that they know has wonderful standards of cleanliness and care, they should have the right to opt for that. They may want one that does not have mixed-sex wards. For all those reasons patients may want to exercise choice, as they were historically allowed to do.
  Then problems began to arise with tighter budgeting in the 1970s and 1980s. All too often, patients chose, naturally, the most popular hospital. Therefore, the most popular hospitals ran through their budget before the end of the year, and it was the most popular wards and most popular hospitals that tended to close.
  That caused great perturbation among Members of Parliament in the early 1980s, and it was recognised that something needed to be done. Hence reforms were introduced by the then Secretary of State for Health in 1991. He gave GPs the right to be fundholding, which gave them greater flexibility, but where GPs were not fundholders and local authorities entered into contracts, the over-reliance on the contracting process—I accept the point—restricted choice and made it more difficult to exercise.
  Hon. Members can score points about that. They can say, "You got it wrong, so it does not matter that we made it worse."
  Dr. Stoate: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley: No, I will not. I am being frank and honest and not trying to make partisan points. I am saying that not everything was perfect about the reforms. We should try to make them better, not worse. If the problem was that the system was based too much on contracts and not enough on money following patient choice, we should move towards a system in which money follows patient

  819
  choice. That is what I want, and what I hope my hon. Friends will increasingly propose as an alternative.
  Dr. Evan Harris: I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman with interest, and I think he is right in that abolishing extra-contractual referrals and renaming them contract service level agreements reduced, at the margins, even such choice as was available. Those were reforms introduced by a Labour Government who claimed that they would get rid of the internal market.
  Mr. Lilley: Indeed, and not only I, or politicians in general, have said it. No less a person than the director of the College of Health said of the directive that did abolish the residual right of choice through ECRs that it would mean patients' having "less choice than ever" in the history of the NHS. She was absolutely right, and we should go back to giving patients more choice. A precondition of that, however, is our giving patients and GPs facts on the basis of which they can make informed choices. There has been some progress in that regard, but I want to see more.
  I welcomed the announcement that information would be provided about the performance of individual heart surgeons. I hope we will learn from the example of the Americans, who ensure that such information is related to patients' pre-operative condition. That makes possible a much better assessment of surgeons' performance and ability. There should also be sensible discussion of what the figures mean. Mr. Yacoub, a surgeon who deals with the most difficult heart cases, may sadly lose more patients than someone dealing with minor cases; but everyone knows that he is the best heart surgeon, and will therefore be anxious to be treated by him. People are intelligent enough to use the information that they are given, so let us make more facts available to patients.
  Most important of all, let us make the money follow the choice. When a patient chooses a hospital, that hospital should be rewarded for treating the patient: it should receive the money it needs to provide that treatment. The more popular and successful a hospital is, the more able it should be to treat patients. Funding should not depend on how soon a hospital runs through its budget and has to close wards. We must also give hospitals more independence and autonomy, so that they can reflect the desires of patients without needing to respond continually to directives from on high.
  Mr. Dawson: The right hon. Gentleman is making interesting points, some of which I agree with; but is he not missing the most fundamental fact of all? It is a commonplace among Labour Members that poverty underlies ill health. The right hon. Gentleman's Government did not face that fact—they hid from it—but this Government are prepared to confront it. Is it not the case that until the Conservatives are ready to face that uncomfortable truth, they will never have any credibility in terms of reform and improvement of public services?
  Mr. Lilley: I do not agree that the cause of ill health is poverty. Poverty is a bad thing: we ought to be against it, and try to get rid of it. Ill health is a bad thing, which often causes poverty, and we ought to try and get rid of that.
  820
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to an article that appeared in the British Medical Journal on 5 January this year. It stated
  "Evidence favouring a negative correlation between income inequality and life expectancy has disappeared."
  According to the BMJ, the latest analysis of the figures suggests that there is no longer any attempt to pretend that inequalities in society create the problem of poor health. That, however, is not the central issue of the debate, and it is certainly not the issue on which I want to concentrate. I think we all agree that we want to get rid of poverty, regardless of its precise correlation with health.
  I have emphasised the importance of restoring choice, giving people information that will enable them to make informed choices, ensuring that money follows choices, and giving hospitals the independence they need to respond to those choices. I can give a constituency example showing how important that can be. As I have said, the constituency is surrounded by five hospitals. One—I will not name it, because steps have now been taken to improve it—has the worst record in the country for treating patients after hip operations. One in six patients used to die within 30 days of their operations. My constituents had to go to that hospital, however, because the local primary care trust was contracted to send them there. Only when we exposed concerns about the figures did the doctors say "We knew, but we could not afford to change the contract because that would have destabilised the health economy". They could not make a marginal change; it was all or nothing.
  Siobhain McDonagh: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Lilley: I am glad to be the hon. Lady's friend, and I will respond to the warmth she has displayed by giving way in a moment.
  Only if hospitals can respond to the choice of patients, and those patients are allowed to move if they want to, will changes be made. The change will usually be modest; even if the information is made available, we see no huge change in referral patterns. If that happens, however, there will be a sufficient change to induce hospitals to recruit surgeons who are more skilled in certain areas, and return others to performing operations at which they were particularly good. I now give way to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh).
  Siobhain McDonagh: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, and apologise for embarrassing him by calling him my friend.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned statistics relating to orthopaedic surgery in a hospital in his constituency. Is it not significant that the Government have introduced the Commission for Health Improvement? Is it not significant that local people do not have to worry about those figures, because they have been made public? Although the system is not perfect yet, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it has brought confidence to people in my constituency who now believe that St. Helier's problems are understood. Would he care to congratulate the Government on CHI?
  Mr. Lilley: I have already welcomed the increased release of information. We began a process; it has been

  821
  continued, and I welcome that unreservedly. I do not think that it was NICE that released the figures—[HON. MEMBERS: "CHI."] Some Greek letter of the alphabet, anyway. Whoever released them, however, I am all in favour of it.
  I do not think we should pretend that everything the Government have done is wrong, or that everything we did was right; but, clearly, the Government's general tendency has been wrong up to now. I want to investigate the possibility that they are now beginning to move in the right direction.
  The Government's initial response to my proposals was to dismiss them. They said that choice of the kind I was advocating had never existed in the health service, and that it was nonsense to say that they had removed it. They then said the exact opposite—that they had not removed it, and that it still existed—until I pointed out that it had been removed. A Minister then said that, under my proposals, patients would be chasing around the country for shorter waiting lists. That is a bit rich, coming from a Government who are sending patients chasing around Europe—around the Mediterranean now, we understand—in search of hospitals with shorter waiting lists. Why cannot patients at least be given the right to go to hospitals that may have shorter or no waiting lists if they are prepared to do so, or find it convenient?
  The Prime Minister said that my proposals would lead to hospitals competing with hospitals. That is just a bit of silly rhetoric. No one wants to see anyone doing down another hospital; what we want to see is hospitals striving to satisfy patients, and to offer them the best care in the most convenient and favourable conditions. We certainly do not want people to slag off competitors in the way that the Government may have implied that they would.
  It seems that the Government are beginning to move in the right direction, at least in their rhetoric. Having spent four years centralising, they are now at least talking of decentralising. Having ridiculed the idea of patient choice, they have now said that heart patients who have been on the waiting list for six months—and who are still alive—will be allowed to go to another hospital elsewhere in this country, or even abroad.
  That is welcome. It is extraordinary that the Government have chosen to enshrine the move in a bureaucratic process that almost requires minders for anyone considered foolish enough to avail themselves of the choice, but the idea is right in principle. It is sad that it is so limited, and that it is available only to people who have managed to stay alive for six months while waiting for a heart operation. I should like the opportunity to be spread more widely.
  The Government have also said that they will encourage greater independence for some hospitals. Those that have met their 248 targets will be allowed to be independent of those targets. Those that have not met the targets will be required to remain in the system and will be threatened with the terrible possibility of private enterprise management, as has been mentioned before. Well, that will be the day. I would certainly welcome other management groups making available other services to people, with money following choice and standard costs applying to other not-for-profit hospitals, as well as to NHS ones.
  Is the Government's recent change of tack a genuine conversion? Will it be successful? I hope that it is genuine, but I fear that it will not succeed. There is
  822
  something innate in the left-of-centre mind that makes it find centralising, regulating and controlling solutions more satisfactory than those involving delegation, individual choice and independence.
  By and large, Labour Members—on the Back Benches, but on the Front Benches too—remain centralisers genetically. All the Government have done, I am afraid, is to steal some Conservative rhetoric while retaining the Labour substance. They have spliced together our right-of-centre rhetoric with the left-of-centre practice that is in their genes. The result is a sort of genetically modified Government—a particularly dangerous and odious form of Government.
  However, I hope that I am wrong and that the Government are moving in the right direction. I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is doing the right thing by examining what is happening in other countries and looking at best practice abroad. He is wise to take a measured and timely approach.
  I am pretty sure that, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has completed his studies, he will conclude that other countries very often offer greater diversity of provision. They have local autonomy in management, more money follows patient choice, and patients have more opportunity to make choices. If we adopt elements of successful best practice abroad and incorporate them into the NHS, we will do more to improve the quality of health care and ensure more successful treatment outcomes than anything that this Government have so far done or promised.
  7.53 pm
  Mr. Martin Salter: I should like to thank the Opposition for giving us the opportunity to debate public services. It is hardly their strongest suit, but they get to choose the subjects for Opposition day debates.
  I shall concentrate on three themes. I want to highlight what has been achieved in my constituency, to give my personal and very unspun account of my experience with public service issues, and to examine the Conservative party's lamentable failures, both in terms of performance and in terms of winning the political and ideological arguments.
  By way of introduction, it is worth saying that public services are a new concept for most Thatcherite Members of Parliament, whereas most Labour Members have practical experience of them. We have either worked in or delivered public services, as exemplified by the excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate). He spoke with authority, and commanded the House's attention.
  My record is more humble. I spent two years as the co-ordinator at the Reading centre for the unemployed. That centre, funded by Berkshire county council until it was axed by the Conservatives, provided welfare rights, advice and education, and training opportunities for unemployed people in my town.
  I spent nine years as a regional manager for a tenant-controlled housing association that delivered affordable homes and empowered tenants with a genuine say over the delivery of their housing. That is hardly a leftist, centralising agenda. In fact, I remind hon.

  823
  Members that the principle of co-operative ownership is at the heart of the socialist movement and of the work in the 1830s of Robert Owen and the co-operative movement.
  Chris Grayling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Salter: No Conservative Member would give way to me, and I fully intend to return the compliment until a later point in my speech—which, I assure the hon. Gentleman, will be considerably shorter than the 35 minutes of tedium to which we have had to listen from some Opposition Members.
  I also spent 12 years on Reading borough council, nine of them as deputy leader. I am proud that, even in the dark days of Thatcherism, we in Reading always put public services first. We have never been frightened to say to people that they cannot get owt for nowt. We have made it clear that people must pay and that, if they want a top-quality service, it will cost.
  As the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) will know, council tax levels in Reading are substantially higher than in neighbouring authorities. However, it is worth looking at the Labour council's electoral record. The right hon. Gentleman can only envy the record of the Labour party in comparison with his, in our respective bastions of power.
  Since 1983, Reading Labour party has not lost a single council seat. It took control of the council against the swing in 1987, and has won seat after seat since. A solid Conservative authority that had swept to power on a promise that it would cut rates was swept out of power after it cut public services. The Conservative rump now consists of three councillors, who are in opposition to 36 Labour councillors.
  My first message to my Front-Bench colleagues is to be bold and to stand up for public services. They must be honest with the public, as people will pay if they think that they are getting value for money and that the council or the public service provider is in touch with them and their aspirations.
  David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Salter: I shall take one intervention from a Labour Member, and I am more than happy to give way to my hon. Friend.
  David Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, but does he not think that the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) was right in one respect at least? He has suggested that there is no automatic link between inputs and outputs, and that we should decouple resources from quality. Newspaper articles earlier this week showed that, despite the extra investment and costs associated with private education, the results achieved represented especially poor value for money. Is not that something that we should bear in mind?
  Mr. Salter: I thank my hon. Friend, but I remind him that I have been present for the whole debate. By the time the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden reached
  824
  that point, I had lost the will to live. I am afraid that I am not able to comment coherently on whether what the right hon. Gentleman said was right or wrong.
  I turn now to public services in my constituency and in Reading as a whole. As I have said, standing up for public services is nothing new for us in Reading. However, it will not hurt to take a quick look at the state of public services in my constituency, especially in connection with health, education, crime and transport.
  Berkshire health authority has been allocated £528 million in the current financial year. That compares with a funding settlement in 1996–97, the final year of the previous Government, of just £278 million. There have been radical improvements in health service funding. Waiting lists now stand at 14,435, as against 17,452 in March 1998.
  I agree that that does not tell the whole story, and that there is a debate to be had about waiting lists versus waiting times, but those are measurable improvements. I am perhaps more proud that despite the high cost of living in Berkshire, the health authority has 60 more qualified nurses than it had in 1997.
  We are spending an extra £540 per pupil, compared with 1996–1997. The number of five, six and seven-year-olds in Reading, West in classes numbering more than 30 pupils fell from 636 in 1998 to 62 by January 2001. Eleven-year-olds have achieved record primary school results. Conservative Members did not seek to condemn the Government's education achievements. The feeling that I get on the streets and in my constituency surgery is that although there may be a long way to go in health and transport, the public recognise and appreciate the tangible improvements in the delivery of education policy.
  Chris Grayling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
  Mr. Salter: No, not yet. The hon. Gentleman must be patient. His time will come.
  There has been a fall in recorded crime in the Thames Valley, although a worrying increase in violent crime. At long last, we have started to turn the corner on police numbers. I will return to defects in current Government thinking on crime.
  Reading has seen the opening of the long-awaited A33 relief road—a capital project that stalled for years under successive Governments of different political persuasions. We are proud of providing free pensioner bus passes, which sets Reading apart from other authorities in the area. There has been record investment in road maintenance and the introduction of a popular night bus service. Real improvements have been made in my constituency and it would be wrong to contribute to a public services debate without highlighting them.
  Since 1997, there have been significant increases in major capital programmes. I noticed the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer about the future of a Worcester hospital. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) will remember the incessant delays in refurbishing the Royal Berkshire hospital. That project was on hold for nine years. One of the first decisions by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on becoming

  825
  Secretary of State was to release £71 million of direct public funding. Ministers were non-ideological enough to recognise that in that instance, the private finance initiative did not stack up and they delivered for the people of Reading in a way that the previous Government had not.
  Private finance has worked—in particular for greenfield sites. While some of us are ambivalent about the wonders of the private sector—I wish that my right hon. the Secretary of State for Health would not smirk at me—I give my full support and backing to the PFI when it delivers a new psychiatric hospital on a greenfield site in my constituency, replacing the disgraceful, crumbling, Victorian facilities at the Fairmile asylum on the outskirts of Reading. If PFI works, more power to its elbow—but where it does not, direct public funding must be delivered.
  I am pleased to see in his place the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead). As he is my office mate, that makes it easier to say that Reading needs funding for a third Thames bridge. I am sick and tired of operating in a town in which people wanting to travel from north to south to join the M4 have to drive through the centre of the capital of the Thames Valley. If someone wants to drive from Oxford to join the M4, they have to go through our town centre or rat-run through the picturesque village of Sonning to cross a single-track bridge—purely because we have been unable to break the deadlock between Berkshire and Oxfordshire councils. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is making copious notes and that a third Thames bridge will be a shopping list priority in the comprehensive spending review.
  We have won election after election in my town using the slogan, "You're better off with Labour". With economic prosperity, record low levels of unemployment, high wages, fantastic job opportunities and quality public services, that slogan has some resonance.
  I am not attempting to be consensual but in the spirit of the contributions by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and others, I intend to be frank. I spent some instructive time on the parliamentary police scheme, which I commend to other right hon. and hon. Members. It taught me that the police service is in urgent need of radical reform. It must be the last public service in the country that still uses carbon-paper forms. I cannot believe that police officers work in an environment that can take them out of circulation for five hours to process a simple arrest. In these days of laptop computers and Psion organisers, police officers should be able to make an arrest, file the information down the line electronically and move on to the next job. Police reform is vital.
  Every Home Secretary in recent times has the scars on his back. Conservative Home Secretaries will remember the problems of trying to implement Sheehy and ending up implementing the worst parts of that report. At long last, we have a Home Secretary who is prepared to take on vested interests. I am confident that he will get support from all parts of the House.
  In my region, the cost of a two-up, two-down terraced house built for a railway worker or a factory hand at Huntley and Palmer costs between £120,000 and £140,000—£50,000 or £60,000 beyond the reach of a newly qualified police officer. A cost-of-living allowance
  826
  is vital. London Weighting has had its day. I was working at Heathrow airport in 1979 and moved to Reading because, believe it or not, it was a cheap place to buy a house. Now it is one of the most expensive. The same logic that introduced a £6,000 cost-of-living housing supplement for Metropolitan police officers should be applied to other hot spots of high housing costs throughout the country. Areas of Cheshire, Bath and other parts of the country fall into the same category.
  I was disappointed at police reaction to the wholly sensible notion of street wardens. The Police Federation—perhaps the last redoubt of unreconstructed trade unionism, and I know a little about that—described street wardens as policing on the cheap. What absolute nonsense. How many police officers object to performing functions for which they are ill equipped by their training and which could easily be undertaken by active citizens? If street wardens are policing on the cheap, cannot the same be said of the neighbourhood watch CID? The police cannot have it all ways. I sense a mood change, with progressive elements coming to the fore in the police service. My message to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other Front-Bench colleagues is that they should keep up the battle against the forces of conservatism because until they are defeated, public services can never be reformed.
  Mr. Don Foster: I entirely agree with the remarks that the hon. Gentleman has just made. Will he go further and agree that we should be looking at other ways of breaking down barriers? I would love, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would also love, to see traffic wardens taking on a wider role so that they, too, could keep their eyes and ears on what was happening in the area in which they were operating.
  Mr. Salter: With due respect, I should like to give that idea further thought. The idea of backing traffic wardens at this stage does not have active appeal to me, primarily because in Reading we have just privatised our traffic warden service and the wardens are, as one would expect with a market-oriented service, approaching the job with tremendous gusto and even ticketing war veterans on Remembrance day. Although my seat is not as marginal as it once was, the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not join him in the love-in with traffic wardens. I suspect that he likes traffic wardens only because they wear yellow.
  On health, I share all the instincts and prejudice of my tribe when it comes to the involvement of the private sector. However, I can live with the private finance initiative if it delivers better and quicker services to my constituents. I have no problem with using spare capacity in private hospitals to deliver badly needed operations that avoid the need for people to wait in pain and discomfort. Those in the private sector are trained by the public sector, so they certainly owe us something.
  I warn the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), that the involvement of private sector managers in the delivery of a national health service needs to be proceeded with with extreme caution. Remember that the private sector has no magic wand. Look what happened at the privately run, privately owned and privately operated Portland hospital recently, with that dreadful dereliction of duty—something that the consultant said would never have happened in the

  827
  worst-performing NHS trust. To quote the Prime Minister, which is always good at these times, the guiding principle must be:
  "What matters is what works."
  The same principle surely needs to be applied to transport policy. While the Secretary of State for Transport has won himself many friends among Labour Members by having the courage to take on the vested interests of Railtrack and Railtrack shareholders, I wonder whether we are at a halfway house for the future of the rail infrastructure. The argument that the Prime Minister made in the Chamber that we gave rail privatisation a chance has some validity. It was not top of our list. It was given an opportunity to work and it failed.
  I do not envisage that the City will run a mile if the track and infrastructure are taken back into public ownership with a guaranteed level of investment on which the private train operating companies can operate, with certain guarantees of safety and guarantees that certain standards will be met. After all, our private road haulage companies run on public roads and public motorways. I do not understand the Government's reluctance to go the final mile.
  I have a hint for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions: he and his colleagues at the Department would be well advised to concentrate on and perhaps pick a few winners when it comes to transport policy.
  The failure of successive Governments to address the school run is incomprehensible. I took the trouble of digging out from the website the report of STAG—the school travel advisory group. The period of its deliberation was 1998–99; there have been many other such studies. That is yet another report that is long on analysis but, unfortunately, short on conclusions. Twenty per cent. of all morning peak-time congestion is a result of the school run, but have we anything to say about it?
  I am not necessarily saying that America is a wonderful model for the delivery of public services, but I am certainly in favour of the American-style school bus. It is easily identifiable. Parents feel secure about their children using it. It can penetrate the estates in a way that the ordinary public transport network cannot. I should like to see more radical, more comprehensive thinking at least to address the issue of school travel. In my town, which is one of the most congested in the country outside London and Birmingham, it is more than 20 per cent. easier to get around town during school half-term. I hope that other hon. Members with a similar experience will add their voices to mine on this issue. I am surprised that successive Governments have been slow to pick up on it.
  After being frank and honest about my own Government, it is worth taking a look at the Conservative record. If four and a half years is long enough for us to have made a difference—or is it five years?—18 years was certainly long enough, so let us have a brief look at the Conservatives' performance over those four key areas.
  In those 18 years, police numbers fell and crime doubled. The Government axed the police housing allowance, triggering one of the greatest recruitment and retention crises that we have witnessed in the Thames Valley police, which has been replicated in other parts of the country. You never had it so good under the Tories—if you were a criminal.
  828
  In transport, we had the £6 billion rip-off that was Railtrack—£6 billion of public money stolen to fund a botched and barmy privatisation which even in the most optimistic circumstances was never going to succeed. Some people have been reluctant to blame privatisation for the causes of the Hatfield and Paddington rail crashes. Yes, it is not the whole story, but I refer hon. Members to Lord Cullen's report, in which he said in black and white that the fragmentation of the rail network caused by privatisation led to a diminution in safety standards.
  Chris Grayling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Cullen report says clearly that safety on the railways has improved since privatisation?
  Mr. Salter: The Cullen report said perfectly clearly that the fragmentation of the rail network led to a diminution of safety standards as a direct result of privatisation; one cannot have it both ways.
  Bus deregulation also took place under the Conservatives, following the passage of the Transport Act 1985. It had a bad effect on my town but a worse effect on many other communities where they were not able to keep the public transport network in public ownership. Bus journeys fell by 25 per cent. in that period; no wonder congestion has risen. There were cuts in spending on road maintenance in the order of some 13 per cent. We had 18 years of transport under the Conservatives. They were anti-car, anti-train and anti-bus. That just about gives them a full house.
  In health, the hospital building programme ground to a halt. The failed internal market created a postcode lottery in health care and there was a 25 per cent. cut in training places for nurses. We had a national health service starved of buildings, equipment and nurses but, inevitably, awash with accountants.
  In education, there were funding cuts per pupil of £60 per pupil over the last three years of Conservative Government; 500,000 five, six and seven-year-olds were being taught in classes of 30 or more; and higher education funding was cut at a rate of 36 per cent. per student between 1989 and 1997. We saw lower funding, larger classes, crumbling school buildings and LMS, which we all knew stood for not local management of schools but less money for schools. Even the most impartial observer would conclude that on the issue of public services the Conservatives have very little to say and have a pretty lamentable record.
  I want to turn to the Conservative party's political ideology and the failure not just to make a fist of political tactics, but to persuade the British public to accept its ideology and philosophy. Yes, we all remember the Ridley and Thatcher quotes. Nicholas Ridley's idea of local government was that councillors should assemble once a year and award the contracts to private firms. He even joked—ha, ha—afterwards that he would be prepared to pay those councillors more generous expenses. At the height of Thatcher's power and influence, that was the driving ideology behind the delivery of a local government, and it failed. Of course, Thatcher said:
  "There is no such thing as society."
  Well, I am pleased that certain changes are occurring in the Conservative party's mood music—I shall call it no more than that. Given the leader whom it has elected, I will need a lot more than mood music to convince me that there has been a change of heart.

  829
  The last general election was notable not for the appallingly low turnout—although that should worry us all—but for the fact that, for once, we were able to make the argument for public services versus tax cuts, and the British people voted for public services. Ministers should remember that we have a mandate to deliver improvements in public services, and we should be bold about it.
  I believe that we are starting to see a sea-change of the kind that we saw with the 1945 Government, whose influence considerably outlasted their six years in office and fed through into the body politic and the political consensus that led to the fact that Harold Macmillan built more council houses than any Labour Prime Minister. It may be ironic, bizarre and macabre to hear the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) say that tax cuts are now less important than improvements to public services, but that at least means that the Opposition are starting to dance to the Labour tune. They may not like that, but it is happening. They tried their policy of greed, tax cuts, "me, me, me" and individualism, and it has failed at two elections.
  In conclusion, I should like to thank the official Opposition for giving us an opportunity to showcase our policies and expose the deficiencies in theirs. I should like to end with some advice to Opposition Members, not from me, but from Peter Kellner in the Evening Standard. I say this in the context of the last opinion poll, which, if the press coverage is to be believed, will have put the Prime Minister several points behind the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, the Prime Minister is on 61 per cent. approval, compared with 15 per cent.—hon. Members will pleased to know—for the leader of the Liberal Democrats and 14 per cent. for the leader of the Conservative party, who has yet to make any impact on his own party, never mind the public at large. Mr. Kellner writes:
  "Another week, another fashion. Suddenly the talk is of a Conservative revival.
  However, seven days of clement headlines cannot expunge a decade of"
  disaster. He continues:
  "Much more needs to be done. Here is a five-point plan for the Tory leader for the rest of his Parliament.

  [1] Break with the past.

  [2] Arrange a public execution of your party's extremists."

  I am against the death penalty, but I would buy the video. He continues:

  "[3] Neutralise the negatives"—

  a tough job; most of them have been put on the Front Bench. The list continues:

  "[4] Make sure your party is as varied as the rest of 21st century Britain.

  Don't be deterred by people like John Redwood who said yesterday that the Tories should concentrate on public services rather than the social liberal agenda. These are not alternatives. You must do both."
  Lastly, he says:
  "Be patient. Millions of voters still have bitter memories of the last Tory government. These will take time to fade…Your ambition for the next election"—
  830
  hon. Members should listen to this carefully—
  "should be more modest. The Tories would do well to gain 50 seats. That would take its total to 216. If you are bold and persistent in tackling all of the tasks listed above, then, with a little luck, your party could do almost as well next time as it did in 1945."
  I welcome the Tories to the Damascus. I welcome their conversion to public services; I do not necessarily believe it—they may have convinced the Tory press that they are now the party of public services, but it will be a generation before they convince the British people.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I have declared my interests in the register.
  When a governing party decides that it wishes to offer heartfelt advice to the Opposition, it is usually beginning to lose it in a big way with the British public. There was a sign of hubris in the remarks of the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter). He certainly has a rather different view of local services in our part of the world from mine, although I am glad that there was a slightly veiled threat towards the end of his remarks about what may happen if he does not get the third river crossing, which is much needed, and the proper improvements in our health service, for which we have waited too long. Of course, he did not tell the House that Reading hospital was in the queue to follow the very large Milton Keynes project. That went through under the Conservatives and—sure enough and on cue—when it was completed, the NHS went on to carry out the Reading project. What has happened under the Labour Government would have happened under the Conservatives.
  I give the proposal one rather than three cheers. We need a new hospital, but it is a pity that many other health facilities are being closed at the same time. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) said, it is a pity that the new hospitals come with a reduction in the number of beds available and with a scale of development that means that there definitely will not be enough beds to meet local demand.
  The debate began with the most touching and interesting scenes that we have seen in the Chamber for a little while. Rather like Tweedledum and Tweedledee, the Secretaries of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and for Health were together on the Government Front Bench. They gave an exceedingly good impression of being great bosom pals—two peas in the pod—as they used to be in the early days of the so-called Blairite project. They were meant to be the two white hopes, at the cutting edge of a technological revolution, rising through the ranks until they displaced the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary and all the other grandees whom the new leader had inherited.
  What a difference a year or two has made. If we are to believe the spin in the press, these senior figures of the Blairite project have come to two totally different judgments about where the project is going and about how much support it has from Labour Back Benchers.
  In the red corner is the Transport Secretary. He is trying to give the impression—good spinner that he is—that he is in the process of renationalising the railways on the cheap. In fact, he is trying to give the impression that he is renationalising them for absolutely nothing; he has reinvented renationalisation without compensation. I see that the hon. Member for Reading, West hopes that the

  831
  Transport Secretary has done exactly that. The hon. Gentleman looks extremely perky but, if he has studied the small print—with this Government, we must always study the small print—he will know that there is a small snag: renationalisation is not on the horizon.
  The Transport Secretary is dealing with a private sector company that had begun to make good progress in investing and developing a better railway in the first five years of privatisation, and Ministers acknowledged that themselves until a year ago. The message was sent to the pagers of Labour Members who were meant to say that there had been a big surge in ridership of the railways, that passenger numbers were up by a third and that freight was up by 40 per cent. They all knew the figures and they trotted them out. They made good salesmen for privatisation. Then the position changed and their pagers told them to write off those achievements.
  The Transport Secretary has bankrupted a private sector company by refusing to supply the money that most people reasonably thought would be supplied. He will now discover that it will cost him twice or three times more to try to pump life into a bankrupt Railtrack than it would if he had done a sensible deal at the time of the original negotiations. Railtrack remains a private sector company as it is under the control of private sector accountants who are earning hearty fees.
  The stated policy is that Railtrack will be returned to the private sector. There is some argument about the exact nature of the private company that will emerge and interesting troubles will be faced in getting it into the shape that the Transport Secretary would like. However, Labour Members must understand that, on current form and policy, he is not renationalising the company in the way that he suggests.
  In the blue corner is the Secretary of State for Health. He takes the view that the Blairite project is on track. He does not think that he needs to make a leftward genuflection to Labour Back Benchers. He thinks that his future is best assured by being the very model of a Modern Blairite general. In contrast, the Transport Secretary thinks that he needs an awful lot of support from Back Benchers and that, if he has enough support, he will terrify the Whips and the Prime Minister into promoting him because otherwise he will become a confounded nuisance. The difference in strategy is interesting.
  The Secretary of State for Health is no more likely to privatise the health service than the Transport Secretary is to renationalise the railways. Again, we have to look through the Health Secretary's excellent spin. He is not about to say that people will have to pay a fee to go to the doctor or to have an operation and he is not about to sell off all our hospitals as profit-making operations and turn them into companies in the private sector. Nor did Conservative Ministers ever plan or wish to do that. We did not put that to the electorate or do anything similar during those long years in power.
  I make a confident prediction that my colleagues and I will not fight the next general election on a ticket of profit-making hospitals that are privatised out of the NHS; nor will we fight it on the ticket of making people pay to go to the doctor. Given that there is meant to be a better spirit in the Chamber during debates, it is disgraceful that such stupid ideas are still being retold by Labour
  832
  Members who say, "Ah ha! Vote Conservative and you will have to pay £10, £20 or £50 to see the doctor." There is not a shred of truth in that, and I hope that Ministers stop saying it.
  Mr. Salter: The right hon. Gentleman, with his political career behind him, is known for his frankness. Will he interpret the contents of the memo issued by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), the shadow Treasury spokesman, to the shadow Chancellor, which was copied to the shadow Cabinet? It states:
  "The reforms, which we will be proposing, will end the NHS monopoly and will entail those who can afford it making some payment for healthcare services."
  The right hon. Gentleman has rejected that concept. What does the memo mean?
  Mr. Redwood: I have not rejected that concept. Indeed, it is the policy of the Labour party, too. Hon. Members tend to be better off and we all contribute to our health care costs when we pay for prescriptions, eye treatment and dentistry. We pay for chiropody and for drugs that are purchased across the counter in a chemist's shop. The hon. Gentleman should understand that we have a mixed system in this country which has been supported by parties of both persuasions. He is trying to read something into the memo that is not there. It could cover his interpretation, but I am telling him that it does not. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends have not been sitting around in smoke-filled rooms in the shadow Cabinet planning to charge people for visiting the doctor. They have made no such statement; there is no such policy; and we have received no such instruction on our pagers.
  I am going further than I should, but I am sure that members of the Conservative Front Bench want to rule nothing in or out because they are having a genuine and thorough policy review. They are listening to people and studying a wide variety of systems abroad. I am confident in predicting—I only predict when I am sure of my ground—that the Conservative party will not go into the next election with the proposal that people should be charged for going to the doctor.
  We think that there is one popular principle in the NHS which has been defended by all major parties in government since the founding fathers set it up after the war: if someone needs and wants health care of a stated range it should be free at the point of use. The first limitation on the wonderful promise that it would all be free came from members of the Labour party, the very founding fathers themselves, who decided to impose prescription charges. That policy has become bipartisan. Other changes, such as charges for checks on eyes and teeth, have also become bipartisan. The Labour party has had five years to change them, but it has seen the wisdom of keeping them as charges and of the generous exemptions.
  There is no great wish in the country to go far beyond those proposals. Indeed, there is a wish to honour the pledge that if we need and want care, it should be available in reasonable time to a reasonable standard with a reasonable amount of choice, to echo the thoughts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the former Secretary of State for Social Security, who had good ideas on how choice could be introduced.

  833
  The Secretary of State for Health would be well advised to be a little less pugilistic in such debates and a little more humble about the problems that many constituents face. I receive many letters from people whose GPs and, in due course, consultants at the local hospital have established that they need treatment. They have discovered that it will take a year or more to get the treatment that they need now, not after such a long wait. Quite a few of them, although not particularly rich, are busily privatising their health care because they are so frustrated and in so much pain. They want to get on with their lives. Some of them are of working age and want to get back to work, but the pain and the problem are impeding them from working properly or at all. So they simply cancel the holiday, sell the car, do whatever it takes, and pay a few thousand pounds for the operation in the private sector. That is happening on a large scale; for many people, that fundamental promise, in which I believe and in which I hoped the Government believed, is not being met.
  What do Members of Parliament usually discover when we write and complain or represent our constituents' views? I am not going to parade my constituents' problems in the House as they deserve a little confidentiality. However, some of them are suffering and in pain; they need my support, so I write confidentially to a Minister. I do not want to highlight their problems in the press because that is not terribly helpful. The reply always comes back, "Oh well, everything is now wonderful because we have spent £300 million on this, £400 million on that, a billion pounds on something else" and so on. Those numbers are meaningless to my constituents. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk said, there is a growing gap between the way in which the public want the Government to respond to their problems and the way in which the Government are responding in practice.
  I invite Ministers to imagine going to their local department store to buy red socks. They would not be impressed if the department store said, "Sorry, we haven't got any. You could have some ties; perhaps in a year's time, we may have some red socks." They would probably not go to the store again or would kick up a fuss and tell it to get some socks. If they wrote a letter of complaint, would they be impressed if the shop's general manager wrote back, "I am sorry that there weren't any red socks, but you will be delighted to know that we spent £0.5 million on the sock department last year and will spend £1 million on it next year. Of course, for that £1 million we cannot guarantee that red socks will be available on the occasions when you may choose to come here, but please keep trying. Please keep taking the pills because one day we may have spent enough to have red socks when you come shopping"?
  People are paying an average of £1,000 each in taxes every year, or £4,000 for the average family, for the NHS. Of course, lots of transfers are going on; I am glad that the rich subsidise the poor and that the well subsidise the sick. Sometimes, transfers go the other way; the poor can subsidise the rich because it is possible to be rich and ill, although some Labour Members do not seem to recognise that, or poor and healthy. The main subsidies, however, go in the direction of which we all approve, from rich to poor and from the well to the sick. Ministers should accept that £4,000 for an average family of four is still a lot of money; people would like to get something more for it than they are currently getting.
  834
  An interesting thread has run through the more thoughtful speeches in our debate. How is it that a new Labour Government can sweep to power, pick up where the Conservatives left off, and even, after two or three years, start hurling more money at the problem than the Conservatives, despite missing a couple of years when they first came to power, and yet nothing seem to improve? Indeed, as some of my right hon. Friends argued powerfully, in some ways and in some places, things are deteriorating; the money is not getting through and we are not getting what we want. In my own locality, we are waiting for a new hospital, which will not have nearly enough beds when it finally opens. Over the years, I have urged both Labour and Conservative Ministers to get on with the scheme and allow more beds in the redevelopment. I am always told by health experts that more beds are not needed because there will be more day surgery and hot-bedding. People will zip in and out; they will have a hip operation, then leap out of bed within three hours so that someone else can come in and do the same. Life is not like that; there will be considerable, growing demand for beds in which people can stay overnight or for a couple of days.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: On a visit to New Zealand, the Select Committee on Health, met a medical manager who told us that when a hospital was allowed to have more than 400 beds, it ceased to be properly managed. I wonder whether in thinking about beds, we miss the real issue—that we are not getting suitable management to use what we have properly.
  Mr. Redwood: That is a valuable point; our system is over-administered and undermanaged. As described by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk, it has layers upon layers; an increasing number of trusts and committees preside over that massive expenditure and absorb a lot of money.
  What do we get? We do not get more operations; we get more glossy brochures. We do not get more nurses and doctors where we want them; we get more assistants, administrators, advisers and other consultants. We get more accountants and so-called financial control, but we do not seem to get the health care that we require.
  There was a certain poetic justice in hearing on the radio only this morning that the curse of the cuts has at last caught up with the Labour Government. I remember all those regular occasions when Conservative Ministers were invited into studios to be pilloried on that basis. Having announced hundreds of millions or billions of pounds of extra money, they were told that it represented a cut, because it was bespoke and people in the service for which it was destined always wanted more. Of course they did; that is the nature of the political and administrative bargaining process.
  As Labour spokesmen stoked up those issues in those days, it was apt to hear on the radio this morning no less a figure than the Secretary of State for Health clutching his billions and saying, "Haven't I done well?" but having to face a letter from a senior chief executive in the south-east health region. The letter was sent to all the chief executives of the hospitals in that part of the world. It said that they were in a dire financial situation and had immediately to make cuts of £60 million in the last two months of this year in order to live within what the Minister has described as very generous budgets.

  835
  The letter went on helpfully to state that that would involve making very difficult decisions and damaging the clinical and medical services to the people in each of the areas concerned and in respect of each hospital and trust.
  The Secretary of State said that £60 million was rather a small sum, as that part of the country was getting £6 billion, and that anyone should be able to manage things better in order not to need the £60 million that the chief executive thought to be missing. The right hon. Gentleman is probably right, but the problem is that his chosen chief executive, who is responsible for finding the £60 million, could not do so. She said that it was impossible and that she could find it only by damaging medical and clinical services. The Secretary of State should be a little more humble. He should either decide that he has got the wrong person running that great big chunk of the health service—if it is so easy to find the £60 million, he must find the person who can get it without doing any damage—or accept that there is a problem and that these sums are not enough and he is at least £60 million light in that particular part of the world, and probably light in other parts of the world as well, as we will discover.
  When the national health service was launched in 1947, before most of us here were born, I imagine that its establishment was a great relief for many people who had voted Labour, or indeed had voted Conservative and were wedded to a similar type of scheme. It was a bipartisan view that people should be taken away from fear of the doctor's bill and that there should be much more state involvement. It was the question whether the hospitals should be nationalised that caused the dispute between the main parties. None the less, a bipartisan church had been working on the issue, as had Labour people. I can understand why. It must have been great. When the health service was set up, people on low incomes were offered a much higher standard of health care than they could previously have aspired to in terms of the voluntary arrangements and charging that predated the national health service.
  I often wonder what would have happened if, at the same time as launching the health service, or instead of doing so, Labour had said, "It is terrible that a lot of people are not rich enough to have a holiday, so we will set up a national holiday service." One can see how attractive such a proposal would be. Everybody would have a week's free holiday in a resort of their choice.
  Mr. Lilley: Not in the resort of their choice.
  Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend is ahead of me. First, they would have been offered the resort of their choice, just as they were offered the health care of their choice. However, if the then Government had introduced such a service and nationalised the buses and railways to get people to their destinations, we would now be sitting around debating why it cost so much to run the service and asking why I had been told that I must go to Skegness when I wanted my two weeks in Bournemouth. We would be asking why, although I said that I wanted to go on holiday in August, I was told that I had to go in February in two years' time, because there was a long waiting list. If somebody had then told me, "By the way, when you get there, you'll have to share a hostel dormitory with lots
  836
  of other men, although I hasten to add that you'll be given your own bed," I would by that stage have decided that I had grown out of the national holiday service and that the lack of choice and the frustrations were not very good.
  Labour Members have been kind enough to giggle a little about that prospect, but I ask them to think about why we have not Modernised the offering of the national health service as we should have done. Is it right that people should now be told that they have to go into mixed or even single-sex dormitory wards? Why is there not a choice of separate rooms or better partitions? Is it right that patients are offered a fairly standard table d'hôte menu? Could there not be more imagination in the range of meals and eating times?
  Is it right that there are so few additional services available even for those patients who would like to pay a little to enjoy different services while they are in hospital? Why cannot patients rent digital multi-choice televisions and computer systems to play with while they are trying to recover from an operation? Why cannot they have a range of services available at their bedside or, even better, in their room, to cheer them up? We are not thinking creatively enough about what people would like or about how we could use the money that people would freely choose to spend while still enjoying the benefit of the fundamental pledge to give them a roof over their head, the operation that they need and the nursing care that they receive in hospital.
  I know that the Health Secretary has said that he will consider such matters, and I hope that he does. I hope that he will also consider how private finance can be jazzed up and made to work a little better. There are too many cases of private finance delaying necessary developments and of a failure properly to transfer risk, which is part of the purpose of having a private finance initiative. Why does the Secretary of State not decide that it would be a good idea to alleviate the bed crisis by allowing private enterprise to build blocks of rooms on or adjacent to the sites of leading hospitals where that is physically possible, as it must be in many cases? People could then choose to rent the room of their choice while receiving free NHS care. Would that not build a proper bridge between the NHS and the private sector and help to create capacity, which is clearly lacking at the moment?
  We could then concentrate more NHS money on clinical and medical care, hiring more nurses and doctors, because we would not need as many ancillary staff if part of the hotel functions were paid for by patients choosing to spend their own money. Pay beds used to be anathema to Labour, but there are still some left. They would now be seen as a public-private partnership. I am happy to use that language because that is the sort of PPP that we need generously to expand so that we can give people more choice, Modernise the service, bring in more money and provide more care and treatment.
  I still have too many constituents who cannot get the treatment that they need for the simple reason that there are not enough beds in the local hospital and there are not enough nurses and doctors to service the number of beds that we need. Those problems can be solved. The Government always say that there are not enough nurses and doctors because they inherited a situation in which there were not enough nurses and doctors. It takes three years to train a nurse. If the Government were very worried about the number of trained nurses in the country,

  837
  all they had to do in their first or second year was to increase training, and by now they would have had as many nurses as they wanted.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden has said, there are many trained nurses throughout the country who choose not to work as nurses, either in the NHS or at all. The Government ought to address that because it shows that there is something wrong with the terms and conditions of employment in our hospitals. If the Government have so much money and the problem is one of pay, the solution is simple—to put up pay to a level that people find acceptable.
  I hope that the Government will listen to their colleague the hon. Member for Reading, West, if not to me, on the issue of pay differentiation. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it would be fair to give nurses throughout the country a fairly equal standard of living rather than to pay them all the same amount. If they are paid the same, nurses in Reading and London will have a pretty miserable quality of life, while those in cheaper parts of the country will do a bit better, and that would not be terribly fair. The Government ought to consider how they can find a better solution to the pay problem, particularly in depressed parts of the country.
  If the problem is morale, as I fear in some cases it is, and working conditions, the great bevy of managers that the Government have brought into the NHS ought to be able to tackle it. If they cannot, the Government must sort out the management. I fear that the management is too cumbersome and complex; there are too many people in the chain of command, and health service managers often take a very defensive approach. It is much easier to have another consultation, hold another committee meeting or send out another glossy brochure than to make somebody responsible for something and try to make something happen as a result.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot run the public service if we do not have the right people in it and that it is no surprise that we cannot recruit enough nurses, policemen and members of the armed forces if we cannot offer them the right working conditions? We should get back to giving them the right conditions, and to the situation that used to pertain when those who worked for the public services were regarded as key members of society.
  Mr. Redwood: I entirely agree.
  I must move on to transport, and I am glad to see the Transport Secretary in his place. He has set out the plans for what he thinks is a massive investment in new transport facilities. We have had the much advertised and much delayed £180 billion blockbuster 10-year plan. What strikes me about it is the poverty of expectation on private capital over such a long period and in such a large and prosperous country.
  What are the figures? The Secretary of State believes that we can raise only £56 billion from the private sector to supplement the substantial sums of public money going into the £180 billion. There are difficulties with the right hon. Gentleman's arithmetic, and when the figures are unpacked we discover that a lot of the £64 billion for railways—or is it now £67 billion?—is subsidy for existing activities. Not a great deal is investment in major new projects.
  Mr. Don Foster: Following the 10-year plan, we had the Strategic Rail Authority plan. Is the right hon.
  838
  Gentleman aware that it involves a 14 per cent. reduction in the private sector money that the Government expect to bring in? What does that say about Government confidence in that private sector investment?
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is ahead of me and he is absolutely right. The Government and the SRA have had to reduce expectations for the good reason that their plans are much delayed and much damaged by the actions taken recently. The original plan is some 18 months out of date, but the Government appear to have rolled it forward. It is still called a 10-year plan rather than an eight and a half year plan because they are worried about the gap in investment and new finance this year, which results from the problems generated by Railtrack's bankruptcy and the delay in agreeing the new franchises with the train companies.
  The investment in the railway is too small, so how could it be increased? The Secretary of State could and should immediately do two simple things to speed up and magnify that prospective private sector investment. First, he should return Railtrack to the private sector as quickly as possible. I hope that Ministers segregate that task. If the Secretary of State wants to, he should be the proponent of a company limited by guarantee—that will need a lot of detailed and hands-on work from the Government and the people who put it together—but a completely independent Minister, if one can be found, should judge the competition between the bidders, who would then need a licence from the Government.
  Whether the Secretary of State's CLG gets going or not—that will be expensive and difficult—I hope that he returns Railtrack to the private sector as quickly as possible. Why does he not tell us today that he intends to put out a sale memorandum within a month and that bids will close two months thereafter? That would show a sense of urgency. If Railtrack could be up and running as a private sector company by autumn—the first feasible date that the right hon. Gentleman could possibly achieve—we would lose only about a year of the investment programme and we might be able to rebuild more quickly.
  On the timetable that the Government seem to be following, however, a much longer period in administration is in prospect. I am sure that there are all sorts of problems in compiling an accurate and detailed sale memorandum, but they are exactly what the Secretary of State must cut through if he is serious about private sector investment in the track.
  An even easier task for the Secretary of State or his SRA is getting investment in rolling stock going again, although it has been badly damaged by a company's discovery that there is not enough power in the network to run the new trains that it has bought. That will deter other companies from buying other types of new train that might be power hungry. More importantly, delay and damage have been caused by the failure of the SRA and the Secretary of State to renew franchises. Worse, they have told the industry that they do not like the current structure and that they want the train operating companies to be merged.
  We have not heard the exact way in which the Secretary of State and the SRA want that to happen or how they can insist on private sector companies doing it. We live in expectation of learning that. They have devised the

  839
  particularly silly policy that only one train company can use a specific London terminus. Why does not the Secretary of State apply that to aviation? Why can all sorts of different airlines use a single airport, where management problems are greater because not allowing a plane to land is a serious matter? By contrast, holding a train outside a station is a relatively easy task, which does not entail worrying about safety.
  It is odd that the Secretary of State has such a tidy mind that he wants only one train company in any London terminus. What happens cross country is more difficult to judge; I presume that he would allow more than one train company to use Crewe or Reading, where different companies go although they may travel to a different London terminus.
  The policy that I have described would delay ordering new trains because sorting out the mergers and the amalgamations of franchises will take time. It would delay negotiations of the new franchises, and companies will not order new rolling stock during that time. They want to know whether they are winners or losers—whether they will survive or go down. They want to know the sort of franchise that they will get before they commit a decent amount of money to new investment.
  The Secretary of State could make two decisions today to begin to solve the problems. If he does not do that, we will not get a fair proportion of the money for the 10-year plan in the next two or three years, and there will be nothing to show for it before the general election.
  Why will the remainder of transport receive only £120 billion? That is not much money. Let us put it in the context of British people buying 10 per cent. fewer cars each year than they bought last year, which was a good year for buying cars. That applies only if one likes buying cars. It was a bad year for the Government, who do not like people having cars.
  Angela Watkinson: What is my right hon. Friend's view of the plans of the Mayor of London to introduce congestion charging and the likely burden that that will place on public sector workers such as firefighters and ambulance drivers who work inside the charging area but cannot afford to live there because of property prices? They have to drive their cars to work because they work unsocial hours or have to carry equipment with them. I understand that the Secretary of State has the power to exempt groups of people from the charge. Does my right hon. Friend agree that he should use it?
  Mr. Redwood: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that if the Government were foolish enough to press ahead with such a scheme, they would have to make generous exemptions. I am sure that many Members of Parliament would expect to be exempted, too, because they regard themselves as important workers who do not live in London but clearly work there from time to time. The embarrassment caused by exempting Members of Parliament would be interesting. However, we are trespassing on private grief: the Mayor is keener on such a scheme than the Government. We shall watch this space.
  I mentioned the scale of investment. If we assume that 10 per cent. fewer people than last year buy cars in the next 10 years and that, on average, they buy a modest
  840
  new car, that would mean total investment of £180 billion over 10 years by private individuals and companies in private motor cars. That puts into perspective the figure that the Secretary of State claims is large. If we add the money that companies spend on lorries, vans and so on, the amount would be much more than £180 billion. Of course, the Secretary of State omits private investment in motor vehicles from the plan, but he includes private investment in trains. That is an interesting method of calculating transport investment.
  The British people know their Government well. We had a record year for new cars last year, and that clearly suggests that people have decided that public transport will not work well or quickly under the Government. They will therefore continue to try to upgrade their cars and increase the number of cars per family because they have to use that mode of transport to get around.
  It is not that many people are fanatics about their cars in the way that some Ministers suggest. Many people have no choice. In a rural area, there is absolutely no choice; in an urban area, there is no choice for certain journeys. It is becoming so difficult to get to stations in big towns and cities these days that people often decide that, instead of battling for three quarters of an hour or an hour to get to the station, they might as well spend 20 minutes getting on to the motorway network and getting somewhere. They conclude that they probably do not use much more petrol doing that, and that they will save a lot of money and inconvenience. Ministers will have to work hard to get the private capital into the system, and they will have to work with local government to understand why so many people are voting with their cars and with their feet, and are unwilling to take the public transport option.
  The other day, I was invited to a presentation at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in my capacity as a Member of Parliament representing a Thames valley constituency. The presentation was designed to bring us up to date with the so-called multi-modal study affecting the M3-M4 area, from just outside the M25 to Reading. We had a long, academic debate about whether this was the right region to consider—apparently, many opinions have been expressed and many papers written on that—and we were told that one of the aims of the thing was to see how the Department could come up with a solution that would solve more of our transport problems with trains, and by switching people out of their cars.
  I do not know whether the Secretary of State is aware that his Department is, at the same time, saying that Wokingham alone will have to absorb 7,750 new houses over a 15-year period. Families will move into those homes as they are built, and they will be two or three-car families, because that is the nature of the area. Far from limiting traffic or vehicle use, therefore, the Secretary of State's own Department is busily undermining his integrated transport policy with a planning decision that is deeply unpopular in my constituency and which will greatly increase the traffic problem.
  The Secretary of State should also be aware that we are currently short of capacity on the trains as well as on the roads. It is not an answer to say that all we have to do is switch people out of their cars on to the trains that are waiting there for them. The trains are not there. The Secretary of State says in his plan that he reckons he can increase train usage by 50 per cent. over a 10-year period. As a starting point for that increase, we currently do only

  841
  about 6 or 7 per cent. of our journeys on the train, so even if we increase train travel by 50 per cent., the trains will still only take up about a year's worth of total traffic growth. There will not be a switch, in terms of proportion, from cars to trains, on that very modest figure of 50 per cent. growth in train use. Unfortunately, achieving even that growth is going to be problematic, given the lack of decisions that we have seen so far.
  I urge the Secretary of State for Transport to understand that, in an area such as mine, people are buying cars and using them. They are very frustrated; they cannot get to the stations easily, and when they do, there is insufficient capacity on the trains. South West Trains does not have a renewed franchise, and it is not making any investment until it gets one. The local council and South West Trains cannot put in the new station until the Railtrack problem is sorted out and South West Trains have a franchise. The reality on the ground is that the billions being talked about by the Government are not achieving any improvements whatever, and things are often getting worse.
  I am sure that the Secretary of State will be able to come to the House in a couple of years—if he is still Secretary of State—and say that much more money has been spent on the railways over those two years. But most of that money will be tipped down the drain. It will go on the fees of the administrator and the consultants, the losses being built up by a business whose morale has been shattered, and the losses that will be incurred because the business is no longer controlling its costs in the way that a private sector company would have done. Public capital will be going in, where private capital could have gone in if the company had not been bankrupted.
  We have seen great problems in the public services, and they are getting worse. More money is sometimes helpful, but in all too many cases, more Government money is going into the wrong things and making the problem worse rather than better. We need a massive expansion of private capital in health and in the railways. The two spinners—the two Secretaries of State who sit there like Tweedledum and Tweedledee—suggest to their Back Benchers that they are going in different directions, but they are fundamentally united in their purpose. They believe that the art of government is in spinning, and they will both preside over a substantial deterioration in the services in their care.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. John Smith: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a small contribution to this debate. Indeed, I am grateful to the Opposition for tabling the motion, because it gives me a chance to focus on a public service that has been a huge success story in my constituency: the police service. Incidentally, Opposition Members have hardly mentioned that important public service during this long debate. I believe that that is because of its success in the past four and a half years.
  Given that I have had the dubious honour of listening to most of the speeches made by Opposition Members on their chosen topic, I shall make a couple of observations about them before going on to the constituency issue that I wish to raise.
  I cannot ignore the unsolicited references by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) to my constituency and the Vale of Glamorgan by-election, not once or twice but, as Hansard will confirm, six times.
  842
  That convinces me that it must be haunting him—and so it should. I remind the House that that by-election in 1989 was based on the state of one of our most important public services, the health service, all that time ago when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was pushing through the Tory health reforms.
  I am eternally grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for my getting elected in that by-election. Had it not been for his personal intervention, I would not have been elected. I thank him for the fact that I have won every election—I have had the majority vote from my electors in every election—since 1989, which is in part due to his intervention. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) shouts from a sedentary position that I lost in 1992. Let me tell him that my electors elected me in that election. It was 64 South Africans who made the difference in the fiddled election system that the Tories introduced in the meantime. [Interruption.] Ask them to check the record, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  It is a pity that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe is no longer in his place. In his speech, he said that the Tories lost the 1989 by-election because there was a conspiracy between the Labour party and the British Medical Association to fight the election under the false claim that the Tories intended to privatise the health service and to introduce charges. He may believe in conspiracy theories, but I do not and he is wrong to think that there was one then.
  The doctors acted entirely independently. They put forward a GP candidate and fought the election on the argument that the Tories intended to privatise the health service. I do not believe that that was the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intention. Nor do I believe that there was at that time a specific proposal to introduce charging, but it unravels the argument put forward in the Conservative motion today. The truth is that the Tories do not support the national health service or public services. The motion makes no reference whatever to support for, or commitment to, the public services, or to enhancing or strengthening them.
  Chris Grayling: I wonder whether I could pose a question to the hon. Gentleman. If it is the case that the Conservative party has no interest in the public services and in the national health service, and that the Labour party has that interest, how can it be that the chairman of the Labour party recently admitted that the state of the health service in many ways is worse than it was under the Conservatives?
  Mr. Smith: That has nothing to do with the mood music of the parties today. There has been a week or two of bad publicity regarding public services, so the Tories have jumped on the bandwagon and tabled a motion for an Opposition-day debate on public services. That is very brave of them, but no one in the country believes that they have any commitment whatever to the public services. If they do not believe me, they should look at the opinion polls in today's newspapers, which show that despite the difficulties in recent weeks, despite Captain Mainwaring,

  843
  the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, jumping on the bandwagon and all of a sudden coming out in favour of public services, no one in the country believes them.
  Andrew Selous: The Leader of the Opposition was a public servant a long time ago and a member of Her Majesty's armed forces, so he is hardly jumping on a bandwagon.
  Mr. Smith: Absolutely. That is why it is amazing that that other great public service has literally not been mentioned until now by the Conservative party. The reason is—the hon. Gentleman may not be aware of it—that the Conservative party does not support public services or the public ethos. It believes that public service is a necessary evil that has to be provided because the private sector either cannot or is unwilling to provide it. The public services will never be safe in Tory hands.
  The Tories have got on the public service bandwagon this week. The other week, we had another beauty: they came out in favour of reforming the second Chamber to have 80 per cent. elected peers, whereas 12 months or a little longer ago they did not even support the abolition of hereditary peers. The good captain in charge has panicked. He has literally been non-existent on the political scene for the past six months and he is picking up each bandwagon as it comes along.
  As today's opinion polls show, the Tories will not win the argument and they will not win support, despite the order from the good captain, "Don't mention the euro." John Cleese in "Fawlty Towers" said not to mention something else, but that is the line in the Tory party: do not mention the euro, pretend we support public services and say anything we possibly can to get on the next bandwagon.
  Chris Grayling: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that week by week we as individual Members of Parliament receive either letters or visits in our surgeries from people who are suffering as a result of the failures of his party to deliver improvements in public services? How can he say that it is us who have no interest in this area, when it is palpably his party that is presiding over a situation that is getting worse, not better?
  Mr. Smith: Because the Conservative party had 18 years in charge of the public services and they ran them down to an appalling level during that period. There was no transport plan for nearly 20 years. Hospitals were closed. There was a reduction in the number of beds, nurses and doctors. That happened not because the Tories wanted to take health care away from the British people, but because of their ideological belief that the private sector is always best. They believed that if a gap were created in health care services it would automatically be filled by their friends in the private sector. Of course, that did not happen.
  Andrew Selous: Like several of his colleagues, the hon. Gentleman seems to be keen to give us a history lesson, but will he remember that it was his party which was unable to fulfil its hospital building programme and
  844
  to fund nurses' pay when they were in power in a previous Administration? If we are going to look at history, perhaps we should look at it fairly on both counts.
  Mr. Smith: I am happy to make historical comparisons, particularly this one. In the last few years, the country has seen the biggest hospital building programme that it has seen for decades, and a greater increase in nursing recruitment than it has seen for a long time. According to an answer given in Health questions this afternoon, 10,000 were recruited last year. Yes, I am happy to make comparisons showing the record of a Labour Government who are committed to the public service ethos—who believe in public services, considering them to provide not just the best but the fairest way of ensuring that the many benefit, not just a few who can pay.
  That is not just my view, but the view of the British people. It will not be changed by a couple of policy pronouncements that have been made in the last couple of weeks, or by a motion that does not even state that the Opposition support public services.
  Much has been said today about some of the Government's difficulties in providing services. It should be recognised that the climate in which they are being provided now is very different from the climate under the Tories. We now have a successful and growing economy. We have the lowest unemployment for more than 25 years, taking into account regional variations, and we have growth rates that have not been enjoyed for a long time. We have the lowest inflation for nearly 40 years. That successful economy is the backdrop to the current situation.
  One consequence is that the problems we now face in delivering public services are very different from those experienced during the 18 disastrous years of Tory provision. Of course it can be difficult to recruit nurses and teachers, because competition in the labour market is 10 times greater than it was during that disastrous Tory period. That means that we must be more innovative, and introduce new policies to overcome the problems.
  I want to draw Ministers' attention to the arbitrary tests imposed on new nursing recruits. I have reason to believe that they do not necessarily reflect the ability and aptitude of potential recruits. I understand that many young women, in particular, want to move to the profession from managerial and other backgrounds, but cannot surmount that initial hurdle. The same applies to teachers. We are offering incentives for teacher training, but it seems that potential recruits are being put off. I think we should examine the standard of access to teaching and postgraduate certificate of education courses.
  The main issue that I want to raise is the success of the police service in my constituency. We can, I think, be very proud of the Government's record in regard to the tackling of crime. In the past four years, we have reduced crime by 22 per cent. In my constituency, there has been a 33 per cent. reduction in recorded crime in the past five years alone. There were 15,000 recorded incidents in 1996, but the latest crime survey figures show that the number fell to 10,000 last year. That is a fantastic achievement by the police and their partners in my constituency.

  845
  That would be a wonderful achievement in its own right, but 10 years ago the crime rate in my constituency, and in the town of Barry there, was the highest per capita among all comparable communities in the UK.
  Angela Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman is extremely lucky to have either a good police service in his area, or adequate resourcing. My neighbouring constituency has the largest concentration of night clubs in the Metropolitan police district, apart from the west end of London. The demands that have to be met in the late-night entertainment centre in that constituency mean that there is often no police officer on duty on Friday and Saturday nights in my constituency.
  Mr. Smith: I sympathise with the hon. Lady, as my constituency's principal town, Barry, is a major seaside resort. We have many clubs and entertainment centres that attract lots of people, especially through the summer. They create difficult policing problems, but even so crime has been reduced in the way that I described.
  There is no doubt that the fall in the crime rate is due in part to the extra resources that have been given to police in our area, which mean that there are more police on the beat. It is also in part a result of close work with communities in the area. There is a very close partnership between local authorities, voluntary groups, the police and the schools. Large-scale preventive measures have been taken to help reduce the crime rate, and they have been incredibly successful.
  A number of other reasons for the fall can be adduced, and one is that we have damn good coppers. Another factor is the good leadership in the area's police force. For the first time in a long time, many serving policing officers in the Vale of Glamorgan division who work in and police the area also live there, and bring their children up there. Their children go to local schools, so the officers have a shared and vested interest in seeing crime tackled in the area. We have moved away from that strategy over the years, and we should return to it.
  The achievement in my area has been so remarkable that it was recognised at the end of last year by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. South Wales Police achieved one of the highest reductions in crime in the UK, and the chief constable, the local superintendent of police, whose name is Colin Jones, and some serving officers were invited to No. 10 Downing street. They were congratulated on the excellent public service that they had been providing over four or five years and on the excellent statistics that they had achieved. They were invited to discuss with my right hon. Friends some of the reasons for their tremendous record.
  I emphasise that the record is tremendous. I recall bringing business and community leaders to the House to make representations to Home Office Ministers about the level of crime that existed some 10 years ago. The crime rate was so bad then that I would not mention it in debates in this House. I did not want the area that I represent to suffer from any associated bad publicity, but we wanted something to be done. The problem facing local businesses, clubs and entertainment establishments was not that they were struggling in a difficult economic climate, but that the crime rate was so bad that they could not get insurance companies to insure their buildings or stock, and they could not trade as normal. That is how
  846
  bad the situation was, but 12 years later we have the safest community in south Wales and one of the safest in the United Kingdom, with one of the largest reductions in crime figures in the UK.
  I want my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to know that we are extremely grateful that the chief constable of South Wales Police was recognised with a knighthood in the new year honours. I have no doubt that had something to do with his excellent achievements. I hope that the achievements of other officers—in particular Superintendent Jones and his team in the Vale of Glamorgan division—will be recognised in the same way. They have all played an important role.
  The Government's success in public services in my constituency is not just the result of increased resources, preventive policies and working in partnership. A major contribution has been made by the radical reduction in poverty and unemployment. There is a direct relationship with the reduction in crime. Do not ask me—ask any local bobby. When the police used to apprehend someone who was up to no good, the first two questions they asked were, "Are you working?" and "Where do you live?". The officers could usually narrow down their suspects by knowing their income or the area or conditions in which they lived. That has disappeared because of the dramatic improvement in the elimination of poverty and the reduction in unemployment. In my constituency, unemployment has fallen 40 per cent. in the past four and a half years. Youth unemployment, which produced the biggest perpetrators of crime, has fallen by 70 per cent. Neither unemployment nor poverty excuses crime but they do explain it.
  Today's Opposition debate was rumbled when the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the former Secretary of State for Social Security, said that there is no relationship between poverty and health. That is the one statement people will remember from today's debate. The Opposition do not believe that there is any relationship between the health of the people of this country and their ability to get a job, live in a decent house, enjoy a decent diet, wear decent clothing and look after their children properly. Conservative Members do not make that connection because they do not in their hearts believe in the ethos of public services—and never will. Today's debate has been an absolute sham and the people of this country will rumble them.
  9.29 pm
  Mrs. Theresa May: I refer hon. Members to the declaration that I made on 14 January 2002 at column 33.
  This has been an interesting debate and there have been several excellent contributions from Conservative former Secretaries of State, but in many ways it has been a tale of two debates, because many Labour Back Benchers have simply taken us on a ramble through history. They seem to think that the world stopped in May 1997 and that nearly five years of Labour Government is a thing of fiction. Sadly for patients, pupils and passengers, the Labour Government are too much of a reality—a reality that is delivering deteriorating public services and a demoralised work force.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) put his finger on the truth when he said that Labour Members should understand that

  847
  outside the House there was widespread anger and shame about the state of our public services, and that people's disillusion came from a despair that the current politicians would ever resolve the problems that had been created in our public services.
  People would be even more angry and disillusioned if they had heard most of Labour Members' speeches tonight, because their cavalier attitude to the chaos in health, transport and education—their disregard for the devastation that their policies have wrought in public services—was breathtaking in its arrogance.
  Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe gave another clue when he said that he had hoped to find a consensus today on the need for diversity and choice and the involvement of the private sector, particularly in the health service, but saw instead the dead wood on the Labour Back Benches failing to recognise not only the needs of patients, parents and passengers, but even the policies of their own Ministers.
  I said that we had a number of rambles through history. The hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) indulged in a very slow ramble through history, completely ignoring the record of his own Government in its first term from 1997 and completely ignoring the reality of the services that people have to use day in, day out.
  The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) painted a picture of Government success in Worcester. He even spoke about success in education. That is not the sort of success that I remember from the delegation of heads from Worcestershire who came to see me when I was an education spokesman, to complain about levels of funding for their schools.
  I am sorry that I missed the speech by the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter).
  Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend missed nothing.
  Mrs. May: My hon. Friend says that I missed nothing. I am sorry that I missed the speech, because the hon. Gentleman has previously been quite critical of his own Government's record in the past four and a half years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Indeed, sadly he is not here to listen to these winding-up speeches.
  When the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) took an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) about the comments by the chairman of the Labour party about how bad the health service was under Labour, the hon. Gentleman said that that did not count because it was not part of the mood music. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman stands on doorsteps and tells patients who have been waiting on trolleys for hours that it does not matter because it is not part of his party's mood music and sees what sort of answer he gets from them.
  The honourable and notable exception to all those speeches by Labour Members came from the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), who is present. I was a little concerned when he started his speech by saying that it is not just size that matters, but how you use it.
  Dr. Stoate: I can prove it.
  Mrs. May: It is a good job that my husband is not present to hear the hon. Gentleman suggest that he could prove it to me, but the hon. Gentleman's speech revealed a refreshing approach from a Back-Bench Labour Member. He said that the monolithic structure of the health service was a problem and that money was not the only answer. He cited several examples of the way in which innovative thinking should be introduced into the health service to solve the problems. I suggest to the Secretary of State for Health that he watches out for his job, because it sounds to me as though the hon. Member for Dartford has rather more ideas about the future of the health service than the Secretary of State has.
  We made an amazing discovery in the speech—I have to say that it was a shambles of a speech—made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). We know that the Liberal Democrats say one thing nationally and another thing locally and that Front-Bench Liberal Democrat Members disagree among themselves and have different policies, but what we heard tonight was a Front-Bench spokesman for the Liberal Democrats disagreeing with himself within five minutes in his own speech. He denied, but then confirmed, that the Liberal Democrats are considering charging for access to the NHS.
  Mr. David Miliband: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady; I am genuinely grateful to her for mentioning charging. When we last debated public services in the House, the shadow Chancellor refused to repeat his party's manifesto commitment to an NHS free at the point of use. Does she support the shadow Chancellor or her manifesto, on which she stood for election at the last general election?
  Mrs. May: I would have more reason to answer the hon. Gentleman if his party knew what its own policy on the health service was—it does not know, as I shall go on to say later in my speech.
  We heard particularly powerful contributions from my right hon. Friends the Members for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk made the very valid point that it is time that the Government took responsibility for being in government and for their record in government. Her criticism was particularly trenchant when she talked about the Government's complete failure to understand the needs of rural areas.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden made a number of very important points about the difference between official figures on teacher vacancies and the reality faced—day in, day out—by schools throughout the country. He pointed out what seems absolutely clear to everyone but the Transport Secretary: the Strategic Rail Authority 10-year plan for the railways fails to deliver what is needed—an increase in capacity. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said, money is being thrown down the drain to advisers and consultants because Railtrack is in administration, while the Government completely fail to set out their criteria for bidders to take over Railtrack and to take it out of administration.

  849
  Let us come to the state of our public services. An insight was given into that recently by the Deputy Prime Minister in his speech to the Fabian Society. He spoke about part of his own constituency and said that it was not unique. He then said:
  "Across the land are neighbourhoods just like it—where public services have let people down, badly."
  With observations like that, perhaps it is little wonder that the Deputy Prime Minister is now being rubbished by the likes of the Minister for Europe.
  Phil Hope: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. May: No, I will not give way.
  The Secretary of State for Health in replying to this debate attempted to paint a different picture—one of delivery in the health service. Of course, that picture is totally at odds with the experience of patients who wait hours on trolleys and who return from holiday to find that their operations have been cancelled while they have been away and that they have been taken off the waiting lists.
  The 2,000 more people waiting for operations for more than 12 months than were waiting in May 1997 and the 400,000 people waiting just to get on the waiting lists know the painful reality of the Government's failure to deliver on the NHS. I will give the Secretary of State for Health his due; he did say one interesting thing during his speech—that we have a very good Transport Secretary. That is the first time in the House that I have heard a Minister refer with such warm words to Lord Birt.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), in a powerful opening speech, reminded us clearly of the extent of new Labour's failures in health, education, transport and law and order. The list goes on. As he said, the problems faced lie in the very ethos of new Labour, because the Government's propensity to centralise, micromanage and interfere—overlaid with the obsession with spin that is so characteristic of new Labour—has led to problems in the public services.
  Perhaps that is best revealed by the Government's obsessions with plans. In the health service, we have had the NHS plan, the Wanless plan, which was going to be the answer, and the Secretary of State's new plan that was brought out last week.
  However, perhaps transport is an even better example. The Government issued a 10-year transport plan. One year on, it is being reviewed. That is hardly surprising given that a hole has been blown in it by the fact that Railtrack is in administration. Last week, the Strategic Rail Authority issued another 10-year plan and the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions told us:
  "No more vague aspirations or grand visions strong on rhetoric but weak on delivery. This plan is an agenda for action."
  A 10-year plan for delivery, or is it? The Secretary of State gave an interview to the BBC's "On the Record" programme on Sunday and the following exchange took place:
  "Mr. Humphrys: 'And that ten-year plan is now fixed. That is, that's there, that's solid, that's in concrete?'
  The Secretary of State: 'The obligations are there. I've said though I want it reviewed every year, because there's no point in having a ten-year…'
  Mr. Humphrys: 'So it's not really a ten-year plan then?'
  850
  The Secretary of State: 'Well, it's a ten-year plan as we sit here today, but it's got to be flexible John, because if you set it…
  Mr. Humphrys: 'So there might be a different ten-year plan this time next year?'
  The Secretary of State: 'It'll be the same ten-year plan, but we'll review it in the light of…
  Mr. Humphrys: 'So it might be different, but the same?'
  The Secretary of State: 'Well, we'll explain."'
  Let me explain to the Transport Secretary that people are fed up with plans that fail to deliver improvements on the railways.
  Who will be responsible for reviewing the plan? The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the No. 10 policy unit on transport, the No. 10 forward strategy unit on transport or the strategic transport unit in the Treasury?
  One of the causes of the uncertainty in the railways is the fact that Railtrack is in administration. That has been made absolutely clear by the Strategic Rail Authority in its 10-year plan. No one knows how long Railtrack will stay in administration or what will replace it.
  Again the Secretary of State made some interesting revelations in his "On the Record" interview. He told John Humphrys:
  "'Well, you're assuming that the model that replaces Railtrack is going to be the same as Railtrack.'
  Mr. Humphrys: 'We have to assume something because we don't know what it's going to be.'
  The Secretary of State: 'Well, you don't, but in due course, and basically, I mean people say, why is it taking so long? This administration, you know, three, six months, is it going to take longer?'"
  That was the Secretary of State's answer to the question of how long Railtrack would be in administration. While it is in administration, it is the Government's responsibility; it is neo-nationalisation. They were happy enough for it to be in the private sector when they took £155 million in windfall tax from it in 1997, but they will put it back in the private sector in the same railway structure as before.
  The Secretary of State has delivered a 45 per cent. increase in train delays, demoralised staff, Railtrack in limbo and a strategic plan that depends on £34 billion of private sector investment that has been jeopardised by his action on Railtrack. Perhaps he would do the House the honour of telling us what the overall private and public sector investment figure is due to be under his 10-year plan. Some say it will be £67 billion. In his response, will he confirm that the overall investment figure is, indeed, £67 billion?
  Of course, the railways are not the only problem: there is London Underground as well. The Prime Minister says that the public-private partnership will go ahead; the Secretary of State says it might not. We now read that it will all be okay because the Prime Minister has taken charge. Tony's roadshow is here: he is going to take his jacket off, roll his sleeves up and persuade people that a botched PPP for the underground is the answer when people know that it is not. As the Transport Commissioner for London said:
  "it will…be the best thing since Barnum and Bailey".
  The Government have presided over a shameful deterioration in public services. Patients are waiting longer, passengers are waiting longer, schools are waiting

  851
  for teachers, and it is time that the Government stopped blaming others, accepted their responsibilities and started delivering on their promises.
  9.45 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers): The debate, initiated by the Conservative party, managed to feature only four speeches from the Tory Back Benches, each of which was delivered by former Cabinet Ministers parading their excuses for years of Tory failure in government. They cannot tolerate the fact that a Government are in office who are delivering on the public service agenda. We also heard, however, from constituency Labour MPs, who could see how we are delivering and the improvements that we are making.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) used his experience as leader of Coventry city council to demonstrate the difficulties that he had during a period of continuous cuts in public spending. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) explained that more police are being employed in his constituency. He said that investment is being made in CCTV and a new police station being constructed. He also pointed to the improvements in health provision in his constituency, with a new hospital that has been provided by the PFI, and the better results in education.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), not always a complete supporter of Government policy, demonstrated from his impartial position the way in which services across the board—education, health, policing and transport—have improved significantly. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) stressed the importance of real-terms increases in public spending. He also raised concerns about the need to ensure that pharmacists explore the better use of drugs, and reduce waste and the inappropriate use of drugs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will take up those specific issues.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) stressed the importance of policing. He referred to the difficulties in Barry in his constituency and mentioned the reduction in crime there. He also drew attention, as did the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), to the lessons to be learned from the Vale of Glamorgan by-election in 1989. As my hon. Friend pointed out, although he technically lost his seat in the 1992 election, in reality he had a majority among people resident in the constituency. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] The votes from those resident in South Africa won the day.
  Most telling were the contributions made by former Tory Cabinet Ministers. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) clearly said that members of the Conservative Front Bench have not ruled anything out in terms of policy development. That is the real threat that hangs over public services in this country. When my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband) asked the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) whether she would rule out charging for clinical services, she took a Trappist vow—no comment was made. She
  852
  wants to be careful. Bearing in mind that this is the new, inclusive Tory party, as expounded by its leader, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) talked about playing in the big boys' league. The hon. Lady clearly has difficulty playing in the big boys' league if she cannot answer such questions. So much for the inclusive Conservative party as proposed by its leader.
  I am pleased that the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) acknowledged that the Labour Government are investing more in public services—I welcome that refreshing honesty from the Opposition. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe said that the Labour Government were building on Tory success and our great economic legacy from 1997—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, let us look at the former Chancellor's record. Between 1993 and 1997, when he was in office, national debt increased by £100 billion. In the last year of his chancellorship, there was a real-terms decrease in NHS spending.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman seeks to curry favour with his colleagues by trying to rehearse the Chancellor's arguments on economic policy before 1997. Will he turn to his transport policies for the present? How long will the Railtrack administration last, and what will be the consequences for investment in our railway network once he has managed to get an institution back in place to administer it?
  Mr. Byers: I know that the Conservatives find it difficult—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall answer, but in my own terms. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends find it difficult to acknowledge that we have killed off a failed Tory privatisation. We did so because we decided that we are not putting the interests of shareholders first, but the interests of the travelling public.
  The most telling speech from the Tory Back Benches was delivered by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who revealed the depths of Tory thinking when he said, "We do not accept that poverty is a cause of ill health"—a classic example of the Tories not allowing the facts to get in the way of prejudice. Let us have some facts. At the end of the 20th century, a boy born into a family on the lowest income will, on average, live nine years less than a boy born to a family with a professional background.
  Mr. Lilley: The Secretary of State should be a little cautious about being derogatory about ex-Cabinet Ministers, as he may shortly be joining that club. Will he answer my principal question about his responsibilities and confirm that up to £ billion that is to be spent on the Thameslink 2000 project will not result in a single extra train service at peak times?
  Mr. Byers: I shall come to Thameslink 2000—[Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like the facts to be given. The right hon. Gentleman made an important statement about ill health not being linked to poverty. I have already made the point that a boy born into a family on the lowest income will, on average, live nine years less than a boy born into a professional background. Life expectancy in Manchester is seven years less than in Kingston upon Thames in Surrey. Infant mortality is 17 per cent higher among the most disadvantaged groups in the country.

  853
  The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden will know that, as a result of the failures of Railtrack, which wanted to stand down the team driving the project through, Thameslink 2000 has been delayed. With the new management of Railtrack, and with the Strategic Rail Authority operating, that contract and project will be put on track; we shall deliver the improvements that the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents want. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] We shall do so when negotiations are completed. Like the west coast main line, those projects, which were supposed to be dominated and controlled by Railtrack, have fallen behind because of the management failures of Railtrack.
  Investment is crucial in high-quality public services, which provide the foundation of economic prosperity and social renewal; it generates wealth as well as supporting welfare provision. As a nation, we have suffered for generations from chronic underinvestment. It is because we in the Labour party believe passionately in public services that we will ensure that the extra money is made available. Ultimately, the hospital patient, the school pupil, the rail passenger and the potential victim of crime must come first.
  The British people will not be fooled by the Tories' new rhetoric on public services. People know from their own bitter experience that the factors that have motivated the Tory party over the years—envy, self-interest and greed—are simply incompatible—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to calm down. I cannot hear the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Byers: Envy, self-interest and greed are incompatible with the provision of public services. Of course, the great hope for the Conservative party is that there will be collective amnesia at the time of the next election and that people will forget the Tory approach to public services. That now seems to be the official approach of the Conservative party. In an interview with the Financial Times last Thursday, the Leader of the Opposition said that his children do not remember Margaret Thatcher at all. All I can say is that they are very fortunate. He went on to say that, as memories fade, so people's recollection of what was done fades.
  I have a message for the Conservative party: we will keep reminding people of the Thatcher legacy and the consequences for individuals, families, communities and public services. We will remind them that every indicator of economic and social failure at least doubled under the Conservatives. Crime doubled, national debt doubled, those on long-term income support doubled, long-term unemployment doubled, homelessness doubled and child poverty doubled. We will remind them that, in the early 1990s, interest rates were more than 15 per cent., inflation was more than 10 per cent., and 1 million home owners were in negative equity. We will remind them that, by 1997, numbers on the waiting lists rose by more than 400,000; about half of our 11-year-olds failed to reach expected standards in maths and English; almost 500,000 five, six and seven-year-olds were in classes of more than 30; and, of course, there was Railtrack and privatisation.
  That is a catalogue of prejudice, neglect and dogma from the Tories towards public services. Labour's commitment to public services reflects our values, principles and beliefs as a political party. Labour believes
  854
  in opportunity for all our people and in social justice. Labour believes that there is such a thing as society and that we achieve far more acting collectively than we ever can in isolation. It is through collective provision delivering social justice and providing opportunity for all that, under Labour, housing waiting lists have been cut by 120,000. Under Labour, crime is down by 22 per cent. Under Labour, all four-year-olds are guaranteed a pre-school place. Under Labour, infant class sizes have been cut. Under Labour, there are 27,000 more nurses; and under Labour, Railtrack is no longer serving the interests of shareholders, but putting the travelling public first.
  Labour in power is acting in the public interest. Labour in government is delivering for our people and our country. It is on that basis that I urge the House to divide and support the amendment in the Prime Minister's name.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
  The House having divided: Ayes 184, Noes 322.

  Division No. 139]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Allan, Richard

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Amess, David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Bacon, Richard

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Baker, Norman

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Barker, Gregory

  Fabricant, Michael

  Baron, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Barrett, John

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Beggs, Roy

  Flight, Howard

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Flook, Adrian

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Bercow, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Boswell, Tim

  Francois, Mark

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gale, Roger

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Garnier, Edward

  Brady, Graham

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Brazier, Julian

  Gibb, Nick

  Breed, Colin

  Gidley, Sandra

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gray, James

  Burns, Simon

  Grayling, Chris

  Burstow, Paul

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Burt, Alistair

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Greenway, John

  Cameron, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Cash, William

  Hammond, Philip

  Chidgey, David

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hayes, John

  Clappison, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Heath, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hendry, Charles

  Collins, Tim

  Hoban, Mark

  Conway, Derek

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Holmes, Paul

  Cotter, Brian

  Horam, John

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  855

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Ruffley, David

  Keetch, Paul

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Key, Robert

  Sanders, Adrian

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Selous, Andrew

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Simmonds, Mark

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

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

  Lamb, Norman

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  Laws, David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Leigh, Edward

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Letwin, Oliver

  Spink, Bob

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Spring, Richard

  Lidington, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Streeter, Gary

  Loughton, Tim

  Stunell, Andrew

  Luff, Peter

  Swayne, Desmond

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Swire, Hugo

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Syms, Robert

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Malin, Humfrey

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Maples, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Thurso, John

  Mercer, Patrick

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Tredinnick, David

  Moore, Michael

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Tyler, Paul

  Norman, Archie

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Oaten, Mark

  Viggers, Peter

  Öpik, Lembit

  Waterson, Nigel

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Ottaway, Richard

  Webb, Steve

  Page, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Paice, James

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Paterson, Owen

  Wiggin, Bill

  Pickles, Eric

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Willis, Phil

  Prisk, Mark

  Wilshire, David

  Pugh, Dr John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Randall, John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wishart, Pete

  Rendel, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Dr. Julian Lewis.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Blackman, Liz

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Allen, Graham

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Borrow, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Brennan, Kevin

  Bailey, Adrian

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Baird, Vera

  Barnes, Harry

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Beard, Nigel

  Bryant, Chris

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Burden, Richard

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Burgon, Colin

  Bell, Stuart

  Burnham, Andy

  Benn, Hilary

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bennett, Andrew

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Benton, Joe

  Cairns, David

  Berry, Roger

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Best, Harold

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  856

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grogan, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Casale, Roger

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Challen, Colin

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hanson, David

  Chaytor, David

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clapham, Michael

  Havard, Dai

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Healey, John

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hermon, Lady

  Clelland, David

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clwyd, Ann

  Heyes, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hill, Keith

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoey, Kate

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corston, Jean

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Cousins, Jim

  Hope, Phil

  Cranston, Ross

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Crausby, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Hurst, Alan

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Illsley, Eric

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jamieson, David

  David, Wayne

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Joyce, Eric

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Doran, Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dowd, Jim

  Kemp, Fraser

  Drew, David

  Kidney, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lammy, David

  Farrelly, Paul

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Laxton, Bob

  Fisher, Mark

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lepper, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Leslie, Christopher

  Follett, Barbara

  Levitt, Tom

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Linton, Martin

  Foulkes, George

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Lucas, Ian

  Galloway, George

  Luke, Iain

  Gapes, Mike

  Lyons, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McCabe, Stephen

  Gilroy, Linda

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Godsiff, Roger

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Goggins, Paul

  MacDonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McDonnell, John

  857

  MacDougall, John

  Ruane, Chris

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ruddock, Joan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McKechin, Ann

  Ryan, Joan

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Salter, Martin

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McNamara, Kevin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McNulty, Tony

  Sawford, Phil

  MacShane, Denis

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sheerman, Barry

  McWilliam, John

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mallaber, Judy

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marris, Rob

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Martlew, Eric

  Soley, Clive

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Southworth, Helen

  Merron, Gillian

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Squire, Rachel

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Miliband, David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Miller, Andrew

  Stevenson, George

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mole, Chris

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Morgan, Julie

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Morley, Elliot

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mudie, George

  Stringer, Graham

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Tami, Mark

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Norris, Dan

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Olner, Bill

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tipping, Paddy

  Organ, Diana

  Todd, Mark

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Touhig, Don

  Owen, Albert

  Truswell, Paul

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pearson, Ian

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Perham, Linda

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Picking, Anne

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tynan, Bill

  Pike, Peter

  Vaz, Keith

  Plaskitt, James

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pollard, Kerry

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pond, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pope, Greg

  Watson, Tom

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Watts, David

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  White, Brian

  Price, Adam

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Rammell, Bill

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Convey)

  Rapson, Syd

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Winnick, David

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Wood, Mike

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Woolas, Phil

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Rooney, Terry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ross, Ernie

  Angela Smith and

  Roy, Frank

  Mr. Nick Ainger.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 189.

  Division No. 140]

  [10.17 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cummings, John

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  (Copeland)

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  David, Wayne

  Bailey, Adrian

  Davidson, Ian

  Baird, Vera

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Barnes, Harry

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Beard, Nigel

  Dawson, Hilton

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bell, Stuart

  Dobbin, Jim

  Benn, Hilary

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Bennett, Andrew

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Benton, Joe

  Doran, Frank

  Berry, Roger

  Dowd, Jim

  Best, Harold

  Drew, David

  Blackman, Liz

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Edwards, Huw

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Ennis, Jeff

  Borrow, David

  Farrelly, Paul

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fisher, Mark

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brennan, Kevin

  Flint, Caroline

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Follett, Barbara

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Bryant, Chris

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Burden, Richard

  Foulkes, George

  Burgon, Colin

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Burnham, Andy

  Galloway, George

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Gapes, Mike

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cairns, David

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Goggins, Paul

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Casale, Roger

  Grogan, John

  Caton, Martin

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Challen, Colin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Chaytor, David

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Havard, Dai

  Healey, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clelland, David

  Heppell, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hermon, Lady

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heyes, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Hill, Keith

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hodge, Margaret

  Corston, Jean

  Hoey, Kate

  Cousins, Jim

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Crausby, David

  Hope, Phil

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  859

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mudie, George

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hurst, Alan

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Norris, Dan

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Illsley, Eric

  Olner, Bill

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Organ, Diana

  Jamieson, David

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Owen, Albert

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Perham, Linda

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Picking, Anne

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)

  Pike, Peter

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Plaskitt, James

  Joyce, Eric

  Pollard, Kerry

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pond, Chris

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pope, Greg

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kidney, David

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rammell, Bill

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rapson, Syd

  Lammy, David

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Laxton, Bob

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lepper, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rooney, Terry

  Levitt, Tom

  Ross, Ernie

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Roy, Frank

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ruane, Chris

  Linton, Martin

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lucas, Ian

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Luke, Iain

  Ryan, Joan

  Lyons, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCabe, Stephen

  Sawford, Phil

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Shaw, Jonathan

  MacDonald, Calum

  Sheerman, Barry

  McDonnell, John

  Sheridan, Jim

  MacDougall, John

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Skinner, Dennis

  McKechin, Ann

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Soley, Clive

  McNulty, Tony

  Southworth, Helen

  MacShane, Denis

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Squire, Rachel

  McWilliam, John

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marris, Rob

  Stevenson, George

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Martlew, Eric

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Merron, Gillian

  Stringer, Graham

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Tami, Mark

  Miliband, David

  Taylor, David (NW Levis)

  Miller, Andrew

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mole, Chris

  Timms, Stephen

  Morgan, Julie

  Tipping, Paddy

  Morley, Elliot

  Todd, Mark

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Touhig, Don

  860

  Truswell, Paul

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Winnick, David

  Tynan, Bill

  Wood, Mike

  Vaz, Keith

  Woodward, Shaun

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Woolas, Phil

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Watson, Tom

  Watts, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  White, Brian

  Angela Smith and

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Mr. Nick Ainger.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Garnier, Edward

  Allan, Richard

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Amess, David

  Gibb, Nick

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Gidley, Sandra

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gray, James

  Bacon, Richard

  Grayling, Chris

  Baker, Norman

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Barker, Gregory

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Baron, John

  Greenway, John

  Barrett, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Beggs, Roy

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hammond, Philip

  Bercow, John

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hayes, John

  Boswell, Tim

  Heald, Oliver

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Heath, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Brady, Graham

  Hendry, Charles

  Brazier, Julian

  Hoban, Mark

  Breed, Colin

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Holmes, Paul

  Burns, Simon

  Horam, John

  Burstow, Paul

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Cameron, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Keetch, Paul

  Key, Robert

  Cash, William

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Chidgey, David

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Chope, Christopher

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Clappison, James

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Lamb, Norman

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lansley, Andrew

  Collins, Tim

  Laws, David

  Conway, Derek

  Leigh, Edward

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Letwin, Oliver

  Cotter, Brian

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Lidington, David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Loughton, Tim

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Luff, Peter

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fabricant, Michael

  Maples, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Flight, Howard

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Flook, Adrian

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Mercer, Patrick

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Moore, Michael

  Francois, Mark

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Norman, Archie

  861

  Oaten, Mark

  Stunell, Andrew

  Öpik, Lembit

  Swayne, Desmond

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Swire, Hugo

  Ottaway, Richard

  Syms, Robert

  Page, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Paterson, Owen

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Price, Adam

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Prisk, Mark

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Pugh, Dr John

  Thurso, John

  Randall, John

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  Rendel, David

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Tyler, Paul

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Viggers, Peter

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Webb, Steve

  Ruffley, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wiggin, Bill

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Selous, Andrew

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Willis, Phil

  Simmonds, Mark

  Wilshire, David

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

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wishart, Pete

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Yeo, Tim

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spink, Bob

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Spring, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

  Streeter, Gary

  Dr. Julian Lewis.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to investment and reform in the public services and notes the contrast with 18 years of Conservative government, typified by under-investment and botched privatisations; recognises the progress being made on raising school standards, improving safety on the railways, cutting waiting times for NHS treatment and reducing levels of crime; wishes to see the ethos of public service strengthened in the country and recognises the importance of high quality public services to the creation of a fairer society; acknowledges the important role of public servants in achieving a fairer society and the contribution made to staff morale of growing staff numbers and rising staff pay; welcomes sustained investment in health, education, police, transport and local government and other areas of public service; believes that the Prime Minister's Principles of Public Service Reform are important to maximise the benefit gained from higher levels of public service investment; further believes that where public services do well they should
  862
  benefit from greater decentralisation of power and resources, lighter inspection and greater local control; further believes that where public services fail to reach acceptable standards the Government has a responsibility to provide additional support and intervention whether that provider is in the public sector or, as with Railtrack, in the private sector; and contrasts this approach with that of the Opposition which tolerates failure in the railways, has no coherent plans to raise school standards, supports charging for NHS patients and wishes to cap government spending at 35 per cent. of GDP resulting in cuts to public services of at least £50 billion.

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

  INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
  That the draft Financial Assistance for Industry (Increase of Limit) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 8th January, be approved.—[Mr. Woolas.]
  Question agreed to
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  POLICE
  That the draft Police Emblems and Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002, which were laid before this House on 9th January, be approved.—[Mr. Woolas.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Raymonds Hill
  10.32 pm
  Mr. Hugo Swire: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Raymonds Hill, Axminster, Devon and others, who declare that
  the junction of the A35 trunk road and the B3165 at Hunters Lodge, Raymonds Hill is especially dangerous for motorists, other road users and pedestrians; that there is a history of accidents at the junction and that there has been a spate of recent collisions; that unless urgent action is taken, further accidents will occur, resulting in injury or even death; that 2,225 residents have signed a petition calling for a roundabout to be constructed at the junction; and that safety measures to improve the junction, including the construction of a roundabout, should be put in place as a matter of urgency.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to take such action as is within his power to ensure that a roundabout is constructed at the junction.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Haskins Report
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Woolas.]
  10.33 pm
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I am pleased to have secured this debate, although I do not think that the ballot has been particularly kind to me. I first applied in November, and my speech has therefore had to be changed somewhat.
  I want to examine the context of the Haskins report, and why it was necessary. I shall concentrate on Cumbria, because I know the area well, and especially on the outbreak of foot and mouth.
  In February 2001, the world as we know it in Cumbria was turned upside down. Services were totally disrupted, there was despair in many parts of the county, and our economy was in a serious state. By July this year the foot and mouth epidemic had started to slow down—we were getting on top of it—but well over 40 per cent. of foot and mouth cases in the United Kingdom were in Cumbria. We had to work out how we were to survive the next 12 months, and how the county's economy could be rebuilt.
  A meeting was held in July near Bassenthwaite lake, which I attended, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham), at which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was pressed by local members of the National Farmers Union to appoint what they called a chief executive to oversee the recovery of the economy in Cumbria. I was pleased when my right hon. Friend suggested Lord Haskins for the job, as I had previously proposed him to my right hon. Friend. More importantly, I was pleased because Lord Haskins had experience as the owner of a large farm in east Yorkshire, and of leading a large, national food company. He was known for his no-nonsense approach and straight talking.
  Lord Haskins was appointed and he got on with the job. I want to place on record my thanks to him, and those of the people of Cumbria for taking on a job that was not easy. He was not paid and, at the beginning, the job interfered with his holidays. It gave him many sleepless nights, but not only did he visit Cumbria many times; he also went to the west country and to Northumbria.
  Lord Haskins produced the report in record time. He was appointed at the end of July, and the report came out in October. It identified Cumbria's short-term problems, and offered a forecast of the situation in the county over the next five years. Haskins made 12 recommendations for the short term, and the Government responded in December—again in record time, given that the report had only been published in October. The Government accepted most of Haskins recommendations, and they are now being implemented. However, I want to bring two issues to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister.
  The first has to do with footpaths. The Haskins report stated that all footpaths in Cumbria should be declared open by Christmas, as they are so important for the tourist industry. The good news that Cumbria is free of foot and mouth is contradicted by the bad news that nearly 10 per cent. of our footpaths remain closed. People do not understand that, and think that all the footpaths are open.
  864
  However. I believe that it will be May before the final few footpaths are opened. I ask that my right hon. Friend looks at that, with a view to speeding up the reopening.
  On Saturday, I addressed the annual meeting of the Ramblers Association at a venue in the lake district. The association's members are very worried about the matter. They are also well aware that, until the foot and mouth epidemic closed all the footpaths, walkers in Cumbria and throughout the land were looked on as a bit of a nuisance. The economic effect of footpath closures has been felt in all rural areas, and especially in those sparsely populated areas where the economy depends on people who go walking. One positive thing that came out of the meeting was that the association was going to develop a closer relationship with the tourist industry, with a view to developing more rights of way.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he join me in condemning P & O, which sought to exploit the foot and mouth epidemic? The right of way through Larne harbour was closed as a result of the foot and mouth restrictions. They have been lifted, but the company refuses to open the gate and restore access.
  Mr. Martlew: I condemn anyone who keeps a right of way closed. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will reply to that point.
  Lord Haskins said that in the short term, £40 million was required. In her statement last October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to £24 million but hoped that more would become available. Of the original £40 million, £20 million was supposed to go to Cumbria. I checked with Cumbria business link today and understand that it has received £17 million. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will find the other £3 million. Many people who applied for grants will have received them but others could lose out.
  The Government have put about £1 billion into Cumbria. If the cost of the outbreak was £2.7 billion and more than 40 per cent. of it occurred in the county, £1 billion has gone into the local economy. Much of that will be lost when farmers buy stock outside Cumbria but that £1 billion has done a great deal. From February to September, unemployment in Cumbria dropped by 1,500. I have checked with the Library and jobless figures have dropped in every area in which there was foot and mouth, including Northumbria. Money going into the local economy has stopped the county's so-called economic meltdown.
  Opposition Members said that there would be a major recession, and there was one estimate that 15,000 jobs were at risk. Fortunately, both predictions proved wrong. However, it is no consolation to people who have lost their jobs that others have not—and businesses have gone bankrupt. Some people, through no fault of their own, have not received compensation and their businesses will not survive—but the money put in by the Government will ensure a better economy next year.
  Foot and mouth had not only an economic but an emotional impact—especially on farmers. Lord Haskins said that farmers generally were fairly compensated and that some were generously compensated. However, for farming families that had bred livestock for generations and saw it destroyed in not the best of circumstances,

  865
  there was an emotional price to pay. Farmers whose animals did not get the disease but whose stock could not be moved and who found themselves isolated suffered the worst economically.
  The NFU report was critical of the Government, as I can be because I refuse to defend the way in which they dealt with the disease in the first instance. The problem is that according to the NFU report, not one farmer in any part of the country was to blame for anything—not even the farmer at Heddon-on-the-Wall, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). The report says that everything was the fault of the Government, the vets or the agencies—which is wrong. The NFU vacillated as much with regard to vaccination as the Government did, and the report shows that it is still doing so. I hope that the NFU will hold a small-scale inquiry into lessons to be learned by its own organisation.
  Before I discuss the mid-term proposals of Lord Haskins' report, I should like to draw attention to two issues. The first is a very local issue that concerns the villagers of Great Orton, a village that became famous for all the wrong reasons. It has on its doorstep the mass animal burial ground, where 500,000 animals are buried. Those people have probably suffered more than the villagers of any village in the country. They saw the slaughter taking place. Heavy vehicles went by 24 hours a day, passing the school. The villagers saw their village on television.
  The villagers attended a meeting with an official from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and asked for some money for a play area for the children, as partial compensation for the fact that they had had to suffer so much. Obviously, DEFRA does not have money for play areas, as I am sure my right hon. Friend will acknowledge, but will he join me today in asking that some of the money that DEFRA paid in the landfill tax for the Hespin Wood site, which has gone into the community landfill tax trust, be spent on a play area? I understand that DEFRA may have paid £20 million to dispose of beasts on that site. The county council, which owns the company, will probably make twice as much profit as it cost it to fight foot and mouth. I ask the Minister to support me in asking that the landfill tax trust in my area pay for that playground. It would be only just.
  I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) in his place. The second subject that I wish to draw attention to is the problem of moving sheep around the country and identifying where they are. There has to be an identification system, whether electronic tagging of individual sheep or identification by flock. We need an office to run that system. We have a record in Cumbria of being able to carry out such tasks. In Workington we have the cattle movement centre, so if a site is to be selected to administer the movement of sheep it should be in north Cumbria.
  I shall now discuss the medium-term recommendations. There was a belief in Cumbria that, because we now had all these empty fields, this was an opportunity, although a sad one, to transform farming there. In reality, that was never going to be the case. Cumbrian farming is back in business. Farmers are starting to re-stock. Some farmers will not return to farming. We shall have bigger dairy farms and perhaps fewer sheep. As I believe Lord Haskins said, if we can change the common agricultural policy we
  866
  can perhaps look at Cumbria as a test bed, but until then we shall have to go back to our bad old ways. We should have spotted that at the start.
  The Minister has agreed to the recommendation for a rural action zone in Cumbria, and the regional development agency is providing £75 million. I should have been happier if it had been a Cumbria action zone, because I am worried that some of the priorities in the county may be skewed. There is some deprivation in my constituency, in the urban area, and on the west coast. In the past year on the Furness peninsula there has been heavy industrial decline and job losses. I hope that priorities will not be skewed.
  A recent example that has nothing to do with the rural action zone concerns subsidy. The Government have given more money for rural buses; I agree with that policy totally. However, in Carlisle, Stagecoach has decided to cut the frequency of the urban service and transfer the buses to the rural area to chase the subsidy, creating a worse situation in the urban area. Of course, the reality is that the company should have put extra buses on and run the service, but they have not done so.
  The Government did not handle the foot and mouth crisis very well, and I hope that the Minister will not try to defend that today. However, the county's economy has benefited from the £1 billion that has been provided, and the predicted meltdown has not happened. We will have a problem this winter, but if businesses, especially tourism businesses, can be helped to get through the winter, many of them will survive. Again, Lord Haskins looked at what was happening and reached a realistic view. His report is excellent, and I am pleased that the Government have accepted the majority of its findings.
  10.50 pm
  The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on initiating the debate. He may have had to wait some time to speak on this topic in the House, but I congratulate him on his timing—he has introduced the debate on the day on which we have received the news of foot and mouth disease-free status, which is a big boost for everyone in this country. Indeed, this is a day on which we can really concentrate on looking forwards rather than backwards. That is not only good for farming, for tourism and for all of us who want the countryside to get back to normal and make a contribution to the national economy: it is good in so far as it helps to restore a sense of confidence in the communities that have been devastated during the past year. My hon. Friend's timing is brilliant, and he has initiated a useful debate in a positive way and raised some important issues that challenge the Government and all those who wish to see the economy recover.
  I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham), to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle referred. Both my hon. Friends have been assiduous in ensuring that the Government have not overlooked the needs not only of their constituencies but of the whole area in recent months.
  I join my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle in paying tribute to Lord Haskins, and I have the same view of the contribution that he has made. Lord Haskins has a capacity to challenge, to entertain and to apply common

  867
  sense and experience in a practical way. It is fair to say that, on occasions, he challenged in a way that sparked vigorous debate, but it shows the character of the man that he did so without giving offence. He woke people up and made them respond to challenges, but, as my hon. Friend has said, it was clear from talking to people in Cumbria—I did so myself—after Lord Haskins had reported, that they had taken to heart the things that he said and did not feel hurt by or take offence at opinions that perhaps they did not share locally. That is a practical approach.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle said, the report applied primarily to those in Cumbria to whose request for someone to have such a role Lord Haskins's appointment was a response. However, Lord Haskins also looked for parallels with Devon, the north-east and the other parts of the country that had been affected.
  The report was published on the same day in October as the report of the rural taskforce, which I have chaired since the election. That, too, made a significant contribution because there were so many stakeholders right across the piece—people involved in farming, local government and the tourism industry and people directly involved in Cumbria and Devon made a significant contribution to its work.
  As my hon. Friend said, we made a formal response in December and at the same time considered the way in which the rural White Paper had been implemented in England in the previous 12 months. The document "England's Rural Future" demonstrates that an awful lot of work had been done even when everyone was focused on the job of eradicating foot and mouth disease. In many ways, the agenda of bringing the issue of the response to foot and mouth disease together with that of the implementation of the rural White Paper received support from a whole range of organisations. The document also demonstrates that the Government have sought to bring people together and unify them behind a sense of purpose in dealing with the countryside, which had been neglected for many years.
  The response given in December built on the immediate response that was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in announcing an additional £24 million for the business recovery fund. That figure has gone up a bit in the meantime as we have announced a further £2 million in match funding for the voluntary sector scheme that has assisted with the stress and media problems that many people have experienced.
  My hon. Friend made a specific suggestion about the landfill tax. He is right to suggest that we consider how the streams of funding that are available can contribute to the restoration of the local economy. I am not able to comment on his specific suggestion, but I will consider it and write to him. Specific requirements are involved in using such streams of funding, but the question is whether the funding available for a variety of purposes can be targeted at the place where it is most needed. None the less, my hon. Friend is right given our priorities at present.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the importance of reform of the common agricultural policy. People increasingly recognise that that is necessary, and it would be good for everyone if reform happened sooner rather than later.
  868
  I pay tribute to the way in which people in Cumbria have united to look to the future. The members of the taskforce whom I met last week were joined by representatives of the regional development agency. That is an important partnership because we channelled resources to help the recovery of the economy through the RDAs. The members of the taskforce also brought with them representatives of the taskforces led by Cheshire and Lancashire county councils, and that demonstrates that people in Cumbria are looking out from their concerns to the wider needs of the region. It is easier to be sympathetic to people's arguments when one sees them working together with other organisations in that way.
  My hon. Friend rightly said that I have expressed our support for the rural action zone. I can respond positively to his point on that, because it would be wrong to skew finances away from the social needs of the deprived areas and more needy urban areas to which he referred. It is more a question of using the resources that are available and directing them to where they are needed. We can also help to build strength by uniting different strands of finance and by local authorities, RDAs and central Government working together.
  Often, money is available for a whole range of purposes—such as through the England rural development programme and the RDAs—but it is not used to best effect unless people have access to those funds. Very often the people who most need help—both farmers and non-farmers—are in the weakest position when it comes to identifying the right strand of finance to help their business.
  On access, the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) asked a question about P & 0. I am not familiar with the circumstances, and I do not wish to take time from addressing the problems of Cumbria. However, if he wishes to draw the facts to my attention, I will be pleased to consider the matter and respond as appropriate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle rightly said that 10 per cent. of footpaths are closed. Like any quantification, the figure can be looked at either as 10 per cent. closed or as 90 per cent. open. Progress is being made on that. Although 10 per cent.—some 755 footpaths—of the network remains closed, arrangements are in place to open 438 of those over the next two weeks. By 1 February, only 317 footpaths should be still closed, which is 4 per cent. of the total network. So 96 per cent. of the network should be open by then.
  There is a difficult issue to address. Remaining footpaths will be reopened as restrictions are lifted, but if farmers choose not to use sentinel animals prior to restocking at the end of January, the last footpaths should be reopened after the requisite fallow period of four months, which is towards the end of May. In the meantime, if it is possible to identify that a farm is significantly blocking the network—obviously, some footpaths are more important than others—we need to consider ways of diverting footpaths, on a voluntary basis, in the short term.
  Although that has to be achieved by agreement, the problem was raised when I met the taskforce last week. I suggested that Cumbria should consider the details on that with officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, concentrating in particular on footpaths that have a significance for wider access or if they block access to a specific part of the network.

  869
  Although that is detailed, there was a positive response in the discussion and my Department will try to help if it can.
  In conjunction with all those who are concerned about access to the countryside—this is not a top-down approach by the Government—we are also developing a campaign with the message, "It's your countryside; you're welcome in it," to reconnect in particular with urban dwellers. We want people to have opportunities to enjoy the benefits of the countryside by staying in it. That also contributes to the economy, which is significant not just for the lake district but for the towns around it, because there is an interdependence of town and country. We need to emphasise that and relearn it.
  I am pleased at the positive response from those people who have agreed to be partners in that campaign. We have worked closely with my hon. Friend the Minister
  870
  for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting. The Countryside Agency has joined DEFRA in providing resources and has seconded a senior member of staff who is involved in helping to co-ordinate and press that campaign forward. In the course of the next week or so, we will promote that campaign. The Government are not acting on their own; we are supporting and working with those who want to make our tourism industry a success by making the most of access to the countryside. That gives confidence back to rural communities and businesses, whether they be farmers, involved in tourism or, in some case, both—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at three minutes past Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Auld Report
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Wills.]
9.30 am
Mr. David Kidney: It is my pleasure to lead a debate about the Auld report, "Review of the criminal courts of England and Wales", published in October 2001. The report is now the subject of consultation that will continue until the end of January. The report is substantial in every sense of the word, and it should be given serious consideration by all who are interested in the criminal justice system.
Sir Robin Auld is an experienced and senior Appeal Court judge. He benefited from the assistance of 12 consultants, and he found many commendable ways to consult during his investigation. He made the usual written requests for evidence and received more than 1,000 submissions from individuals and organisations; he consulted online, with a website that attracted yet more submissions; he held review seminars throughout the country, as well as a conference in Cambridge; and he visited Scotland, Northern Ireland, the United States of America and Canada. He fully reviewed previous inquiries and reviews, he consulted on the Government and Law Commission proposals that were being evolved at the time, and he commissioned as much research as was necessary to inform his final conclusions.
Lord Justice Auld's report is a significant piece of work. Its significance is heightened by the failure of two Government Bills on mode of trial, in debates on which opponents argued forcefully that the Government should await the outcome of the report before pressing on with their proposals. Ironically, although it was opponents who endowed the report with greater significance, it was the Government, not they, who would have benefited from waiting.
Sir Robin was asked to report within a year of December 1999. His report was published ten months later than that, so he was certainly able to give a considered view. Today's debate is timely because it comes just before the end of the consultation period, and it is right that we have the opportunity to respond to his recommendations and conclusions during that time. I had not anticipated that our debate would take place the day after the appearance of newspaper reports that the Government had changed their mind on one of the report's most important recommendations—on trial by jury in what are called either way cases—but the debate on those recommendations is better held in public.
I hope that the news reports are accurate. Although I have in the past argued and voted against both of the Government's previous proposals, I did not enjoy being a rebel. A journalist told me yesterday that I am "not one of the usual suspects" among Labour Back
180WH
Benchers, and I would be delighted if I could return to the mainstream. I assure the Minister that I do not bear a grudge.
Mr. John Burnett: Does the hon. Gentleman, like me, hope that in the debate the Government will give us an accurate idea of their policies?
Mr. Kidney: Answering that delivery with a straight bat, as the consultation period has not ended, I would be disappointed if the Government leapt in and announced that they had made up their mind before people had the opportunity to have their say. I expect them to wait until after 31 January to give their final opinion—although I welcome the news reports and hope they are accurate.
Today's debate will probably focus on the controversial issues of jury trial and the proposed third tier of criminal courts. None the less, much of the report is welcome and we should not lose sight of its many excellent recommendations which I hope the Government will accept and implement as soon as time permits.
In answer to his own criticism that the present system is complex and lacks overall direction and management, Lord Justice Auld proposes a single line of national management through a new national criminal justice board, which would implement decisions at local level through a series of local boards. He also recommends a criminal justice council to ensure that the system lives, breathes, consults, gives advice and provides accountability. Finally, he recommends that our criminal law should eventually be codified—a long-term project to which all political parties probably subscribe.
I agree with Lord Justice Auld's view that there are four essentials to the efficient and effective disposal of criminal cases: a strong and independent prosecution; efficient and properly paid defence lawyers; ready access on the part of defence lawyers to their clients in custody; and a communications system. I applaud that analysis, which I hope will form the basis of the Government's plans.
I am interested in Lord Justice Auld's proposals for graduated sentencing discounts, under which people will receive greater discounts on their sentences the earlier they admit their guilt. I also note with interest the proposal for judges to give advance notification of the likely sentence in the case of an early guilty plea. Both proposals would provide a great incentive for defendants and their teams to deal expeditiously with the case. Another welcome aspect of the report is its helpful review of the rules of evidence, trial procedures, improvements to court services and jury service. That part of the report includes perhaps the most controversial proposal: that we ensure ethnic minority representation on juries in cases in which the parties identify that a race issue may be involved. Finally, the report contains a welcome set of proposals on bail decisions, not the least of which is the recommendation that we use plain English to explain them.
I turn now to my opposition to changing the provisions for trial by jury in either way cases. Lord Justice Auld presents a full analysis of the arguments for and against making such changes and the reasons why people take one position or the other. By way of

181WH
shorthand, I shall say that I am in the camp that has a constitutional objection to making any changes. I am with Blackstone in regarding jury trial as a bulwark of our liberties, and I fear that allowing an over-mighty Government to dismantle one of those liberties will harm to our democratic society. I shall take a few minutes to explain why I disagree with Lord Justice Auld, who recommends a change.
Sir Robin Auld says that it is a matter of principle that the court, not the defendant, should decide the venue and manner of the trial. That sits strangely with his suggestion that the defendant could have the power to opt for trial by judge alone in the Crown court. Indeed, Auld goes further, recommending that defendants should be able to opt for trial by a district judge and two lay justices if the Government disagree with his other recommendations for changing trial by jury. His views on those matters are therefore inconsistent: he says that it would be a principle of the system he recommends that the defendant should have a choice, but adds that the court should make the decisions.
I have two further objections, which are not my own in the sense that Lord Justice Auld identified them. The first is that he cannot say where the public view lies on whether jury trial should be retained or changed. On page 187, he says:
"I have been unable to gauge from my Review what the public at large think about the issue."
The second of the two shortcomings that he identifies is a lack of current and comprehensive data bearing on the issue. He states on page 192 that much more research is required. Some of the practical difficulties recognised by Auld himself tend to undermine his conclusion.
My final objection arises from the recommendations on appeals. Lord Justice Auld recommends—on page 622—that there should be one system of appeal based on the current system applied to Court of Appeal hearings. What is serious about that is that having lost the right to elect a trial by jury, a defendant who is tried against his wishes in a magistrates court would also lose the right to appeal to the Crown court for his case to be reheard in front of a judge alone. That raises the stakes even higher in deciding whether to allow a defendant to retain the present right to elect a trial by jury in either way cases.
One recommendation with which I strongly agree is that the ability of a magistrates court to try a defendant against his or her wishes and then to commit to the Crown court for sentence should be abolished. When we last considered a mode of trial Bill, I moved an amendment to that effect on Report; I called it the Scottish amendment, because that is a rule of the Scottish system. The Government were not willing to accept it, but now that it has the backing of Lord Justice Auld, I hope that they will do so.
That reform could be implemented without changing the right to elect jury trial and would improve a position that the Government find intolerable. They allege that some defendants use the system to cause delay and extra expense. The requirement would oblige magistrates, if they accept responsibility for trying a case, also to accept responsibility for imposing the sentence. That, combined with Lord Justice Auld's proposed reforms for the efficient allocation of cases and ending committal hearings, would end the Government's objection.
182WH
The other issue that has become controversial is Lord Justice Auld's recommendation that there be a unified criminal court system, which everybody agrees with. However, he proposes inserting a third tier between the magistrates court, with which we are familiar, and the Crown court, called the district division. There, a district judge of the criminal court would sit with two lay justices and deal with certain cases of intermediate seriousness, however defined. That is an interesting suggestion.
When Lord Justice Auld consulted on that proposal via his website, many found it interesting and the response was benign. However, I understand that adverse opinion is beginning to form and opposition is growing. Magistrates in the Stafford area dislike the suggestion, giving two reasons for doing so: first, they could not spare the time for the longer cases that would go before the district judge; secondly, losing those cases to the district judge would mean that they were required to deal with less challenging and interesting cases, and so would no longer derive the satisfaction from their work—which most do voluntarily—that they now do.
Mr. Edward Garner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I apologise for having been a few minutes late for the start of the debate. In his discussions with lay magistrates in Stafford about the hybrid court—professional judge or district judge with two lay justices—has the hon. Gentleman heard a concern that I have often heard expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), that the district judge will deal with matters of law in the absence of the two magistrates, so that the tribunal is split in terms of knowledge? The district judge might be aware of previous convictions and of evidence that he has ruled inadmissible, of which the two lay magistrates are unaware because they do not take part in that decision.
Mr. Kidney: I confess that magistrates have drawn to my attention neither that problem, nor the other oft-quoted objection, that they would be overborne by the extra professionalism of the district judge and that they would not be able to have their say. As neither has featured in my discussions with magistrates, I cannot confirm the hon. and learned Gentleman's comment.
However, drawing on my 20 years' experience as a solicitor in the criminal courts, I have considerable sympathy with the idea of district judges having a more proactive role in relation to the magistracy. It would be a healthy experience if many more lay magistrates were exposed to the practices of the district judge in dealing with cases expeditiously but with no loss of quality in decision making. A good outcome of any reform would be a higher profile for district judges in the magistracy sector of the criminal court system.
I see that the Chamber has filled up quite well with hon. Members who, I hope, have strong points of view that they want to express. I am happy to conclude by commending the report, which is a fine one. I agree with it on many points.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: My hon. Friend is a great expert at playing devil's advocate with respect to the Auld report, and he has set out many of Auld's arguments. However, given that since 1996 any

183WH
abuse—or so-called abuse—of the process has been eradicated by plea before venue, and given that setting up a third tier would be immensely expensive and result in a system far slower and less efficient than the current one, what is the point of it? Can he summarise that?
Mr. Kidney: I accept the thrust of my hon. and learned Friend's intervention. I would be happy with a unified criminal court system that retained two tiers, in which the magistrates courts and Crown courts retained all their existing powers and defendants still had the right to elect trial by jury in either way cases. I accept my hon. and learned Friend's point that plea before venue has mostly eradicated the problem that the Government say they have identified. I accept, too, that complete eradication would be achieved by accepting the remainder of Lord Justice Auld's recommendations on discounts for early sentence, early allocation of cases and abolishing the committal procedure.
On jury trial and the district division, Lord Justice Auld identifies plenty of improvements that I support, short of the two changes I mentioned. In that, too, my views accord with those of my hon. and learned Friend. What I propose, short of making those two changes, can fulfil the Government's aim of a Modern, efficient and fair system of criminal justice, which would command even greater public confidence than at present. I look forward to hearing other hon. Members' views.
9.47 am
Mr. Colin Challen: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on securing this debate, to which I shall make a brief contribution.
I am one of those who rushed to get my copy of the Auld report as soon as it was published. I searched for a crumb of comfort to support my efforts to reverse the decline in the local magistracy, which in my constituency has almost completed its course. Anyone visiting Morley five years ago could, with local people, representatives of the local weekly newspaper and others, have popped into the magistrates court in the town hall and seen local justice in action—but then it was decided that the courtroom had to close. On 1 January this year, the bench was moved to a new building in the centre of Leeds. The Morley bench was subsumed into the Leeds petty sessional area and, like other things that have been deemed too anachronistic to be efficient, was consigned to history.
I do not argue that by accountants' standards local magistrates courts are a cost-effective way of listing proceedings and arranging court timetables. I note with some satisfaction that the Auld report mentions the fact that Lord Beeching did not get the chance in the 1960s to take an axe to that part of our justice system, so—at least until recently—we have had something left to try to preserve. I am not one to preserve a thing for the sake of it, and I acknowledge that the Auld report raises issues that need to be considered by the Government in relation to the sensible and necessary reform of the administration of local justice.
In our local process, magistrates court closure was seen as a foregone conclusion, with the arguments stacked up in favour of a single course of action. The court system was an important aspect of local life for
184WH
our community—presumably, it still is in other parts of the country—and the consultation process should have been more genuine and open. The only people who seemed to be important in the process were those who were professionally engaged in it; users and the general public were not sufficiently consulted. There should be greater public involvement in such situations. If the process is perceived to be obscure and remote, fewer people will be encouraged to join the magistracy.
I am concerned about the dispersal of magistrates into a wider stream in which issues of community or locality cease to be important. Some 66 per cent. of the membership of the Leeds bench, which has 309 magistrates, live in the petty sessional area, whereas 90 per cent. of the membership of the now defunct Morley bench lived in that area. It should be borne in mind that magistrates can live up to 15 miles outside their commission area, never mind the petty sessional area. Although some people would not draw any conclusions from those figures, I would argue that locality was a major factor in recruitment. It is a question of finding people willing to serve their community.
The Lord Chancellor has said that he wants each bench broadly to reflect the community that it serves, and I agree. However, Leeds has a population of 750,000 and can be described as a community only in the broadest sense of the word. Cumbria, as detailed on page 83 of the Auld report, has a population of 500,000 and six magistrates courts, while North Yorkshire has a population of 742,000 and nine magistrates courts. Imagine the hue and cry if someone proposed the amalgamation of all those courts into just two centralised courts. People would say that the magistrates and those attending the courts would have too far to travel. That would also be my view.
Some might say that the Lord Chancellor's wish that benches should broadly reflect their communities cannot be fulfilled. I agree, but only because Leeds is treated as a single community for administrative purposes. That administrative consideration is of little or no importance. There are as many communities, not merely geographical ones, in Leeds as there are in any rural area. A one-size-fits-all approach for urban dwellers is not good enough.
I hope that a way ahead will emerge from this thoughtful review of the criminal courts. I want a Modern bench that reflects the need to administer justice fairly and efficiently and can meet Modern challenges. I do not deny the need for certain benches to develop specialties, and I strongly support the creation of drugs courts. However, there must be a solid link between benches, which deal with 90 per cent. of all cases going to court, and local communities. Local knowledge is important in drugs cases and antisocial behaviour orders: it is important not only for the families of victims, but for those of addicts, who, after sentences are meted out, are often called on to help in the process of rehabilitation.
There is, as I have said, a direct link between locality and the ability to recruit magistrates. I wonder to what extent making the administration of justice more remote will help recruitment. We seem to be making justice more professionalised and centralised, and I am not sure whether that is right. The basic principle of the lay magistracy—that we should be judged by our peers—is

185WH
at stake. In these changing circumstances, we need a clear understanding of precisely how to plan to enhance the recruitment of magistrates to ensure that no locality or community is under-represented.
9.54 am
Mr. Edward Garner: I am grateful to be called so early in the debate. Given the number of people in the Chamber this morning, I will be as brief as I possibly can.
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on securing the debate. I understand that the slot was originally reserved for a debate about relations with China. Many look forward to seeing the standards of justice that we in this country take for granted applied there. As a member of the Great Britain-China Centre, I will be able to talk with greater confidence about the system of justice in this country if some of the most controversial aspects of the Auld report are not implemented in law.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the most publicly controversial aspect—the middle tier of the proposed system. The report suggests a criminal court with a professional district judge sitting with two lay magistrates to deal with the intermediate level of criminal offence. As I said in an intervention, even on the face of the proposals, there are difficulties inherent in setting up that intermediate system. I do not want to take up too much time on the subject now that I have flagged it up.
I salute the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) for all that he has done to draw the Government's attention to the unsatisfactory nature of their proposals on the reform of the jury system. He did so in the last Parliament, in which there were two Bills that dealt with the jury system, and has done so on every other subsequent opportunity.
It is fair to point out that Lord Justice Auld's proposals go much further than the Government did in their two unsuccessful mode of trial Bills. As well as the deprivation of a right to jury trial, Sir Robin urges judges to consider factual questions for juries being answered publicly, and suggests that the judge be permitted to produce a final verdict based on the answers. It would therefore, he argues, be unnecessary to trouble the jury with the law. Such a procedure would allow the prosecution as well as the defence to appeal a verdict considered to be perverse.
I declare my interest as a practising member of the Bar, although I do not carry out any criminal work except as a Crown court recorder, when I take a rather more detached and neutral view of proceedings. Sir Robin's undeniably radical proposals might benefit some lawyers and produce unending litigation in the courts, but they are not good for justice or the appearance of justice. They would not permit or allow justice to be concluded speedily in any given case.
Many people want one thing from our criminal justice system, which is finality. Although at the moment, and I dare say in future, many defendants charged with criminal offences will be deeply annoyed that they have been convicted at the end of a trial, whether in front of a magistrate or a Crown court judge and jury, they none
186WH
the less enter into the court process with a degree of consent. If Sir Robin's proposals are taken up by the Government, many defendants, innocent or not, will not trust the system as they do now, and we will lose something important.
Any system invented by man is imperfect, and it would be foolish for any advocate to suggest that the existing criminal justice and jury system is beyond reform. I do not suggest that. Instead, I suggest that when the Government finally consider the consultation process and the content of the report, they think about the point of our system and what benefit will come to it and society as a whole if it is amended in the radical way proposed by Sir Robin Auld.
Opinions differ about the value of the report. Some people make fairly trenchant criticisms of it from start to finish. I do not belong to that camp: I think that Sir Robin and his fellow commission members have done a superb job. Whether they have in every respect come to the right conclusion—or, I should say, a conclusion with which I agree—is another matter, but I do not denigrate their work or the motives with which they approached a mammoth task.
However, I am sceptical about the Government. Since 1997, they have not demonstrated a hugely intelligent attitude towards the legal affairs side of public policy. The cruelly named Access to Justice Act 1999 showed the Government's cynical nature and their ability to misuse the English language in a way that would do credit to characters in Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-four". The 1999 Act did not give access to justice: a more proper title would be the Denial of Access to Justice Act. It showed that in matters of public policy on legal affairs, the Government are economically illiterate, politically inept and intellectually confused. That series of epithets can be translated to their approach to the jury system.
The two failed Bills on mode of trial debated in the last Parliament were a political disaster. Their only good point is that they enable me to praise Lord Williams of Mostyn, a man with whom I often worked at the defamation Bar. He showed that if a bad case needs to be argued, a good advocate is needed to do it. When Lord Williams was Attorney-General in the last Parliament, he showed how to do one's best with terrible material. His speech in the main debate in Committee in the House of Lords showed his skills as a performer. Fortunately, however, the jury—the membership of the House of Lords—was not persuaded that the case stood up.
The Government sustained two bruisings in the last Parliament. A combination of skill, luck and sheer guts on the part of Labour Members resulted in the lowest Government majority for a Second Reading since 1997. While still a huge number, the majority of 75 was a tremendous result for the Opposition given that the Labour majority at that time was 166 or 167.
If the rumours reported in The Times yesterday are to be believed, there are signs that the Government's ineptitude is decreasing. Comments on Government proposals or initiatives do not seem to get into the newspapers nowadays unless the Government put them there, and I have no doubt that Mr. Alastair Campbell or one of his lesser satraps was busy over the weekend briefing the press about what the Government intend to

187WH
do this week. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the rumours in The Times yesterday came from Government spin doctors and represent the nearest thing to the truth that the Government recognise.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves the interesting question of the relationship between Sir Robin Auld and the Government, he will recollect the main problem that the Government had with the mode of trial Bills 1 and 2. First, they introduced the all-important reputation clause into the first Bill, so that magistrates would be enjoined to take reputation into account in deciding whether someone had a jury trial. Subsequently, when for obvious reasons that measure was defeated, they shifted completely and decided that magistrates should not take reputation into account. That process receives a resounding raspberry from Sir Robin Auld in his report; he roundly criticises the Government's procedure. From his examination of the report, can the hon. and learned Gentleman say what Sir Robin Auld suggests is the best course between those two, or is the report completely silent?
Mr. Garner: The hon. and learned Gentleman demonstrates the third of my criticisms of the Government: that they are intellectually confused. No paragraph or page in the report answers his question. The Auld report is silent on that issue. That may be because Sir Robin was not hugely impressed with the Government's performance during the last two Bills. I do not want to ascribe to one of Her Majesty's Lord Justices of Appeal any political motivation or view and, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, I am confident that Sir Robin approached the matter wholly dispassionately.
However, I am concerned that it has taken many years, a great deal of parliamentary time, much anguish among those who care about our parliamentary system and—perhaps this is a small point—much public money to reach the conclusion that we suspect that the Government have reached on jury trial. I welcome any sinner that repenteth, and if the Minister tells us that the Government are rethinking the Auld report recommendations or their views about jury trial, I will be the first to congratulate them. However, they are in a mess of their own making.
I have dwelt, perhaps for too long, on the controversial element. Now, I shall draw out some practical issues that have worried me as a practising member of the Bar and a Crown court recorder. In view of time and the look of horror on your face, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will confine myself to the issue of pre-trial preparation in criminal cases.
The plea and directions hearing procedure—commonly called the PDH—is one in which the parties to the criminal action—the Crown Prosecution Service and its representatives, and the defendant or defendants and their representatives—appear before a Crown court judge to describe, orally and on paper, issues that are likely to come up in a forthcoming trial. An indication of the plea and the issues to be tackled at trial may be given and witnesses are required. It is a hugely valuable but much misused process.
188WH
It is misused predominantly because those who appear in PDHs are woefully underpaid for their work. Were PDHs properly and directly controlled by the judge, and were their importance heightened so that failure to comply with directions could give rise to adverse consequences for the CPS or the defendant, the pre-trial preparation of even the most simple cases, and certainly of the most difficult ones, would be greatly improved. It does not take long for a court to gain a reputation of making it clear that sloppy preparation will not do and might lead to adverse consequences for the defaulting party; nor does it take long for the Crown Prosecution Service office to realise that if it appears before his honour Judge Such-and-Such without having got its tackle in order four, five or six weeks before the trial window, it will not have a trial, and the Government will be down on the CPS for failing to meet whatever target the Government have invented for that particular week.
I urge the Government, instead of wasting their time and my money and that of my fellow citizens on building middle court—echoes of the middle kingdom—buildings, to concentrate on the nitty-gritty of the part of the administration of justice system that is susceptible to change and in which change will produce beneficial results, not only for the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but for the wider citizenry. That will improve the willingness of witnesses and defendants to come to court, to do what the court asks, and to play their part in the criminal justice system.
If they stick to the simple things, the Government might have greater success. If they get stuck in grandiose schemes, they will merely make fools of themselves—or even greater fools of themselves than they have in the past few years.
10.10 am
Mr. Peter Lilley: I welcome this debate, which gives us an opportunity to recognise the immense contribution made by Lord Justice Auld, even if we do not sympathise with the line that he has taken. He has produced a major report that is clearly and powerfully argued.
The timing of the debate is fortuitous. New Labour fought the 1997 election in defence of the right to elect for jury trial, which the then shadow Home Secretary strongly opposed any attempts to remove. Having been elected, the Government reversed their position and decided to put two Bills through Parliament—both of which, happily, were defeated—to abolish the right to trial by jury. Labour's manifesto for the last general election contained a commitment to abolish the right to trial by jury. We now learn through the columns of The Times that the Government propose to abandon that position too. That shows an appalling lack of consistency, other than to betray whatever pledges they were elected on. I hope that the Minister will not try to seek safety in silence. If the Government's spin doctors can inform the press about their position, Ministers can inform the House of Commons.
I approach the debate with some apprehension, because I suspect that I am the only Member here who is not a lawyer and has no legal qualifications. My first mention of lawyers in the House when I was a new and junior Member was to quote Falstaff, who said,
"let's kill all the lawyers".

189WH
I wondered why there was a chill throughout the Chamber, then realised that on that occasion, too, I was the only non-lawyer speaking on a legal matter.
Mr. Burnett: The Minister is too self-effacing to make this admission, but I shall do so on his behalf. He is not a lawyer.
Mr. Lilley: In that case, I look to him for a healthy dose of common sense.
Although I am not a lawyer, I participated actively in our discussions of these matters in the last Conservative Cabinet. Those discussions must remain confidential, but suffice it to say that the outcome was, to my satisfaction, that we did not commit ourselves to the abolition of jury trial, although we consulted on the Narey report.
Mr. Garnier: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, who has hardly started his remarks. We did not want to get rid of trial by jury, but neither, according to its manifesto, did the Labour party. Its manifesto said that it would
"remove the 'widely abused' right of defendants alone to dictate whether or not they should be tried in crown courts."
It made no mention of abolishing trial by jury. The problem that the Government face is that they have said one thing but want the world to believe another.
Mr. Lilley: I am afraid that Lord Justice Auld intensified that problem by equating the right to jury trial with the right of the defendant to elect for jury trial. He said that there was no right to jury trial until 1855, and that it was only when people had the opportunity to escape the panoply and problems of jury trial that that right could be said to exist. That is of course nonsense created by those who wish to pretend that it is a relatively new creation and has nothing to do with the traditional rights of the Englishman to be tried by jury for any serious felony.
I claim no great legal expertise, but I am conscious that, although the general public are unaware of most of our judicial principles, there are some that they value and in which they have great confidence. Above all, they would have confidence and trust in the system of jury trial in the event of their facing a serious charge. I was therefore very reluctant to contemplate any attempt by the previous Conservative Government to diminish the right of access to jury trial, and I was even more hostile to this Government's including such proposals in a Bill. I was also suspicious of the provenance of the arguments in favour of such proposals, which are redolent of bureaucratic and professional disdain for lay involvement in the judicial process.
It is natural for members of a profession to feel that their own expertise outweighs the contributions of lay people, but I fear that such feelings are in part responsible for proposals that the judicial establishment has outlined time and again in various reports, culminating in that by Lord Justice Auld. His report is underpinned not just by hostility to the right of defendants to elect for jury trial but by a deep mistrust of jury trial as such. My suspicion is that this marks not
190WH
the concluding stages of an argument that will be resolved, one way or another, by deciding whether defendants should have the right to choose jury trial, but the beginning of a process that will erode the use of juries altogether.
I am afraid that close reading of Lord Justice Auld's report has enhanced my suspicions. It is true that it contains valuable proposals on improving the way in which juries work and on increasing public participation in juries. Those of us who believe in juries should not pretend that they are perfect and incapable of improvement. Instead, we should endorse, support and adopt proposals to improve the working of jury trials, and advance our own. However, the report also contains proposals that would further erode the use of juries. Under them, many issues would be deemed too trivial for juries to consider, and would be considered instead by the new tier of district courts. Others, however, including fraud, are deemed too complex for juries. Lord Justice Auld proposes not only that fraud be removed from the purview of juries but that all cases of similar complexity be so removed in the long run. As my hon. and learned Friend said, juries would no longer have the last word on the question of guilt or innocence; instead, their conclusions would be subject to review by judges. Young people, too, would be removed from the purview of juries. Lord Justice Auld is eroding the involvement of juries in our judicial system in a number of ways, and undermining the very principle of such involvement. If, according to his logic, most cases are either too trivial or too complex for juries, what role is left for them?
The Government's case for abolishing the right to choose jury trial, which Lord Justice Auld endorses eloquently and emphatically, rests on a number of presumptions, including that the right of election is a powerful tool that is widely manipulated and abused by experienced criminals to escape their just deserts, and at great cost to the taxpayer in the form of expensive trials. Lord Justice Auld endorses the argument of Ministers that by removing that right they can simultaneously prevent such abuse, ensure that criminals get their just deserts and save large sums of taxpayers' money. Moreover, they assert, as has Lord Justice Auld, that it is wrong in principle for the defendant to choose the venue and that that decision should be made by the system.
Those points are blown apart by the evidence. Above all, it cannot simultaneously be true that experienced and hardened criminals are manipulating the system to get off lightly and that if we removed that right it would make great savings to the system, when it is revealed that those savings come largely from those people facing shorter prison sentences or none at all. The Government, Lord Justice Auld and those who defend the proposition cannot have it both ways. Nor can they have it both ways by saying that it is a matter of principle that decisions about venue and mode of trial be taken by the system on objective criteria, not by the defendant, and yet proposing, as Lord Justice Auld has done in a further effort to narrow the scope for juries, that the choice of mode of trial, in the case of the new trials for fraud and complex cases, be given to the defendant, to sweeten the pill. If it is wrong to allow defendants the right of choice in normal either way cases, why should they be given the right of choice where attempts are being made to prise jury trials further out of the system?

191WH
We must examine the report extremely cautiously and not allow it to weaken further the role of juries in our system. I asked a question about how many people had served on juries during the past 12 months, and the answer was 187,000. That is very considerable lay participation. Those people, by and large, take their role seriously and are, overwhelmingly, satisfied that, despite their loss of time and remuneration while serving, they have done something worth while and contributed to the justice and civic fabric of society. If we reduce such people's involvement in the judicial system, and the prospect of involving them, we lose a very valuable point of contact between the ordinary public and the judicial system.
I return to the positive aspects of the Auld report. Lord Justice Auld has proposed means of encouraging more people to participate in the jury system. Some three times as many as that 187,000 people had to be invited to serve on juries before a sufficient number who were willing to do so could be found. We must make serving on a jury easier and more of an obligation. Lord Justice Auld highlighted an inherent unfairness in the system, a comment endorsed by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), which would be made far worse were the right to elect for jury trial removed. That is where the lower court, having heard a comparatively minor case because it deemed, it within its competence, and having convicted the defendant, subsequently passes him to the Crown court for a more serious sentence because it decides that the case was more serious than it initially led people to believe.
We must remove that manifest unfairness, which made the Government's previous proposal intolerable. Far better to leave defendants the right to elect for trial by jury, with the knowledge that if they opt for the lower court, they will be sentenced within its sentencing powers with no subsequent right for the lower court to refer to the Crown court. That is a proposal in Lord Justice Auld's report that I hope that Parliament and the Government will endorse and implement in due course.
10.23 am
Mr. John Burnett: I declare an interest straight away. I am a lawyer, although not a criminal lawyer.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). He has a record of steadfast and principled opposition to the Government's previous attempts to abolish jury trial for either way cases. I pay tribute to him and to the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who is also here in the Chamber. It takes great courage, as I believe you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for a Government Back Bencher to oppose his Government's proposals.
Whichever way it goes, Sir Robin Auld recommends that a defendant should no longer have an elective right to trial by judge and jury in either way cases; that allocation should be the responsibility of the magistrates courts alone. There will be serious argument and, no doubt, lengthy appeals from magistrates' decisions in borderline cases, but it is important to state a few principles—principles to which the former Home Secretary and the former Attorney-General adhered before 1997.
192WH
In proposals to end the elective right to jury trial in either way cases, the public's confidence in our legal system is at stake. In this country, a person who is in serious difficulty with the law—an offence meriting up to two years' imprisonment is serious—knows that he automatically has the right to opt for trial by jury: his guilt or innocence will be determined by ordinary people. I stress that the public can and do identify with and relate to juries.
I know that time is tight, but I must emphasise that minorities, especially those from ethnic minorities, have little trust in our criminal law system, as the Lawrence inquiry report makes clear. Abolishing jury trial for either way cases will do nothing to build up the confidence of ethnic minorities in our system. It will further erode that confidence.
I shall deal as swiftly as possible with one or two points arising from the report. First, the Government must have some views on availability for jury service. Presumably there will be exclusions for lawyers and employees of lawyers, especially if there is a conflict of interests, and for the police and employees of the police, but do the Government expect there to be other exclusions? I suspect that there will be exclusions for members of the armed forces. Will there be exclusions for Members of Parliament? Perhaps it would be a good thing if we did jury service.
The Government must also have some ideas about their ambitions for the middle tier—the district judge, who used to be known as a stipendiary, sitting with two lay magistrates.
Mr. Kidney: I do not want to lose the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am interested in the Liberal Democrat view. All the classes that he mentioned, including politicians, are currently subject to disqualification. Sir Robin says that we should sweep all that away and decide each on a case-by-case basis, considerably widening the jury service base. What does the hon. Gentleman think about that?
Mr. Burnett: I would like as many people as possible to be eligible for jury service, but clearly, where there is a conflict of interest, it would not be practical for certain people to serve on juries.
To return to the point about the middle tier and the Government's ambitions in that respect, their view is presumably that the judge or district judge should decide questions of law on his or her own, with the lay magistrates and the district judge deciding questions of fact. Do the Government believe that it can be appropriate in any circumstances for a district judge to decide questions of guilt or to be a party in a triumvirate that decides questions of guilt or innocence if he is aware of, for example, the defendant's previous convictions? I am anxious to hear the Minister's response to that.
Lord Justice Auld proposes a system in which a district judge will sit with two lay magistrates. From which category of society will those lay magistrates in the middle tier come? I suggest to the Minister that they will be older, retired, eminently respectable individuals. They hardly comprise a representative group. The Government's programme of closures of rural magistrates courts has led to several retirements from the bench in my constituency: for example, a young

193WH
mother in a one-car family is unable to afford the daily four-hour travelling time from her house to Plymouth and back. Where will they find magistrates who are able to sit for three or four days at a time? That duty will fall on retired middle-class people—an admirable group of people, but not representative. An exclusive group will not encourage confidence in justice.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Are the hon. Gentleman's concerns addressed by the wording of Sir Robin Auld's report on that critical point? About magistrates, it states:
"There are many who, for one reason or another, are not restricted in their employment or other commitments who may well relish the opportunity to sit on longer and more substantial cases."
Does the hon. Gentleman have confidence in that assertion?
Mr. Burnett: As usual, the hon. and learned Gentleman hits the middle of the target. The quotation begs the question that I have raised. Drawing from a small pool of unrepresentative individuals is likely to do nothing to encourage confidence in the justice system.
Before the Government make their decisions on the Auld report, I hope that they will put certain information in the public domain. We want to see open and intelligible costings, especially in connection with the establishment of the middle tier. Will the Minister encourage his colleagues to avoid specious comparisons with the Scottish system? Will the Government provide detailed reasons why there would be time savings if a middle tier were established? May we also have an accurate record of the effect of the changes made in 1996 that allowed heavier sentences to be imposed when defendants plead guilty at a late stage?
I commend to the Government the study by Professor Vogeler on the matter of guilt decisions in Germany, where a system similar to the middle-tier system prevails. Interestingly, that report concludes that lay magistrates play little role in making guilt decisions, which are invariably made by the professional judge.
Finally, I ask hon. Members to consider the way in which they would elect for trial if they were charged with an either way offence. I know what I would do.
10.33 am
Mr. Humfrey Matins: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on securing today's debate and on the way in which he opened it. His speech was thoughtful and reflected the hard work that he has put into this subject over several years. We look forward to hearing further from him when these matters are debated in the House. I also pay tribute to the work done by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) in the last Parliament on a subject about which he feels passionately, as do many other hon. Members.
I declare an interest in these matters as a solicitor of many years standing, a recorder of the Crown court and a deputy district judge, formerly a stipendiary magistrate. I speak from experience. However, I am told
194WH
that I must be careful not to suggest any policies on behalf of my party, particularly any that might involve money. If I do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, take no notice.
The Auld report is a huge undertaking of more than 650 pages. I congratulate Lord Justice Auld on his tremendous work. His report is full of the most thoughtful and interesting ideas and proposals, and although many of us disagree with some of the proposals, it is right that we all pay tribute to his work and that of the others associated with the report, which gives us all the opportunity to delve into the minutiae. Like all Governments, the present Government legislate too much on criminal justice matters. I hope that when they legislate on the major issues contained in the report, the House will be given ample time to discuss them.
Speaking not for myself alone but for my party, we were delighted yesterday to read press reports that the Government are likely to backtrack on jury trials. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) said, the Conservative party is united in believing that jury trial is a shield against an over-mighty state. That is a matter of principle to us—and to me. We fought long and hard in the previous Parliament against the two Government Bills on mode of trial, both of which were poor. The best arguments came from those opposed to the Bills.
If the proposals suggested by Lord Justice Auld are introduced, we will have a problem because jury trial will be weakened and that will be a bad thing. If we have fewer jury trials and more professional judges, it will bring us more into line with the systems of our European partners, but it will result in the citizen gradually and subtly being removed from the judicial process. It is the place of the citizen in the judicial process for so many years that has created a sort of confidence in the system. Like the hon. and learned Member for Medway, I ask whether it is necessary to change the system. Why are the proposals likely to be taken up by the Government?
I do not think that the so-called tiers of courts and the removal of the right to jury trial are necessary. It is understood that jury trials are expensive. I heard a year or two ago that jury trials cost about £8,000 a day, but I do not measure fairness or justice by how much they cost. It is said that the right to jury trial is widely abused by defendants, but that is not my experience. Things have changed in the courts: the introduction of the plea before venue has altered things dramatically, and the Narey courts with early indicated pleas have helped. Early guilty pleas entered in magistrates courts work well.
Do I, when I sit in court, occasionally see what I regard as an abuse by a defendant? Yes, but not very often, and when I see it, I scratch my head and think, "Perhaps this is an abuse, but it is a small price to pay for the greater good, the jury system in which I believe our citizens have the greatest possible confidence." I do not believe in the theory that a trial before a jury is better, any more than I believe that a trial before lay magistrates or a district judge is better. That is not the question. The question is whether millions of our citizens instinctively feel that they would be happier with something that has been enshrined as a right for so many years—trial by their peers. If the answer is yes, as I believe it is, the arguments for change must be compelling before we interfere dramatically with a system that has worked so well.

195WH
The two Government Bills on mode of trial in the previous Parliament were deeply flawed. The question arose whether a person's reputation would be affected by a decision on whether they should have a jury trial. Another issue was whether the powers of punishment available to the magistrates court would be sufficient. The Government proposals were weak and were seen to be so by all those who helped to ensure that they did not reach the statute book.
The matters of the unified criminal court and the middle tier involving a district judge and two magistrates are difficult. I understand that Lord Justice Auld suggests that the district judge should be accompanied by two experienced magistrates. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and the hon. and learned Member for Medway made a most interesting point—who would those magistrates be? Trials before that jurisdiction will not last an hour or two, as they do before a district judge sitting alone; they will last a day or two, or three. We all know that people who are available for two or three days at a time come from a limited sector of society.
I am concerned about the observation that the judge would be solely responsible for law, but an equal finder of fact. One can envisage all sorts of difficulties. If during the case the advocate for the defendant said that a point of law had arisen, the lay magistrates would retire. The point of law—which would of course be about the ability of the defendant's advocate to lead the defendant as a man or woman of good character—would be put. The district judge would make a ruling having heard about the defendant's background, and that ruling would stand. Back would come the lay magistrates. At the conclusion of the case the district judge would go out with the lay magistrates jointly to consider the verdict. Is that not rather odd—very artificial? The district judge would know things that the lay magistrates would not.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: In those circumstances, what would happen if the lay magistrates said, "We think that there is a strong case, but we are not going to convict because this is a man of good character," when the chairman knew perfectly well that he was not? Would he say, "Well…up to a point?" [Laughter.]
Mr. Malins: The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. The district judge could not say, "Just between you and me, I heard something earlier that might make you take a different view." It is a difficult question.
I am worried to see that in cases before the district judge and two lay magistrates, the judge would be solely responsible for sentence. That would be unfortunate for the magistrates sitting with the district judge. The more I study the proposals, the more I think that, as well as damaging the jury system, they have the potential to damage the lay magistracy. I strongly support our lay magistrates: they do a wonderful job. I think that we have got the balance between lay magistrates, district judges and trial by jury about right. If, as I suspect they would, the report's proposals damaged the lay magistracy, that would be a sorry state of affairs. Lay magistrates have the huge advantages of being local and not being professional.
196WH
Having spoken about jury trial I shall conclude with a few observations about other contentious aspects of the Auld report. I do not wish to express any particular views about them today—I just want to draw attention to them, as they will be debated at some length later. I hope that the Minister will explain to us more about the position on juries. Also, I want him to take back to Government Departments the message that when the Auld report comes up for debate, many of the issues will on their own merit a day or two of debate.
The report refers to double jeopardy—an issue with which we are all familiar. The Select Committee on Home Affairs, whose report on double jeopardy and reform of the law I commend, spent weeks on it. Whether a further charge should be permitted for circumstances in which scientific evidence can clinch a case is a big question. The declaration of previous convictions is also worth a day and a half on its own. To what extent should we trail or permit to be trailed before different courts the previous convictions or behaviour of a defendant?
An aspect of the report that troubles many of us is the comment about perverse verdicts. Lord Justice Auld says that
"juries have no right to acquit defendants in defiance of the law or in disregard of the evidence".
That is an interesting proposition. In my view, the point of a jury is to produce a verdict that it believes to be right. It is well argued that if a jury comes back with a verdict that the judge does not like, that is the end of the matter and it is not open to the judge or the state to say, "I do not like this verdict. The evidence suggests that it should have been different." I take no position on the point, but I draw attention to it as a very contentious subject of future debate.
Finally, there is the question of ethnic minority representation on juries. The Government's proposals on jury trial might act against the interests of ethnic minorities in inner cities, especially those who for obvious reasons feel disadvantaged. We should examine with some care the proposition that when race is likely to be a relevant issue, a jury selection including up to three people from the ethnic minority group should be made. That is a matter of some difficulty.
To sum up, first, we must and will fight for the maintenance of trial by jury. Secondly, we must not make wholesale changes in our criminal justice system unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Finally, when the matters contained in the report come before the House, the Government must give time for them to be debated and argued properly.
10.48 am
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): I would like to start, Mr. Cook—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. Perhaps it would be to the benefit of all hon. and right hon. Members to recall that the House in its wisdom, or otherwise, decided last Wednesday to reinstate the position of Deputy Speaker in Westminster Hall. That position is held by Nicholas Winterton, John McWilliam, Edward O'Hara and me. The title will be displayed in front of the Chair for those who cannot

197WH
remember it. For other members of the Chairman's panel, the term Chairman or the Chairman's name would be adequate.
Mr. Wills: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That had slipped my attention. I will not fall into that error again.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on securing an important and timely debate. It is important to give a full airing to all the issues, and I welcome the opportunity to reply to the debate, to which I have listened with great interest. Reform of the criminal justice system is vitally important and inevitably provokes intense interest, and often controversy. We are listening carefully to all the responses to Lord Justice Auld's review, which was published in October. We have conducted consultations in Bradford, Cambridge, London, Exeter, Birmingham, Manchester and Cardiff, and we have heard some lively views—many of which have been repeated here.
Every speaker today has paid tribute Lord Justice Auld's work, which represents the most extensive review of the criminal court system for 30 years. It is some 700-plus pages long and contains more than 328 recommendations, many of which are radical and fundamental. It is an important contribution toward the Government's aim of establishing Modern, efficient criminal courts that suffer few delays, are in touch with the communities that they serve and respond to the needs of their users. I must put on record the Government's gratitude to Sir Robin for his extremely thorough and thoughtful work.
When the report was published, we made it clear that we would, before we made any decision, listen carefully to the views of public, the political parties and all those working in the criminal justice system, in order, as far as possible, to gain a consensus for enlightened and effective reform. As all hon. Members are aware, the consultation period ends on 31 January 2002. For that reason, if I may respond to the intervention from the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), it would be wrong of the Government to reach or announce any decision before that date.
Mr. Burnett: Will the Minister tell me the genesis of yesterday's article on the front page of The Times, headed "Ministers' revolt saves trial by jury"? Where has that come from?
Mr. Wills: I will deal with yesterday's papers in a moment. First, I shall finish my point about the fact that we shall not respond in substance until the consultation has concluded and we have had a proper chance to consider all the views.
That process is taking place not only in Westminster Hall. We are receiving representations from members of the public and from people who are involved in the system throughout the country. We want to give proper consideration to every view, and we are not yet in a position to form an opinion. We also wish to consider Sir Robin's recommendations in the light of other reports on the criminal justice system such as "The Way Ahead", which we published last year, and the Halliday report.
198WH
While I cannot make substantive comments on Lord Justice Auld's review, it would be helpful if I set out the Government's underlying approach to the criminal justice system.
Mr. Lilley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wills: Yes, but if I give way to many more interventions, I shall not be able to respond in great detail.
Mr. Lilley: The Minister said that he would respond to the question about The Times. As I understand it, the Government have always said that their commitment to abolish the right to choose jury trial would not depend on the Auld report—they had already reached a final decision on that. If they have now changed their mind, the Minister should be aware that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over 99 just men who need no repentance. Can we be sure, however, that the repentance is final—or will their reneging be further reneged?
Mr. Wills: I am always happy to give way, but the more Members intervene, the less time I shall have to respond to the concerns that have been raised. I shall come to that point, but it is worth first explaining our underlying approach.
We want a criminal justice system that is in touch with the communities that it serves, that is efficient, fast, fair and responsive to the needs of all who use it, that is co-operative in its relations with the criminal justice agencies and that uses Modern and effective management to reduce unnecessary delays and remove them from the system. Those aims will be paramount when we decide our response to the Auld report.
Several hon. Members mentioned the reports in yesterday's press, which still seem to be of intense concern. The Government cannot dictate what newspapers publish—[Laughter.] Astonishing though that may be, it is the case. Nor can we prevent papers from speculating about Government policy; that is how they sell themselves, and they will continue to speculate, no matter what the Government say or do. I must, therefore, disappoint the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier): he cannot take such reports as evidence that we are thinking again, because we are still thinking about the matter for the first time and shall not conclude that process until after 31 January.
Mr. Burnett: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Wills: Yes, but I have only five minutes to respond to a lot of points.
Mr. Burnett: Does the Minister refute the article by Frances Gibb and believe that she had no grounds whatever for writing it?
Mr. Wills: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have clearly set out the Government's view on such newspaper stories. Our position is still being formulated and will be made clear at some point after 31 January, when consultation concludes.

199WH
In the four minutes that remain, I shall briefly respond to some of the issues that have been raised. Inevitably, much attention was focused on the recommendations for juries, and I shall have to confine my remarks to that issue. The overwhelming bulk of the discussion focused on the proposed abolition of the defendant's right to elect for jury trial in either way cases.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) mentioned some other recommendations, which have excited little interest in popular debate. The recommendation on so-called perverse verdicts, for example, has not surfaced at all in any of our roadshows. We have real doubts about the proposals on perverse verdicts, but we are keen to find a way forward. Difficult issues have been raised, and we are listening carefully to all the views that are being expressed.
The hon. Gentleman raised another important issue that has not been widely mentioned: the ethnic composition of juries. Again, we have concerns in principle about that, and particularly about the effect on random selection, which is a cornerstone of the jury system.
I turn briefly to concerns about Lord Justice Auld's views on the abolition of the defendant's right to elect for jury trial in either way cases, which clearly excite a great deal of comment. We are still considering the matter carefully. It is clear from our manifesto that we share Sir Robin's concerns, and we agree with the principles behind his recommendation. We are, however, aware of the sensitivities that surround the issue, and we are deeply and acutely aware of its importance to the public. We must consider our decision on Sir Robin's recommendation with particular care, and the views that have been expressed with great force today will contribute to our consideration.
Several hon. Members mentioned the unified criminal court, but we have not reached a decision and are currently seeking views. We are encouraging wide debate on the matter and, indeed, on all the other recommendations. Sir Robin's proposal for an intermediate tier to form part of the unified criminal court is thought provoking. We are considering it carefully and intend to continue to listen carefully to views on how to proceed.
I shall refer briefly to the future role of magistrates. It is worth stating again that we share the view expressed by almost all hon. Members who spoke of the central importance of the lay magistracy to our criminal justice system. Sir Robin endorsed that view in the report. We remain fully committed to maintaining lay magistracy and community justice as a cornerstone of our criminal justice system.
The debate has been extremely useful and vigorous—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. Time is up.

Coastal Flood Defence
11 am
Mr. Tim Boswell: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the important issue of coastal flood defence in this Chamber. A casual onlooker might be entitled to wonder why I, with one of the most inland constituencies in England, am doing so. My defence could be that Parliament should consider all matters of public interest and that our island is small enough for a problem in one area to translate into another area and be of common concern. To borrow and slightly modify the concept of John Donne, no man is an island unto himself, and what goes on in Waveney—I see the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) arriving—or Boston is of as much concern to me as it is to the constituents of the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds).
In these days of hypersensitivity to matters of personal interest, I can say that I have no conceivable constituency interest to advance or declare on the subject and I must make time for those present with such interests to participate. However, there are three good reasons for my involvement with the topic. First, under the Conservative Administration, I was the Minister with responsibility for flood defence and coastal protection immediately prior to the current Minister. There are now not too many Tories in such a position. I am glad that the Minister is present and will respond to the debate. I have some reasonable idea of the general structure of the making and execution of policy on the subject. Although it is characteristic of neither the Minister nor, I hope, myself, we could trade insults about our comparative performances or the weaknesses of the planning structure. However, I want to secure for all hon. Members a constructive and forward-looking debate on an important topic.
My second reason is personal. Although I have lived in my constituency in Northamptonshire for 34 years, I was born and grew up in Essex. I never lived on the coastline, but I know it well and know some people who farm locally. My mother is now in her 90s and has a fund of ready stories. It may amuse hon. Members to know that she claims to be the undefeated ladies' golf champion of Mersea island. Today's subject affects that island very much. She won the championship in 1939 and the course was closed for the duration of hostilities. It has not reopened and has been largely subject to inundation, so she remains triumphant.
Be that as it may, I was in Essex as a boy for the disastrous floods of 1953, which caused great loss of life and may be said to have had an indelible effect on attitudes in the east of England. Even when the water subsided, the immediate tragedy began to heal and houses and lives were rebuilt, so far as they could be, there was a need for careful land restoration and the reconstruction of sea walls. In Essex alone, there are still 300 km of sea walls for coastal protection.
My third reason for bringing this matter to the attention of hon. Members is that, as farmers and constituency MPs in the midlands, our prime concern is inland flood defence. We were much exercised by the floods of Easter 1998, which involved some loss of life locally. However, it is impossible completely to divorce coastal management from the upland areas. Rivers such

201WH
as the Ouse and the Nene—we pronounce it "Nen" west of Northampton—rise in my constituency and flow to the North sea. Heavy rain in the midlands might easily lead to surcharged rivers, and if a change in the wind direction followed there could be a storm surge of 5 m or 6 m from the North sea up the coast. If those two pressures met, the water would have nowhere to go, which would inevitably lead to terrible damage in urban areas. That may be an extreme case scenario, but it is not inconceivable. That is why there is a common interest in getting our flood defences right.
All those factors have been known for the past half-century, since the 1953 floods, but they have been made worse by the combination of global warming and the tilting of England towards the south-east. That has led to constant changes in sea levels, which is another reason for my concentrating most of my remarks on the south-east. However, I am aware that there are important coastal defence and coast protection issues in other areas.
The Hadley centre for climate prediction, which is associated with the Met Office, forecasts that sea levels will rise by an average of 24 cm in the next 50 years, owing to the thermal expansion of the oceans and the melting glaciers. If the tilt effect is taken into account, the sea levels in Scotland will rise by about 16 cm, while those in southern England will rise by 31 cm. In imperial measurements, that is more than a foot. The figures are entirely consistent with existing data, which suggest that sea levels are rising between 4 mm and 7 mm a year. That constitutes a perceptible yearly increase and raises questions about the long-term viability of the Thames barrier as a flood defence. This is a serious issue, which brooks no ministerial complacency.
I share with colleagues my single favourite lobbying postcard, which reached me 10 years ago. I never entirely understood why I received one. It is the only lobbying postcard that I remember to this day. It was a colourful card with a picture on it, which came from Friends of the Earth. Its message was clear. Under the heading "Global Warming: Doncaster Races", it showed a horse passing the winning post—one needed a second or two to notice that it was a seahorse.
I turn from the general agreement about the pressure on coastal protection and defence to the action required by the Government and public authorities. Those matters are in one sense less complicated than they are with inland flood defence, because with inland areas the Minister must deal with the mish-mash of various responsibilities, the need to tune the various interests together, and the possibility that the disputed ownership by a district council of a particular culvert may nullify the benefit of a scheme. Those issues need attending to, but we cannot discuss them all this morning. On the coast, the main players are the Environment Agency, the local coastal protection authorities and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs itself. The Department is the facilitator and ultimately the grant-giver for schemes, although private local providers of protection and secondary sea walls, often to their own property, including agricultural property, are important.
202WH
Incidentally, I have one concern in all the statistics on which the Minister may like to reflect. As I was putting together briefing material for this debate, I found that it is still difficult to differentiate between internal flood defence and coastal protection. I have already explained why they cannot be treated as separate issues, but in terms of planning and the effort going into the two, perhaps more thought should be given to drawing out the statistics so that they are easier to use. I am aware that it is possible, inadvertently, to stray into adding the two together and confusing the result, but this morning we should concentrate on the sea, coastal defence and coastal protection.
Shoreline management plans were a positive development in our time in government and were designed primarily by coastal protection authorities under the aegis and encouragement of the Government. I hope that the revised plans will be published after the current sheaf of consultation exercises, and that they will be put in place as soon as practicable.
Before I deal with what the Government should do I will suggest two things that they should not regard as solutions to the problems. Action must depend on local conditions and, wherever possible, local consent. The Minister will know from his broad agricultural remit that he can get a great deal out of farmers with their consent. It is much more difficult to impose solutions on them without their consent. He may also know that I am wary of sweeping solutions in this context. Unusually perhaps for someone on the Conservative Benches, I approve of some remarks that he made in March last year. He said:
"We cannot completely surround the country with a wall of concrete. That is not only unrealistic, but undesirable. It would have consequences, given that our coastline is dynamic and erosion is part of a natural process."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 6 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 61WH.]
So far, so good. Nothing that the Minister said then is wrong, but I am worried, when he speaks in those terms, that he may have setup an Aunt Sally. Who is in the list, defending every inch regardless of cost? When Ministers set up an Aunt Sally, it is often to knock it down.
That introduces two apparently seductive concepts. I acknowledge that both may have a role, but they do not amount to a comprehensive solution—the Minister is a prominent activist in the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, while I am a modest member, but I have every respect for it. The first is managed retreat—letting the sea in. I can remember touring the first experiment on the Essex coast, which was interesting and, in certain respects, encouraging. It may have a role in particular cases, although, as I said, farmers are unlikely to agree with it wittingly and willingly in the absence of adequate compensation or inducement.
I am aware that the Minister has published consultations on this exercise. However, the experiment is limited to matters of local adjustment, as set out in his consultation paper. If I may use a slightly risky analogy, it is a little like straightening out the western front in 1914–18, removing the salients and producing a more defensible position, rather than retreating comprehensively to a completely different line of defence.
The second somewhat seductive concept is closely related to managed retreat: it is soft defences. I well remember seeing those on the Norfolk coast, where the

203WH
eroded beach was described, in a very attractive phrase, as being "nourished" by artificial offshore reefs. The beach was visibly regenerating and looked a lot better. That is a good thing, and I am not suggesting for a moment that it is not, but it is not the solution in every situation. I leave the Minister with the thought that he must acknowledge the need for what the Prime Minister once memorably described as hard choices. In this case, that must mean some hard sea defences as well.
On positive suggestions, I shall deal first with the regulatory and appraisal process. Farmers in the eastern counties are concerned that the present Minister's environmental enthusiasms might make things unreasonably difficult for the conduct of traditional activities and practices. There is a general problem for any farmer involved in environmentally sensitive land. I declare an interest in that an environmentally sensitive area impinges on my farm, for which I get a modest acknowledgment payment. It is one thing to have one ESA, but there can be a series of overlapping responsibilities and farmers' problems with them often rise not in arithmetic but geometric proportion to the number of requests and requirements involved. When I prepared for the debate, concerns were expressed to me about the fact that the Government are interpreting the European habitats directive as strictly site specific. It was inferred that proposals for even simple maintenance of existing sea walls at a landowner's own initiative and cost might not be permitted without exhaustive inquiry and regulatory investigation.
A wider concern—bringing in the Department's role—is whether provisions for cost-benefit analysis of schemes, which are currently subject to consultation, adequately score the value of agricultural land with reference to not only its current productivity once European subsidies are taken out—not all crops are subsidised—but its much higher capital value and its potential for diversification. In my general approach to such issues, I have some sympathy with the Dutch. They have extended their country and improved the protection of residents at huge capital expense and are unlikely to want to give the land back to the sea. As Mark Twain put it rather more succinctly across the Atlantic,
"land, they're not making it any more."
If it is being made, however great the costs, we must think long and hard about a general retreat from the land frontier.
My final point centres on the objectives of the coastal protection process. Whatever our different views on the value of agricultural land, there is an important human interface. I will always remember inspecting the crumbling Norfolk cliffs at Happisburgh and being made uncomfortably aware that any major sea incursion through the cliffs could surge straight through the broads. Once the sea got through the cliffs, there would be little to stop it.
The Association of British Insurers, which briefed me for the debate, said:
"We believe that Government investment in flood defence is vital if affordable flood insurance is to be available".
In other words, an individual's ability to protect themselves economically depends on there being a Government commitment, just as an individual's physical security also depends on that commitment.
204WH
The ABI goes on to recommend an increase
"in the Environment Agency's annual capital spend of at least £145 million per annum."
For the avoidance of doubt, I remind the Minister that that includes internal flood defence as well as coastal protection—an area in which we need to draw the figures out more distinctly. That line of figuring is consistent with DEFRA's published research, which shows that a range of incremental spending of between £84 million and £204 million per annum will be required to bring defences up to the Government's standard, which is a 100-year return frequency, or to put it another way one flood every 100 years, in densely populated urban areas and to make allowance for the climate change to which I referred.
I welcome the fact that after what was a sluggish start by the Government, Ministers are getting round to claiming, if not necessarily delivering, extra funding. One or two of my hon. Friends may have something to say about the split between coastal and inland areas in that respect. I have done battle with the Treasury in my time and I know, as the Minister does, that it is always easy to find a more pressing need and to put off this sort of thing in the hope that we will not have a problem in the next year.
I warn the Minister in all friendliness and seriousness that whether the issue is inland or coastal flooding, he must be prepared to contemplate and effect a serious and sustained capital programme. That would entail not a dramatic change from one year to another, but building on the shoreline management plans and the greatest priorities indicated by his studies. At the same time, I hope that he will remain sensitive to environmental concerns, as the idea of willy-nilly capital work without paying those any regard has long passed. He must also have regard to the worries of farmers, landowners and others who live in the areas at risk.
I conclude, as I began, by recording that when all is said and done almost any problem of flood defence or coastal protection comes back to individuals. They may live in directly affected areas, they may be at risk and some of them may be less mobile or less able to manage the situation than others. Many of our citizens live under the shadow of those risks and we cannot honestly tell them that we can remove all of them regardless of the cost or environmental impact; no one is asking for that. It is helpful to ventilate the issues and local problems and to hear the Minister respond to them. Even if the issue is not one that hits the headlines day to day, we are uncomfortably aware that one day it may do so dramatically. It behoves us all to do our best to ensure that, if and when such a day arises, we have got our defences in order.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I remind hon. Members that the common convention at these sittings is for the three Front-Bench speakers, and three are present today, to commence their winding-up speeches 30 minutes before the termination of the debate. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind and make their comments pertinent, clear and concise.
11.24 am
Mr. Bob Blizzard: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) for securing the debate, especially given that his constituency is about as far from the sea as one can get.
My constituency is the most easterly in the country and Lowestoft is Britain's easternmost cardinal point. We are therefore as exposed as anywhere to the ferocity of the sea. Those of us in low-lying East Anglia look with more than a keen interest at predictions of the impact on our region of global warming and rising sea levels. Ironically, Kessingland, one of the lowest-lying stretches of the 20 miles or so of coastline in my constituency, is one of the very few areas where accretion is occurring. Some of the people of Kessingland say that it will eventually replace Lowestoft as the country's most easterly point. We shall have to wait and see about that. The two main areas of Waveney that are under attack from the sea both feature sandy cliffs. One is to the south of Lowestoft between Lowestoft and Kessingland and is largely open countryside. The other is to the north of Lowestoft at the village of Corton, which is the main subject of my speech.
In general national terms, one cannot disagree with the assertion that it is simply not possible to build a wall around the entire coast that would withstand the power of the sea. The cost would be phenomenal—unaffordably so—and no party could responsibly commit itself to such a project. Moreover, as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds points out, it would be environmentally undesirable. Previously in this Chamber I have made the RSPB's case for the need to take steps to manage our coasts so as to ensure the continuation of sufficient wetland habitats, of which we have many in East Anglia. Today, however, I want to concentrate on people in communities by the coast and their homes and livelihoods. Although the macro arguments appear simple and support the national criteria against which plans for coast protection schemes are judged, when one looks at particular pieces of coast the situation becomes real in human terms and those national policies are truly put to the test.
The principle that operates is that the cost benefit—the value of what is saved—must exceed the cost of the works that are carried out. That is not a problem in relation to settlements of the size of Lowestoft, which always meets the criteria and is well protected so that people feel safe. In respect of large stretches of open countryside, I can understand why farmers say that they do not want to lose land to the sea. When I was leader of Waveney district council, a farmer came to the town hall with a bill for £1 million, claiming that we had let some of his fields slip into the sea. However, it is unrealistic to think that we can build walls to protect such areas.
The anxiety comes with villages on the coast the inhabitants of which tend to feel that they are particularly exposed. The village of Corton has a sea wall along its whole length, but in recent years some parts of it have suffered collapse and damage. Villagers' worries are manifested in overflowing meetings at the village hall, which I have attended. People have been told that the wall is collapsing partly because the level of the beach has become lower, but they cannot
206WH
understand why the groynes that were put there to help the sand to accumulate have been allowed to deteriorate over the past few decades.
Waveney district council has carried out two sets of work to contain the damage, on which, for two years running, it has spent two thirds of its annual £300,000 coast protection budget. Particular strain is often placed on small coastal district authorities in that respect, which is a problem that I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will discuss with his colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Such situations are urgent and the coast protection element of the standard spending assessment is not very large.
With a population of some 1,100, Corton village is not small. Nor is it a scattered settlement. It is densely populated, within a tightly drawn village envelope. It has a school, a post office, a shop, two churches, two pubs, a social housing estate, social housing for the elderly and private estates of bungalows. On its doorstep is a new, £60 million Anglian Water waste water treatment centre that has almost been completed.
A shoreline management plan was drawn up in the mid-1990s. The policy for Corton was to hold the line, and we should remember that those who live there, or who have businesses there, mapped out their futures on the basis of that plan. To me, it is unthinkable that a managed retreat policy will be adopted and that the village of Corton will be abandoned to the sea. Indeed, I am sure that it will not. No politician from whatever political party, whether local or national, would accept leaving such an important and sizeable village undefended to the mercy of the sea. As a former leader of Waveney district council, I appreciate that such decisions are difficult. I had to take a very tough decision on a hamlet, consisting of four or five houses further along the Suffolk coast, in a heritage coast area of outstanding natural beauty. Reluctantly, we decided to leave the houses to the sea, and I believe that a couple have indeed gone over the cliff. In fact, my hon. Friend the Minister once visited them. For many years, a picture of him standing on the cliffs hung on the walls of the local Labour party offices.
Corton also has a tourist industry. The three holiday camps and caravan sites that are situated between the main street and the cliffs are not shacks or beach huts, but substantial, good-quality buildings, many of which are built of brick and have been winterised. Such all-year-round holiday camps are popular with older visitors, and represent a substantial investment. They are a major part of the local economy and support hundreds of jobs. Further up the coast, just beyond the boundary of my constituency, a similar camp recently hosted the world indoor bowls championship.
Concern has been expressed that the coastal strip on which the holiday camps are situated might not meet DEFRA criteria in respect of a proposed local authority scheme. I am happy to say, however, that Waveney district council is now confident that it does meet the criteria for a 20-year scheme that would protect not only the holiday accommodation but the two or three private houses situated among it, near the cliff. The scheme, costing some £2.8 million, has been developed in consultation with DEFRA, and will be submitted to my hon. Friend the Minister in March or April. I ask him to

207WH
be ready to consider that scheme, and I hope that he will look favourably on it and take a positive decision quickly, because the cloud of anxiety that has hung over the village of Corton for too long needs to be removed. I also ask that he remember that behind the holiday camp area lies the substantial village that I have described. It would be madness to allow the holiday camp to fall over the cliff over a period of two or three decades—what a spectacle that would present!—only for the cliff to recede to such a point that the village needed defending anyway. Given its size and importance, I cannot believe that Corton would fail to meet any criterion that was put in place.
Some concern has been expressed that a 20-year scheme is not long enough. In one sense, the proposed scheme is flexible, in that it involves boulders and additions can be made to it. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that DEFRA does require local authorities to review such schemes every five years, and that they can be extended? Will he confirm that the matter will be considered again during, and towards the end of, the 20-year period, and that the holiday camp area of Corton will not automatically be abandoned after that time?
The proposed scheme is an appropriate level of spend to hold the line for a considerable period and will allow further assessments. We do not know what will be happening to the coast in 10 or 20 years, but if we can hold the line for that period, a calculation can be carried out in future.
In conclusion, I seek a favourable and quick response to the bid that will soon arrive in the Minister's Department so that work can begin this summer. I seek a recognition that villages of the size and importance of Corton with a holiday industry cannot simply be abandoned. People and businesses need all the confidence that they can reasonably be given. The Government must recognise that there are resource implications for local authorities, not only for their annual budgets but for individual schemes. For such an important policy, I hope that DEFRA is bidding, as the hon. Member for Daventry suggested that it should, for more resources in the comprehensive spending review.
We cannot predict the future configuration of our coasts. Where I live in Pakefield, south of Lowestoft, whole streets fell off the cliff in the 1950s. Today, the coastline and beach at Pakefield is another area of accretion. We cannot predict the future, but we must try to plan and gear ourselves up as much as possible to ensure that guidelines or criteria that exist at national level connect with the lives of ordinary people and the communities in which they live.
11.36 am
Mr. Mark Simmonds: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on securing this important debate. Unlike him, I have every conceivable constituency interest in ensuring that the coastal flood defences and internal drainage boards work together and co-operate. Large areas of my constituency would be under the sea were it not for the excellent work of the myriad of agencies involved in coastal flood defence. I shall return to that theme. Much of the high-quality agricultural land was reclaimed during the past 400 or
208WH
500 years, and much of it by some extremely talented Dutch individuals. In the past, excellent work has also been done by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell).
Many people, particularly those living in coastal areas that are directly affected by the sea, have no idea of the severity of damage that can occur. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry suggested, the last time that a flood occurred on the east coast was in 1953. Several hundred people were killed in my constituency. It is important to realise that up to 10 km inland from the coast much of the land is at or below sea level. In an area such as east Lincolnshire, it is vital that we understand that river flood and sea flood defences are inextricably linked and that solutions to those problems need to be considered together.
Defences provide flood protection to an extensive area of low-lying coastal plane. It is both high-quality agricultural land and land for recreation and tourism. The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said that Corton in his constituency had a tourist industry. He should see Skegness. Along the coast of east Lincolnshire, between Skegness and Mablethorpe, there are about 26,000 mobile homes, the vast majority of which would be affected were the sea to breach the defences. That would have a severe impact on the local economy and employment.
I want to deal with four problems which, I am sure, exist around the United Kingdom, but which are exacerbated in areas such as Boston and Skegness. First, there is a disparity between the standard spending assessment and the internal drainage board levies. Historically, particularly taking into account the gross domestic product inflator within the standard spending assessment, those figures have approximately matched each other. For the first time, during this financial year, the money transferred from the local authority for the internal drainage board levy has been more than the SSA moneys from the Government. That does not fit comfortably with the consultation document released by the Minister, which emphasises the importance of local consultation and of flood defences.
The problem will worsen over time. The internal drainage boards have said that their levies may well have to increase by up to 10 per cent. in the next financial year. The local authority—I am using East Lindsey district council as an example—can deal with the disparity in one of two ways. It can cut other local services or increase the council tax. I should have thought that the responsibility lay with central Government, and was not something to be funded by local government.
Internal drainage boards are, to my mind, closely linked to coastal defences, and it is vital that they should retain local control. I realise that some time ago the idea of the Environment Agency taking over control of the boards was discussed. I should welcome a reassurance that that is completely off the agenda.
The second subject that I want to raise relates to shoreline management plans. They are five-year rolling management plans that take into account longer-term coastal erosion, integrating the implications of climate change and the need to establish confidence in the planning process, including environmental protection, tourism and biodiversity. I do not think that a long

209WH
enough view has been taken. I understand that Holland has a 1,000-year plan, in which it is made clear which parts of the coastline will have hard defences, which will have managed retreats and which will benefit from mudflats and salt marshes.
The Government need to consider embracing a much bigger strategic purpose, perhaps bringing together all the agencies that are currently involved under a broader remit. I learned quickly, in trying to marshal information for the debate, that no one agency has overall knowledge, even in one geographical area. The knowledge is split between district, county and town councils, environmental agencies, the internal drainage boards and a range of other institutions. That state of affairs needs to be examined, because it results in a fragmented, not holistic, approach.
The third matter that I want to mention is environment. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry has alluded to some key issues. However, it is not always appropriate to build higher and higher defences against rising sea levels. Also, gradual land tilting is occurring. Some options, although not always appropriate, deserve sympathetic consideration. There are circumstances in which managed realignment of defences would have a significant environmental impact, creating important wildlife habitats such as salt marshes.
A good example can be found in my constituency at Frieston Shore, where a recent and continuing partnership between Boston borough council, Lincolnshire county council and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has secured objective 5b funding from Europe for a flood defence scheme, as match funding. That should be considered in the rest of the country. However, it must happen on a voluntary basis. Some valuable agricultural land abuts sea defences and, historically, many farmers have themselves provided those defences. There are now too many obstacles to stop them providing or improving sea defences.
The fourth and final matter that I want to raise is economic regeneration. There has been great concern, in my constituency and elsewhere, about the availability of long-term flood insurance. I understand from the Insurance Institute that it is prepared to provide insurance up to the end of December of this year. Nobody seems to know what will happen after that. That is directly related to the Government's commitment to providing sufficient funding and an adequate strategy for coastal flood defence. The Government need to ensure that insurers know the difference between coastal flood defence and river flood defence. There is a marked difference between development and building on river flood plains and on areas of land behind adequate coastal flood defences.
In an area such as Boston and Skegness—which has an ever-increasing population of people who retire from the midlands, and where local authorities and others have an ever-increasing ambition to diversify the economy away from its traditional agricultural base—there are great worries about achieving sufficient planning permissions for development to bring businesses in from outside. While the Environment Agency has played a constructive role, it has in the past
210WH
year or so hindered exciting developments that might bring economic growth and regeneration to a depressed agricultural area.
I have to inform the Minister that, in the view of the IDBs in my constituency, the drainage system is so efficient—because it has been there for so long and the individuals and systems are so expertly positioned—that it is difficult to envisage any circumstances in which flooding would occur as a result of precipitation alone. The danger in an area such as east Lincolnshire is from the sea.
In conclusion, too many bodies deal with both coastal flooding and internal drainage—it is a fragmented responsibility. That was highlighted by the Select Committee on Agriculture in 1998. Nothing seems to have been done about it. There is growing concern about offshore dredging and dredging for aggregates. Dredging alters wave patterns and creates faster and greater erosion than has been the case historically. A breach occurred in my constituency last year at a nature reserve called Gibraltar point, which is an unprotected area. I should like the Minister to take the thought away—I do not expect him to respond today, but hope that he will do so later. We need a national strategy and we should take a leaf out of the book of the authorities in Holland. We should have a longer-term view—perhaps a 1,000-year programme, or at least a 500-year one—across the United Kingdom. Uncertainty inhibits economic regeneration, so it would be helpful to have greater clarity about responsibility and about funding.
11.47 am
Tim Loughton: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) for his graphic demonstration of altruism in raising the issue. He has a landlocked constituency, unless things are getting very much worse and more of the Arctic circle is melting than we had believed. He also introduced the debate with his usual entertaining literary allusions.
Fortunately, my constituency does not have cliffs with houses crumbling into the sea, although it is on the coast of West Sussex. A great many of my constituents live along the shoreline. The Minister and I have debated flooding on many occasions, although we have previously concentrated on river and inland flooding, and today's debate is about coastal flooding. I have a plea to make. In the past year, there has been much debate in Parliament, and much media focus, on inland flooding and river flooding. For some of us, river flooding is not such a big problem—although we have a little of it—but coastal flooding is an ever-present threat. May I remind the Minister, therefore, that the danger of coastal flooding has not gone away, but has merely been overshadowed by what has happened with our rivers? The vast majority of resources were rightly targeted at the great devastation that occurred in many inland parts of Sussex, particularly at Chichester, Lewes and Uckfield. That was much reported in the media, but it did not help us.
Mr. Gregory Barker: My constituency is historically affected by both inland and coastal flooding. I am pleased to say that the Minister has taken a specific interest in Robertsbridge, which has

211WH
been among the worst affected inland areas in the south-east in recent years. I am cautiously optimistic that a long-term solution will emerge, but less optimistic about the coastal problem, particularly at Pevensey bay. I pay tribute to my county councillors, particularly Councillor Roger Thomas, who has been a doughty fighter for flood defences. The residents of Pevensey bay are concerned about the lack of an overall flood defence strategy, particularly because the Institution of Civil Engineers has pointed out that the flood defence programme is a second-class operation.
Tim Loughton: I think that I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention; Sussex Members constantly try to outdo each other about the severity of their flood problems. My hon. Friend's constituency lies further along the coast, but Shoreham beach in my constituency—a densely populated spit of land with many thousands of residents—is very low lying. The Shoreham and Lancing coastlines are all low lying but densely populated. We are not talking about pleasure beaches, holiday homes or caravan sites, but about the thousands of people whose homes are located within several yards of the sea, and they are exceedingly vulnerable. The Sussex coastline, from Brighton to Bognor Regis, is a built-up, urban strip, where the vast majority of people in south Sussex live.
The Minister knows that my constituency and the constituencies of many of my hon. Friends in that area are bordered to the north by the downs and to the south by the sea, where it is impossible to build. We are squeezed between those two natural features. If sea waters rose significantly, large parts of my constituency would be engulfed. We would require not what is called a managed retreat, but a retreat for many thousands of people.
I acknowledge that much has been done, particularly by the Environment Agency. For instance, some extra boulder protection has been put down along Shoreham and Lancing beaches over the past few years. However, that work is often delayed or subject to stoppage. Typically, if storms further up the coast at Selsey flooded a caravan park, the local authority would take emergency action, which would drain its flood defence coffers. Whenever that sort of thing happens, long-term defence work, which affects many more homes, is put on hold, and work that is desperately needed remains undone.
I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry on the grey area between flood defence and coastal protection, which causes a great deal of buck passing between the various agencies involved, including local water authorities, the district or county councils and the Environment Agency. Much of that is a legacy from when the Environment Agency took over from the National Rivers Authority. We have debated before with the Minister the problems caused by the fact that many responsibilities still lie with dozens of residual bodies. I am afraid that that anomaly is still being exploited by many authorities who do not want, simply because they do not have the resources, to pick up the tab for defence work or repairing damage.
A classic example is Shoreham harbour, which skirts Shoreham beach, which is, as I said, very low lying. At the end of one road, several people's gardens are literally falling into the harbour and have been doing so for some
212WH
years. It will not be long before they have no gardens left and the houses start to come under attack. The harbour authorities, the Environment Agency and the district council all say that that is not their responsibility, so who is responsible? Residents cannot get proper insurance cover for the damage, so they are stuck between a rock and a hard place—or, in this case, a rock and the very wet place that their homes are rapidly becoming. There should be greater guidance—we have discussed that before, but seem to have made no progress—in determining and defining who has responsibility for certain areas of our coastline, particularly in areas such as my constituency on the Sussex coast.
We need to ensure that local authorities receive a proper share of funding for flood defence work. Some years ago, Adur district council received less from central Government for its flood prevention work and coastal defence work than did Crawley borough council, which is some 20 miles north and well inland. In 1998, the Home Office cut the emergency planning grant to West Sussex county council by 31 per cent. The budget was already under enormous pressure because of the extra costs of social services caused by the ageing population of a county such as West Sussex, but the county council had to find more money to pay for flood protection and emergency flood work, and the extra costs incurred by the floods in Chichester and Selsey.
I wish to air a specific point about Worthing. I am advised by the chief executive of Worthing borough council that the council can obtain grant aid only for the prevention of erosion. Worthing has a long, exposed shingle beach, but cannot obtain grant aid for the provision of splash walls to prevent flooding from overtopping waves. Whether flooding occurs because something has been eroded or because there is low-lying land just beyond the beach with vulnerable houses does not really matter. Because of a funding anomaly, however, Worthing borough council cannot perform essential flood defence work on the promenade. That affects our tourist industry, which has suffered greatly anyway. Worthing's name comes from the Anglo-Saxon for seaweed, so the town has a long tradition of looking to the sea.
Pair trawling also has an impact on Worthing's coastline. The natural defences just off the shore have been smashed up—the boulders and the kelp beds have gone—by that very rough form of fishing. That leaves even lower our natural defence against water coming over on to houses just beyond the shore.
We have heard much about shoreline management plans. There should be much more action on those and results should be forthcoming. In July 2001, the Government issued planning policy guidance note 25, which deals with deterring the building of housing in areas at risk of flooding. It is absolutely right to attempt to do that, but our problem in West Sussex is that 46,000 houses are being imposed on us. We have the sea and the downs and very little land in between on which to build those houses. The land most vulnerable to those building proposals comprises the strategic gaps of which few are left and which are the only things that split up the vast coastal urban strip. Those areas are the most environmentally vulnerable to coastal flooding. It is nonsense that we are being forced to build houses and simultaneously being told that we cannot build them

213WH
where they are most likely to be built. That is a real problem in my constituency and in neighbouring ones in Sussex.
In conclusion, some progress has been made, largely through the efforts of the Environment Agency. I pay tribute to Peter Midgley MBE and the agency's Worthing office. They have done a lot to help in difficult circumstances. The Government get flood defence on the cheap. They expect local authorities to do much without properly funding them. Given that 5 million people and 2 million homes are vulnerable to flooding, the Government must take the issue much more seriously, particularly in areas where the coastline is densely populated. In my area, where there is precious little land for alternative development, a small rise in water level combined with the lack of sustained proper defence work will bring untold misery to many thousands of people who will be displaced. I ask the Minister to take that on board and to tackle the problem that I raised in regard to Worthing, which does not get the funding that it needs, because of an anomaly in the nature of its coastline.
12 noon
Mr. Paul Tyler: It is an unexpected pleasure to be able to participate in the debate. Although I am very interested in the subject, I had intended to be merely a passive observer because my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) was due to participate. Unfortunately, he is involved in Committee proceedings.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) for raising this subject, which is dear to my heart. I say that not least because I represent North Cornwall, which has the most famous and most attractive coastline in the United Kingdom. However, it regularly reminds us not only of the beauty of the sea but of its ferocity, and we heard again this weekend about a tragic loss of life in my constituency. An unexpected huge wave can cause devastation. At the time of this weekend's incident, I was a bit further down the Cornish coast and witnessed some of the biggest waves that I have ever seen—and I have spent most of my life living close to the sea in Devon and Cornwall. It is important for us to remind those who go to the coast only during the traditional summer holiday period that the sea is extremely frightening for those who live by it or have their living upon the waters.
In that context, I am reminded of the headline comment in the 1998 report of the then Select Committee on Agriculture, which stated:
"It is time to declare an end to the centuries-old war with the sea and to seek a peaceful accommodation with our former enemy."
The Minister will agree that that view is overly simple and that we must be more sophisticated. The sea is still an enemy in some parts of the country. As several hon. Members have said, the Dutch would never take such an open-ended approach; they would be much more resilient and more selective in their attitude.
The hon. Member for Daventry referred to fact that the south of England—I say England advisedly—is going down and that, in relative terms, the north of England is going up. My hon. Friend the Member for
214WH
St. Ives (Andrew George) advised me that Cornwall is the only part of the south that is going up, which may have something to do with our Celtic history. The problem, however, is that we are not going up as fast as the sea level is likely to rise, and relativity is important. All the contributions so far have been made by hon. Members representing constituencies on the eastern and southern coasts, but people in the south-west and many other parts of western Britain are just as concerned about the effects of global warming.
The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) mentioned a village in his constituency that was threatened by the encroachment of the sea. In my youth, I went to see the south Devon village of Hallsands, which had succumbed to coastal erosion not long before and had mostly disappeared. One can still see some of the houses; indeed, in my childhood, one woman still lived at the top end of the village. Interestingly, the causes of coastal erosion in that case were not merely natural. In the 1930s, speculative developers who were building new docks in Devonport in preparation for rearmament got consent to extract a lot of gravel from the seabed immediately off the coast from Hallsands. It is interesting that the trigger for natural disasters is often man-made. That is why I welcome the new generation of thinking, which has moved us on dramatically.
In recent years we have recognised the connection between the hierarchy of decision making on international global warming—the hon. Member for Daventry mentioned that subject—and joined-up government at a national level. I pay tribute to the Minister, who has been at the forefront on the subject for many years. I say that in relative terms, although it may seem like many years to him. As hon. Members from both sides have said, joined-up government is critical. We have suffered too much from diffusion of responsibility and buck passing.
We also need local consent not only from farmers and landowners but from residents. My constituency contains communities where the residents do not feel that they have adequate influence on the decision-making process. That is partly because it is to some extent outwith normal local or central Government responsibility, with agencies and quangos involved, and there is difficulty in identifying precisely where decisions are taken. Anyone who thinks about the three levels of decision making will see the obvious links. It is frustrating for members of the general public to find that the links are not always as overt and effective as they would hope.
During the first Parliament after I came back to the House in 1992, I chaired the all-party coastal group, which has been sadly eroded although it has been connected with another maritime group. During that period when I worked with hon. Members from all parties, I was struck by the extent to which we had simply failed to pinpoint where the initiatives would be taken, where the priorities would be set and where the funding would go. There has been some improvement, to which the Minister will no doubt refer, but we have not reached a satisfactory conclusion. Some parts of the country need managed retreat in terms of coastal defence, and the administration of that rapidly needs managed advance if we are to gain the consent of the people most closely involved.

215WH
In 1998, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives was involved in discussions on the Flood Warnings (Vulnerable Properties) Bill. The debate revealed the inadequacy of risk assessment and its publication to communities and individuals. The subject requires careful consideration. I took seriously the point made by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) that insurance companies are often inadequately informed about the differences between threats from coastal erosion and flooding and from river flooding.
The Minister will take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Daventry about the close connection between inadequate management of flood plains for rivers and consequent frequent conjunction with high tides and bad weather. That is what often causes the most trouble in our coastal communities, and it means that we cannot pretend that the issues are separate.
I want to give the Minister the maximum time to respond, but I shall make one final point. Shoreline management plans have been the "in" concept of recent years, and we acknowledge them as a step forward. They have brought together many otherwise diffuse responsibilities, and have enabled people to see more clearly what is involved. However, they still lack a vital ingredient. The new approach or mindset has brought responsible bodies together to find solutions, but it has not yet gained the full-hearted consent of the people most involved. It is on that that we must concentrate in the next few years. We must ensure the mechanisms for gaining that consent through consultation, direct involvement and a proper role for elected representatives at all levels. If we do not achieve ownership of the plans by the people most affected, those plans may be a waste of paper and time.
12.9 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on securing the debate and on the clarity of his comments. However, I am sure that he will understand if I ask him to pass on my congratulations, and those of the rest of the House, to his indefatigable 94-year-old mother. She has been the undefeated ladies champion of Mersea Island golf club for 43 years, which I am sure has nothing to do with its inundation by the sea.
My hon. Friends the Members for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned two crucial points about the Government's action. First, they referred to the incoherent management of flood defences, and secondly to the lack of funding. Both my hon. Friends' constituencies—although I know one better than the other—are in considerable danger from flooding. As a member of Sussex Royal Naval Reserve, I once drove a minesweeper out of Shoreham, from whose bridge I could see over the tops of many houses, so it is clearly an area under serious threat of coastal flooding.
The threat of coastal flooding is likely to become more menacing in time. The recent planning policy guidance on development flood risk from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions states that
"the current 1-in-100-year high-water level on the east coast may be expected to be exceeded every 20 years on average by 2050, assuming no change in storminess. There may also be secondary
216WH
impacts such as changes in wave heights due to increased water depths, as well as possible changes in the frequency, duration and severity of storm events."
Of course, it is not the Government's fault that the south-east of England is gradually sinking, and it is impossible for them, single-handedly, to halt the pernicious process of global warming. We must accept that a rise in sea levels, especially off the coast of south-east England, is tragically inevitable, at least in the short term. Even a new Labour Government cannot play Canute. However, it is reasonable to criticise the Government for failing to provide adequate resources to deal with the problem at hand. I shall focus my remarks on that lack of provision.
Operational responsibility for flood alleviation lies with local operating authorities, including the local authorities, the Environment Agency and the internal drainage boards. Local authorities are ultimately responsible for coastal defence under the Coast Protection Act 1949. When their jurisdiction covers a coastal area, the Act grants local authorities powers to take measures against coastal erosion and sea encroachment. Private or corporate owners of coastal land are also entitled to take protective measures against erosion and sea flooding, but are not eligible for Government grant in aid.
The United Kingdom coastline is managed under the shoreline management plan—or SMP. Plans are devised for each coastal region and take into account a variety of coastal management issues, including the adequacy of current flood defences. However, local authorities are ultimately dependent on grants from central Government. Hon. Members have made that point repeatedly today. Authorities are dependent on grants for resources to tackle coastal flooding, which have been woefully inadequate in recent years.
New Labour's complacency in that respect is made clear by consideration of the figures that were supplied by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in July last year. Money allocated to local sea defence projects by MAFF stood at £46.8 million in 1997–98. The following year the figure dropped to £36.5 million. In 2000–01 a mere £25.7 million was earmarked for spending on coastal flood defences.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): It might be helpful if I explain to the hon. Gentleman that the issue is a little more complex than that. It is not that money that has been allocated has dropped, but that some schemes approved by local authorities have slipped. The money has not been lost; in many cases it has been reallocated elsewhere in the flood and coastal budget. The hon. Gentleman should look at the situation a little more carefully instead of having a routine, political whinge.
Mr. Sayeed: The Minister will recognise that I have been endeavouring to obtain greater clarity from his Department, which has deliberately hidden many of the figures, but these we have managed to wheedle out. It is clear: whatever obfuscation the Department chooses to deploy, over three years central funding for sea defences dropped by almost 50 per cent. To say that some schemes may have been delayed would be using the same argument that the Deputy Prime Minister used in relation to many road projects.

217WH
We are interested in money that gets spent and things that get done. Although the floods of autumn 2000 were principally inland, they should nevertheless have served as a vivid reminder of the enormous financial implications of large-scale water damage. It is bizarre that, in the same year as United Kingdom insurers faced an unprecedented claim of around £1.3 billion for flood and associated storm damage, MAFF should have made cuts in coastal defence funding.
Lack of funding is not our only criticism. There is also a divide between the Government's rhetoric and the reality. The Labour party's 2001 election manifesto clearly stated:
"The dangers of coastal and inland flooding are now widely appreciated, and we are committed to investment in preventative solutions."
Quite how that admirable commitment squares with a £21.1 million reduction in grants for sea defences over three years is unclear.
In the aftermath of the catastrophic events of autumn 2000 the Association of British Insurers called for the Government to increase spending on all flood defence measures in England and Wales by at least £ 145 million. When increased Government funding finally arrived, it was too little and too late. The money allocated for flood warning and flood defence programmes by the Ministry was increased from £66 million in 2000–01 to £114 million in 2003–04—a £48 million increase—when insurers had asked for a minimum of £145 million, and much of that £48 million went on increased administration rather than on physical measures against flooding. The majority of that funding is provided by Government in the form of a DEFRA grant for approved capital and other works and by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions via revenue support grant, which is used by local authorities to fund levies to the Environment Agency.
Mr. Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sayeed: I am sorry, but my time is very limited. I shall carry on.
All say that that is too little money and too late, and many complain that all that they can do is repair what they have rather than improve the protection.
In conclusion, what can be said for the Government? They are not responsible for the weather, for the tilting of the UK or for the long-term effects of global warming, but they have dragged their heels over coastal flood defence and continue to do so. Prospects for an adequate coastal flooding strategy in the near future look remote. On 31 October 2001, in an answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), the Minister expressed optimism that the current review for flood defences would provide long-term solutions and promised that a review would
"be published later this autumn."—[Official Report, 31 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 735W.]
Three months on, with no sign of the promised report, the Government will perhaps forgive us if we do not share their apparently boundless optimism.
218WH
Despite increasing pressure on the UK coastline from erosion, rising sea levels and the gradual sinking of the south-eastern corner of England, sea defences remain hopelessly underfunded. The effect of that parsimony will be more misery, unnecessary cost, and more of the south of England lost at sea.
12.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on securing the debate. He put his case in a thoughtful and constructive way. As a former Minister with responsibility for flood and coastal defence, he is very knowledgeable on the subject. He made his arguments in a thoughtful and logical way when he was a Minister, commanding much respect. I shall return to the main thrust of his arguments in a moment. I hope to answer a few points that have been made during the 10 minutes that I have available.
I start with the comments made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed). It is a little disappointing that his contribution was a purely political moan about how much more money we should be spending, and I am sure that he appreciates that that approach encourages cynicism among the public. I am not aware that his party has made commitments to large increases in public expenditure. If research is done, it can be discovered that the only cut in real terms in overall spending on flood and coastal defence happened under a Conservative Administration.
Under this Government, the overall spend on flood and coastal defence has increased consistently since 1997. From last year to 2003 there will be, in total, a 70 per cent. increase in expenditure from grants. Overall expenditure from all sources including levies, contributions from local authorities, internal drainage boards and the Environment Agency—the hon. Gentleman must take those into account, because DEFRA grants are not the only source of flood and coastal defence expenditure—will exceed £400 million this year. That is a record sum of money. We take the matter seriously.
There will always be an argument about what the appropriate figure should be. We have commissioned reports on appropriate spend and the need for long-term investment. That is an openness that has not existed before, although the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire accused the Government of hiding figures. We have commissioned such reports so that people can see them, and to guide our future priorities. Projects such as engineered coastal defence schemes are a long-term business. Design, build, public consultation and getting plants on site can take between three and five years.
It is not unusual to have big variations in annual spend. In 1997, the Lincshore project, of which the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) will be aware because it related to Skegness, involved very high capital spend on beach recharge, or nourishment, as the hon. Gentleman said. This year, the progress made on various coastal defence schemes is disappointing. Some £15.5 million was reallocated to the Environment Agency to provide, for example, £9 million for emergency repair costs following the

219WH
floods of winter 2000, £3 million for a range of database schemes to improve flood warning and £3 million for special funding—this will be of interest in Sussex—for such things as whole catchment river schemes. Where communities have technical difficulties with flood defences, we are funding studies of the whole catchment to help understand how it works and find ways of defending such communities in various catchment plans.
Mr. Barker: I accept a great deal of what the Minister is saying, although we can quibble over individual projects. Does he accept that it remains a worry for people up and down the country, especially my constituents in Pevensey bay, that, whatever the statistics, the Institution of Civil Engineers has said that the amount of investment needed across the board for sea defence must be doubled to be effective? Indeed, the Government have not responded to that report.
Mr. Morley: We have only just had the report, and the hon. Gentleman must give us a chance to respond to it, because we commissioned it from the Institution of Civil Engineers, and we therefore take it seriously. I am surprised to hear that the residents of Pevensey bay are concerned, because we have recently spent a large sum on a big scheme in that area to protect them. I know that the scheme is appreciated by the hon. Gentleman's constituents because I went down there for its opening and talked to them.
I understand the persuasive case that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) made for Corton. I shall consider sympathetically the bid from the local council, which knows the procedure to follow.
The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness made several reasonable and thoughtful points, although I unfortunately do not have time to respond to them in detail today.
I understand that the constituents of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) will be concerned by the points that he raised, although I was puzzled by his remarks about grants not being available for shingle beaches. I must discuss that with him in greater detail because I suspect that that relates to an argument about what is an environmental improvement to a promenade and what is a flood defence scheme. The issue is more complex than he seems to think.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made a point about taking a joined-up approach, which is something that we have been trying. We shall shortly produce the funding review report, which makes several interesting recommendations. It is an independent
220WH
report, not a Government position, and we shall put it out for consultation and respond to people's views on it. The suggestions that it contains on institutional changes and other ways of raising funds are interesting.
The responsibility for flood and coastal defence is shared between central Government and local government because the benefits of such schemes often apply locally. However, we also recognise the need for a strategic approach, which is why the bulk of funding comes from central Government. There are issues about the way in which the standard spending assessment works and the appropriate level of funding, and those matters are, of course, under constant review.
The hon. Member for Daventry made several serious points about managed retreats. I make no secret of my enthusiasm for them, but I should like to reassure him that the Government know that they are not appropriate in all circumstances. When we consider a managed retreat we examine the circumstances in which it would be of benefit. It is certainly better if one can conduct a managed retreat by persuasion, and in some of the schemes that I have recently seen, the agency has purchased the land. Such schemes involve deliberately allowing the land to flood, and if one does that, there is a case for purchasing it or entering into a management agreement.
There is a difference between a managed retreat and land that is flooded as part of a natural process, which is sometimes inevitable. Much of my constituency is below sea level, and it is close to the Holderness coast, which has been eroding for centuries, during which time many communities and villages have been lost. That is part of this country's natural process and the dynamic nature of our coastlines. We must recognise that if we interfere with our coastlines, there may be consequences for other parts of the coast and other communities.
I shall ensure that we think carefully about managed retreats, which we approach in the context of the shoreline management plans that I freely acknowledge were a good idea introduced by the previous Government. We have built on those plans, and we review them regularly, which addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Daventry that 20-year schemes can be periodically reviewed in the context of shoreline management plans.
Time does not allow me to continue to deal with the range of sensible questions that were asked, other than to say that the Dutch support managed retreat. We are in close touch with them and they share many of our attitudes to the problem. This is an important issue that demands a large commitment in terms of funds and requires us to consider sustainability and the balance between hard and soft defence.

Generic Drugs
12.30 pm
David Taylor: I am pleased to have secured this debate as it gives me an opportunity to explore the unforeseen effects of the pressure to drive higher still the proportion of national health service prescriptions for generic pharmaceuticals, and to make a submission to the Government review of the future supply and reimbursement of generic medicines for the NHS.
The Government have already, with some success, protected the supply chain that provides vital medicines to our pharmacists, general practitioners, hospitals and, ultimately, patients against some of the abuses that took place in the late 1990s. During that period, the need for the action that the Government subsequently took was apparent. Wholesalers regularly hoarded large amounts of a drug in demand and waited for that demand to meet critical mass before releasing their supplies into the market at the highest possible price. In 2000, the Government introduced an interim maximum pricing scheme for generics, which in its first year saved the NHS £330 million. That arrangement is not in place indefinitely and the options for the reimbursement and supply of generics are being reviewed. I shall return to that point later.
GPs have long been encouraged to prescribe generics whenever possible. In 2000, 71 per cent. of items were prescribed generically, but owing to the non-availability of generic versions of some drugs, only 52 per cent. were dispensed generically, representing 22 per cent. of overall cost. The upward trend continues. The figures for April to September 2001 reveal that almost 76 per cent. of items were prescribed generically against the 72 per cent. target. The dispensing rate of generics, although unknown, is unlikely to have increased a great deal.
Generics are less costly than branded medicines because their manufacturers do not need to undertake clinical trials. In the UK, the average net ingredient cost of a brand is £16.06 and that of a generic is £4.18. If there were no generics and the average cost of branded medicines remained the same, the NHS drugs bill would increase from £5.3 billion to £8.6 billion. According to the British Generic Manufacturers' Association, £1.2 billion spent by the NHS on generic drugs saves the taxpayer £3.3 billion.
The discussion paper, "Options for the Future Supply and Reimbursement of Generic Medicines for the NHS", said that the Government are looking to
"achieve a secure and consistent supply of both established and new generics and value for money in the prices the NHS pays for them".
The reimbursement price of branded medicines is the NHS list price set by the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme. For prescriptions written generically, it is governed by the drug tariff price. The calculation that is used to determine the drug tariff is the weighted average of the list prices of five major suppliers for the most commonly used medicines, which is published every month by the Department of Health. Two separate pricing mechanisms are necessary because generics, as multi-source products, operate in what is effectively a commodity market.
222WH
The payment that pharmacists receive comprises the list or drug tariff price of the item dispensed, minus an assumed level of discount, plus a container allowance and a professional fee. The fee, if any, that the patient pays for their NHS prescription is deducted from that payment. The difference between the actual cost of generic products purchased by pharmacies and the amount that they are reimbursed is determinable through the use of a scale of deductions derived from a discount inquiry.
The reimbursement system is rightly designed to achieve the cheapest purchasing price for the NHS, although its reliance on pharmacists in all sectors buying lower than the reimbursement price is being affected by recent announcements concerning the reduced dispensing fee that community pharmacists now receive.
The majority of medicines remain cheaper when written generically, but there is evidence that the 72 per cent. quota that all primary care organisations must meet as a key performance indicator is inhibiting their ability to achieve potentially substantial savings for the NHS by buying a branded medicine that is cheaper than its generic counterpart. Indeed, one PCO chairman said:
"Whilst greater levels of generic prescribing have historically improved value for the NHS, national and local levels have now risen to the point that further increases could either be unproductive or dis-functional."
Entertaining the prospect of purchasing cheaper, non-generic medicines should not jeopardise a PCO's status. The quota should remain, but where examples of substantial cost savings can be provided, there should perhaps be an exemption from inclusion in the overall quota. Obviously, there is the question of how one defines substantial cost savings, but given that the system of price checks and analysis is notoriously convoluted, involving individual community pharmacists, pharmacy chains and multinational generic suppliers, such an exemption is surely possible.
The justifiable fears generated by turbulence in the UK generics market in 1999 promoted the introduction of the maximum price scheme and a greater emphasis on a generic prescribing quota. Both factors now inhibit Government action and play into the hands of multinational interests, at the expense of the NHS, PCOs, prescribers and patients. The problems that the Government encounter in paying a fair price for the production, supply and provision of essential pharmaceuticals to the NHS and patients illustrates the legitimacy of the growing concern—particularly among younger people, who are increasingly reluctant to vote—that the rights and interests of corporations are being promoted at the expense of sovereign nations and their citizens. I agree with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber. In criticising the behaviour of certain drug companies in a Westminster Hall debate on generic drugs, he said:
"I am not arguing against the profit motive."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 17 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 73WH.]
However, the primacy of the profit motive in shaping Government negotiations with the pharmaceutical industry does indeed have serious consequences for NHS patients and UK taxpayers.

223WH
To illustrate the way in which the Government's quota target can inadvertently aid the cartel of generic suppliers in driving prices to unacceptably high levels, I cite the experience of a particular east midlands pharmaceutical company, which encouraged me to initiate this debate. After consultation with a number of primary care trusts—including the former health authority for Leicestershire, which consistently overspent its drug budget in the last five years of its life—the company launched a branded version of an existing major generic that is used in treating depression, and which is 30 per cent. cheaper than the list price of other generics. It might seem counterintuitive, but generics firms that are resisting the product's entry into the market can be combated only by its being prescribed in a non-generic way. However, to do so would run against the NHS policy of incentivisation of generic prescription. Those two factors are preventing savings of up to £21 million a year on this product alone, and there are many other such products.
One of the motives in creating PCTs was the devolving of greater budgetary responsibility to a local level—something that we all support. The ability to access cost-effective new products such as the one that I have cited, without incurring the wrath of the auditors, is essential if we are to resist the monopolistic overtones of the handful of drug companies that already control the generics market. Of course, the overriding criteria for rational prescribing must always be drug effectiveness and suitability, but wherever possible flexibility in pharmaceutical spending is essential to achieving maximum possible savings for the NHS and the patient. Is not optimal use of the drugs budget more important than the generic rate?
It is well understood that the symptoms of an illness can indeed be exacerbated by a prescriptive flow of inconsistent characteristics. Patient unease at being prescribed unfamiliar treatments was consistently and cynically exploited by drug companies at the end of the previous decade. By exploiting poor communication between primary and secondary care—to an extent, such poor communication still exists—drug companies were able to wring millions of pounds out of the NHS, until the Government took welcome action and introduced a 72 per cent. generic prescribing target for PCOs. As expected, savings have been achieved but I have tried to show that that has had the possibly unforeseen side effect of restricting PCOs' ability to get the best drugs at the cheapest prices for GPs and their patients.
The major benefits of prescribing branded, rather than generic, drugs are that the prescriber knows the exact medication dispensed to the patient and that the patient will receive exactly the same medication wherever and whenever they have their prescription dispensed. That benefit would apply to low-cost post-patent proprietary brands, which are sometimes called ecogenerics. By paying regard to the needs of the NHS, GPs and patients, rather than focusing solely on shareholders, alert companies with knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry can reduce their excessive promotional budgets for the branded products that they sell, make them cheaper than generic alternatives and still make the decent profit that I and my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin endorse and recognise as necessary.
224WH
The rapacious pursuit of public funds that many drug companies have been guilty of in the past has been effectively reined in by the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme—the PPRS. That covers branded goods, the unregulated pricing of which has been a major burden on local health authority drug budgets.
Peter Bradley: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. It is a shame that he and I seem to be the only two anoraks in the House of Commons who take this issue seriously. He referred to the PPRS but, saving the officials and possibly the Minister, probably only three people understand the PPRS: one is dead, one has been driven mad by it and third has forgotten everything that he ever knew. The investigation by the Office of Fair Trading into Napp Pharmaceuticals, which reported in spring after two years and was last week upheld by the Competitions Commission, found that the PPRS on its own is not sufficient—
Mr. Roger Gale: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the point. He should be making an intervention, not a speech.
Peter Bradley: I apologise, Mr. Gale. I will come to the point. The Competition Commission upheld the OFT's findings that the PPRS on its own is not sufficient to control the abuses that it identifies. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for the Government to review all negotiation mechanisms for the drugs industry to secure real and substantial savings for the NHS?
David Taylor: I certainly agree and I think that the arrangements are opaque, inflexible and call out for major reform. I am confident that the Minister will be able to initiate and oversee such reform.
Regulation of the sort that we have seen on proprietary drugs is just as essential in generics, where private companies are driving profits ever higher at the expense of public health and public funds. To maintain some semblance of parity between the public and private sector, the regulatory framework must remain fluid and resistant to the pressure that is inevitably brought to bear on any regulatory framework by the large corporations affected and the sponsored political emissaries who represent their interests in this place—they are not in the Chamber this morning—often at the cost of every NHS patient in their constituency.
The report by Oxford Economic Research Associates, "Enhancing competition in generic manufacturing", illustrates the priorities of recent arrivals in the UK that are licensed to supply a significant proportion of the UK's drug treatments. It states:
"The developments in ownership structure of UK manufacturers mirror wider trends, with large global manufacturers developing a presence in the main world markets. These players choose their markets of operation based on maximising return from their global portfolio, and are not constrained to one country of operation or supply, as traditional domestic suppliers were. They are often able to acquire licences in many countries using the same basic bio-equivalence research, and, in theory, can direct their generic output to those areas that generate the greatest return."
The type of activity flagged up by OXERA should be a cause for concern for everyone involved in primary and secondary care, whether as providers or recipients

225WH
How it fits in with competition laws domestically, Europewide and internationally is a moot point and one on which I believe that the Competition Commission will report in the near future. How will the Minister implement the findings of any inquiry that illustrate that checks on competition, which are created by the generic prescribing rate, specifically prevent PCOs from obtaining the best quality medicines at the cheapest prices in an attempt to avoid overspend in their drug budgets? In terms of manufacture, supply, prescription and provision of both generic and branded drugs, the existing structure penalises the community pharmacist, a term that embraces chains as well as individual operators. Following the recent 10 per cent. cut in the dispensing fee paid by the Department of Health, the community pharmacist is bearing the brunt of the Government's reluctance to force the major drug companies to offer branded as well as generic drugs at realistic, affordable prices.
The local dispenser, invariably, is a community pharmacist or, in rural areas, a GP licensed to dispense pharmaceutical treatments. Such people are therefore NHS agents, purchasing both generic and branded medicines to dispense against NHS prescriptions. For a chain like Boots or Lloyds, the 10 per cent. cut will be easier to bear; a distinction between such companies and the local pharmacist serving the local community may have to be made in legislation if best value is truly to be achieved on behalf of patients and taxpayers. Otherwise, we shall have the Orwellian situation in which some community pharmacists are more equal than others, especially as vertical integration accelerates.
Finally, I endorse the second approach suggested in last year's consultation paper and urge the introduction of central purchasing for generic drugs through competitive tendering, which seems to be a more transparent arrangement and one that could readily be operated by community pharmacists.
We need to obtain far greater acknowledgment from the pharmaceutical giants that, although they are operating in a market environment, they are bidding for public money and the right to supply life-enhancing pharmaceuticals to that public. It is a large market. The NHS costs £60 billion a year, 10 per cent. of which is taken up by the drugs budget. Of that £6 billion, 20 per cent., or £1.2 billion, is spent on generic drugs. My estimates suggest that a saving of up to 25 per cent. of that, some £300 million, could be made—that is nearly £1 million a day: a £20,000 saving during the time that it will take to have this debate. I am sure that the Minister will recognise the potential and will respond as rapidly as she can.
12.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) on having secured this debate and on having chosen the subject of generic medicines. It is an auspicious time to raise the subject because, as he said, we are examining the arrangements for the supply of, and reimbursement for, generic medicines in the NHS. Neither he nor my hon. Friend the Member for The
226WH
Wrekin (Peter Bradley) should be classed as anoraks, but as individuals who are extremely knowledgeable on the matter and who will make a constructive contribution to the on-going debate about the supply of generics.
The NHS spends about £5.5 billion on medicines in the community in England each year. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire knows and has kindly acknowledged, the Government are making a record investment in the NHS. However, that unparalleled investment does not take away from the need to ensure that every penny is spent wisely and well, and that as much as possible goes directly to patient care. Medicines are a key component in the delivery of high-quality patient care, both in hospitals and in the community, and expenditure on medicines in the NHS rose by an average of 8.7 per cent. every year from 1995 to 2000. Similar, and in some cases greater, rates of increase are occurring in most other countries in Europe.
Much of the increased cost is because more prescriptions are being written, many of them for preventive medicines, which are helping to improve the health of people in this country—nevertheless, there is a huge increase. Another factor is the availability of medicines to treat diseases for which previously no therapy, or no effective therapy, existed. There has also been an immense change in the type of products that is dispensed to patients. More effective, and in many cases more expensive treatments are replacing older and cheaper medicines, so there is upward pressure on the finances throughout the system.
As my hon. Friend acknowledged, the arrangements for prescribing, procuring and dispensing medicines on the NHS and for the reimbursement of pharmacists are not straightforward. He referred to "a convoluted system"—it is, indeed, very complex, as I found out in my early dealings with the market. We need to take account of the interaction between manufacturers and suppliers in the private sector. There are also issues concerning product patents, the licensing of medicines for safety, quality and efficacy and the different characteristics and side effects of individual products which limit the extent to which patients may be moved from one product to another. We must always be conscious of possible contraindications.
Decisions about what to prescribe individual patients are made by doctors and sometimes nurses, who rightly want the best medicines for their patients. They have an obligation to follow prescribing guidelines where those exist, but it must also be right that they should prescribe what they consider to be the best medicine available to treat their patients. At the same time, pharmacists have an obligation under their terms of service to dispense, with reasonable promptness, all the medicines prescribed by doctors. The reimbursement arrangements for community pharmacists provide an incentive for them to obtain the best terms that they can from wholesalers and manufacturers.
The purchase and supply of medicines is not an ordinary market, and many of the considerations that apply in such a market must be modified to ensure that patient care is safeguarded. Encouraging generic prescribing plays an important role in controlling the money that is spent on medicines and ensures that patients receive the care that they need.

227WH
Branded, in-patent medicines are considerably more expensive than their generic equivalents. That is primarily to enable researched-based pharmaceutical companies to recover the substantial research and development costs that they incur in developing new and innovative medicines.
David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that branded, post-patent generic medicines—if that is not too much of an oxymoron—can be cheaper than the generics produced by the cartel, whose development has been accelerated by the vertical integration of the drugs market?
Ms Blears: I am aware that the company in my hon. Friend's constituency provided him with some interesting information, which we shall examine closely. I shall come to the definition of cheaper later, although the operation of the market may result in generic products not being cheaper.
Branded products are significantly more expensive than generic products, which is why we are keen to encourage as much generic prescribing as we can. Overall, we estimate that prescribing and dispensing as branded products medicines that were available generically would cost the NHS an extra £600 million a year.
The Government have set targets for generic prescribing by GPs. By March this year, 72 per cent. of items should be prescribed generically, while no more than 295 practices should have generic prescribing rates of less than 40 per cent. I am pleased to say that both those targets have been met ahead of time. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, slightly more than 75 per cent. of items are now prescribed generically. Although they must still meet the target, GPs have a large degree of discretion because 25 per cent. of their prescribing need not meet the generic targets. That gives them some flexibility in their dispensing procedures to take advantage of situations in which drugs become available that would save the national health service even more money. We have not set a hard and fast, 100 per cent. target, and we recognise that there will be a need for flexibility in some circumstances.
My hon. Friend acknowledged that there had been a tremendous rise in the price of generic medicines in 1999–2000, and he welcomed the introduction of the scheme, which has managed to stabilise prices. We always said that it was a short-term measure, and now we want to introduce longer-term proposals to deal with the supply of generics. In July last year, we published "Options for the Future Supply and Reimbursement of Generic Medicines for the NHS". There have been many contributions to the discussion, and we are currently considering all the options and shall respond shortly.
Peter Bradley: Will my hon. Friend give us an idea of the weight of support for a central procurement agency to secure what one hopes would be real savings to the NHS?
Ms Blears: The two options set out were central procurement and a reference-based price scheme, but I am not in a position to say what the balance of the
228WH
submissions was. However, once we receive all the responses to the consultation, I am sure that the information will be made available. My hon. Friend will appreciate that simple numbers do not always indicate the weight of those responses; it is more complicated than that, and this is a most complex area with a great deal at stake. We shall therefore evaluate the submissions extremely carefully.
Representations similar to those made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire have been received by PCTs and health authorities in the Trent region, and I understand that they have been the subject of detailed discussion and are still under consideration. I assure my hon. Friend that they will be properly considered and evaluated. Achieving savings for the NHS is in all our interests, not least those of patients.
The company considers that the branded product that it can offer would allow the NHS to achieve significant savings, and it is a matter worthy of investigation. The Government's policy on encouraging the use of generics has been successful in achieving savings for patients. Nothing in the present arrangements prevents a manufacturer or supplier from entering the market, provided that it has a licence from the Medicines Control Agency. Wholesalers and pharmacists are free to buy from whichever supplier offers the most advantageous terms. When a prescription is written generically, the pharmacist has the choice of dispensing either a generic or a branded product. Usually, however, they will be reimbursed only for the cost of the generic. The procedures would not preclude a lower-priced branded product entering the market.
David Taylor: That is okay, as far as it goes, but not all wholesalers stock the cheaper branded alternatives to the generics, which are sometimes made available to companies under covert and special arrangements.
Ms Blears: My understanding is that the best wholesalers would make the full range of products in the drug tariff available to the pharmacist. It is in their interests, when pharmacists request specific products, to ensure that they are available, because pharmacists will not want to use a wholesaler that does not provide the full range of medicines. If a wholesaler chooses not to stock a product, we can look into the matter. However, if a generic is prescribed, the pharmacist can choose to dispense either the generic or the branded product. That would allow the products mentioned by my hon. Friend to come to the market.
The discount clawback is a complex system of remunerating pharmacists, under which discount inquiries take place and a clawback is made of the estimated amount of discount that pharmacists have achieved through their buying policies from wholesalers and manufacturers. That discount clawback is worth about £600 million to the NHS. We need to be aware, when making changes to the system of purchase and remuneration, that we consider the system as a whole and do not take steps that could jeopardise the income that the NHS receives from the discount clawback.
It is important that the NHS has a secure and consistent supply of medicines. If exemptions were to be made for particular products, we might find ourselves

229WH
having placed all our faith in one supplier or manufacturer of a product. We know that that can cause difficulties for the NHS. It is in the interests of the service to have as wide a range of suppliers as possible, so that it can be assured of a consistent and regular supply. If we were to concentrate on only one supplier for a product, it would significantly increase the risk of shortage should that company run into difficulties and not be able to provide that secure and consistent supply.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for North-West Leicestershire and for The Wrekin for drawing attention to those important matters. We want to achieve the savings that can be achieved by the prescribing of generic medicines, but we also want, through whatever avenues are open to us, to increase the amount of money that we are able to spend on NHS patients. I reassure my hon. Friends that the submissions and points that they made will be taken into account in the current review of options with respect to the supply of generics in the national health service. They have made a constructive contribution to what is a complex area of manufacture, supply and reimbursement. I undertake to study closely the information that has been provided about specific products from my hon. Friend's constituency.

Standard Spending Assessment (South Gloucestershire)
1 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: Mr. Gale, I do not know whether you have ever seen the old news footage of industrial action in which a striking worker walks down the street at a demonstration with a placard saying, "Five per cent. of nothing is nothing; we want 10 per cent." I feel I am in a similar position. My argument with the Government is not that this year's settlement was particularly bad. Indeed, as I am sure the Minister will point out, it was markedly more than we might have expected under a previous Government, and even allowing for population growth it was probably broadly in line with the national average. However, my key contention is that the base for setting spending in the South Gloucestershire council area is far too low. I want to remark on the urgent need for reform of the system, and offer some thoughts about the shape that that reform might take.
I offer my sympathy to the Minister because I notice that there is a rash of Adjournment debates on the topic of the SSA for various authorities. I have read the transcript of his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and some of the issues raised in that debate are obviously relevant to South Gloucestershire.
The issue is not, or should not be, at local level, a party political one. Although it might mischievously be suggested that South Gloucestershire council is spendthrift, in the current financial year all three parties on the council set budgets with remarkably similar spending levels, and the one with the lowest level—the Liberal Democrat one—was adopted. All three were in the same ballpark, however, because whoever runs South Gloucestershire council must operate against what we perceive as an unfair system.
South Gloucestershire council has been underfunded from the beginning. In its first year, 1996–97, it pencilled in the use of £10 million of its inherited reserves to patch a hole in the budget. By cutting spending inherited from its predecessor authorities it avoided using the whole £10 million, but each year since then, £3 million or £4 million has been pencilled in to plug the hole in the budget. That is not a sustainable state of affairs.
To give hon. Members an idea of how low the standard spending assessment is for South Gloucestershire, I shall cite some figures that are familiar to the residents of that area. South Gloucestershire is 145th out of 150 authorities with respect to children's social services; 147th out of 150 with respect to care of elderly people at home; and 150th out of 150—bottom of the pile—for primary education. Clearly, in any system there are some at the top and some at the bottom. However, the discrepancies between authorities are impossible to justify. South Gloucestershire receives £300 per primary pupil less than the national average. I cannot believe that it costs £300 less to educate a child in South Gloucestershire than it does elsewhere. Even when a comparison is made with similar, unitary, authorities, the discrepancy is £260. That affects real pupils and real teachers in real classrooms.
The base level of funding is unfair, but why? First, as the Minister, who is knowledgeable about such matters, knows, we, like many authorities in the region, are

231WH
affected by the area cost adjustment, which gives us no credit for the pressures on our labour market. A pertinent example is that we find it impossible to recruit home care workers. Elderly people cannot leave hospital, because there are not enough care workers to look after them. It is the problem known as bed blocking. As the Minister will no doubt point out, money has been allocated in that general direction, but I cannot help feeling that if the system more readily recognised labour market pressures outside London and the south-east—and did so up front—we might never have had folk kept in hospital beds in the first place; we could have afforded care staff, enabling them to leave. We would not have needed a sticking plaster grant to deal with the problem. We could have pre-empted it. Whatever system the Government come up with, it is essential that they recognise that it is not only in London and the south-east that such labour market pressures exist.
A separate problem affects growing authorities such as South Gloucestershire—the use of acutely out-of-date information. The number of children in primary education is counted in the January before the following year's funding is calculated. A consequence of that is that each year South Gloucestershire educates the equivalent of a whole primary school's worth of pupils not for a below average amount, but for nothing at all. The county gets no money for the children that it is teaching. Until systems are introduced that use more up-to-date data, which ought to be possible by now, the authority, which is set to grow for decades to come, will lose out.
The problem affects not only young children but the whole population of the area. The assessment of that population, which feeds into the SSA calculation, is way out. The mid-year figure for 2000, which is used in the SSA formula for the coming year, assumes a population of some 247,000. However, we know from the health authority that, in April 2001, the population was already 3 or 4 per cent. higher than that and has grown since then. On the one hand the authority is not receiving money for people in its area and the other hand, the Government formula deducts money from the authority's grant for the council tax paid by those people as soon as they move in.
The day that someone moves into the area, the authority is assumed to be receiving council tax from them, which it does, and that is subtracted from the money that it receives from the Government. However, the authority does not receive the funds to cover the cost of educating those people's children or looking after the elderly among them or sorting out their dustbins for a year or maybe two. That is a double whammy. The second those people move into the area, we lose money on the council tax side of the equation. However, although the authority has to meet the costs of providing services for them straight away, they are not included in the figures on the revenue side until two years later. Growth is a real problem if the system does not catch up with change.
I have outlined some reasons why the base funding level is unfair. This year's settlement of 6.6 per cent. is clearly decent in the context of provision to other authorities. The figure is slightly above the national average, although when the population growth is taken into account, the increase is probably broadly in line
232WH
with the national average. As I said earlier, it is welcome in that it is substantially more than what we might have received under a previous Government.
Mr. Roger Berry: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the total grant to South Gloucestershire council, in cash terms, has increased by about 40 per cent. during the past four years, which is dramatically more than under previous Governments? Will he acknowledge that his concerns about the SSA for South Gloucestershire are shared by all political parties on the council and by all local Members of Parliament, including me?
Mr. Webb: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support, of which I am well aware, for my argument that the SSA formula is unfair. I would say, however, that local political responses have been seasonally adjusted. When the Government announced the extent of their support in November, all three parties said that it was a scandal. When the council announced a council tax rise based on that unfair system, complaining about underfunding suddenly became a lonely business. Accusations were suddenly made that the council was not controlling its spending properly, and the Conservative opposition have been known to make mischief, having said only a few months earlier that the funding settlement was not adequate. I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about grants in a moment.
The settlement of 6.6 per cent. is not bad, but the fundamental point is that it is 6.6 per cent. of not enough. It is important to put on the record that built into that increase is the assumption that the council will increase council tax by roughly 5 per cent. Regular letters to the local press say, "We have to keep in line with inflation; why can't the council?" The first answer to that is that the Government assume that the council will not. They build into their allocation an assumption that council tax will be increased by double the rate of inflation before spending pressures have been considered.
As the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) said, separate grants go the local authority. The question is whether they change the system. Before we consider the grants, we should examine the spending pressures on the authority. Why was the SSA increase of £11 million or so not enough? One reason is that the authority has faced a near-doubling of people presenting themselves as homeless. The authority has a statutory duty to respond humanely to such people. It cannot turn them away or say, "Sorry, you are not in the budget."
That increase in homelessness is a nationwide problem, but it is particularly acute in South Gloucestershire. The homelessness tsar and his staff and departmental staff have been to South Gloucestershire to examine the council's response to homeless people and have recommended no changes. No fault has been found in the way in which the council responds to homelessness, but there has been a huge rise in the problem, for all sorts of reasons, which has put a further £500,000 on the budget for the year to come and meant that there were no underspends this year. Normally, interest income underspends bail the council out, but this year there have been additional pressures as a result of issues such as homelessness and falls in interest income from previous years.

233WH
The council has had to find money for other matters. Every three years or so, pensions schemes are reviewed for teachers and council staff. The council has a statutory duty to ensure that the funds are available, and has been told to put another £1 million into the budget to find that money. That sum, which is in addition to keeping services going, represents perhaps another 2 per cent. on the council tax. Another £900,000 has gone on what is known as single status, to level up the standards of manual and non-manual workers, whether women or men. Such matters are entirely laudable, and if a council did not act on them it would be taken to court, but the council tax payer has to pay for them.
A further £500,000 was required for the fire authority. Again, the council has no control over that, but simply has to levy the money. Another spending pressure is the £600,000 in matching funding when the Government take welcome action, not necessarily on core services but additional ones, and the council receives the money only if it finds money of its own. In a tight budget, that puts additional pressure on council tax.
In previous years, underspends have arisen, perhaps because of interest income helping to offset some spending and perhaps because of pressures that did not materialise. Now, pressure from homelessness and loss of interest income means that reserves have had to be run down by probably slightly more than £3 million in the budget. As a result, the reserves are almost gone and the burden falls on the hard-pressed council tax payer.
The hon. Member for Kingswood mentioned the grants that councils receive. They are mainly for schools and social services. The grants direct to schools are extremely welcome. However, given that the council has a policy for passporting all the money that it receives for schools directly to the schools themselves, the grants do not directly relieve the pressure on the council tax payer. The council does what it is told by passing the education money on to schools. It does not know what the schools will receive, so it cannot say that it will give less than any specific sum, and the Government would be unhappy if it did.
To an even greater extent, the grants for social services do not relieve the pressure on the council tax payer. Some £3 million is set aside for preserved rights cases, which involve people who used to be paid by the Department for Work and Pensions and are now the responsibility of the local authority. To match that £3 million grant, there is a £3 million or so liability. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome said a few weeks ago, that money has been dished out to councils in a way that reflects the SSA formula. That penalises us again. It would be wrong to say that councils have done well to receive millions of pounds and should reduce council tax when they have gained liabilities that more than exceed their grants in some cases. Likewise, £500,000 this year and £1 million next year for bed blocking is welcome, so far as it goes. At the same time, a grant to promote independence among elderly people has been cut by £500,000. One has to consider the whole.
The key point about the additional grants is that, welcome though they are, they do not pay for core services, except those to schools. They are for welcome
234WH
innovations, but often do not help the pressure on core services. When they require matching funding, they can make matters worse, and when they are allocated through the SSA formula, worse still. My director of social services cited the example of an initiative to help disabled children, for which the council received a grant total of £32,000. It had such a small SSA for children that, once the formula had been applied, the sum had almost gone on the employment of one person and overheads. The SSA formula is wrecking the system.
The key point for us in South Gloucestershire is that when the new system is introduced next year—I hope that the Minister will reassure us that it will be—we will not have to wait years and years for any significant gain from it. I may be wrong and we may gain nothing, but I hope that there is only one way to go, given that we start at the bottom of the league table. If there are gains for authorities such as South Gloucestershire, they must be brought in quickly. I understand that if there are gainers in a fixed pot, there will also be losers, and that some cushioning has to be provided for the losers. However, I hope that the Minister will assure us that councils that are not fairly funded will not have to wait years for that injustice to be dealt with. If a ceiling is put on gains, I hope that the ceiling will be on gains per head rather than on the total SSA—or whatever succeeds that assessment. That would at least reflect the fact that we need more money just to stand still. A ceiling that remains determined on the basis of total cash will be prejudiced against growth areas.
In the longer term, the entire council tax system needs sorting out. Pensioners in my constituency who are just above benefit levels are often those hardest hit by large council tax rises. They do not receive help through the benefit system and have to pay the full whack of any increase, although their incomes have not risen by much. In the long term, we need a local government system that is closely related to ability to pay, and council tax is not such a system. The priority is to deal with that unfair system and make reforms quickly, because the people of South Gloucestershire have waited long enough.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) for giving us the opportunity to debate the local government finance settlement for South Gloucestershire for the coming financial year. He referred to the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) in this Chamber recently, on funding and the standard spending assessment for Somerset. Several points raised in that debate are relevant today.
I welcome the statement of the hon. Member for Northavon that the purpose of today's debate is not to claim that this year's settlement was uniquely bad or robbed councils of all their funding. The deeper issue that we should consider is how the funding formula works and how it distributes money to local authorities in general. That was the substance of his contribution.
It is worth repeating some of what I said in the debate on Somerset's standard spending assessment. This year's settlement is a good one for local authorities

235WH
generally. It provides £3.3 billion more in general grant than in 2001–02, on a like-for-like basis. The 7.4 per cent. increase, taking into account all the grants that it represents, is more than three times the rate of inflation. However, I accept that the Government may truthfully say that the national settlement is good, while local authorities—and hon. Members discussing the settlement in the context of individual authorities—may say that it is not good, or that it does not do what they had hoped. That is not merely because the settlement varies greatly in different regions but because the funding formula continues to produce outcomes that individual local councils find perplexing. Hon. Members have often made that point in this Chamber.
South Gloucestershire council has benefited from the extra investment that we have made in local government. In the two years before 1998–99, which included the first year under this Government, South Gloucestershire received an average SSA increase of 3.6 per cent. each year. Since then, it has received an average increase of 5.7 per cent. Under our proposals for next year, it will receive a general grant increase of 6.8 per cent., or £8.16 million. This builds on the 4.5 per cent. that the authority received this year and compares favourably with the overall increase for authorities in England of 5 per cent., and for shire unitary authorities of 5.2 per cent.
On top of the increase in its general grant, South Gloucestershire will also benefit from the increases in ring-fenced grants, particularly in the areas of education and social services, on which I shall comment later.
It is not true that, in those settlement figures, the Government automatically assume that council tax will rise by the 5 per cent. or so that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It is true that there were reports in the newspapers a little while ago of Treasury estimates that it was claimed were a built-in, council tax-assumed increase in the local government settlement. However, that relates to Treasury estimates of the council tax yield and is a composite calculation, which includes a possible increase in council tax, the continued improvement in the rates of council tax collection by local authorities and the additional properties that will be taxed through the council tax mechanism in the next year. That composite is not the same as an assumed increase. Indeed, because different local authorities have different circumstances, the Government have made no assumptions for an assumed increase in council tax across authorities before a grant is considered.
The hon. Gentleman emphasised the fact that, despite the good settlement for South Gloucestershire this year, there are substantial elements in the history of its funding and its nature as a unitary authority that cause him to believe that there are continuing problems in funding it. I am sure that the extra grant will have been welcomed by the local authority, but I appreciate that more fundamental concerns exist about the method of distributing grant between authorities, and I am aware of the general feeling among local authorities in the south-west that they do not receive a fair share of the grant overall, an issue highlighted in last week's Adjournment debate on Somerset.
I repeat the comments that I made in that debate. We recognise that the current system has its flaws. I have myself as a leader of a local authority fallen victim to a system in which the outcome of formula change reduced
236WH
the grant increase to my authority, despite there being apparently no change in its responsibilities. The SSA formula tends to penalise authorities that had relatively low expenditure in the early 1990s when it was introduced.
South Gloucestershire would no doubt have wanted the Government to make changes this year, but we did not want to impose a system on local government without agreement that it would be fairer or more transparent. It is true that where population figures lag behind actual growth that can cause problems with grants, but a decline in population can also cause a problem, because the continuation of services does not relate arithmetically to the reduction in grant following a reduction in population. One cannot reduce one 29th of a teacher per classroom to compensate financially for the reduction of one child per classroom following a reduction in the number of children. Whichever way one looks at it, the SSA formula has problems.
I join the hon. Gentleman in emphasising that not everyone can be a winner from the changes that may eventually be introduced. We must therefore look closely at all the issues and consequences for councils of any proposed changes so that, winners or losers, they relate clearly to the way in which that new formula will work for them.
We are committed to a fundamental reform of the SSA formula and we are working to create a local government finance system that distributes grants fairly and effectively and gives councils greater financial autonomy to help them better to meet the needs of their local communities. As far as possible, we shall work with local government and try to build a consensus on how those changes will work.
Mr. Webb: I am grateful for what the Minister has said so far, but I tried to express the frustration that local residents feel about the unfairness and the need for urgent change, and he mentioned the need to build consensus. Only today I received a copy of a letter from him to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) who had suggested that he and I and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) went to see him as an all-party delegation. In his letter, the Minister said that he would not meet us. How can he get consensus if he refuses even to see us?
Dr. Whitehead: I received—indeed, the Department received—a large number of letters, as we have in previous years, from local authorities wishing to discuss particular issues relating to their settlements during the period of consultation after the announcement of the provisional grant. The Department took the view this year that it would be appropriate and right to meet a number of different local authority groups to discuss the nature of the settlement—not just the Local Government Association but the county network, the unitary authorities and the district councils—and those meetings have taken place.
However, having a large number of meetings over a short period of time was not felt to be very productive for the settlement. I recall writing a letter to the hon. Member for Woodspring emphasising that although written submissions would be welcome, it was not appropriate at that stage to hold a large number of

237WH
essentially similar meetings with particular local authorities. It was hoped that discussion on representations with groups of local authorities would be a more appropriate way to make concerns felt. The hon. Member for Northavon has, however, taken the opportunity of securing an Adjournment debate in this Chamber on his local authority.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the vexatious issue of area cost adjustments. That factor in grant distribution reflects the higher cost of recruiting and retaining staff in the south-east, but there has always been controversy about how it is calculated, especially in areas that fall outside the boundary. Numerous research projects over the years have tried to find a better solution. We have conducted research openly, and local government has had every opportunity to scrutinise and debate the research projects, but unfortunately there has been no final agreement between authorities on the merits of the different options. We therefore decided not to rush into changing the area cost adjustment, but we are considering that as part of next year's review of grant distribution.
Some authorities complain about being just outside the boundary and argue, as the hon. Member for Northavon mentioned, that their pay pressures are comparable with those of the bordering authority. I have considerable sympathy with that argument and we have reviewed the issue carefully. Despite a considerable body of research commissioned in that area, local government remains divided. Finding the answer will not be easy, but we are committed to working with local government on it.
We shall update data, including the area cost adjustment, as normal for 2002–03. We have been working with local government to ensure that that is done in the best way possible and have taken on board some of its concerns, such as on new methods of
238WH
measuring road lengths used in SSA indicators. We have made concessions in terms of not implementing new methods of road length measurements this year. That has been put off until a future date.
We continue to discuss with local government how best to implement the formula, flawed though it is. I hope that, as a result of the discussions that we shall hold and the calculations that we shall make, we will have a simpler, fairer and more transparent system based on need and a notion of what local authorities see going into the calculations. That system should divide up the global grant total available for local government in such a way that local authorities can see that the overall grant cake has been divided up fairly, whether they have been winners or not.
In an earlier year, we introduced the floors and ceilings mechanism essentially set out in the Green Paper on local government finance as an option for the future. We felt that the continued substantial variations in grant between local authorities as a result of the way in which SSAs were working, produced, especially among district authorities, very wide variations, ranging from 0 to more than 10 per cent. Having a floors and ceilings mechanism was therefore important. The hon. Gentleman will know that, in the context of the floors and ceilings mechanism for unitary authorities, we have changed, again as a result of discussion with local authorities, the system whereby poor authorities pay for the very poor. Some £41 million has gone into the settlement to ensure that mid-range authorities do not pay to bring lower authorities up to the floor.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will take into consideration the points that he has raised today. The Government believe that we shall provide a good settlement for 2002–03, but there will be winners and losers. Nevertheless, next year's settlement will be good for South Gloucestershire. We are coming to the end of the six-week consultation period, and we shall listen carefully to all issues raised by local government during that process.

Occupational Pension Schemes
1.30 pm
Sandra Osborne: I am pleased to have the opportunity to open today's debate. I shall raise the plight of more than 1,000 workers who were employed by United Engineering Forgings. The matter affects not only my constituents but those of numerous other hon. Members because UEF workers were employed in six manufacturing locations in the United Kingdom. Within the time available, I shall endeavour to accept interventions from hon. Members who want to contribute to the debate.
I recognise that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions may have difficulty commenting on much of the detail of the case, although I know that he has received correspondence and is aware of the situation. The position in which the members of the UEF occupational pension scheme have found themselves illustrates inherent weaknesses in the current rules that must be urgently addressed. I therefore hope that his response will inform the Chamber of the Government's intention further to strengthen pensions legislation to ensure that workers can never again be deprived of their rightful entitlement for which they have paid all their working lives.
I intend to show that this case has been caused by the irresponsible and cynical actions of UEF's major shareholder, Prudential Portfolio Management Ventures Ltd., which is part of the Prudential Group—ironically, a leader in pension provision. UEF was the former British Steel forging division that was purchased by PPMV in 1997. In January 1997, the chief executive of the company informed the group's trade union representatives of his five-year plan for the business, the aim of which was to launch the company on the stock market at the end of those five years.
The UEF company pension scheme originated in 1974 under the ownership of Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds. It was designed for GKN by the Prudential and was introduced as part of the 1974 annual wage award. It was a final salary scheme, in which the employer contributed 10 per cent. and employees contributed 5 per cent. of their pensionable earnings. The scheme was well run under GKN, and from 1986 by a new company, United Engineering Steels and Forgings. Actuarial reviews were held regularly and surpluses were the norm. When it was realised that there was a deficit, the employer fully funded the shortfall to the scheme, thus ensuring that benefits were maintained.
Until UEF bought the company in 1997, early retirement benefits were usually allowed only when the employer was satisfied that an employee's health was in such a poor state that they could no longer work. When UEF took over, it transferred the scheme as a mirror image, but a change was made to ensure that new members joining the scheme would not be offered the generous early retirement benefits that existed for its present members, which is ironic when one considers what happened later. In August 1997, when the transfer value was agreed, the scheme had 1,953 active members, and a board of seven trustees that was chaired by the company's financial director.
240WH
In September 1997, the first member of the pension scheme retired. However, the business was not going as well as the company had hoped, and it had started to make a loss. That fact is recognised by the employees, but it was the responsibility of the employer and the trustees to ensure that the pension scheme was funded properly. Some sites initiated voluntary redundancies in order to reduce their wages bill. The pension scheme, with its generous early retirement benefits allied to redundancy payments, certainly looked an attractive option to employees over the age of 55. Early retirement, however, required the company's consent. Former employees believe that the pension scheme was the carrot used by the company to ensure that many employees would volunteer for redundancy, with those of 55 years of age and over receiving their fully accrued pension. As I hope to show, scant regard was paid to the effect of this on the pension scheme and future pensioners.
To illustrate the effect of this redundancy policy on the pension scheme, an employee aged 55 years who had been a member of the pension scheme since 1974 would be entitled to a weekly pension of £100 per week plus a cash lump sum. If one assumes a life expectancy of 80 years, that person alone would cost the pension scheme £125,000 to £150,000.
In April 1998, the pension scheme had 47 pensioners and 27 deferred pensions. By September 1998, that had risen to 128 and 49 respectively. Some sites within UEF were employing new people, but they were temporary workers who were not allowed to join the scheme until they had been employed for a year. That did not help the situation, however, because fewer eligible members were paying into the pension scheme as more members were being taken out.
By April 1999, the pension scheme had 283 pensioners and 94 deferred pensions. The number of active members paying into the scheme had dropped to 1,712. In October 1999 the trustees, on the advice of Bacon and Woodrow, approached the board and asked it to increase its contributions, as the minimum funding requirement had dropped from the 120 per cent. funded in April 1998 to 100 per cent. in April 1999, and was still dropping. The advice was that the contributions required were now 19 per cent. The board refused to increase its contribution, and by March 2000 there were 373 pensioners and 139 deferred pensions, and the minimum funding requirement was down to 96 per cent. In April 2000, the board sold the Smith Clayton Aerospace division and the pension scheme then had 190 fewer paying active members.
In June 2000, the company decided to take action. Employees were asked to contribute another 2 per cent. on top of their existing 5 per cent. to help fund the scheme. The company would also pay 2 per cent., making a total contribution of 19 per cent., as previously requested by the trustees but refused by the board the previous year when the need was first highlighted. The employees were told that if they did not agree to pay the extra 2 per cent., the pension scheme would cease. Also a pensions roadshow was held at each site to explain to the employees why management was asking for the extra funding when the trust deed decreed that the employer should fund any shortfall, as previous employers had done.

241WH
The company went into administration on 12 June 2001 or shortly thereafter, and an independent trustee to the pension scheme was appointed by the court. He reported that the pension scheme was grossly underfunded and would have to be wound up immediately at a cost of £3 million, which would leave a shortfall of £12 million.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister and other hon. Members present will understand that the work force were devastated. They were always told what a good investment it was to pay into a company pension scheme and how it would provide them with a wage in their retirement.
John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this subject. Does she agree that the Government must protect such occupational pensions? Many large companies have used and abused the early release schemes and the same could happen to them and their pension schemes as happened to the one mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Sandra Osborne: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I hope to ask the Government later what action they intend to take.
Although such employees have taken the advice of Governments past and present and provided for their retirement by faithfully contributing for 20, 30 or even 40 years, so that they will not be a burden on the state, the expected pension from their fully accrued final salary scheme will not be there when they need it most—as they enter retirement and old age.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate; I, too, hope to secure such a debate. I am sad to say that her constituents' experience is mirrored by that of mine, but with one brutal difference. Mine appear to be losing not only their financial security in retirement but their jobs, and I hope that the Minister will say something about that.
Sandra Osborne: As the hon. Lady knows, receivership has had varied outcomes. I am pleased to say that a buyer has been found, but that will not diminish the serious impact on people's pension entitlement.
Such employees are now told that they must buy an annuity from whatever the reduced transfer value amounts to, but it will probably provide a pension far short of what they have paid for. Employees who are within one or two years of the normal retirement age must now live with the fact that, although they have no time to make up their pension deficit, younger employees who took advantage of the early retirement offers will reap 100 per cent. benefits for the rest of their lives.
I have permission to give the example—it is just one—of Mr. Willie Riggins, who has worked in what is known in Ayr as the Stampworks for 37 years, and has paid into the pension fund since 1976. In 1999, Willie received a quote for what he would be due—£29,500 in a lump sum and a pension of £137 a week—if he took early retirement. According to a recent quote for a
242WH
stakeholder pension, however, he would get a lump sum of £12,500 and a pension of £40 a week. Those sums are based on the average transfer value in 1997, and would be even less now.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has stated in letters to colleagues that if a scheme is funded to at least the minimum funding requirement, it should provide fair value for the accrued rights of non-pensioners in the event of insolvency. However, what if, through the neglect of people who should know better, it is not funded to MFR levels? Again, to ensure that the scheme's funds are used for the intended purpose, there are restrictions on the amount that can be invested from the pension fund into the employer's business. However, what if misuse is not direct and monetary? What if the pension fund is used to cut the company's wage bills, and the fund is overburdened without taking account of future requirements?
Dr. Richard Taylor: Does the hon. Lady agree that the methods of complaint available to pensioners and future pensioners are weak and inadequate? First, they must go to the independent trustee, and then to the office of the Occupational Pension Schemes Advisory Service, which by its own admission has no teeth. Only then can they go to the ombudsman. Several of my constituents are trying such methods, but they are cumbersome and apparently useless.
Sandra Osborne: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I must curtail my comments because of time constraints, but I should point out that the Government have themselves recognised that MFR levels lull people into a false sense of security about their pensions.
It is clear that the responsible course of action on the part of trustees and the board would have been to put in enough money to ensure that the scheme was fully funded, and to take account of the company's financial problems by freezing those funds. That did not happen timeously, however. What can the Government do to impose sanctions on such irresponsible behaviour? While advising employees to increase their contributions because of the underfunding problem, PPMV was trying to offload its shares to the company and was totally uncommunicative with the work force, and others, in the process. For example, they refused to meet me and, to my knowledge, other Members of Parliament, to discuss the situation. Ironically, Prudential was keen to discuss it with me yesterday, but unfortunately it was a wee bit too late in the day.
I call on Prudential, even at this late stage, to sort things out. The shortfall is a drop in the ocean to it, but would make a huge difference to the lives of my constituents and of others. If it wants to retain its reputation, it should get round a table with the employees' representatives and live up to its responsibility for the whole sorry tale.
I am aware that the Government have been considering various aspects of occupational pension schemes and have recognised their importance. They have consulted on aspects that could lead to improvements, such as insurance and a central contribution fund, but have rejected them. I would like to hear about any proposals that will improve the

243WH
situation that the Government have accepted. Will the proposals prevent what my constituents and those of other hon. Members experienced?
1.46 pm
The Minister for Pensionsb (Mr. Ian McCartney): Good afternoon, Mr. Gale. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne) for bringing this matter to the attention of the Chamber and for eloquently giving voice to the concerns of not only her constituents but those of a significant number of hon. Members across the House. They have directly suffered from the collapse of this company through the loss of pension entitlements and, in some instances, jobs, careers and the financial security in which they had been investing for future years.
I will attempt to answer as many of the questions as possible in the time available. I can offer a number of things to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr and hon. Members who have not been able to attend today. I offer a further meeting to discuss the issue in more detail and consider improvements to the private pensions industry. A half-hour debate does not do justice to my hon. Friend's case or the general issues that the Government must address. If, by the end of the debate, I have not answered some questions, I will send a detailed letter to my hon. Friend that can be circulated to other hon. Members, who will then be fully aware of the response that would have been given had the debate lasted for an hour.
My hon. Friend said that she was extremely disappointed about the fate of the company. She greatly contained her anger. As a former trade union shop steward, I heard alarm bells and wondered whether we had heard this all before. A company has been bought out, or there has been a management buy-out, even though it has a good market record and order book, seems to have a product with added value in the marketplace, has substantial potential for development, and has a base in the UK economy and an order book for elsewhere. For a reason unknown to my hon. Friend and the work force, there is a venture capital company involved that may take a short-term, rather than long-term, view on the other company and its capacity to expand and improve its market share. I cannot comment on that, other than to say that we are in the ironic position that a venture capital company owned by a major insurance company is involved in the pensions industry. It is a further irony that Prudential was involved in the establishment of the original scheme.
The company has been led into taking short-term attitudes as a result of the pressure of investing in other pension funds. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr is right to pursue a meeting with Prudential to ask it about the decision-making process behind the way in which, ultimately, that company has been unbundled as it has. Parts of it have been completely closed off, others have been sold to competitors and parts of its assets, including land, have been sold off by those put in charge during the winding-up process.
My hon. Friend asked a number of questions, and I will try to respond to some. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) was not able to catch your eye, Mr. Gale, but I think that he had a point to make about the minimum funding requirement. The
244WH
Government consulted on the future of MFR and, in the light of the responses to that consultation, have decided that most recommendations must be implemented by primary legislation. We cannot undertake them simply by regulation.
We decided that if we were to develop our legislative proposals and introduce a Bill as soon as parliamentary time was available there should be further consultation. We have set up a consultation panel of representatives from the pensions industry and other interested parties including representatives of pensioners and trade unions. It will meet on a regular basis during the coming months to assist us in developing legislation.
Mr. Frank Doran: Following my right hon. Friend the Minister's invitation, I could not resist intervening. Does he accept that MFR, as presently constituted, is a double-edged sword? It is a protection for pensioners, but in my own constituency, just this weekend, my major non-oil private employer, Richards plc, was advised by its trustees to close down its pension fund simply because the fund was falling into deficit. The major reason that the trustees cited for that was the effect of MFR in the present economic climate. The anticipated returns were unachievable by a company in a hard-pressed manufacturing sector.
Mr. McCartney: I cannot comment directly as my hon. Friend invites me to. If he wants to write to me, I shall certainly comment, but let us remember why MFR is there. Whatever propositions come up later, certain principles are involved. One of those is, in all circumstances, the capacity to ensure that the employer makes good a deficit. The question is what is the most appropriate way of doing that, and we have decided that it is not the MFR regime as it currently stands. The review of MFR is not to get rid of, undermine or reduce an employer's obligation to make good funding requirements, but to find the most appropriate way of doing that on a consensual basis. If my hon. Friend writes to me, I shall send him more details about the review and what has come out of it.
The first meeting of the panel took place on 16 November, and agreed a work programme for activities with me. Hopefully, I will be able to report on that later in the year. Again, in a letter to my hon. Friend, I shall set out the work that has been done so far.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr asked about the discontinuance fund and rightly said that my predecessor consulted on it and found little or no support for the proposal. That was mainly because other defined benefit schemes made it clear that they did not want their members to help pay the deficit of members in other occupational funds. The Government are not in the business, and cannot be, of being a financial guarantor to every defined benefit scheme in the country. That is not feasible. Therefore, there is no consensus on well-run fund schemes being part of a fund to meet the needs and shortfalls of others.
Another issue raised was insurance to meet solvency concerns. Again, a consultation on that took place under my predecessor, and again there was no consensus on the system of safeguards for funders. It was thought feasible to have insurance on the terms that my hon. Friend talked about, but it was argued that the scheme would be even more complex than MFR. I am prepared

245WH
to examine insurance and will write to my hon. Friend about it. There is an issue there about finding ways and means for the scheme under difficult circumstances: because of the way in which the company has been wound up, it is outside the capacity of the members to use MFR or any other means. I am prepared to look at that matter again and give my hon. Friend a more detailed answer.
As to the question on employment that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) asked, perhaps she could write to me with the details. The Department for Work and Pensions has a complete and professional Employment Service that works in local labour markets. I shall be more than happy to make the connection between the company and the Employment Service, if they have not already met, and to sit down with them to discuss the services that can be provided for those who will get redundancy notices. I will deal with the matter appropriately with my ministerial colleague at the Department responsible for employment services.
Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr said, I assure hon. Members that the vast majority of schemes have important safeguards that continue to protect members. A few weeks ago, I announced that I am carrying out a quinquennial review of the operation of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, and I shall report back on that later this year. I hope that by the end of the year we will have recommendations on the future of OPRA in relation to its effect on the regulatory regime, whether it should be more proactive, rather than reactive, whether it has enough resources to do the job and, five years after its establishment, what more we can do to make it more effective.
OPRA investigated this case. It has powers to impose financial penalties, to bring criminal prosecutions, to disqualify a scheme's trustees and to refer cases to the police or the special fraud office. However, it does not generally supervise the actions of trustees. Where there is wrongdoing, it has powers to act on behalf of those who made the complaint. OPRA first had inquiries about United Engineering's pension scheme in June 2001. The information that it obtained established that there was no breach of rules on which further action could be taken. Specifically, there was no evidence of theft or fraud having taken place. My hon. Friend is
246WH
concerned about whether the company acted appropriately in carrying out its fiduciary duties. That has been taken up with the Occupational Pensions Schemes Advisory Service and the ombudsman.
If the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) will write to me with details, I will investigate the reasons for the delay. I cannot comment on why it is taking so long, but I will look into the matter on his behalf.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I hope that when my right hon. Friend finally receives the report he will err on the side of more regulation, not less. This goes way back to 1988, when the Tories were in power talking about regulation being a bad thing that should be got rid of. They are still at it. We should be able to regulate those private firms to ensure that they carry out the wishes not only of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne), but of all the others involved. I urge my right hon. Friend, when he gets the report and takes action to introduce the Bill, to err on the side of more regulation, and let us hope that Conservative Members do not come to the House of Commons bawling about it.
Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. However, it is a matter not of more regulation but of effective regulation. In my old position as a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, I was probably responsible for about 80 per cent. of Government regulation in the last Parliament, whether for the minimum wage or employment relations. I am not averse to using regulation, but it must be effective.
In the past we had layer upon layer of regulation going on for decades, mounting to the point where the books of case law are extremely thick, but there are still areas where it has been ineffective. That is the reason for the simplification review. We must strip out all the regulations that are doing nothing to support and develop pension schemes, to protect members' interests or to help and encourage companies to continue to fund them. We cannot force companies to have defined benefits schemes. It is therefore important that the regulatory regime should meet the balance of requirements in terms of the schemes that are established. I give my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr the absolute assurance that any regulations that are introduced will be effective.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Royal Portrait
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if the portrait of Her Majesty the Queen by Lucian Freud will be procured for the House for display in Portcullis House; and if he will make a statement. [28674]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  I understand that this striking portrait was presented by the artist to Her Majesty the Queen as a gift. It has been accepted into the Royal Collection and will be on public display when the new Queen's Gallery at Buckingham Palace is opened on 22 May.

  The House owns a portrait of Her Majesty the Queen by Henry Mee which is hanging in 1 Parliament street. Arrangements are already in hand to display it in Portcullis House.

  Portcullis House
  Norman Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what has been the cost to date since the opening of Portcullis House of(a) maintenance, (b) remedial action to rectify faults and (c) action to introduce improvements requested by hon. Members; if he will produce a detailed list in respect of (b) and (c) above, with itemised costs; and if he will make a statement. [25377]

  Mr. Bell
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  I regret that the information is not available in the form requested, but the following is readily available.

  The first Members moved into the building in September 2000 and it was fully occupied at the beginning of January before the official opening in February 2001.

  Maintenance costs in the current financial year, including VAT, total £650,000 to the end of December, which is in budget.

  It has been necessary to enhance the capacity of the fan in the extract system from the cooking ranges, to replace three broken panels in the courtyard roof and to alter the interface with the window blinds. There is continuing work on the borehole to prevent silt entering the cooling system; to the lifts that run between the kitchens; and to the water feature. In each instance questions of liability for the costs are the subject of discussions with the contractor and/or the designer.
  690W
  The majority of the changes requested by hon. Members and their staff have been for furniture additional to or different from the standard range available for the building. In the main these have been met from the furniture bought as part of the project but a further £3,800 has been spent. In some cases there have also been consequent minor changes to the power sockets. The only other change has been the conversion of cupboards to book/display cases in a limited number of rooms where none was provided and the removal of intrusive lightshelves from the fifth floor corner offices. The cost is some £20,000.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the President of the Council what equipment has been stolen from his Department since 1 May 1997; and what the approximate value of each item was. [26831]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  None.

  Members' Travel
  John Mann
  To ask the President of the Council what percentage of hon. Members' domestic official travel expenditure in the last 12 months was by(a) car, (b) train and (c) air. [29386]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  For the year ended 31 March 2001 the following percentages apply to Members' domestic official travel funded from the Members' Vote1

  Percentage

  Car

  56.6

  Rail

  22.9

  Air

  18.5

  Miscellaneous

  2

  1House of Commons Department of Finance and Administration.

  Members' Tax Status
  John Mann
  To ask the President of the Council what discussions have taken place with the Tax Office over the last five years over the tax status of hon. Members. [29301]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Over the last five years the Department of Finance and Administration have met the Inland Revenue on a number of occasions to discuss a wide range of issues relating to the tax status of hon. Members, and will continue to do so.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Sudan
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she raised the bombing of civilians in southern Sudan with Government representatives on her recent visit; and if she will make a statement. [28710]

  Hilary Benn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State raised the issue of the bombing of civilians during her meeting with the Government of Sudan's Minister of Defence. The Secretary of State made it clear that the UK
  691W
  expects parties to the conflict to live up to their obligations not to attack civilians, whether from the ground or from the air.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about the prospects for funding health and education in Sudan following her recent visit. [28711]

  Hilary Benn
  We are willing to consider funding any well designed programmes which are likely to deliver tangible benefits to ordinary Sudanese people. We shall continue to give priority to those programmes that address the most urgent needs.

  We are convinced that real sustained improvements in these sectors will only be possible when there is a settlement to the civil war. We are committed to doing what we can to bring this about.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the prospects for progress in promoting peace and good governance in Sudan; if she will make a statement on international efforts to resolve the conflict in that country; and what proposals she has for work to stimulate peace and reconciliation and the strengthening of civil society in Sudan. [28712]

  Hilary Benn
  There is an opportunity to achieve a political settlement to the war in Sudan. During my recent visit all sides emphasised that they recognised the urgent need for peace, that it was their responsibility to engage in serious negotiation, and that there was a window of opportunity.

  The Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) is the mechanism by which the international community is assisting in the peace process. We, and others, are actively seeking new ways to invigorate this process.

  Somalia
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she has responded to the World Food Programme appeal for assistance to Somalia; and if she will make a statement about the level of funding of that appeal. [28713]

  Hilary Bean
  We have not responded to the World Food Programme (WFP) element of the United Nations 2002 Consolidated Appeal for Somalia; we have, however, funded emergency health and nutrition programmes in the worst affected areas, and this complements the WFP's efforts.

  The WFP part of the UN Appeal is the continuation of a three year project "Food aid for relief and recovery in Somalia", which began in July 1999. To date the UN report that just under 60 per cent. of the project's estimated requirements have been met.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact of 11 September on poverty in Somalia following the disruption of overseas remittance income. [28714]

  Hilary Benn
  There has been some adverse impact on poverty as a consequence of the curtailment of the activities of Al Barakat—a Somali remittance company 692W
  linked to terrorist groups. Other companies, offering similar services across Somalia, have not been affected. Indeed, there is evidence that they have expanded their client base, offsetting some of the effect of the Al Barakat closure.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many regulatory impact assessments have been produced by her Department since August 2001; and if she 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". [28409]

  Clare Short
  DFID does not itself undertake 'regulatory impact assessments': these are the responsibility of our partner Governments and authorities. DFID does provide technical assistance to help Governments strengthen their capacity to undertake reviews of the regulatory environment and to regulate better. Many of the precepts underlying "Good Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessment" are relevant to developing countries and we endorse them.

  Afghanistan
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on Britain's planned financial contribution to the reconstruction of Afghanistan(a) in this financial year and (b) over the next five financial years. [28601]

  Hilary Benn
  We have set aside £20 million in this financial year to support the Interim Administration and the United Nations-led transitional recovery and rehabilitation process, while continuing to respond to humanitarian needs. This includes a contribution of £2 million already provided to the UN Afghan Interim Authority Fund to provide salaries of key public servants, equipment and supplies. As well as financial assistance, we are providing technical personnel and logistical, material and other practical support.

  At the international conference on the reconstruction of Afghanistan held in Tokyo from 21–22 January 2002, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a significant contribution to be used for the long-term rehabilitation of Afghanistan. The UK has committed £200 million over the next five financial years for both reconstruction and humanitarian activities. The majority of this pledge will be channelled through UN agencies and non-governmental organisations.

  This pledge is in addition to the significant sums that the UK has contributed to the World bank, European Union and Asian Development bank, which will also direct further funds into Afghanistan in the coming years. The UK share of the European Union pledge alone will be 20 per cent.

  Afghan Refugees
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on Government plans to aid Afghan refugees in Quetta in south-west Pakistan. [28509]

  Hilary Benn
  Pakistan has been shouldering the burden of some two million refugees from Afghanistan for many years; this is in addition to over 100,000 refugees who have moved into Pakistan from Afghanistan since September 2001. We will continue to do all we can to ensure that all refugees are properly cared for and to give neighbouring countries support to cope with the burden of refugees, for whom they have generously provided for so long.

  DFID has provided £3 million to UNHCR's operations, in response to the current crisis, to support its operations for refugees in the region, including in Quetta city and Balochistan province. This has included technical personnel, material and financial support. At the request of UNHCR, we have provided three relief flights to Iran and Pakistan transporting tents, shelter material and communications equipment. We have also provided a specialist site planner to UNHCR in Pakistan to assist with the setting up of new refugee camp sites. In addition we have provided £6 million to NGOs, much of which has been directed towards Afghans in neighbouring countries, including Pakistan, and £11 million to support communities in Pakistan most affected by the influx of refugees.

  As the situation stabilises inside Afghanistan, we hope that Afghan refuges will be able to return home voluntarily and, indeed, many have returned already.

  Ethiopia
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to help street children living in Ethiopia. [28602]

  Hilary Benn
  We are currently supporting a project through the non-governmental organisation GOAL. The project aims to rehabilitate 700 street children back into the community and to raise awareness of the needs of street children through education and advocacy. The project started in April 2001 and is due to last for three years, with a contribution of £187,553 from DFID.

  Public Relations Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much was spent by(a) her Department and (b) bodies for which it is responsible on external public relations consultants in each of the last four years. [27390]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID provided £120,000 in 1998 for work by a public relations consultancy to raise awareness of malaria as part of the Roll Back Malaria initiative led by the World Health Organisation. The Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC) spent £80,000 on external communications consultancy in 1998 and 1999, preparing for its transformation to a public limited company. Both DFID and CDC have separately used communications consultants for specific development 694W
  activities in particular countries but the figures are not held centrally and it would require disproportionate cost to obtain them.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what equipment has been stolen from her Department since 1 May 1997; and what the approximate value of each item was. [26824]

  Clare Short
  Since 1 April 1997 the following equipment has been stolen from DFID in the UK and overseas:

  14 laptop computers with a total value of £15,732. The value of each piece of equipment ranges from £730 to £1,642;

  Computer chips: £1,100;

  One video camera: value unknown;

  One calculator: £108;

  One notebook computer: £1,880; and

  Two mobile telephones: £250.

SCOTLAND

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what equipment has been stolen from her Department since 1 May 1997; and what the approximate value of each item was. [26825]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. Since this date one laptop computer has been stolen, with an approximate value of £2,200 at the time of purchase.

  Ministerial Staff (Overseas Visits)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff paid out of public funds will be accompanying her on her forthcoming visit to Hong Kong, Guangzhou and Malaysia; and from which departmental budget they are paid. [29513]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Two members of the Scotland Office staff are accompanying the Secretary of State on this visit.

  Scotland Office Staff
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the staff in Dover house on loan to the Scotland Office from the Scottish Executive are of civil service grade. [29515]

  Mr. Foulkes
  All of the staff on loan from the Scottish Executive are civil servants.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many civil servants there are in her Department apart from(a) staff on loan to the Scotland Office from the Scottish Executive, (b) the member of staff on secondment from the House of Lords and (c) three temporary staff. [29514]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Apart from the categories of staff mentioned, the Department has two special advisers.
  695W
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the job descriptions of each of the staff members in Dover house(a) on loan to the Scotland Office from the Scottish Executive and (b) that are other staff, indicating which staff members are paid from the Scotland Office budget and which from the Scottish Executive budget. [29523]

  Mr. Foulkes
  All of the Scotland Office staff in Dover house work in support of Ministers in carrying out the functions of the Department, and their costs are met from the Scotland Office budget.

TREASURY

  National Asset Register
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list central Government acquisitions to the National Asset Register in each of the last four years, specifying the value of each acquisition. [28715]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The National Asset Register provides details of all significant acquisitions of central Government assets by Department for each of the financial years 1997–98 to 1999–2000.

  Infrastructure Projects (Mid-Sussex)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will undertake an audit into the level of public spending on infrastructure projects in Mid-Sussex. [28857]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: No. Public spending on infrastructure projects is divided between local, regional and national bodies. It is not possible to identify without disproportionate cost what proportion of central Government infrastructure funding is spent in a particular local authority area or parliamentary constituency. However, the Treasury seeks to ensure value for money in all public spending and works with other Government Departments to ensure that a rigorous evaluation framework is in place to assess the costs and benefits of particular projects. While the Treasury delegates authority to Departments to spend regular budgets, it nevertheless scrutinises particularly large, novel or contentious proposals individually to ensure they offer good value.

  Incomes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have no income declared for tax purposes, other than unearned income; and in 2001–02 how many people are paying tax at(a) 40 per cent. and (b) the basic rate who derive (i) 100 per cent., (ii) 90 to 100 per cent., (iii) 75 to 100 per cent., and (iv) 50 to 100 per cent., of their income from unearned income. [26206]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is in the table.
  696W

  Thousand

  2001–02

  Investment income as a Percentage of total income

  Number of higher rate1 taxpayers

  Number of basic rate2 taxpayers

  Number of 'savers' rate3 taxpayers

  100 per cent.

  10

  30

  60

  90 to less than 100 per cent.

  20

  10

  20

  75 to less than 90 per cent.

  50

  30

  50

  50 to less than 75 per cent.

  80

  210

  80

  1 Taxpayers with a taxable income above the higher rate threshold

  2 Taxpayers with a marginal rate at the basic rate from an extra £1 of earnings.

  3 Taxpayers with a marginal rate at the 20 per cent. lower rate for savings income or the 10 per cent. ordinary dividend rate from an extra £1 of earnings. Before 1999–2000 these people would have been classified as lower rate taxpayers.

  Note:

  There are around 130,000 taxpayers with no taxable income other than investment income.

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

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total income before and after tax was at constant prices in each of the last four years for the top(a) one per cent., (b) five per cent., and (c) 10 per cent. and (d) each 10 per cent., thereafter down to the bottom 10 per cent., including both working and non-working households, in figures and as a percentage of income before and after tax accruing to each group. [26312]

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

  Income Tax
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer have many(a) working and (b) non-working people do not pay income tax in the United Kingdom. [26145]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Inland Revenue estimate that out of the 27.8 million taxpayers in 2000–01 in the United Kingdom (UK), 23.4 million had employment or self-employment income. These estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the November 2001 pre-Budget report.

  The ONS population estimate for the UK in 2000 is 59.8 million.

  The ONS estimate for the number of people in employment in the UK based on the September-November 2000 Labour Force Survey is 28.0 million.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the people of(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland paid income tax at (i) the basic rate and (ii) the higher rate in each of the last four years. [27437]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The proportions requested are in the table.

  Basic rate taxpayers1 as a percentage of the country population

  Higher rate taxpayers as a percentage of the country population

  2000–012

  Wales

  33

  3

  Scotland

  36

  3

  Northern Ireland

  31

  2

  England

  36

  5

  697W

  Basic rate taxpayers1 as a percentage of the country population

  Higher rate taxpayers as a percentage of the country population

  1999–2000

  Wales

  33

  2

  Scotland

  36

  3

  Northern Ireland

  31

  2

  England

  36

  4

  1998–99

  Wales

  24

  2

  Scotland

  29

  3

  Northern Ireland

  24

  2

  England

  28

  4

  1997–98

  Wales

  25

  2

  Scotland

  30

  3

  Northern Ireland

  21

  2

  England

  28

  4

  1 Taxpayers with a marginal rate at 20 per cent. lower rate for savings or 10 per cent. ordinary dividend rate from £1 of extra earnings are excluded from this column as they are in the "savers" category.

  2 Provisional

  Estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and the 2000–01 is consistent with the November 2001 pre-Budget report.

  Income Tax Bands
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax units in the latest year available are married couples falling within each £1,000 income band up to an income of £30,000 and thereafter in £10,000 income bands up to £100,000; and how many wives and husbands fall within each band, giving the average incomes of wives and husbands within each band separately and the same figures in aggregate for those tax units on incomes in excess of £10,000. [26204]

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

  Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average amount of money recovered annually by(a) a Department for Work and Pensions senior fraud inspector and (b) a senior investigation officer in the Inland Revenue. [26238]

  Department and project

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  HMCE

  PFI Infrastructure Project

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  HMT

  GOGGS

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  IR

  Manchester

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Bootle

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  Glasgow

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Edinburgh

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Stockport

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  —

  NIRS2

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  NED

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  STEPS

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  698W
  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no position of 'senior fraud inspector' in the Department for Work and Pensions. Nor is it possible to separate the total amount of overpaid benefit recovered into overpayments due to fraud and those due to other reasons. It is therefore not possible to say what is the average amount of money recovered annually by a Department for Work and Pensions senior fraud inspector.

  The term 'senior investigation officer' does not refer to any specific group of Inland Revenue staff. However, the Inland Revenue annual report, available in the House of Commons Library, details the additional liability identified as a result of work to tackle non-compliance undertaken by specialist offices such as the Large Business Office and the Special Compliance Office.

  Working Mothers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on Treasury revenues in 2001–02 of introducing an allowance against income rate of(a) £2000 and (b) £4000 for (i) all working mothers and (ii) all working mothers with at least one child under five years, giving both full and first year costs for each. [26144]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The cost to the Exchequer of introducing the personal allowances for these groups is shown in the table:

  Cost of increased personal allowances for working mothers

  Increase in personal allowance

  Working mother type

  Full year costs (£ million)

  First year costs (£ million)

  (a) £2,000 pa

  (i) All

  1,200

  1,050

  (a) £2,000 pa

  (ii) With child under five

  400

  350

  (b) £4,000 pa

  (i) All

  2,200

  1,900

  (b) £4,000 pa

  (ii) With child under five

  700

  600

  Note:

  The estimates are calculated in 2001–02 prices, using data from the 1999–2000 Family Resources Survey held in the standard IGoTM tax benefit model. The first year costs have been estimated on a national accounts basis.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those public investment projects within his Departments responsibility which has attracted private capital in each of the last four years. [26109]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is given in the table:

  Inland Revenue Rewards
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been, in each of the three years to 31 March 2001, Inland Revenue's estimates for sums to be expended in rewarding individuals under section 32 of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890; what the sum voted for this category of expenditure was; what Inland Revenue's actual expenditure was; and how much of this expenditure related to rewards to ordinary members of the public. [26844]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The total amounts paid in rewarding individuals under section 32 of Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890 for each of the three years ended 31 March 1999, 2000 and 2001 respectively were £15,000, £17,965 and £5,075. All of these amounts were paid to members of the public.

  Because of the relatively small sums involved, the Inland Revenue does not vote a sum nor earmark particular funds for this category of expenditure.

  Excess Votes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many excess votes there were in each of the last four years, indicating the amount and the department responsible in each case. [27929]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Details of excess votes are presented to Parliament in February of the financial year following the excess in a House of Commons paper entitled "Statement of Excesses" (SoE). For 2000–01 the SoE will be presented towards the end of February. For the previous three financial years the relevant HC papers are numbered as follows—1997–98 HC239, 1998–99 HC276 and 1999–2000 HC323.

  Public Works Loans
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money is on loan to local authorities by the Public Works Loan Board; which local authorities are borrowing; and what the sum involved is in each case. [27933]

  Ruth Kelly
  As at 31 March 2001, outstanding PWLB debt amounted to £47,169,517,807 divided between 350 of the 443 principal authorities in England, Scotland and Wales. This information was published in the PWLB's annual report for 2000–01. The PWLB operates a banking relationship with its local authority clients and does not disclose individual levels of borrowing.

  Fuel Levy
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the fuel levy of 20 pence per litre for biodiesel will come into effect. [28927]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are planning to introduce a new reduced rate of excise duty for biodiesel used as a road fuel, to be set at 20 pence per litre below the rate for ultra-low sulphur diesel, in Budget 2002.

  Toddler Tax Credit
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) research has been conducted into and (b) conclusions drawn about the implementation of the Childcare Commission's recommendation to fund a toddler tax credit. [28763]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government continue to keep under review the levels of support provided to families with children. Budget 2001 announced a number of measures to support families with young children, including improved maternity provision and a higher rate of children's tax credit of up to £20 a week in the first year of a child's life. Budget 2001 also announced increases of around one third in the child care cost limits in the child care tax credit component of the working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit.

  As the next stage of tax and benefit reform a new child tax credit, which will draw together all income related strands of support for families with children, will be introduced in 2003. The rates and thresholds for the new child tax credit will be set in Budget 2002.

  Euro
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of British high street transactions have taken place in euros since 1 January [28926].

  Ruth Kelly
  We understand from the British Retail Consortium that thus far such transactions have been less than 1 per cent. in volume and value terms.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what equipment has been stolen from his Department since 1 May 1997; and what the approximate value of each item was. [26837]

  Ruth Kelly
  The following items were recorded as stolen:

  Year

  Item(s)

  Value1 (£)

  1997 (May)

  2 Desktop PCs

  4,300

  1 Laptop PC

  2,500

  1 Desktop PC

  1,900

  1 Laptop PC

  3,000

  1998

  1 Laptop PC

  2,500

  1999

  1 Desktop PC

  2,000

  Computer memory

  25

  1 Laptop PC

  2,000

  1 Laptop PC

  3,000

  2000

  1 LCD Projector

  2,000

  2 Disk Drives

  300

  1 Laptop PC

  2,000

  2001

  1 Laptop PC

  2,000

  1 Personal Data Assistant (PDA)

  250

  1 Laptop PC

  2,000

  2002

  None recorded to date

  1Approximate

  Married Couple's Tax Allowance
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) men aged (i) under 65 and (ii) 65 and over and (b) women aged (1) under 60 and (2) 60 and over have been in receipt of married couple's tax allowance since 31 March 1999. [27544]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The numbers of taxpayers who received the married couple's allowance in 1999–2000 are given in the table.

  Million

  Number in receipt of the married couple's allowance

  Men under 65

  7.8

  Men 65 and over

  1.8

  Women under 60

  0.2

  Women 60 and over

  0.1

  The estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes.

  Civil Registration
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there has been progress with the proposal to reform civil registration in England and Wales. [29887]

  Ruth Kelly
  A White Paper "Civil Registration: Vital Change" setting out the Government's proposals for Modernising civil registration within England and Wales, is being published today. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many answers to parliamentary questions have not been answered by his Department under exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in each year since 1994. [29424]

  Ruth Kelly
  Records are not kept of the number of occasions on which Treasury Ministers have not been able to answer parliamentary questions wholly or in part on grounds of commercial confidentiality. This information could be extracted from the thousands of answers given in a typical year only at disproportionate cost.

  Correspondence
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell dated 6 August 2001 and 1 November 2001, addressed to the Economic Secretary, regarding data protection. [28295]

  Ruth Kelly
  I hope to be in a position to write to the hon. Member very shortly.

  Saving and Assets for All
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will make a statement in respect of the outcome of the consultation on Saving and Assets For All. [29366]

  Ruth Kelly
  Results of the consultation on proposals for the Child Trust Fund and Saving Gateway, launched in April 2001, were published with the pre-Budget report 702W
  in November 2001, in "Delivering Saving and Assets". This document also contained more detailed proposals for further consultation.

  This second round of consultation, which will close on 28 February 2002, will inform the development of the proposals by the Government over the coming months, including as part of Spending Review 2002.

  Child Poverty
  John Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the action his Department has taken to reduce child poverty. [29277]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This Government are committed to abolishing child poverty within a generation and halving it by 2010. As part of this commitment, a strategy document entitled "Tackling child poverty: giving every child the best possible start in life" was published in December 2001. This document will inform the Budget and Spending Review 2002.

  As a result of personal tax and benefit changes announced in the last Parliament, there are now 1.2 million fewer children in poverty than there would otherwise have been. In real terms:
  Families with children are, on average, £1,000 a year better off.
  Families with children in the poorest fifth of the population are on average £1,700 a year better off.
  A family with two young children on half average earnings (£12,700) are £3,000 a year better off.

  Specific measures announced over the last Parliament include:
  Increases in child benefit and the introduction of the children's tax credit. This means around 5 million families get up to £25.50 for the first child compared to £12.35 in 1997.
  The introduction of the working families tax credit which benefits nearly 1.3 million families who are receiving, on average, £35 a week more than its predecessor, family credit.
  A higher rate of children's tax credit from April 2002 which will be worth an extra £10 a week in the year of a child's birth—a total of up to £1,040 in that year.
  Increases in the children's allowances in income support and other income related benefits which mean that rates for children under 11 rose by 80 per cent. in real terms.

  As part of the next stage of tax and benefit reform, a new tax credit for families with children—the child tax credit—will be introduced from 2003 building on the foundation of universal child benefit. It will bring together the strands of support for children in children's tax credit, working families tax credit, disabled person's tax credit and income support/jobseeker's allowance, and will be a seamless and transparent system of support for children paid to the main carer whether in or out of work. Decisions on rates and thresholds will be set out in Budget 2002.

WALES

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what equipment has been stolen from his Department since 1 May 1997; and what the approximate value of each item was. [26827]
  703W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The following items have been reported as lost or stolen:

  Description

  Value (£)

  Year

  Camera

  200.00

  1997–98

  Laptop

  107.00

  1997–98

  Note:

  Figures relate to Welsh Office, Cadw, and Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales/Estyn up to 30 June 1999, and to Wales Office thereafter.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Port Dues
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether all ports in the UK charge port dues for ships coming into the port for repairs; which European ports around the North sea waive port dues for ships without cargo commitments coming in to port for repairs; and what assessment he has made of whether port dues place the port of Tyne at a competitive disadvantage to European ports which waive port dues for ships coming in for repair. [26043]

  Mr. Spellar
  All ships have the right to enter ports in the UK subject only to the payment of ship, passenger and goods dues. Statutory harbour authorities, including the port of Tyne, have the right to set such dues at whatever level they consider appropriate and may waive any of them at their own discretion. Harbour undertakings are paid for by their users—if dues are waived in any case, the cost is borne by others. Users have a right of objection to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if they consider the dues to be unreasonable.

  Airline Disinfection
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how a determination is made as to which flights arriving in the United Kingdom require pesticide disinfection. [25215]

  Overtime costs per financial year

  £000

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1995–96

  1994–95

  Before reorganization

  Bakerloo

  —

  562

  1,075

  671

  622

  642

  505

  Central

  —

  1,255

  2,552

  1,908

  2,081

  1,759

  1,536

  District

  —

  945

  1,659

  1,514

  1,787

  1,722

  1,549

  Jubilee and East London

  —

  764

  500

  342

  370

  268

  242

  Metropolitan and Circle

  —

  1,222

  2,078

  1,632

  1,370

  1,408

  1,330

  Northern

  —

  732

  1,379

  910

  968

  1,363

  1,006

  Piccadilly

  —

  1,017

  1,809

  1,354

  1,276

  1,114

  975

  Victoria

  —

  327

  564

  530

  596

  479

  391

  Network Services and Engineering

  —

  5,257

  10,973

  10,023

  9,880

  10,538

  9,239

  704W
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 January 2002]: The port health authorities decide the routes into the United Kingdom on which disinfection of aircraft is required. They make their decisions in the light of the advice from the World Health Organisation on the risks to public health arising in different countries, either long-term or as the result of an outbreak of disease.

  Road Deaths
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many road fatalities there were in each of the last five available years on(a) motorways, (b) dual carriageways and (c) single carriageways. [27378]

  Mr. Spellar
  The figures requested are as shown:

  Road fatalities in Great Britain

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Motorways

  165

  191

  174

  202

  189

  Other roads:

  Dual carriageways

  527

  515

  469

  491

  481

  Single carriageways

  2,824

  2,800

  2,680

  2,629

  2,641

  Other1

  74

  87

  88

  94

  90

  Total

  3,598

  3,599

  3,421

  3,423

  3,409

  1 Includes roundabouts and one way streets

  London Underground (Overtime)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the total overtime payments in each of(a) the last seven years and (b) the last 12 months for each underground line. [27714]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is an operational matter for London Underground Ltd., who have provided the following information. The information is not available in the precise form requested.

  London Underground Ltd. was reorganised in September 1999, in preparation for the introduction of Modernisation plans. Under 'shadow running' arrangements, information is collected from each infrastructure company and the operations company, rather than on the 'line by line' basis that reflected London Underground's previous structure. The table therefore records operational staff and engineering staff overtime costs by line until 18 September 1999, and subsequently overtime costs for staff in each of London Underground's reorganised components. Overall totals cover the same groups of staff and so are comparable.
  705W

  Overtime costs per financial year

  £000

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1995–96

  1994–95

  After reorganisation

  Stations

  7,947

  3,813

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Trains

  3,026

  1,154

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Infraco BCV

  6,100

  3,111

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Infraco JNP

  4,056

  2,361

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Infraco SSL

  4,443

  2,303

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  25,572

  24,821

  22,589

  18,884

  18,950

  19,293

  16,773

  Note:

  For the year 1999–2000, figures in the upper part of the table are for the year to 18 September; figures in the lower part for the remainder of the year. Detailed monthly information is a matter for London Underground.

  British Merchant Marine
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent representations he has received from the RMT on the competitiveness of the British merchant marine and related employment issues; and if he will make a statement. [27637]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: The RMTs Acting General Secretary, Mr. Vernon Hince, wrote to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), recently to urge the extension of work permit requirements to one-port voyages. This is under consideration by the Home Office.

  Mr. Hince also wrote to my hon. Friend last November about proposed dismissals of UK seafaring ratings by the P&O Group, a matter which was additionally raised at the

  Revenue Expenditure1

  Government Grant2

  Non-Domestic Rates3

  Council tax4

  £ billion

  £ billion

  Percentage

  £ billion

  Percentage

  £ billion

  Percentage

  1998–99

  50.189

  25.291

  50

  12.531

  25

  12.332

  24

  1999–2000

  53.651

  26.421

  49

  13.619

  25

  13.278

  25

  2000–01

  57.308

  27.764

  48

  15.406

  27

  14.200

  25

  2001–025

  61.270

  30.341

  50

  15.144

  25

  15.245

  25

  1 'Revenue expenditure to compare with TSS' i.e. expenditure financed from Revenue Support Grant, specific and special grants within AEF, non-domestic rates, council taxes and balances. Also includes spending met by SSA Reduction Grant, Police Grant, Central Support Protection Grant (1999–2000 onwards) and General Greater London Authority Grant (2000–01 onwards). This column is not the total of the others. The difference is due to funding by balances and other adjustments.

  2 Includes Revenue Support Grant, specific and special grants within AEF, SSA Reduction Grant, Police Grant, Central Support Protection Grant (1999–2000 onwards) and General GLA Grant (2000–01 onwards).

  3 Distribute amount from non-domestic rate pool. This is not exactly equal to the payments from business in any year, but adjustments are made to the distributable amount in future years to ensure that, over time, all rates received are redistributed to receiving authorities. Includes City Offset.

  4 'Gross of council tax benefit and council tax transitional reduction scheme.

  5 Budgets.

  Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will investigate the settlement for local government with particular reference to the different sums that were allocated to smaller district authorities. [28261]

  Dr. Whitehead
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already looked into the local government settlement for district councils. In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) on 18 December 2001,Official Report,
  706W
  4 December meeting of our Shipping Task Force.

  We are deeply disappointed by the actions of P&O. These job losses are particularly regrettable at a time when we are seeing a revival in UK merchant shipping after a long decline, a revival to which the shipping unions have made an immense contribution.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of total local authority expenditure was met in each of the last four years by(a) central Government funds, (b) business rate payers and (c) council tax payers. [27936]

  Dr. Whitehead
  English local authorities have reported the following funding of revenue expenditure.

  columns 136–37, he explained that he would introduce an alternative baseline for 2001–02 which, in effect, adjusts only for the transfers of service for which shire districts are responsible and that, in order to guarantee a minimum 2.3 per cent. increase for shire districts, he would ensure that all shire districts received a minimum grant increase of whichever increase is greater—2.3 per cent. on the original baseline, or 2.3 per cent. on this alternative baseline.

  Further details will be provided as part of the Government's final settlement proposals, which the House will have a chance to debate on 30 January.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason the SRA plan makes no reference to automatic train protection in its list of priorities. [28543]

  Mr. Spellar
  Automatic train protection (ATP) is not mentioned in the SRA' s Plan because it is being superseded by a combination of Train Protection Warning System (TPWS) and European Railway Traffic Management System (ERTMS). TPWS is designed to reduce the risks from Signals Passed at Danger by slower-running trains, and is being installed at about 11,000 signals with legislation requiring completion by the end of 2003. The Uff-Cullen inquiry recommended that such a system as ERTMS should be installed throughout the high-speed network by 2010. The omission of ATP from the plan does not involve any compromise of safety standards.

  Rail Network
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the time scale required to establish special purpose vehicles for infrastructure investment in the railways. [28544]

  Mr. Spellar
  Section 4 of the SRA Strategic Plan discusses the issues involved in developing and implementing special purpose vehicles. As the plan notes, this will be progressed simultaneously with the process of bringing Railtrack out of administration.

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress the Railtrack administrator has made on the development of an asset register.

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the administrator.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what bonus scheme the Railtrack administrator has implemented to replace employee share schemes. [28530]

  Mr. Spellar
  This a contractual matter between Railtrack plc, its employees and the administrator.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), of 14 January 2002,Official Report, column 11W, on Railtrack, what information his officials have sent to the Railtrack administration about the future funding of the railway industry. [29181]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: The administrators have been referred to the Government's 10-year plan for transport and to the regulatory settlement for control period 2, as supplemented by the agreement between Railtrack and the Department in April 2001.

  Public Subsidies (Railways)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the average public subsidy per rail passenger journey has been in each of the past 10 years. [28570]
  708W
  Mr. Spellar
  The information is not held in the form requested.

  Lorry Movements
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many lorry movements occur in the United Kingdom each year. [28559]

  Mr. Spellar
  Lorries made an estimated 292 million movements in the United Kingdom during 2000, the latest year for which figures are available. The figures relate to the number of journey legs, between stops to pick up or unload goods, including unladen legs, but with each journey of a collection and delivery type round counted as a single movement.

  Railways
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the(a) time taken on the renewal of the Chiltern and South West Trains franchise process and (b) the Strategic Rail Authority estimate for the establishment of a final agreement for the Wales and Border franchise. [28560]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Strategic Rail Authority is continuing to negotiate final agreements for the Chiltern and South West Trains franchises. A further announcement will be made shortly. The authority hopes to announce a preferred bidder for the Wales and Borders franchise by autumn 2002, and to have a new franchise in place by spring 2003.

  Passenger Capacity Limits
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the train operating companies which are required to carry out passenger counts on commuters to meet the passengers in excess of capacity limits set by the SRA. [28661]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Passengers In Excess of Capacity (PIXC) mechanism is used in relation to overcrowding on all commuter services into London and on some commuter routes into Edinburgh. The train operating companies it applies to are c2c, Chiltern, Connex South Eastern, First Great Eastern, Silverlink, South Central, South West trains, Thames Trains, Thameslink, West Anglia Great Northern and Scotrail.

  Central Line
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to extend the Central line to Uxbridge. [28479]

  Mr. Spellar
  It is already served by the Piccadilly and Metropolitan Lines.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many properties there were in each council tax band in each year since 1997, broken down by London borough. [28534]
  709W
  Dr. Whitehead
  Tables, showing how many properties there were on the valuation list for each London borough, in each year since October 1997, have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many 20 mph zones are in place in England; and how many he estimates will be in place by the end of the 2002–03 financial year. [28394]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is not held centrally.

  London Underground
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the age of the oldest and newest rolling stock on each London Underground line; and if he will make a statement. [28311]

  Mr. Spellar
  For information about Jubilee and Northern Line rolling stock, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on 19 December 2001,Official Report, columns 497-98W.

  This is an operational matter for London Underground who have provided the information in the table, showing, for the remaining lines, the year in which the oldest and newest rolling stock came into service.

  London Underground—years in which oldest and newest rolling stock entered service, by line

  Line

  Oldest stock year entered service

  Newest stock year entered service

  Barkerloo

  1973

  1975

  Central and Waterloo and City

  1993

  1994

  Circle and Hammersmith and City

  1969

  1977

  District

  1978

  1982

  Metropolitan and East London Line

  1961

  1965

  Piccadilly

  1975

  1978

  Victoria

  1967

  1970

  Commuter Travel
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many extra commuters a day he estimates will travel to London from each county in the south-east of England as a result of the meeting of his house building targets; [28731]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of extra (a) rail passenger journeys per day into each London terminus and (b) road journeys on each motorway into London as a result of meeting his house building targets. [28730]

  Ms Keeble
  Statistics on travel patterns are available from a variety of both local and national sources, including the National Labour Force Survey and the National Travel Survey. However, the relationship between the house building targets set out in Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) and the 710W
  volume of commuter travel into London is a complex one. It would therefore not be sensible to estimate how many extra commuters will travel to London from counties in the south-east as a result of those targets being met.

  Green Belt
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the amount of green belt in a local authority area will continue to affect the level of settlement it receives after the 2003 review. [28391]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Under the current formula the amount of green belt has no direct effect on the level of grant an authority receives through the Local Government Finance Settlement. In partnership with the Local Government Association and other local authority organisations we are reviewing the local government finance grant distribution formula. Until this review is concluded it is not possible to say which factors will have an impact on the level of future settlements.

  Disability Vehicle Stickers
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action the Government are taking to reduce fraudulent use of the blue badge scheme. [29107]

  Ms Keeble
  There is a wide variety of powers available to local authorities, who are responsible for administering the blue badge scheme, for tackling fraudulent use. At present:it is an offence under Section 117 of The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for the badge itself to be misused by a non-disabled person, the maximum fine on conviction being £1,000.
  local authorities have powers to withdraw a badge if the holder constantly misuses it or allows it to be misused by others.
  it is also an offence under Section 47 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to park a vehicle which is not displaying a badge in a designated disabled person's parking bay.

  The issues of abuse and misuse of badges are a major part of a review of the scheme that we are currently undertaking.

  In the meantime, it is open to anybody to bring instances of fraudulent use to the attention of the police, traffic wardens or the appropriate local authority and we will continue to work with these bodies and stakeholder groups to minimise the potential for abuse and misuse.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 595W, on disability vehicle stickers, which organisations have been consulted by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee as part of its review of the blue badge scheme. [29174]

  Ms Keeble
  The blue badge review discussion paper has been sent to major stakeholders, including disability organisations, local authorities and enforcement bodies in England and the devolved Administrations, whose authorities are collaborating with my Department. A list of those who received the paper has been placed in the
  711W
  House. The paper is also available on request from the Department's Mobility and Inclusion Unit and on our website.

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) to consider responses to the consultation and to report back to him with their recommendations.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 595W, on disability vehicle stickers, when he expects the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee to complete its review of the blue badge scheme. [29177]

  Ms Keeble
  The Secretary of State has asked the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) to consider the responses to a discussion paper issued by my Department and to report back with their recommendations by the end of April 2002.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 595W, on disability vehicle stickers, whether the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee is considering a reduction in the minimum period of issue of blue badges as part of its review of the blue badge scheme. [29175]

  Ms Keeble
  The main purpose of the review is to seek views on the future shape of the scheme by considering a range of issues which were identified in discussions with those most closely affected by it, including the minimum period of issue for blue badges. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) have been asked to consider responses to the consultation and to report back to the Secretary of State with their recommendations having considered all the responses received.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 595W, on disability vehicle stickers, what representations the Government have received from (a) hon. and right hon. Members, (b) disability charities, (c) other charities and (d) others calling for an extension of the blue badge scheme to cover those individuals with temporary disabilities. [29176]

  Ms Keeble
  The discussion paper was issued on 14 December 2001 and the consultation period is due to end on 15 March 2002. The few responses which have been received so early in the consultation are currently being analysed. We will, however, keep the House informed as the review progresses.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 595W, on disability vehicle stickers, what criteria
  712W
  are set down for local authorities to determine the eligibility of people applying for a disability vehicle sticker through the blue badge scheme. [29482]

  Ms Keeble
  The criteria which local authorities use for assessing eligibility for a disabled person's badge are set down in The Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000 [SI 2000/682].

  These contain a prescribed description of disabled person to whom a local authority may issue a disabled persons' badge and are a person who is more than 2-years-old who falls within one or more of the following categories:
  receives the higher rate of the mobility component of the disability living allowance in accordance with section 73 of the Social Security and Benefits Act 1982;
  uses a motor vehicle supplied by the Department of Social Security or the Scottish Executive or is in receipt of a grant pursuant to section 5(2)(a) of the National Health Services Act 1977 or section 46 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978;
  is registered blind under section 29(4)(g) of the National Assistance Act 1948 or, in Scotland, is a blind person within the meaning of section 64(1) of that Act;
  receives a mobility supplement under article 26A of the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983 including such a supplement by virtue of any scheme or order under article 25A of the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme 1983;
  drives a motor vehicle regularly, has a severe disability in both upper limbs and is unable to turn by hand the steering wheel of a motor vehicle even if that wheel is fitted with a turning knob; or
  has a permanent and substantial disability which causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.

  Patient Transport Services
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action the Government are taking to assist people suffering from balance difficulties, arising from cancer illness, to(a) travel to and from and (b) park at hospital clinics. [29106]

  Ms Keeble
  This is a matter for the Scottish Executive, but I understand from them that, essentially, the Scottish Ambulance Service Non-Emergency Service transports people to and from hospitals, clinics and day centres, and bases its provision on the medical need of the patient. In some of the more remote areas of Scotland, patient transport services are provided by community run schemes. The ambulance service's aim is to provide a seamless journey for patients with mobility problems and those who experience significant discomfort because of the nature of their medical condition, or the type of treatment they receive at hospital. To ensure that it continues to understand and meet the needs of its patients, it is currently reviewing and developing the way in which it provides and delivers non-emergency services to make them even more flexible and patient friendly.

  Disabled Facilities Grant
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what guidelines and recommendations he has made to local authorities with regard to determining the value and suitability of discretionary grant awards under the disabled facilities grant; and if he will place copies in the Library; [29115]
  713W
  (2) how long on average it took each local authority to make disabled facilities grant payments following approved applications; [29112]

  (3) under what circumstances local authorities may delay the payment of an approved disabled facilities grant; [29113]

  (4) how long it has taken for each local authority to approve an application for the disabled facilities grant, following the receipt of a valid completed application form; and how many applications for disabled facilities grant, broken down by local authority, were not responded to within the recommended six month period following the receipt of a valid completed application form; [29114]

  (5) how much money was awarded by each local authority for the disabled facilities grant; what was the average award made by each local authority for the disabled facilities grant; and what funding was provided to each local authority by the Government towards their spending in respect of the disabled facilities grant in each of the last five years. [29116]

  Mr. Byers
  Disabled facilities grants (DFG) are administered by local authorities who are under a statutory duty to approve or refuse an application within six months of the date of application. My Department does not collect data on the length of time taken by local authorities to consider applications

  Figures showing each English local authority's expenditure on DFGs, the average value of grant and the Government's DFG allocation over the last five years have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Section 23(1) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 sets out the purposes for which mandatory DFG must be approved. Discretionary DFG is available to make a dwelling or building suitable for a disabled occupant in any other respect. Paragraphs 31 to 36 of Annex I to DoE Circular 17/96, (copies of which have already been placed in the Library) gives examples. Paragraph 10 of that Annex also states that discretionary DFG may be paid where the costs of the adaptations exceed the maximum limit for mandatory DFG. There is no maximum limit on the amount which may be paid in the form of a discretionary DFG.

  Section 36 of the Act provides that local authorities may delay the payment of DFGs up to 12 months after the date of application. Paragraphs 58 to 61 of Annex 1 to circular 17/96 advises that such a delay should only be made in exceptional circumstances when a particularly heavy caseload of applications is causing severe resource problems for the authority. It should not be made where adaptations are urgently required and where a delay would cause hardship or suffering to the applicant.

  Local Government Inspection
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much is spent annually on external inspection of local government; and if he will make a statement on the methods used to assess the effectiveness of such inspections. [28818]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The following costs identified represent those of the major[Interruption.] Inspectorates working in the local government field together with the
  714W
  costs of district audit. Apart from district audit and inspection by the Audit Commission Inspection Service, which include a fee element, these costs are centrally funded by sponsoring Departments.

  Other inspection bodies, such as the Health and Safety Executive, will have some involvement with local government, but figures for this are not readily identifiable or available.

  The figures do not include any element of the indirect costs of inspection to authorities; e.g. staff time, as no agreed or reliable figures are available.

  Audit Commission Inspection Service
  Audit Commission, district audit and best value inspection costs for the audit year 2001–02 are likely to be in the region of £194 million. Best value inspection costs represent a £44 million component of this figure which includes £23.5 million in direct grant paid by DTLR and the National Assembly for Wales. The remainder of the costs are charged in fees supported through the Revenue Support Grant in England and Wales.

  Social Services Inspectorate (SSI)
  In 2001–02 SSI inspections cost £5.2 million. £4.5 million of this related to inspection of social services functions that are the responsibility of local councils.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI)
  The total running costs for the BFI in the last three years is circa £6 million per year.

  HM Fire Service Inspectorate
  Spend in 2001–02 is £1,660,000.

  Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED)
  The total direct cost (i.e. excluding overheads) of LEA inspections in 2000–01 amounted to about £2.3 million.

  Assessment of the effectiveness of the various statutory and non-statutory components of the inspection regimes applied by each inspectorate, is the responsibility of the relevant sponsoring department. However, the Local Government White Paper seeks to deliver inspection regimes which more fully reflect authority performance, with a substantial reduction in inspection activity for the high performing. Our intention is that inspection will be co-ordinated across all local authority functions and will reflect risk analysis of each local authority based on a comprehensive performance assessment.

  Refrigerator Disposal Costs
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what arrangements he has made with regard to the allocation of the adjustment to the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services block, announced in the provisional local government finance settlement, to cover the cost of implementing refrigerator disposal regulations. [29117]

  Mr. Byers
  £6 million has been added to the upper tier sub-block of the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services Standard Spending Assessment for 2002–03 for the costs of implementing refrigerator disposal regulations for the period 1 January 2002 to 31 March 2003. This will be distributed to local authorities using the standard formula for this sub-block.

  NIMSA
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will
  715W
  make a statement on the achievement of performance targets set for the use of NIMSA funding of the Ordnance Survey. [28979]

  Ms Keeble
  Performance criteria and deliverables are defined for NIMSA activities. Progress is reviewed quarterly by the NIMSA Review Group. Through NIMSA funding, Ordnance Survey delivers a range of valuable services in the public interest. These outputs are published in an annual report.

  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the minutes of the NIMSA Review Group's meetings in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001. [28982]

  Ms Keeble
  No. Publication of Ordnance Survey outputs funded under NIMSA is by an annual report.

  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the use of NIMSA funding by the Ordnance Survey in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [28982]

  Ms Keeble
  The National Interest Mapping Services Agreement (NIMSA) was implemented on 1 April 1999. It is an agreement between DTLR, on behalf of Government, and Ordnance Survey for the provision of Ordnance Survey services that are required in the national interest but are not commercially viable.

  Since April 1999, NIMSA funds have been used by Ordnance Survey for activities that are defined and agreed by the NIMSA review group comprising officials from DTLR and Ordnance Survey. These activities are agreed each year in advance, but are subject to change by the review group.

  Details about NIMSA activities are published annually in an annual report. The report for the year 2000–01 will be published in February 2002.

  Lord Birt
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he was consulted on the appointment of Lord Birt in respect of his role on transport. [29313]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 298W.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many answers to parliamentary questions have been refused by his Department under exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in each year since 1994. [29422]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions was formed on 8 June 2001. In the period 8 June 2001 to 18 January 2002, my Department has answered over 3,400 written questions, of which information was withheld in respect of 23 questions because the information requested was wholly or partially commercially confidential.
  716W
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will respond to the questions of the hon. Member for the Vale of York, refs. 23897-23900. [29281]

  Mr. Spellar
  I answered the hon. Member's questions on 17 January 2002,Official Report, columns 422-23W.

  Fire Service
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information is available to him to determine the percentage of fire officers' time spent on average on(a) responding to emergencies, (b) other key duties, (c) administration and (d) sick leave, in the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [28432]

  Dr. Whitehead
  This information is not held centrally. However, information about shifts lost due to sickness by firefighters in 2000–01 was published at tables 30-33 of Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate Best Value Performance Indicators, a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library. This information is also available on www.safety.dtlr.gov.uk/fire/fepd/bvpi/bvpi.htm.

  Electoral Modernisation Pilot Schemes
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the names of those local authorities which have applied to him to run electoral Modernisation pilot schemes in the May 2002 elections. [29886]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has received 41 applications from local authorities to run electoral Modernisation pilot schemes during the May 2002 local elections, involving a range of activities. More than half of the bids contain an element of electronic voting and/or counting; the rest are postal voting and some miscellaneous proposals. The local authorities that have submitted bids are:

  Basingstoke and Deane District Council

  Blackburn and Darwen Borough Council

  Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council

  Borough of Broxbourne

  Bury Metropolitan Borough Council

  London Borough of Camden

  Chester City Council

  Chorley Borough Council

  Coventry City Council

  Crawley Borough Council

  Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council

  Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

  London Borough of Enfield

  Epping Forest District Council

  Gateshead Council

  London Borough of Greenwich

  717W

  London Borough of Hackney

  London Borough of Havering

  Huntingdonshire District Council

  Hyndburn Borough Council

  Ipswich Borough Council

  Kingston-Upon-Hull City Council

  City of Lincoln Council

  Liverpool City Council

  London Borough of Newham

  North Tyneside Council

  North West Leicestershire District Council

  Preston Borough Council

  Rugby Borough Council

  St. Albans City and District Council

  Sheffield City Council

  Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

  South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council

  Stevenage Borough Council

  Stratford-on-Avon District Council

  Swindon Borough Council

  Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council

  London Borough of Wandsworth

  Watford Council

  West Lancashire District Council

  City of Westminster.

  An announcement confirming which bidders have been successful will be made by the end of this month.

  Mobile Homes
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to propose changes to legislation to provide better protection for the rights of owners of mobile homes; and if he will make a statement. [29365]

  Ms Keeble
  Changes to the legislation relating to park homes were included in the recommendations of the Park Homes Working Party. Following consultation, we issued our response to the Working Party's report on 29 November last year, and placed copies of it in the Library of the House. This gives a detailed response to each of the Working Party's recommendations and indicates how we intend to take them forward.

  Special Purpose Vehicles
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list those development plans set out in annexe 2 to the SRA's Strategic Plan which will be subject to the establishment of special purpose vehicles. [29123]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: The details of the new enhancement framework are currently being developed. The precise number of projects for which SPVs will be created will depend on the outcome of the SRA's negotiations with the private sector, and on factors such as the project's type, complexity and size.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that third generation mobile telephone base station sites must be a statutory part of new planning guidelines. [28946]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: On 22 August 2001 we introduced changes that significantly improved the planning procedures and guidance for telecommunications mast development. The changes, which included amendments to Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO):
  strengthened public consultation requirements on mast proposals of 15 m and below so that they are the same as for planning applications;
  increased the time for a local planning authority to deal with prior approval applications to 56 days;
  underlined that school governors must be consulted on all proposals for new masts on or near a school or college; and
  increased fees to enable authorities to carry out full public consultation.

  Part 24 of the GPDO does not distinguish between different generations of telecommunications equipment and therefore applies to third generation base stations.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish guidelines for 3G mobile telephony companies to share the use of 3G mobile telephony base stations. [28948]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: The Government's policy is firmly to encourage mast and site sharing where that is the optimum solution in the individual circumstances. Indeed, conditions attached to individual operating licences granted by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry include a requirement to investigate mast sharing before seeking to put up any new mast.

  Planning Policy Guidance Note 8, "Telecommunications" (PPG8), makes clear our expectation that developers should provide evidence to local planning authorities that they have carefully considered the use of existing masts, buildings and other structures before seeking to erect any new mast, regardless of size. The authority may be justified in refusing prior approval or planning permissions if it considers the evidence regarding the consideration of such alternative sites is not satisfactory. PPG8 is publicly available and applies to all telecommunications development, including 3G base stations.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of new 3G mobile telephony base station sites that will be needed in the United Kingdom. [28947]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: This is a matter for the individual telecommunications operators. However, the operators are fully aware of the importance we attach to keeping the number of masts to the minimum practicable, for example through mast sharing, and to ensuring that those which are needed are designed and sited with sensitivity and care.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Prisoners (Guantanamo Bay)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Solicitor-General (1) what communications her Department has had with the United States Attorney-General in respect of the legality of the conditions of detention of British citizens held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba; [28647]

  (2) what discussions the Attorney-General has had with the United States Administration on the establishment of ground rules for the military tribunals it is setting up to try suspected terrorists from the al-Qaeda network. [28648]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Law Officers and our Department have had no such communications or discussions with the United States Government. Such contacts are a matter for the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lord Birt
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what is the(a) budget and (b) work programme of the (i) Forward Strategy Unit and (ii) Delivery Unit; and who belongs to each; [29065]

  (2) for what period Lord Birt has been appointed to the Forward Strategy Unit; [29189]

  (3) how many times he has met Lord Birt since 1 January; [29185]

  (4) if Lord Birt has access to Cabinet papers relating to transport; [29315]

  (5) how many hours per week Lord Birt works; [29184]

  (6) how much Lord Birt has claimed from official funds by way of out-of-pocket expenses; and how much of this relates to taxi travel; [29191]

  (7) what assessment he has made of how far the degree of information hitherto made public about the role of Lord Birt is consistent with the Government's guidelines on parliamentary accountability; [29182]

  (8) when Lord Birt last travelled by train on official Government business; [29190]

  (9) if he will list the transport organisations Lord Birt has met since his appointment; [29186]

  (10) what secretarial support is available to Lord Birt; and what the expected annual cost of this is; [29183]

  (11) if he will place in the Library a copy of Lord Birt's work on crime; [29193]

  (12) what further information concerning the present activities of Lord Birt will be released when the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is fully in operation; [29194]

  (13) what office space has been made available to Lord Birt; and in which buildings it is; [29188]

  (14) if he will list the Ministers to whom Lord Birt reports. [29187]
  720W
  The Prime Minister
  The role of the Forward Strategy Unit is to provide long-term strategic analysis to me and to other Cabinet Ministers on a range of issues. The information on the work of the unit in the public domain is consistent with the long-standing principle that internal policy advice to Ministers remains confidential.

  For the current work programme and budget of the Forward Strategy Unit, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 19 November 2001, Official Report, column 104W.

  For the current work programme and budget of the Delivery Unit, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 19 November 2001, Official Report, column 83W.

  Ministers, their special advisers and other civil servants meet many people in the course of their work. It is not our policy to make information on meetings or their content public.

  Lord Birt as the PM's unpaid strategy adviser, based at No. 10, works with the Forward Strategy Unit on a range of projects.

  Details of an individual's conditions of appointment are not made public in order to protect the privacy of the individual concerned.

  Lord Birt last travelled by train on official Government business on 28 November 2001 and regularly travels by train on official business. He is entitled to claim reasonable expenses incurred during his work. His travel arrangements and expense claims are in accordance with the rules set out in the Cabinet Office Management Code.

  External advisers when working with the Forward Strategy Unit may have access to its administrative facilities which are accounted for within the unit's budget.

  In line with the practice of successive Governments, access to Cabinet papers is decided on a case-by-case basis.

  As the Government have already made clear, Lord Birt's advice and conclusions on crime were one of the inputs reflected in the Government's strategy document "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead" (Cm 5074). That document was published and placed before Parliament on 26 February 2001.

  Enron
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what meetings have taken place and on which dates between(a) himself, (b) Ministers within the Cabinet Office, (c) officials within No. 10, (d) officials within the Cabinet Office, (e) special advisers within No. 10 and (f) special advisers within the Cabinet Office and representatives of Enron since 1 May 1997. [28623]

  The Prime Minister
  It is not the normal practice of the Government to release details of meetings or discussions with private individuals or companies.

  Environmental Reports
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister how many of the FTSE 350 companies with which he has held meetings in the last 12 months have produced environmental reports; in how many of the meetings he
  721W
  has held with such companies he raised the importance of such reports; and what further action he will take to encourage such reporting. [29326]

  The Prime Minister
  I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations it is not my practice to provide details of all such meetings.

  Missile Defence
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to know the nature of the request from the US Administration concerning British involvement in the Nuclear Missile Defence programme. [26559]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 103W.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to reform the listing process for buildings of historic value, with particular reference to where they have a landmark value because of their location and appearance. [26780]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: Buildings will continue to be considered for listing against strict criteria of special architectural or historic interest. The Government's guidance to local authorities in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15—Planning and the Historic Environment stresses a general presumption in favour of retaining unlisted buildings in conservation areas which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area. The Government's recent policy statement, "The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future" (December 2001) stresses the importance of planning authorities taking account of the value a community places on a particular aspect of its immediate environment.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will take steps to ensure that listed buildings cannot be de-listed following an appeal from the owner without public notification and an opportunity for objections to be made. [27898]

  Dr. Howells
  Decisions on listing and de-listing are based on expert advice received about a building's architectural and historic interest. There is no formal process for appeals against decisions on listing and de-listing, but we will consider fresh evidence at any time. Given this, we see no benefit in the introduction of a formal appeals procedure.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many regulatory impact assessments have been produced by her Department since August 2001; and if she 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
  722W
  commercial impacts, including profitability, employment, consumer prices and competitiveness, as recommended in Good Policy Making. [28398]

  Dr. Howells
  Full regulatory impact assessments are placed in the House Libraries. Since August 2001 the Department has produced regulatory impact assessments in respect of the draft Regulatory Reform (Golden Jubilee Licensing) Order 2002 and the National Heritage Bill, the former coming under(a) and the latter under neither (a) nor (b). I also refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Cabinet Office on 17 January 2002, Official Report, column 483.

  Tramways (Preservation)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the number of locations and length of pre-1945 tramways which survive under tarmac or are otherwise intact; and what her policy is on their preservation. [28577]

  Dr. Howells
  A search of the schedule of ancient monuments has revealed that there are 11 entries on tramways. The majority of these form parts of industrial sites.

  Under the Monuments Protection Programme, this Department and English Heritage are undertaking a systematic review of England's archaeological resource, with a view to providing statutory protection, principally through scheduling and listing, to those sites identified as being of national interest. Transport systems, including tramways, are being assessed in this context.

  Special Advisers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the average time is that the Head of her Department has recommended since May 1997 between a special adviser leaving her Department and taking up outside employment; and if she will make a statement. [28912]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21 January 2002,Official Report, column 594W.

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the impact on elderly residents of warden-accommodation of the rule that free television licences are available only if all the residents of such accommodation qualify for the concession. [28878]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: Under the Accommodation for Residential Care (ARC) concessionary scheme, television licences are available at a fee of £5 for each unit of qualifying accommodation. The requirement that sheltered housing must be provided for disabled people, mentally disordered people or retired people aged 60 or over is one of a number of qualifying criteria for entitlement to the concession. The ARC scheme as a whole was examined by the independent review panel on the future funding of the BBC in 1999,

  723W
  but the panel recommended that the existing scheme should be retained, since it was unable to identify a superior alternative funded from the licence fee.

  As announced last year, the Government propose to introduce measures to preserve the rights of ARC beneficiaries who remain in accommodation provided or managed by a local authority, a housing association or a development corporation, when the social mix or the level of warden cover change. Consultations between officials and the BBC about the necessary amendments to the television licence fee regulations are currently under way. We intend to bring forward these amendments as soon as we can but it is important that in doing so we do not create any new anomalies or unnecessary administrative burdens.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to extend the free television licence scheme to all pensioners. [29652]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government have no plans to extend free television licences to pensioners below the age of 75.

  Seaside Resorts
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the impact of recommendations 60 to 64 of the Budd report on Her Majesty's Government's policy of regenerating seaside resorts. [28850]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) on 19 December 2001, Official Report, column 317W.

  Broadcasting Bill
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the Broadcasting Bill will be published. [29490]

  Dr. Howells
  We have no plans to bring forward a new Broadcasting Bill. However, we are planning to publish in the spring of this year a draft Communications Bill, which will implement the policies set out in the White Paper on Communications that was published in December 2000. The Communications Bill will set up a new converged regulatory structure for telecommunications, spectrum management and broadcasting.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what equipment has been stolen from her Department since 1 May 1997; and what the approximate value of each item was. [26834]

  Dr. Howells
  Equipment stolen from the Department since May 1997 has been confined to information technology equipment, namely one laptop computer (value £2,000), three personal computer base units (value £1,500) and one personal computer monitor (value £300). All losses are reported by the Department as both a security breach, immediately after the event is detected, and annually to the Treasury as a loss by fraud.

  Recreational Boating
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to encourage the construction of berths along inland waterways and the coastline for recreational and leisure boating. [27125]

  Alun Michael
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are looking at what action we may need to take for water-based sport and recreation more generally in the light of the research report—"Water-Based Sport and Recreation: the facts" prepared for DEFRA by the School of Environment, University of Brighton and published on 21 December—on facts about water-based sport and recreation on inland rivers, canals and enclosed waters that we published last month. In general it is for local providers to assess demand and supply in order to determine whether there is a need for a change in provision of berths and other facilities for recreational and leisure boating.

DEFENCE

  Stewardship Report
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to publish the first Stewardship report promised in the Ministry of Defence's policy document, "In Trust and On Trust: The Strategy for the Defence Estate". [29723]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence will publish its first Stewardship report on the Defence Estate on Tuesday22 January. This fulfils the commitment made when "In Trust and On Trust: The Strategy for the Defence Estate" was launched in June 2000.

  "In Trust and On Trust" set out clearly the MOD's policies and priorities as well as performance targets against which the effectiveness of our stewardship of the estate could be judged. It also contained a pledge to report annually against the strategy's goals.

  The Stewardship report which we are now publishing contains comprehensive information on the estate, covering both rural and built environments, and sustainability. This is the first time that the MOD has published such a comprehensive report on its estate. A copy has been placed in the Libraries of the House and also on the MOD website at www.mod.uk.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many publications were issued by his Department in each of the last four years. [11838]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence produces a huge range of publications in both hard copy and electronic format. No central record is kept of these and it would not be possible to list each new publication as this could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  However our central corporate communications division, which is responsible for most corporate and policy publications, does have a record of the publications that it and its predecessors have produced. From the information available, the following main publications have been produced in each of the last four years:

  725W

  Financial year 1998–99

  Strategic Defence Review (Cmd 999)

  Departmental Performance Report

  Defence Booklets

  Defence Annual Report

  Sanctuary Conservation Booklet

  Defence Factsheets

  Focus internal newspaper

  Financial year 1999–2000

  Defence White Paper (Cmd 4446)

  Defence Annual Report and Mission Booklets

  Defence Booklets

  Defence Factsheets (series of 28)

  Factsheets (in Welsh)

  Large text/Braille/audio material

  Sanctuary magazine

  Focus internal magazine

  Departmental Performance Report

  Financial year 2000–01

  MOD factsheets (series of 33)

  Factsheets (in Welsh)

  Corporate Booklets (including two policy papers on: Defence Diplomacy and Multinational Defence Cooperation)

  Kosovo Lessons from the Crisis (Cmd 4724)

  Departmental Performance Report

  Focus internal newspaper

  Sanctuary magazine

  Financial year 2001–02

  Departmental Performance Report

  Corporate Booklets (including two policy papers on: European Defence and Defence Acquisition)

  Focus internal newspaper

  Sanctuary magazine.

  Military Police
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the proposed manning level is for each of the next three years for the(a) Ministry of Defence Police, (b) Royal Military Police, (c) Military Provost Guard Service and (d) RAF Police; and if he will make a statement; [26639]

  (2) what is the approved number for the (a) Ministry of Defence Police, (b) Royal Military Police, (c) Military Provost Guard Service, (d) RAF Police; and if he will make a statement. [26637]

  Mr. Ingram
  The current figures are as follows:

  Requirement

  Strength

  MOD Police1

  3,395

  3,328

  Royal Military Police2

  2,109

  2,073

  Military Provost Guard Service3

  528

  453

  RAF Police4

  2,384

  2,265

  1 Figures as at 1 January 2002. Civilian support staff not included.

  2 Strength as at December 2001. Requirement is the Manpower Planning Target for 2001–02 Financial Year. Figures shown are the Adjutant Generals Corp (Provost Branch) which includes: AG (PRO)-General Police Duties (GPD), AG (PRO)-Special Investigations Branch (SIB) and AG (PRO)-Military Provost Staff (MPS).

  3 Strength as at 1 December 2001. Requirement is the current establishment figure for 2001–02 Financial Year.

  726W
  4 Figures as at 1 December 2001.

  Based on the known Ministry of Defence Police complement alterations, the overall staffing levels for the next three years are expected to be between 3,000 and 3,300.

  The RAF Police are in the process of a major structural reorganisation with a view to reducing the requirement. The trained strength will be reduced over the next six to eight years to align with the reduced requirement. It is likely that the Military Provost Guard Service will increase to offset part of the reduction in the RAF Police but will be aligned to the strength reductions.

  Pensions
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme of providing widowed spouses of post-retirement marriages with a pension based on all the pensionable service of the service men and women. [27199]

  Mr. Ingram
  Post-retirement widow and widower pensions (PRWP) were introduced as a requirement of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. Provision was made in the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) for the payment of pensions to widow (er)s of service pensioners who married (or remarried) after retirement, but this change benefited only the widows of those giving service on or after 6 April 1978, and the widowers of those giving service on or after 6 April 1989. Only service on or after those dates was taken into account when calculating the level of pension. Against this background, it would cost in the order of £50 million to extend PRWP's to all current and deferred AFPS pensioners. This would be a one-off cost based on a broad actuarial estimate.

  There is no distinction between service men and public sector employees with regard to the fact that the PRWP only applies to those with service on or after 6 April 1978, or 6 April 1989. It has been the long-standing policy of successive Governments that discretionary changes to improve the benefits from public service pensions schemes should be implemented from a current date for future service only. To extend the post-retirement marriage concession to survivors of members of all public service occupational schemes would cost between £300 million and £500 million.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what formula is used for the annual uprating of armed forces pensions. [28868]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: Pensions which are already in payment are increased annually in line with the retail prices index under the terms of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (Pensions Increase) Order.

  The increase in rate of pension payable to those who retire each year is broadly in line with annual pay increases. Armed forces pensions are not based on individual earnings but on a representative rate of pension for each rank. This 'band of brothers' approach ensures that all those who leave in the same year in the same rank and with the same number of years' service, receive the same pension. The representative rates of pension are

  727W
  linked to 'spot' rates of pay for each of the ranks. Annual increases in the spot rates of pay automatically increase the representative rates of pension based on them.

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years. [27986]

  Dr. Moonie
  The reported estimated cost to the Ministry of Defence, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies of fraud and theft in each of last complete financial years is as follows:

  £

  MOD

  Agencies

  NDPBs

  1997–98

  168,393

  421,263

  0

  1998–99

  183,107

  527,897

  0

  1999–2000

  1,976,669

  60,737

  0

  2000–01

  581,238

  300,112

  0

  No abatement is made for subsequent recoveries. The figures relate to a combination of suspected and proven frauds and thefts with estimated values refined from time to time as investigations, sometime lasting a year or more, reach a conclusion. A significant element of estimated cost or value can relate to 'at risk' estimates applied to suspected procurement fraud cases, the majority of which are usually resolved as 'no crime' or have a proven value lower than original estimates.

  Troop Deployments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries in which UK troops are stationed, giving the numbers of troops in each case. [28742]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 9 January 2002,Official Report, columns 821-22W, to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) which shows the number of UK regular forces serving overseas as at 1 November 2001 broken down by service.

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many employees of(a) his Department and (b) agencies sponsored by his Department work in (i) London, (ii) areas benefiting from EU Objective 1 status, (iii) areas with Objective 2 status and (iv) other areas. [16104]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: Statistics on Ministry of Defence employees are not held in the format requested. Officials are currently compiling this information and I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Early Retirement
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) RAF and Royal Marine officers,
  728W
  (b) Navy officers and (c) Army officers have sought early retirement in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [25832]

  Mr. Ingram
  The figures for Premature Voluntary Release (PVR) of service officers, broken down by the number of applications and number of actual exits, for each of the three services are as follows:

  Financial Year

  Applications

  Exists

  1998–99

  Navy including Royal Marines

  239

  164

  Army

  515

  509

  RAF

  268

  243

  1999–2000

  Navy including Royal Marines

  221

  1238

  Army

  547

  442

  RAF

  243

  213

  2000–01

  Navy including Royal Marines

  245

  1167

  Army

  530

  531

  RAF

  278

  241

  1 Exits may exceed applications in any year due to the time taken to process applications

  RAF Bases
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel have been carried on tactical exercises from(a) Brize Norton and (b) Lyneham in each of the last five years. [26343]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Cyber-Warfare
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to set up a cyber-warfare unit in his Ministry. [26635]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no plans to set up a cyber-warfare unit in the Ministry of Defence although structures already exist to co-ordinate the conduct of information operations which encompass existing military capabilities, such as those traditionally used for command and control warfare, as well as computer operations and emerging technologies.

  Military Garments
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial checks are carried out on companies tendering for contracts on military garments. [27436]

  Dr. Moonie
  Prior to a company being invited to tender for a contract the Ministry of Defence will have satisfied itself of the company's financial strength. The checks involve obtaining a financial report containing a complete copy of the company's accounts and then carrying out reviews of items such as the balance sheet and operating cost statement.

  Challenger 2
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve the global deployment capability of the Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank fleet. [27271]

  Mr. Ingram
  The lessons for the Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (CR2) from Exercise Saif Sareea 2 will be fully evaluated, in the light of ongoing operational experience in a range of environments, before any decisions on changes to the global deployment capability of the CR2 are made.

  Cadets
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cadet units have not been allocated cadet centres. [27195]

  Dr. Moonie
  None.

  Mutual Defence Agreement
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many visits of UK personnel to the US under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement have occurred in each year since 1997. [28255]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of visits by UK personnel, involving one or more individuals, to the US under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement in each year since 1997 is as follows:

  Year

  Number of visits

  1997

  200

  1998

  253

  1999

  225

  2000

  207

  2001

  205

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK personnel work in the United States under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement; and in which US facility they are working. [28254]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are four UK officials serving in the US under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement (1958 MDA). All are located in the British Embassy, Washington DC. Their duties are to facilitate the conduct of bilateral business within the provisions of the MDA. In addition there are four staff on secondment from AWE Aldermaston in the US, to assist with the technical development of facilities of mutual interest. Two are stationed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, one is located at Sandia National Laboratory and one at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many exchange of information and visit reports have been generated as a result of exchanges of information under the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement in each of the last five years. [28256]

  Dr. Moonie
  Six exchanges of information by visit and reports (EIVRs) have been created within the last five years. In 1997 one on the subject of test monitoring was generated, which first met in 1998. In 1998 one was created on matters concerned with the contract to manage 730W
  the Atomic Weapons Establishment, which also met in that year. Four EIVRs covering the subjects of executive channel, miscellaneous visits, non-proliferation and arms control technology, and enhanced surveillance were created in 2001.

  Nevada Test Site
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK personnel work at the Nevada test site; and how many UK personnel have visited the Nevada test site in each of the last three years. [28258]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no UK personnel permanently based at the Nevada test site. Numbers of UK personnel who have visited the Nevada test site in the last three years are as follows:

  Year

  Number of visits

  1999

  9

  2000

  26

  2001

  40

  Explosive Remnants of War
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcomes of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Review Conference in December 2001, with particular reference to the issue of explosive remnants of war. [28072]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Review Conference of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons agreed a detailed mandate for a Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) to discuss ways and means to address the issue of explosive remnants of war over the coming year. The GGE is also mandated to explore the issue of anti-vehicle mines. The Chairman-designate of the GGE will undertake consultations on possible options to improve compliance with the Convention. Interested states parties are invited to hold expert consultations on small calibre weapons and ammunition. The Review Conference agreed to convene a meeting of states parties to the Convention in December 2002 to follow up on these decisions.

  Flight Lieutenant A. L. Adams
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent by the RAF in training Flight Lieutenant A. L. Adams. [28384]

  Dr. Moonie
  Individual training costs are not collected. Flight Lieutenant Adams' Initial Officer Training is estimated to have cost approximately £16,500 and his flying training of the order of £770,000 excluding his salary and allowances.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the costs incurred in the process of redress initiated by Flight Lieutenant A. L. Adams. [28385]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the personal files recently supplied to Flight Lieutenant A. L. Adams. [28387]
  731W
  Dr. Moonie
  In accordance with exemptions 8a and 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, personal data are not to he disclosed without the consent of the individual to whom the information applies. All personal data relating to Flight Lieutenant Adams' redress of complaint are in his possession and it is for him to determine whether and how they should be placed in the public domain.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the reasons for no conclusion having been reached through process of redress initiated by Flight Lieutenant A. L. Adams. [28386]

  Dr. Moonie
  Flight Lieutenant Adams voluntarily withdrew from fast-jet flying training in October 1999, and was subsequently restreamed to rotary wing training rather than his preference of multi-engine training. He initiated the process of redress in March 2000. His complaint was rejected by the Commander-in-Chief, Royal Air Force Personnel and Training Command in December 2000. Flight Lieutenant Adams subsequently asked for the matter to be considered by the Air Force Board. Under the procedures followed during the consideration of a redress of complaint, all appropriate documents are disclosed to the complainant, who is invited to comment, before they are submitted to the decision-maker. This inevitably prolongs the process, and Flight Lieutenant Adams has commented, as is his right, on four separate occasions since the relevant synopsis was first disclosed to him in March 2001. It was necessary to postpone a scheduled meeting of the Air Force Board in September in order to take account of his latest comments. The case is now under consideration by the Air Force Board, who have asked for further information on which Flight Lieutenant Adams has been invited to comment before his case can be considered further.

  War Criminals (Bosnia)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of British peacekeeping forces in Bosnia in relation to the hunt for war-crime suspects, with particular reference to Mr. Karadzic. [28369]

  Mr. Ingram
  Assistance to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) as an integral part of SFOR' s mission and this includes the detention of individuals indicted as war criminals that SFOR encounter in the course of their duties. SFOR have to date performed 26 detention operations; 14 of which involved British forces.

  The arrest and transfer to The Hague of Radovan Karadzic remains a high priority for us, as for the other members of SFOR, and the UK will continue to make every effort to ensure that he is apprehended and brought to justice. While the international community may detain war criminals by force if necessary, we continue to urge Mr. Karadzic to surrender himself to the International Tribunal voluntarily.

  Royal Navy Vessels
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy vessels have had modifications and upgrades since 1997; and how long each of them were in port for that purpose. [28350]
  732W
  Mr. Ingram
  All operational Royal Navy vessels will have undergone some form of modification or upgrade since 1997. Rather than bring vessels into port for specific modifications or upgrades this work will generally have been undertaken within a period in which the vessel is either alongside, docked for maintenance or for repair.

  United States National Guards
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the presence in the United Kingdom of United States National Guards; what notification he has received from United States authorities of their intention to station such personnel within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [28322]

  Mr. Hoon
  As with our components of the US visiting force, the presence of US National Guards in the UK is governed by the NATO Status of Forces Agreement of 1951. No request has been received from the United States authorities to station US National Guards permanently in the UK, although they do transit through the UK from time to time.

  Russian Armed Forces
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investment the Government are making in retraining members of the Russian armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [27833]

  Mr. Hoon
  As at 31 December 2001, the Ministry of Defence's Russian Resettlement Project has spent £7.6 million on the retraining of 13,000 retiring and recently retired officers of the Russian armed forces. The Ministry of Defence funds resettlement courses at five cities around Russia. The range of training courses is aimed at the local job market and covers, for example, logistics, business administration, IT systems and English language.

  The Russian Resettlement Project is a major success story of our defence relationship with Russia. Employment is found by 70 per cent. of graduates within four months of successfully completing the course.

  European Defence
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with other EU member states about the establishment of a council of European Defence Ministers; and if he will make a statement. [28497]

  Mr. Hoon
  The question of a formal council of Defence Ministers was discussed at the EU General Affairs Council on 19 November 2001 and an informal meeting of EU Defence Ministers on 12 October 2001.

  There is already a programme of informal meetings of EU Defence Ministers, and the General Affairs Council provides a forum for formal discussions as and when required. There are no proposals to establish a separate council of European Defence Ministers.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with other EU member states about the creation of a European concept of Special Forces; and if he will make a statement. [28495]

  Mr. Hoon
  None.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Shipbuilding Industry
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his policy towards the establishment of a temporary EU defensive mechanism for the shipbuilding industry. [19585]

  Mr. Wilson
  We share the UK industry's very real concerns about Korean unfair competition, which we take very seriously. We believe the best means of tackling Korean unfair competition is to launch action in the World Trade Organisation (WTO), on which all member states are agreed, and to help yards improve their competitiveness. However, we are strongly opposed to the Commission proposal to reintroduce, in parallel, temporary operating subsidies.

  We do not believe that subsidy is an appropriate response to this complex and longstanding problem. Operating subsidies have not been effective in countering Korean unfair competition or in improving the competitiveness of EU yards in the past and we believe the Commission's new proposal will be even less effective at countering Korea. The Commission proposal is likely to be difficult to operate in practice and is open to abuse. Furthermore, it will distort competition within the EU as only some member states stand to gain. The proposal will not benefit UK yards as they do not build the relevant types of ships, namely containerships and product/chemical tankers, and could well be damaged by the subsidies that competing yards stand to receive.

  At the December 2001 meeting of the Industry Council, the Commission tried for the third time to secure agreement on its dual approach of subsidies and WTO action but again failed to secure sufficient support from member states. Member states remained firmly split on the subsidies proposal. The UK vigorously pressed the Commission to launch the WTO action but to no avail. The deadlock on the Commission approach therefore continues, with no action against Korea. The Commission will now review the market situation and present its findings in March as a basis for further discussion.

  Telephone Sales
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her policy to make it illegal for telephone sales and marketing organisations to withhold their telephone number when contacting members of the public; and if she will make a statement. [24456]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Consumers are protected under the Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999 which ensures that direct marketers must on request provide their address or a free telephone number on which they can be contacted. The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 also require that telephone sales and marketing organisations who cold call consumers at home are obliged to identify clearly the business they represent and the commercial purpose of their call at the beginning of the conversation. If a contract is concluded over the telephone, the regulations also give consumers the right to clear information before they decide to buy (which 734W
  must then be confirmed in writing) and the right to a cooling off period of seven days in which the consumer can cancel and receive a full refund.

  If consumers do not wish to receive unsolicited commercial telephone calls, they can register with the Telephone Preference Service. Telephone sales and marketing organisations are obliged under the Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999 to desist from calling individuals who are registered on the scheme.

  Subscribers can register by calling 0845 070 0707 or through the following website: "http://www.tpsonline.org.uk".

  Pharmacy Market
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Office of Fair Trading inquiry into controls over the pharmacy market will include within its scope dispensing by general practitioners. [24983]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The market study on pharmacies has been initiated by the Director General for Fair Trading and the scope of the study is for him. OFT have confirmed that they are investigating the restrictions on entry to dispense NHS prescriptions. As such the scope of the study could include all those who dispense NHS prescriptions including general practitioners.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations she received from(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public concerning the use, misuse and sale of fireworks between (i) 1 October and 31 December 1999, (ii) 1 January and 30 September 2000, (iii) 1 October and 31 December 2000 and (iv) 1 January and 30 September 2001. [26699]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The representations received by the Department over these periods, concerning a wide range of issues relating to fireworks is set out in the following table:

  Period

  MPs

  Public

  1 October to 31 December 1999

  119

  260

  1 January to 30 September 2000

  65

  109

  1 October to 31 December 2000

  111

  129

  1 January to 30 September 2001

  125

  501

  ECGD
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether it is the financial objective of her Department that the ECGD should operate within a break even framework. [27218]

  Ms Hewitt
  Yes. ECGD aims to maintain a ratio of its reserves to its estimates of Expected Loss on amounts at risk under its guarantees of at least 1.5. Last year ECGD contributed, after expenses, £205 million to the Exchequer.
  735W
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether it is the policy of her Department to eliminate subsidies from export credits. [27219]

  Ms Hewitt
  Yes. ECGD charges premium to cover its costs and expected losses such that a Reserve Coverage Ratio (ratio of accumulated reserves to expected losses) is maintained of 1.5 or higher.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many regulatory impact assessments have been produced by her Department since August 2001; and if she 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. [28406]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department has produced 10 regulatory impact assessments since August 2001. The RIAs relate to:

  Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations

  The Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971 (Electronic Communications) Order 2001

  The Working Time (Amendment) Regulations 2001

  Utilities Act 2000: Electricity Licence Exemptions

  The Maternity and Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2001

  The Equipment and Protective Systems Intended for use in Explosive Atmospheres (Amendment) Regulations 2001

  The Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Bill

  The Registered Designs (Amendment) Rules 2001 and The Registered Designs (Fees) (Amendment) Rules 2001 (combined RIA)

  The Trade Marks (Amendment) Rules 2001

  The Electricity from Non-Fossil Fuel Sources (Locational Flexibility) Order 2001.

  All full regulatory impact assessments are placed in the Libraries of the House.

  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.

  Ceramics
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will ensure(a) respect for copyright, (b) compliance with regulations and (c) traceability for consumer protection on imports of ceramics from China to the United Kingdom under WTO agreements; and if she will make a statement. [28772]

  Nigel Griffiths
  China became a member of the WTO on 11 December 2001, and is bound by the agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPS"). This requires all WTO members to provide certain minimum standards for the protection and enforcement of copyright and other intellectual property rights. The agreement is the first broadly-subscribed multilateral intellectual property agreement that is enforceable between Governments.

  An EU requirement to apply origin markings to ceramic imports from China would be incompatible with WTO rules. However, EC Regulation No. 3295/94 (as amended) allows a right holder to lodge an application with Customs to prohibit the entry into the Community of counterfeit and pirated goods. It also provides for Customs Officers to contact a right holder if they come across suspected infringing goods during the course of their checks. In this case the goods will be detained and the right holder will be invited to lodge an application within a specified period.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Chinese capability to meet its WTO requirements on counterfeiting and copying of ceramic products. [28773]

  Nigel Griffiths
  China gave a commitment to abide fully with the provisions of the agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPS") by the date of her accession to the WTO. The agreement requires all WTO members to provide certain minimum standards of protection for patents, copyrights, trade marks and other forms of intellectual property protection; and to provide effective provisions for enforcement of these rights. China's accession to the WTO on 11 December 2001 will provide a welcome boost to the ability of rights holders to enforce their rights within China. Foreign countries can look forward to improved safeguards for their rights; and have been promised reinforced co-operation from the Chinese authorities.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on manufacturing industry in North Staffordshire. [28770]

  Alan Johnson
  The North Staffordshire Task Force and Advantage West Midlands are working with local partners to assist manufacturing industry in the area. In addition, the Government recently announced a further £1.5 million support for the Ceramics Industry Forum, many of whose members are in North Staffordshire. I am also meeting my hon. Friend on 23 January to discuss recent announcements by businesses based in the area.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many former miners' compensation claims have been registered in(a) St. Helens, South

  737W
  constituency, (b) St. Helens metropolitan authority area and (c) Merseyside in relation to (i) vibration white finger and (ii) respiratory diseases. [28700]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, have registered claims in the regions as follows:

  Number

  (i) Vibration white finger (VWF)

  (ii) Respiratory disease

  (a) St. Helens, South1

  439

  759

  (b) St. Helens metropolitan authority2

  901

  1,605

  (c) Merseyside3

  1,435

  2,672

  1 St. Helens, South as defined by the area with postcode prefixes: L 34, 35; WA 9, 10.

  2 St. Helens metropolitan authority as defined by the area with postcode prefixes: WA 8-12; L 34-35.

  3 Merseyside as defined by the area with postcode prefixes: CH 48-49, 60-63; L 3, 9-10, 12, 14, 16-26, 34-38; PR 8-9, WA 8-12, WN 4-5

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many respiratory specialists in(a) Merseyside, (b) the north-west and (c) England were working on the Medical Assessment Process for compensating former miners at (i) 1 January 2001 and (ii) 1 January 2002. [28699]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: As at 1 January 2001, there were 104 respiratory specialists working on the Medical Assessment Process (MAP) living and/or working in England as a whole, of which 10 were working in the north-west region, but none working in Merseyside.

  As at 1 January 2002, there were 155 respiratory specialists working on the MAP living and/or working in England as a whole, of which 19 were working in the north-west region, but none are working in Merseyside.

  Type of interim

  Eligibility

  PD D12

  A £2,000 interim is made to claimants in receipt of the Industrial injuries benefit for chronic bronchitis and emphysema

  Widows' interim 1

  Widows who receive a bereavement award, and have not received any other payment, are entitled to a further interim payment of £2,000

  Widows' interim 2

  Widows who are not in receipt of a bereavement award, although one of the eight qualifying descriptors is cited on her late husband's death certificate but was not found to cause or materially contribute to the death, and have not received any other payment, are entitled to an interim payment of £1,000

  The variable interims are:

  1. Bereavement awards.

  2. Expedited interims—where an expedited offer has been made, but rejected by the claimant, a proportion of the offer is forwarded while the claimant proceeds the full Medical Assessment Process, MAP.

  3. Post MAP interims—where a claimant has attended a MAP appointment and for whom the work history has been agreed, but the Department is unable to settle the claim, an interim is made.

  Claims for compensation for respiratory disease can be settled by either an expedited payment following spirometry testing or a full and final offer following MAP.
  738W
  North-west centres are defined as: Wigan, Wrexham and Manchester.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many compensation claims by former miners living in(a) St. Helens, South and (b) St. Helens metropolitan authority (i) have yet to be settled and (ii) have been paid their final sum. [28698]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: To date, the number of claimants who have not settled their claims or received an offer of compensation, and the number of settled claims is as follows:

  St. Helens, South1

  St. Helens metropolitan authority2

  Respiratory disease

  Number of unsettled claims which have not received offers

  728

  1,518

  Number of settled claims

  16

  31

  Number of offers outstanding with solicitors

  15

  56

  Vibration White Finger

  Number of unsettled claims which have not received offers

  256

  521

  Number of settled claims

  134

  255

  Number of offers outstanding with solicitors

  49

  125

  1 St. Helens, South as defined by the area with postcode prefixes: L 34, 35; WA 9, 10

  2 St. Helens metropolitan authority as defined by the area with postcode prefixes: WA 8-12; L 34-35

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average(a) interim and (b) final payment amount is for (i) Vibration White Finger and (ii) respiratory diseases to former coal miners in (A) St. Helens, South, (B) Merseyside and (C) England. [28706]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are six different types of interim payments that may be made to claimants for compensation for respiratory disease, subject to conditions. Of these, three are of fixed amounts and are listed as follows:

  The average interim and full and final figure for the above regions are as follows:

  £

  Respiratory disease

  St. Helens, South

  Merseyside

  England

  Interim payments

  Average bereavement award

  7,609

  8,322

  8,210

  Average expedited interim

  n/a

  n/a

  2,862

  MAP interim

  5,168

  4,119

  4,024

  Full and final offers

  Average expedited settlement

  n/a

  6,467

  5,323

  Average full and final

  settlement following MAP

  1,351

  1,767

  2,380

  739W
  There are four different interims in respect of Vibration White Finger (VWF) claims as listed:

  1. Standard £1,000

  2. General damages

  3. Anniversary

  4. Services.

  The average interim and full and final figure for the above regions are as follows:

  Vibration White Finger

  St. Helens, South

  Merseyside

  England

  Average interim payment

  4,562

  4,523

  5,776

  Average full and final payment

  7,178

  7,348

  8,048

  Power Stations
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many power stations there are in the United Kingdom and how each one is fuelled. [28014]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: A list of power stations in the United Kingdom (operational at 31 May 2001 and of more than 1 MW capacity) is given in Table 5.13 of the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, 2001, a copy of which is available in the Libraries of the House and on the DTI website. The list shows the fuel used by each station and its generating capacity. In total 165 separate stations appear on the list.

  Energy Sources
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the extent to which(a) geothermal, (b) hydroelectric, (c) wind and (d) wave sources of energy are used in the United Kingdom. [28015]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 21 January' 2002]: We are aware of only one operating geothermal aquifer scheme in the UK, in Southampton, where a geothermal aquifer contributes 2 MW of heat to a 12 MW district heating scheme. The UK is unlikely to see extensive developments based upon aquifers due to a limited resource and limited scope for its exploitation. In the 1980s, the UK conducted major research into geothermal hot dry rock technology, involving the extraction of heat through the artificial injection of water into otherwise dry rock formations, but no prospect was seen at the time of making this technology economically viable in the short or medium term.

  The UK has extensive hydroelectric schemes, most of them long-established. Declared net capacity of UK hydro plants in 2000 was 1,479 MW. Scope for expansion is limited by the availability of suitable new sites and environmental considerations.

  Wind energy is already well established in the UK, and unit production costs have been falling for some years. The British Wind Energy Association calculates that, at the end of 2001, total UK wind energy generating capacity stood at 473.6 MW installed capacity, and that nearly 200 MW more is confirmed for construction in 2002. We are taking vigorous steps to encourage the development of the wind energy industry, with its enormous potential, both
  740W
  onshore and offshore. The UK's first offshore wind energy installation, off Blyth in Northumberland, opened in 2000. The Government are encouraging more ambitious developments offshore by a substantial capital grants programme.

  Wave energy is at an early stage of development in the UK. A 500 kilowatt wave energy device, supported through an SRO contract, is operating on Islay. The Government have recently announced support for further innovative wave energy projects. The UK's potential wave energy resource is enormous.

  Household Products
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to introduce legislation to control the use of chemicals in household products; and if she will make a statement. [29509]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The safety of chemical products, such as household products, is governed by the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 1994. These regulations require that manufacturers must assess a chemical product for its health effects (toxicity, irritancy etc.). If dangerous the product must then be labelled with a warning symbol and phrases indicating the dangers. The particular chemical(s) which cause the product to be classified must be named on the label.

  The regulations also require that all potentially dangerous chemicals supplied to the public must be in packaging which is properly labelled and contains warnings about the potential hazards and giving brief advice on suitable precautions. Manufacturers or suppliers of household products are also required to give details of how to use the product safely.

  International Communications
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many international communications are routed daily through the UK; and what percentage of those are transmitted via satellite. [28585]

  Mr. Alexander
  Many millions of traffic minutes per day are routed through the UK, which is an important transit hub for international telecoms traffic. However, neither the Department nor Oftel maintains statistics on the routing of international communications through the UK or on what percentage of these are transmitted via satellite.

  Bananas
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the likely effect on UK banana importers of changes to the EU banana regime. [25957]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The EU banana regime has recently been amended to implement Phase II of the Understanding with the US and Ecuador in response to World Trade Organisation concerns and to end the long-running trade dispute. The main effects of this are to transfer 100,000 tonnes of

  741W
  bananas from the C Quota to the A/B Quota, and to make the C Quota exclusive to bananas originating from ACP countries.

  Detailed European Commission regulations are necessary for the management of the quota regime, and until these have been proposed, it is not possible to determine the effect on individual UK banana importers.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of the EU Banana Management Committee on 15 November 2001. [25958]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Two European Commission proposals received favourable opinions. The first was to establish the maximum quantity of bananas which may be imported into the Community during the first quarter of 2002 by each registered operator. The second was to amend Commission Regulation 896/2001 to correct certain errors in the text as well as to clarify the rules for determining the reference quantities applicable to traditional operators in the A/B Quota.

  In response to a suggestion from the UK, the chairman proposed to issue a working document on strengthening the rules prohibiting linkage between traditional and non-traditional operators.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates she has made of the value of the reduction in banana imports under C licences as a result of changes to the EU banana regime in the next five years. [25956]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under the previous arrangements (Phase I of the Understanding with the US and Ecuador), 850,000 tonnes of banana imports under C Quota licences were permitted per year. Under Phase H, the effect on banana traders registered as operators in the C Quota arise both from the transfer of 100,000 tonnes of bananas from the C Quota to the A/B Quota, and from making the C Quota exclusive to ACP countries.

  Total imports from ACP countries in 1999 (the last year for which full data are available) amounted to 676,638 tonnes, with similar quantities in the previous two years. This implies that the changes made in Phase II, taken together, should enable the ACP to continue to achieve a market share comparable with that they have had in the recent past. The value of this to ACP suppliers and individual importers will depend on price developments and, in the case of importers, their licence allocations.

HEALTH

  Care Beds
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans to increase the number of care beds across the country. [26361]

  Jacqui Smith
  Our policy is to enable people to remain independent in their own homes wherever possible. That is where most people want to receive care. Between 1999 and 2000 there was a 5 per cent. increase in the number 742W
  of households receiving intensive home care. In addition, in October last year, we announced an extra £300 million investment over two years which will buy a range of services including additional care home placements.

  Delayed Discharges
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to reduce unnecessary delays in discharges from hospital. [26376]

  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in reducing delayed discharges from hospital. [26378]

  Jacqui Smith
  On 8 January, we announced the allocation to councils of the £190 million Building Care Capacity Grant for 2002–03. £100 million was allocated nationally for the grant in 2001–02 and the first payment made in November 2001.

  This additional funding has been used to deliver a significant national reduction in delayed discharges since September 2001.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were in hospital on 25 December 2001 as a result of delayed discharges. [27362]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally on a daily basis.

  Social Services
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent measures he has introduced to improve the performance of local authority social services. [26377]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government have announced the introduction of star rating for social services from this summer to enable councils and the public to see how they are performing. Standards for delivery have been published in National Service Frameworks for mental health and older people. "Quality Protects" is delivering improved life chances for children. We have also increased the resources available for social services by an average of 3.2 per cent. a year in real terms between 1996–97 and 2002–03.

  GPS
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects a resolution of the renegotiation of the general practitioners' contract for England and Wales. [26379]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Confederation is leading the negotiations with British Medical Association's General Practitioners Committee, on behalf of United Kingdom Health Ministers. It is committed to putting proposals to UK Health Ministers as soon as practicable. I understand an encouraging start has been made but that further work remains.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners in England and Wales have received golden hellos. [24672]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: To date the Department has received 137 completed application forms since the launch of the scheme on 2 November

  743W
  2001. There is no information available as to how many applications are currently being processed by health authorities.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practice vacancies there were in each of the last two years. [28020]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department's general practitioner recruitment, retention and vacancy survey 2000 for England and Wales reported 1,214 general practitioner vacancies outstanding at some time in the 12 month period between 1 April 1999 and 31 March 2000. These vacancies were reported by 96 per cent. out of the then 104 health authorities in England and Wales. Eight health authorities did not supply the necessary information.

  For the 2001 survey 98 out of the then 100 health authorities provided information indicating that there were 2,464 general practitioner vacancies outstanding at some time in the 12 month period between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2001.

  Cleft Lip and Palate Services
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on establishing a centre of excellence for cleft lip and palate services in the north-west. [26380]

  Jacqui Smith
  Commissioners and national health service trusts in the north-west are working together on options for the location of the cleft lip and palate centre for the region. This work will be completed by March and will be followed by three months public consultation on the options.

  Accident and Emergency
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investment has taken place in the last five years on accident and emergency facilities in England and Wales. [26381]

  Ms Blears
  A total of £150 million has been invested in accident and emergency departments through the accident and emergency Modernisation programme. It is the biggest investment in A&E services since the beginning of the national health service. The first wave of investment was for £30 million in 1998, the second was for £85 million in May 1999 and the final wave of funding was made available to the NHS in January 2001.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he proposes to take in 2002 to improve the provision of NHS dental treatment. [26383]

  Ms Blears
  An estimated £1.1 billion will be spent on the general dental service and in excess of £50 million revenue will be invested in personal dental service pilot schemes in the current financial year. These levels of expenditure are anticipated to continue in the next financial year.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has made to his counterpart in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the 744W
  Regions to ensure that local primary care trusts are included as statutory bodies with respect to the proposed changes to the local government planning regime. [26384]

  Mr. Hutton
  The planning Green Paper—Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change—has only recently been issued by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and the Department of Health will make representations by the due date of 18 March.

  It is expected that strategic health authorities and primary care trusts will be included as statutory bodies at the appropriate level of the planning regime.

  Royal Sussex County Hospital
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made at the Royal Sussex county hospital, Brighton, following the publication of hospital star ratings. [26385]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has commissioned reviews of those trusts with a zero star status. This review is currently being evaluated by officials before submission to the Secretary of State for his consideration.

  In the initial review the Royal Sussex county hospital failed to meet three performance targets, namely those of out-patient waiting lists, over 12 hour trolley waits and percentage of patients seen within two weeks of referral with suspected breast cancer.

  Significant improvements have been made in each of these areas which we expect will be confirmed when the findings from the above review are published within the next few weeks.

  Waiting Lists
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans to reduce waiting times and waiting lists in the NHS. [26386]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan sets out the progress this Government want to make over the coming years. The plan, which was announced in July 2000, addresses waiting times for outpatient and inpatient treatment.

  By the end of 2005 the maximum in-patient waiting time will be cut from 18 months now to six months and the maximum out-patient waiting time will be cut from over six months now to three months. Urgent cases will continue to be treated much faster.

  Our objective is to reduce the maximum wait for any stage of treatment to three months by the end of 2008. As a result of delivering these policies we expect the average time for an out-patient appointment to fall to five weeks and the average time that patients have been waiting for in-patient treatment to fall from three months to seven weeks.

  This Government met their 1997 manifesto commitment to reduce the total number of patients on the in-patient waiting list by 100,000. We achieved this in March 2000 and have maintained it ever since. The NHS is expected to continue to reduce the waiting list in order to make achievement of the maximum waiting times more manageable.
  745W
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trust managers have been dismissed on grounds of gross misconduct after manipulating waiting list figures. [27255]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Audit Office report "Inappropriate adjustments to national health service waiting lists" listed nine trusts where inappropriate adjustments had taken place. In two of these trusts, Salford and Stoke Mandeville, the investigations have reached the disciplinary stage. There have been no trust managers dismissed on grounds of gross misconduct in the other seven cases.

  The Department accepts that some of the earlier cases covered in the report were not always handled properly and it accepts in full the recommendations set out the NAO report. In future, any manager found to have deliberately distorted waiting figures will face dismissal on grounds of gross misconduct. This will be supported by a new code of conduct for national health service managers. Anyone who breaches that code of conduct will not be re-employed as a manager—anywhere in the national health service.

  Health Inequalities
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to tackle health inequalities; and if he will make a statement [26387]

  Yvette Cooper
  We have completed our consultation on delivery of the two national health inequalities targets and we expect to publish an implementation plan this year. We are reviewing policy across Government impacting on health inequalities through our cross-cutting spending review and are taking action through a wide range of national health service activity.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made in tackling health inequalities. [26389]

  Yvette Cooper
  We have completed our consultation on delivery of the national health inequalities targets and we expect to publish an implementation plan this year. We are reviewing policy across Government impacting on health inequalities through our cross-cutting spending review and are taking action through a wide range of national health service activity.

  NICE
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the current programme for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. [26388]

  Ms Blears
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has to date issued 31 sets of technology appraisal guidance and four sets of clinical guidelines, with a further 44 appraisals and 31 clinical and service guidelines in its forward programme. The guidance published so far covers a wide range of disease areas including cancer, mental health, coronary heart disease, diabetes and long term conditions.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on developments in the treatment of mental health patients in the Avon health authority area. [26390]

  Ms Blears
  Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust have plans in place to progress towards the achievement of the targets set out in the mental health national service framework. The trust is working closely with other local NHS bodies to finalise the outline business case for the £68 million scheme for the Modernisation of mental health services in Avon.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the £56 million allocated for high security places for dangerous and severe personality disorder persons in the NHS and for hostel places has so far been spent; and how many NHS places and hostel places have been provided. [10528]

  Jacqui Smith
  New dangerous and severe personality disorder (DSPD) units at Rampton and Broadmoor will deliver 140 places for dangerous and severe personality disorder persons by 2004. These are complex schemes, involving major innovations both in design, and in the approach to service delivery.

  Work has concentrated initially on the Rampton site. To date, there has been capital expenditure of £412,000 at Rampton with a projected spend of £500,000 by year end. This is being committed to meet the costs of early design work, design team fees, and to refurbish accommodation for the DSPD team in Rampton. Work will commence on site in March 2002, with completion due in June 2003, and the expenditure of capital has been profiled to achieve this output. The unit is planned to open in the autumn of 2003. Work on the unit at Broadmoor is at an earlier stage of development, and no capital has been committed. However, it is on target to open in 2004.

  Revenue spend on the Rampton and Broadmoor developments is projected to be £0.35 million this year. This will meet staff costs. At Rampton these costs include the salaries for the project director, consultant psychiatrist, nurse manager, consultant psychologist, business manager, security adviser and secretarial staff. There are also running costs for the DSPD team accommodation, and the costs of a one off study tour of Holland and Germany. At Broadmoor these costs include salaries for the project director and consultant psychiatrist.

  We have decided that money originally earmarked for community hostel places should be allocated to a range of pilot provision within medium secure units and community settings, in order to provide step down care from high security.

  Two units will open in early 2003 with a total of 23 beds for offenders with severe personality disorder, and community teams will be established in three locations to deliver care and treatment to this client group in community settings from 2002–03. The capital allocation of £3.5 million for these schemes will be committed over 2002–03.

  Work on both sites is proceeding more slowly than originally anticipated in order to ensure that robust local dialogue takes place in advance of any application for planning permission. It is now estimated that about

  747W
  £50,000 will be committed this year. This will meet the cost of training events for the new clinical teams, together with travel expenses, plus commissioning a study to look at the development of staff competencies and staff training needs in working with people with DSPD in forensic settings.

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent progress he has made in improving the treatment of mental health patients. [26382]

  Jacqui Smith
  All of the targets set to be achieved by this date in the National Service Framework for Mental Health have been met. These include almost 500 additional secure beds; over 320 24-hour staffed beds; 170 assertive outreach teams; access to services 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year for all those with complex mental health problems; investment to improve the physical environments in psychiatric wards; and guidance issued to ensure the safety, privacy and dignity of mental health patients.

  Funding Formula
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to revise the funding formula for the allocation of resources to health authorities in England and Wales. [26391]

  Mr. Hutton
  A wide ranging review of the weighted capitation formula used to allocate resources to health authorities and primary care trusts in England is currently taking place. A key criterion of the new formula will be to contribute to the reduction of avoidable health inequalities. The intention is that, following the review, the new formula will be ready for 2003–04 allocations.

  Issues relating to a review of the funding formula for resource allocation in Wales, are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Migraine
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the treatment of migrainous headaches and migraine. [26392]

  Mr. Hutton
  We would expect that patients suffering from migrainous headaches and migraine would normally be treated by their general practitioner in the first instance. If this failed to resolve the problem then patients could be referred to a consultant neurologist for further investigation and tests.

  The National Research Register is a database of on-going and recently completed research projects funded by, or of interest to, the United Kingdom's national health service. The current issue, Issue 4, 2001, shows that there are 17 on-going projects looking at migraine with another 56 recently completed.

  Overseas Treatment
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he is making on the provision of treatment for NHS patients overseas. [26393]

  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to contract, East Kent health authority plan to send 18 patients to France for treatment before the end of January and up to 80 in total by the end of March. West Sussex/East Surrey and Portsmouth HAs 748W
  are largely concentrating on potential German providers; subject to agreements on contracts they will send a number of patients to Germany in February and March. In total it is hoped that around 200 or more patients will travel to France and Germany for treatment during the pilot period. Initial guidance to the national health service will be published shortly.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people from(a) East Kent, (b) Portsmouth, (c) West Sussex/East Surrey and (d) other areas of England were sent to other European countries for health treatment between (i) 1 January and 31 December 2001 and (ii) 1 January and 30 January 2002; if he will make a statement on the comparative costs of such treatments compared with the NHS in England, taking into account travel costs; and if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the three test-bed pilot schemes for overseas treatments. [26913]

  Mr. Hutton
  No patients from East Kent, Portsmouth or West Sussex/East Surrey were sent to other European countries for treatment in 2001. Subject to contract, East Kent plan to send 18 patients to France for treatment before the end of January. Portsmouth plan to send one patient to France during the same period. West Sussex/East Surrey will commence sending patients overseas in February. Portsmouth will send further patients overseas in February and March.

  Direct comparisons of the costs of overseas treatment and national health service costs are not straightforward; for example, prices so far for hip and knee replacements include intensive rehabilitation which would not be included in standard NHS reference costs. In general the prices agreed so far for treatment overseas are in excess of NHS average reference costs but comparable to those in the United Kingdom private sector. However, we would expect better prices if and when we commit to larger volumes of patients travelling overseas to individual hospitals.

  The test bed exercise continues until the end of the financial year. It is therefore too early to draw any firm conclusions.

  Norfolk and Norwich Hospital
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve physical access to the new Norfolk and Norwich hospital; and if he will make a statement. [26394]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service has spent over £4 million on improving the road to the new hospital and has deposited an additional £1 million for improvements to be carried out.

  The Highways Agency has confirmed it cannot approve proposals for an access road from the A47 to the new Norfolk and Norwich university hospital on the grounds of safety.

  Norfolk county council is considering other options for a second access road to the hospital site. The hospital trust continues to support any proposals for additional access provided such access is safe.

  Consultants' Contracts
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he is making in his negotiations with hospital consultants on their new NHS contracts, with particular reference to the proposed seven-year rule; and if he will make a statement. [26395]

  Mr. Hutton
  Our proposals for the new consultant contract, published in February 2001, incorporated improved remuneration and incentives for consultants within a more robust framework of contractual duties and responsibilities, and envisaged that for an initial period, perhaps of seven years, the terms of the contract would prevent newly appointed consultants engaging in similar work outside the national health service.

  These proposals, alongside the British Medical Association's own proposals, form the basis of continuing negotiations.

  Global Warming
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what potential new diseases he has identified in the United Kingdom as a result of global warming. [26396]

  Yvette Cooper
  The review "Health Effects of Climate Change in the UK" was published for comment in 2001. This review is currently being edited and the final report will be published during the next few months. It was prepared by an expert group and focused on a range of impacts. These included the possible increase in local outbreaks of malaria and in diseases associated with ticks. The full report is available on the Department's website http://www.doh.gov.uk/hef/airpol/airpolh.htm.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the change in the number of care home places since 1996. [26397]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table shows the number of residential places and nursing beds in care homes in England for each year since 1996. The number of places/beds peaked in 1998 at 553,500, an increase of 8 per cent. from 1996. Since then, the total number of places/beds has fallen to 528,000. However, this is still 3 per cent. higher than the 1996 level.

  Further information on places and beds can be found in the Statistical Bulletin, "Community Care Statistics 2001: Residential Personal Social Services for Adults, England". A copy of the publication is in the Library.

  Residential places and registered nursing beds, 1996 to 2001

  England

  Rounded numbers

  As at 31 March

  Residential places in residential care homes1

  Registered nursing beds2 in nursing homes3

  Total care places

  19964

  323,000

  190,600

  513,600

  19974

  338,100

  196,300

  534,400

  1998

  347,900

  205,600

  553,500

  1999

  344,000

  202,200

  546,200

  2000

  345,900

  193,300

  539,200

  2001

  341,200

  186,800

  528,000

  1 Includes residential places in dual registered homes

  2 Includes nursing places in dual registered homes

  750W
  Nursing homes are defined as general and mental nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics.

  Information in 1996 and 1997 refers to the period 1 October to 31 March for registered nursing beds.

  Source:

  Department of Health annual returns

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of support funding has been given to care home owners to enable them to meet the requirements of the Care Standards Act 2001; what level of funding will be available for the continuing adjustments; and if he will make a statement. [7991]

  Jacqui Smith
  The resources provided for personal social services are increasing by, on average 3.4 per cent. per annum in real terms over the next three years. We expect home owners will cover the costs of meeting the standards through the fees they charge. Local authorities are funded to meet these additional costs. The Government, through the agreement between the statutory and independent social care, health care and housing sectors "Building Capacity and Partnership in Care" (paragraph 6.2), issued in October 2001, made it clear that service commissioners should not set contract prices for care places mechanistically. We expect them to have regard to providers' costs and efficiencies and planned outcomes for service users.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were available in the Hillingdon and Harrow health authority in the care home sector in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001. [27267]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table shows the number of places in residential care homes and registered beds in nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics in the areas covered by Hillingdon health authority and the Brent and Harrow health authority area between 1997 and 2001. Information is not separately available for Harrow.

  Residential places1 and registered nursing beds in the Hillingdon and brent and Harrow area2 between 1997 and 2001

  Number

  At 31 March

  places in residential care homes

  Registered nursing beds in nursing homes3,4

  Total places/beds

  (a) 1997

  2,577

  1,361

  3,938

  (b) 1998

  2,586

  1,600

  4,186

  (c) 1999

  2,414

  1,778

  4,192

  (d) 2000

  2,539

  1,718

  4,257

  (e) 2001

  2,537

  1,894

  4,431

  1 Excludes places in children's homes.

  2 Information is presented for the area covered by the health authorities of Hillingdon and Brent and Harrow and correspondingly the London boroughs of Hillingdon, Harrow and Brent.

  3 Registered beds in general and mental nursing homes, hospitals and clinics.

  4 Information for registered nursing beds in 1997 relates to the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997.

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual returns

  Foster Care
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he takes to monitor the safety of privately fostered children. [26398]
  751W
  Jacqui Smith
  Once a local authority has been notified of a private fostering arrangement it is required under the Children Act 1989 to be satisfied that the foster parents, household and accommodation are satisfactory and that the welfare of the child is being safeguarded and promoted.

  The private fostering arrangement has to be monitored by the local authority, through supervising, regulating and advising the foster carers and parents. The local authority is required to visit at specified intervals and to report on these visits. They have the power to impose requirements, or if there are serious concerns, to prohibit the fostering arrangement.

  A chief inspector's letter was issued in 2000 reminding local authorities of their duties for supervising children placed in private foster arrangements.

  The chief inspector heads the social service inspectorate, (SSI) a professional division of the Department, and independent of the local authority, voluntary and private sector providers of social services. The SSI is responsible for inspecting local council personal social services provision and its organisation and management in order to promote quality standards, improve effectiveness and efficiency, and ensure the safety and well-being of service users.

  Abortion
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health authorities which do not offer abortions within 10 weeks. [19455]

  Yvette Cooper
  All health authorities in England and Wales funded some national health service abortions within 10 weeks gestation of pregnancy in 2000. However, the percentage funded by the NHS varied, and ranged from 26 per cent. in one health authority area to 96 per cent. or more in three health authority areas.

  The sexual health and HIV strategy states that services should be developed to provide NHS funded abortions in line with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' clinical guideline "Induced Abortion" and has set a target that from 2005, commissioners should ensure that women who meet the legal requirements have access to abortion within three weeks of the first appointment with the general practitioner or other referring doctor.

  Adoption
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his intention to extend the right of adoption to(a) unmarried opposite sex couples and (b) same sex couples; and if he will make a statement. [19224]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: We are looking thoroughly at the many and complex issues of partnership registration, rights and responsibilities. Adoption will, alongside all other relevant issues, be considered as part of that work.

  Under the existing Adoption Act 1976 single people may adopt (regardless of sexual orientation), but only married couples may adopt jointly. It is open for one unmarried partner to adopt a child and for the other to obtain parental responsibility by applying for a residence order in respect of the child. The Adoption and Children
  752W
  Bill makes no change in this area. The Government's intentions will, of course, be subject to the parliamentary consideration of the Bill currently under way.

  NHS Professionals
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he intends to review the NHS's use of framework agreements as part of the tendering process for NHS professionals[24419]

  Mr. Hutton
  London, where the first framework agreement was completed, has been the subject of on-going review in line with the structured and widely recognised project management methodology, PRINCE. An initial evaluation was completed with findings presented to the London Agency Project Board. Further evaluation will take place in six months with good practice shared with others undergoing similar processes.

  Revenue Resource Allocations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amount in(a) real terms and (b) percentage terms of the health authority revenue resource allocations announced on 6 December are accounted for by estimated (i) salary increases for (A) pay review body staff and (B) non-pay review body staff, (ii) medical price inflation, (iii) new pension contribution rates, (iv) implementation of planned national service frameworks and (v) special arrangements for speeding up heart operations. [24328]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: Health authority revenue allocations for 2002–03 include funding to meet increases in pay, prices and other pressures faced by all health authorities, and to implement national service frameworks, but these are not separately identified within allocations.

  A small number of initiatives, including action to speed up heart operations and extend choice for those who wait longest for heart surgery, will be funded through central budgets. Details will be announced later.

  Prosthetics
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research is being carried out into prosthetics practice in the UK; [26586]

  (2) what research is being carried out into trans-femoral socket and limb prescription, design and delivery. [26584]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department is not currently funding any research in these two areas.

  However, the Department does provide support for research commissioned by charities and the research councils that takes place in the national health service. Details of on-going and recently completed research projects funded by, or of interest to, the NHS are available on the National Research Register at www.doh.gov.uk/research/nrr.htm.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make it his policy to make state-of-the-art prosthetics available on the NHS to those who want them; [26611]

  (2) what plans he has to make state-of-the-art prosthetics available on the NHS. [26590]
  753W
  Jacqui Smith
  The national health service already has available to it, via contracts negotiated by the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, the widest possible range of prosthetic limb components available. The decision as to which type of prosthesis an individual patient receives is one that should be decided at a local level taking into account an individual's clinical circumstances.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the NHS prosthetics expenditure in the last financial year for which records are available per amputee; and what proportion of this expenditure was used on(a) administration, (b) prosthetics staff and (c) prosthetics. [26587]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not collect information on the financial expenditure on each individual amputee. Expenditure is decided at a local health authority and national health service trust level.

  The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency estimate that some £23 million including value added tax was spent on prosthetic service contracts and a further £13 million including VAT was spent on prosthetic limb hardware and associated items during 1999–2000.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on the UK prosthetics industry of the emigration of qualified prosthetics professionals and technicians. [26589]

  Jacqui Smith
  There has been no report of a significant impact on the United Kingdom prosthetic industry due to the emigration of qualified prosthetic professionals and technicians.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training is given to orthopaedic surgeons on prosthetics and orthotics, with specific reference to the functional implications of the various levels of amputation and residual limb lengths. [26594]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Royal College of Surgeons is the body responsible for the training of medical students on surgery. The majority of amputations are carried out by vascular and general surgeons, and relatively few are undertaken by orthopaedic surgeons. Orthopaedic surgeons receive training on amputations and prosthetics at various stages of the medical curriculum, such as:

  Medical students receive lectures and tutorials on general surgery, and are taken to a limb fitting centre.

  Basic surgical trainees will receive training from mainly vascular surgeons on the practical skills of "common amputations".

  Specialist Registrars receive higher surgical training on amputation and rehabilitation, and on prosthetics and orthotics.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines his Department has given to disablement service centres for the prescription and delivery of prosthetics. [26591]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has not issued any guidelines to disablement services centres for the prescription and delivery of prosthetics. Prescriptions and delivery criteria are decided at a local level to take account of an individual patient's clinical need.
  754W
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of funding for prosthetics in each of the last five financial years for which records are available; and what level is anticipated for the(a) current and (b) next financial years. [26588]

  Jacqui Smith
  The level of funding on prosthetic services is not separately identified in health authority financial baseline allocations. But on 9 January 2001 we announced that funding for providing silicone cosmesis to prosthetic limb users was to be made available totalling £4 million over the next three years. The funding started in April 2001 with £0.5 million for 2001–02, £1.5 million for 2002–03 and £2 million for 2003–04. This was an addition to the baseline allocation.

  The local health authority will decide the level of funding an individual disablement service centre receives. We would not expect the level of funding a DSC receives next financial year to be any less than invested this financial year.

  Amputees
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many amputees there are in England. [26593]

  Jacqui Smith
  The latest collection of data from the year 1998–99 reported that there were 51,498 patients with amputations in contact with their national health service limb centre in England.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines have been issued on the use of ischial containment sockets for amputees. [26585]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has not issued any central guidelines for the issue of ischial containment sockets. Ischial containment sockets for amputees are issued on the basis of a clinical decision made by the multi-professional team at a national health service trust.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many amputations have been carried out in each of the last five years for which records exist, as a result of necrotising fasciitis. [26592]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the cost to its budget since 1 May 1997 of fraud; and if he will make a statement. [27300]

  Mr. Hutton
  The figures requested are in the table.

  £

  Year

  Amount

  1997–98

  61,415.25

  1998–99

  66,897.29

  1999–2000

  48,148.81

  2000–01

  56,831.99

  The Department of Health now has a Directorate of Counter Fraud Services staffed by professionally trained and accredited counter fraud specialists.

  Children at Risk
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent steps have been taken to ensure co-ordination between local authorities' social and educational services with regard to supporting children at risk; [27358]

  (2) what measures the Government are taking to protect children identified as being at risk. [27240]

  Jacqui Smith
  The safeguarding of children at risk is a high priority for us. That is why over the last few years we have introduced new legislation, new guidance, new structures and new policy initiatives to make children safer and to ensure that there is a proper focus on children at the very heart of Government. These measures include:The Care Standards Act 2000 to improve the inspection and regulation of children's care services, and the Protection of Children Act 1999 which makes it much more difficult for unsuitable people to work with children;
  Revised core inter-agency child protection guidance: Working Together to Safeguard Children (1999) and the new Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families (2000);
  New guidance focusing on Safeguarding Children Involved in Prostitution (2000) and a National Plan for Safeguarding Children from Commercial Sexual Exploitation (2001);
  A Minister for Young People—my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchin (Mr. Denham)—and a new Cabinet Committee focusing on Children and Young People's issues;
  The first ever national Children's Rights Director for England—Roger Morgan—to act as a powerful champion for some of the most vulnerable children in our country;
  The establishment of the Children and Young People's Unit, which is responsible for ensuring the coherence of Government polices that affect all children and young people under 19;
  Radical new initiatives such as the £885 million Quality Protects programme, Sure Start and Connexions.

  The child protection guidance: Working Together to Safeguard Children (1999) and the new Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families (2000) both give specific guidance on how education and social services departments should work together to support children in need.

  Co-ordination of the planning and delivery of services by education and social services departments is a key element of the Government's five year £885 Quality Protects programme, which is improving the management and delivery of children's services. The Government have published Objectives for Children's Social Services. The Department's public service agreement contains targets including improving the educational outcomes of children in need and children looked after. Local authorities have to produce annual QP management action plans (MAPs) on how they are moving towards the achievement of these objectives. The national overview report of local authority's QP MAPs published in October 2001 reported in relation to services for children in need
  "…in general there is plenty of evidence of good collaboration between education and social services; and as these partnerships develop the focus of their work is beginning to broaden"
  and
  "closer partnerships in a range of contexts are beginning to draw social work expertise and the needs of vulnerable children onto agendas which in the past might have been seen as 'purely educational"'.
  756W
  In October 2000, the Department of Health and Department of Education and Employment jointly issued "Guidance on the Education of Children and Young People in Public Care". The national overview report shows that for looked after children
  "MAPS this year included considerable evidence of joint working between education and social work staff, designed to support the education of looked after children".

  In "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21' Century" issued in March 2001, the Department of Health and the Department of Education and Employment, agreed to further work together to build on our special education needs (SEN) programme of action. The recently published revised special education needs code of practice, gives guidance on how social services and education departments should jointly plan and meet the needs of children with SEN. The SEN Toolkit issued with the code of practice, included a section on the role of social services. This was sent to directors of education and social services. Work has also begun on the commitment in "Valuing People" to find out more about the numbers, characteristics and outcomes of disabled children in residential schools and other residential placements, who are known to be particularly vulnerable to abuse.

  Learning disability partnerships boards have been set up in local authority areas to oversee and advise on the implementation of the adult aspects of "Valuing People". Membership should include representation from a range of statutory sector interests, including social services and education. Guidance issued to local councils in August said that one member should be appointed to be a champion for child/adult transition issues. The guidance adds that boards will need to develop effective links with other agencies whose responsibilities are relevant to implementing valuing people; these will include Connexions partnerships, local learning partnerships, further education colleges, and education institutions.

  Primary Care
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the levels of investment in primary care research and development have been in each year since 1997. [27359]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department's estimated expenditure on primary care research and development for the years since 1997 are:

  Year

  £ million

  1996–97

  31.1

  1997–98

  30.0

  1998–99

  31.3

  1999–2000

  39.0

  2000–01

  38.4

  Cancelled Operations
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations have been cancelled in each of the last four quarters. [27360]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on the number of operations cancelled, by region and health authority, for the time periods requested, are available in the Library.
  757W
  Data are collected on the number of operations cancelled at the last minute. The latest published figures are for Quarter 1 2001–02.

  Operations cancelled at the last minute are those cancelled by the hospital, for non-medical reasons, on or after the day the patient was due to be admitted.

  Domiciliary Oxygen Therapy Service
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost to the NHS was of(a) concentrators and (b) cylinder oxygen as part of the Domiciliary Oxygen Therapy Service in the last year for which figures are available. [27242]

  Jacqui Smith
  The figures requested are shown in the table.

  Cost of Domiciliary Oxygen Therapy Service, England, 2000–01

  £ million

  Payments to suppliers of oxygen concentrators

  14.3

  Net ingredient cost of oxygen supplied in cylinders, and oxygen masks1

  9.6

  Fees paid to pharmacies for the collection and delivery of cylinders and provision of associated equipment

  14.4

  1 Net ingredient cost (NIC) refers to the headline reimbursement cost of the drug before the deduction of discount and does not include any dispensing costs or fees.

  Source:

  Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA)

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to improve the provision of oxygen through the Domiciliary Oxygen Therapy Service. [27241]

  Jacqui Smith
  We will be considering options shortly.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients received domiciliary oxygen supply services in each year since 1992. [27243]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Invalid Vehicles
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many invalid vehicles provided under the invalid vehicle scheme up to 1976 were on the road in each of the last five years. [27251]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of vehicles provided under the invalid vehicle scheme at the end of each of the last five years was as follows:

  Year

  Total fleet size

  1996–97

  1,215

  1997–98

  1,054

  1998–99

  951

  1999–2000

  754

  2000–01

  629

  Everyone leaving the invalid vehicle scheme will be eligible to receive indefinitely the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance, currently set at £38.65 a week rising to £39.30 from April 2002. They
  758W
  may choose to use this, for example, to obtain a motorised scooter or a four wheeled car specially adapted to each driver's needs through the motability scheme. Help with driving lessons is available. Technical officers from the service have visited each driver to discuss his or her future needs and to help decide what option to take.

  National At-Risk Register
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to introduce a national at-risk register to co-ordinate those lists which exist at a local level. [27239]

  Jacqui Smith
  A central register is maintained for each area covered by a social services department. The register lists all the children resident in the area (including those who have been placed there by another local authority or agency) who are considered to be at continuing risk of significant harm, and for whom there is a child protection plan.

  "Working Together to Safeguard Children" implemented better ways of making sure these registers link up together more effectively when a child moves from place to place. Since the publication of "Working Together" in December 1999, it has been the case that if a child and family have moved permanently to another local authority area, the receiving local authority should convene a child protection conference within 15 working days of being notified of the move. Only once this has taken place may de-registration take place in respect of the original local authority's child protection register.

  We have no plans at present to introduce a national risk register.

  Accident Rates
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the accident rate per 100 persons has been in each of the last available five years. [27363]

  Yvette Cooper
  The number of in-patient admissions for accidents and rates per 100,000 population is shown in the table.

  Hospital episode statistics: Admissions and rates per 100,000 population where the primary diagnosis1 is "accidents" (ICDIO codes S00-T98) with a relevant cause2 code (CD10 codes V01-X59, Y40-Y84)

  Year

  Admissions

  Rates per 100,000 population

  2000–01

  467,036

  934

  1999–2000

  491,364

  988

  1998–99

  471,297

  952

  1997–98

  480,525

  975

  1996–97

  474,469

  967

  1 The primary diagnosis is the first of seven diagnosis fields in the Hospital Episode Statistics data set, and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  2 The cause code is a supplementary code which indicates the nature of the condition.

  Note:

  Data in this table are adjusted for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data, except for 1998–99 to 2000–01 which are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics, Department of Health

  Wheelchairs
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs have been made available in each year since 1997; [27348]

  (2) how much the NHS has spent on the provision of electrically-powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs in each year since 1997; [27351]

  (3) how many people have utilised NHS vouchers as part-payment for powered wheelchairs in each year since 1997. [27350]

  Jacqui Smith
  Figures on expenditure on electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs (EPIOCs) are not collected centrally, nor are figures for numbers of vouchers issued separated into manual wheelchairs and EPIOCs.

  The table gives the only date available centrally. A number of these figures are incomplete (as annotated):

  England

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Number of powered wheelchairs issued

  4,464

  4,033

  3,388

  23,279

  Number of vouchers issued for wheelchairs

  1560

  25,010

  6,305

  26,250

  1 Collection of data was not mandatory

  2 Incomplete figure (one return missing)

  Mixed Sex Wards
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the definition of a mixed sex ward includes those wards which use privacy screens. [27365]

  Ms Blears
  The term "mixed sex ward" can be used to describe a variety of arrangements. The use of partitioning as a means of dividing wards into bays, which are then used to accommodate either male or female patients, is an acceptable means of protecting patients' privacy and dignity.

  However, the use of moveable privacy screens alone is not acceptable, as these provide poor physical separation of facilities. Their use as an adjunct to permanent solutions, such as partitioning, can be helpful in further enhancing a sense of privacy and dignity.

  Guidance on maintaining privacy and dignity was first issued to the national health service in 1997. This guidance clearly states that any screening in use must be adequate to ensure privacy is maintained, e.g., which will prevent patients being overhead or overseen by others, where this is not desirable.

  Protecting patients' privacy and dignity is of paramount consideration, irrespective of whether the ward is single-sex or accommodates both male and female patients in appropriately designated bays.

  Hillingdon and Harrow Health Authority
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were waiting for in-patient treatment in the Hillingdon and Harrow health authority on 1 January in each year from 1997 to 2002. [27268]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is provided in the table.
  760W

  Number of patients waiting for in-patient treatment for Hillingdon and Brent and Harrow health authorities—December 1996 to November 2001

  Hillingdon HA

  Brent and Harrow HA

  December 1996

  5,138

  10,735

  December 1997

  5,789

  11,817

  December 1998

  4,689

  10,122

  December 1999

  4,311

  9,108

  December 2000

  3,897

  8,462

  November 20011

  4,215

  8,046

  1 November indicates monthly data

  Note:

  Data are quarterly

  CFS/ME
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health

  (1) when the report to the Chief Medical Officer on the most effective forms of treatment and management for CFS/ME will be published; [27207]

  (2) what plans he has to provide better access to medical support for ME sufferers; [27210]

  (3) what his estimate is of the total number of ME sufferers in the United Kingdom; [27211]

  (4) how many ME clinics there are in the United Kingdom; and where they are located; [27208]

  (5) what support his Department is giving to research into ME. [27209]

  Jacqui Smith
  The independent chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) working group's report was published on 11 January 2002 and can be downloaded from http://www.doh.gov.uk/cmo/cfsmereport/index.htm.

  The report of the independent CFS/ME working group has identified CFS/ME as a specific illness. The report makes a number of recommendations around recognition and definition of the illness: treatment and care; health service planning; education and awareness; and research. We shall be bringing this report to the attention of CEs of health authorities, trusts, and primary care trusts so that they can consider its implications when commissioning services.

  The Department has commissioned research into the diagnosis and treatment of CFS/ME and details are available on the National Research Register which can be accessed via the Department's research and development website—www.doh.gov.uk/research. The Department has asked the Medical Research Council to develop a broad strategy for advancing further biomedical and health services research on CFS/ME.

  The information on the number of ME sufferers in the United Kingdom is not collected centrally. However, the CFS/ME working group report suggests that each strategic health authority should make provision for secondary and tertiary care for people with CFS/ME, based on an estimated annual prevalence rate of approximately 4,000 cases per million population, in the absence of more refined data.

  ME is mainly managed in primary care. The range of symptoms and other conditions associated with it should be investigated and treated by the most appropriate primary, community or secondary care service. General

  761W
  practitioners should usually be able to manage most cases in the community setting, but should be able to refer patients for specialist opinion and advice where appropriate. It is the responsibility of local health authorities to commission services for their local populations including those suffering from CFS/ME. Information on the number of specialist ME clinics in the United Kingdom is not available centrally.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps his Department has taken to increase public knowledge and awareness of ME; [28204]

  (2) what arrangements exist between the NHS and health services abroad to exchange information about ME; [28290]

  (3) what data are collated by the NHS on the (a) prevalence and (b) treatment of ME; [28290]

  (4) if he will make a statement about Government-sponsored research into the (a) causes of and (b) potential cures for ME; [28200]

  (5) if he will make it his policy to support research into a possible diagnostic test for ME;[28201]

  (6) what assessment he has made of the numbers of (a) adults and (b) children suffering from ME in each of the last 10 years; [28199]

  (7) what steps he is taking to ensure that GPs and consultants are advised of new developments in the (a) diagnosis and (b) treatment of patients with ME. [28202]

  Jacqui Smith
  The chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) independent working group's report has identified CFS/ME as a specific illness. The report was published on 11 January and has been placed on the Chief Medical Officer's website so that it can be accessed by all interested parties including general practitioners and consultants. It is hoped that the report and the summary for clinicians will result in improved awareness and understanding of this condition.

  The report makes a number of recommendations around recognition and definition of the illness: treatment and care; health service planning; education and awareness; and research. We shall be bringing this report to the attention of chief executives of health authorities, national health service trusts and primary care trusts so that they can consider its implications when commissioning services.

  The Department has commissioned research into the diagnosis and treatment of CFS/ME and details are available on the National Research Register which can be accessed via the Department's research and development website—www.doh.gov.uk/research. The Department has asked the Medical Research Council to develop a broad strategy for advancing further biomedical and health services research on CFS/ME.

  The information on the number of ME sufferers in the United Kingdom is not collected centrally. However, the CFS/ME independent working group report suggests that each strategic health authority should make provision for secondary and tertiary care for people with CFS/ME, based on an estimated annual prevalence rate of approximately 4,000 cases per million population in the
  762W
  absence of more refined data. This equates to a population prevalence of at least 0.2 per cent.-0.4 per cent. If children only are considered the figure is lower at 0.07 per cent.

  We are not aware of any formal arrangements for exchanges between the NHS and health services abroad on CFS/ME. The only exchanges would be through ad hoc meetings and professional networks of relevant experts.

  Regarding research into a possible diagnostic test for CFS/ME, we have asked the Medical Research Council to develop a broad strategy for advancing further biomedical and health services research on CFS/ME.

  Public-Private Partnerships
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which companies that have been involved in public-private partnerships with his Departments have become insolvent since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [27601]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not collected centrally about the status of individual companies involved in public-private partnerships. Individual national health trusts are responsible for managing contracts with their private sector partner.

  Private finance initiative contracts deal comprehensively with the possibility of early termination due to contractor default, including through insolvency, in order to protect the public interest.

  Respiratory Disease
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the BMA and the British Thoracic Society concerning the number of respiratory specialists needed in the NHS. [27460]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have not had any recent discussions with the British Medical Association and the British Thoracic Society concerning the number of respiratory specialists needed in the national health service.

  West Midlands South Strategic Health Authority
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures were used to appoint the chief executive of the West Midlands South strategic health authority; and if he will make a statement. [28193]

  Yvette Cooper
  The appointment of the chief executive designate of the Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire health authority, in common with that for all the chief executives designate of the other health authorities, was through a process of open competition. The chief executive posts were advertised nationally. The appointment process included the national health service chief executive, regional commissioners from the NHS appointments commission, the directors of health and social care in the Department, patients representatives and the health authority chairs designate. Chief executives will be formally appointed to health authorities on the basis of their franchise plans following the establishment of the new health authorities in April.

  Morning-after Pill
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many schools the morning-after pill is available; and whether the joint Department for Education and Employment/Department of Health guidance "Supporting Pupils with Medical Needs: A Good Practice Guide" (HMSO, 1996) applies to its supply in schools. [28211]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information on the number of schools with on-site health service providing emergency contraception to pupils is not collected centrally. The circular (14/96) and accompanying good practice guide, "Supporting Pupils with Medical Needs", jointly issued by the Department for Education and Skills and the Department, is written for school teaching staff, local education authorities and governing bodies. It is not applicable to health professionals who provide prescription only medicines to under 16s within an agreed legal framework and arrangements set out in patient group directions. There are no circumstances in which teachers supply emergency contraception.

  Female GPs (Pensions)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on pension rights for female GPs [25585]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: The pension rights for female general practitioners are the same as those for male GPs, apart from the treatment of widows' and widowers' benefits. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the former Member for North Norfolk on 13 January 1999, Official Report, column 212W.

  Redwood Hospital
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he agreed a price for the PPP deal at Redwood hospital between the Surrey and Sussex NHS Trust and BUPA; if a final agreement had been signed off prior to his announcement of the deal on 4 December 2001; what the price is per patient of treatment in the PPP deal at Redwood hospital; and what estimate he has made of the number of nurses who will need to be recruited to increase the capacity at the Redhill/Redwood hospital site following the BUPA deal. [25585]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: On 4 December 2001 we announced that we are in discussion over a proposal for the BUPA Redwood facility to become a diagnostic and treatment centre, treating national health service patients. Discussions of a range of detailed issues—including prices and staffing issues—are continuing. Our aim is to secure high quality services for patients and value for money. A final agreement will not be signed until discussions are satisfactorily concluded.

  Stroke Services
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health

  (1) which NHS trusts employ (a) stroke nurse consultants and (b) stroke liaison nurses; [28051]

  (2) how many NHS Trusts have in place a multidisciplinary programme of secondary prevention and rehabilitation for those who have suffered strokes; [28052]
  764W
  (3) which stroke rehabilitation units admit people under the age of 55 years [28050]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: The information requested is not collected centrally. However, the National Service Framework for Older People includes a standard for stroke. The service model for integrated stroke services and the milestones for action apply equally to all stroke patients, irrespective of age.

  It is the role of health authorities, in partnership with primary care groups and trusts, to decide what services to provide for their populations including the employment of stroke nurses. They are best placed to understand local health needs and commission services to meet them.

  The NSF will need to cover or link to prevention, acute care, rehabilitation and long-term support for stroke patients and their carers. April 2002 is the milestone for every general hospital which cares for people with stroke to have plans to introduce a specialised stroke service from 2004.

  Southend General Hospital
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the closure of the cancer unit at Southend General Hospital is under consideration; and which body or person has the responsibility for determining the minimum catchment area size of such units. [28011]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: The closure of the cancer unit at Southend hospital national health service trust is not under consideration. The body which determines the minimum catchment area of cancer networks is the relevant regional office of the Department. Cancer networks in the eastern region were last reviewed in 1999. The south Essex cancer network was endorsed by NHS executive eastern despite the fact it falls below the Calman-Hine recommendation that cancer networks should serve a minimum population of 1 million. Current cancer services in the south Essex cancer network serves a population of approximately 680,000.

  Barium Enemas
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what performance targets he has set for the waiting time for a barium enema. [28305]

  Yvette Cooper
  We have acknowledged the importance of diagnostic procedures, and are encouraging hospitals to streamline their services so that tests are carried out, and a diagnosis made, as quickly as possible.

  There are no specific performance targets set for the waiting time for a barium enema. However, where this diagnostic procedure is to be used to confirm or exclude a diagnosis of bowel cancer, specific targets have been set. From July 2000, a two week out-patient waiting time standard has been introduced for urgent general practitioner referrals of patients with suspected bowel cancer.

  The length of time that a patient might have to wait for any diagnostic procedure is dependent on their clinical condition with priority given to urgent cases.

  Antipsychotic Medicines
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made as to the opinion of psychiatrists on the efficacy of atypical antipsychotic medicines. [13783]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) is the United Kingdom Government agency responsible for ensuring that all medicines on the UK market are safe, effective and of suitable quality. Any new drug substance which has not been marketed before in the UK will be assessed by the MCA's independent advisory committee—the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM). The CSM has psychiatrists among its membership and can also bring in psychiatric expertise if necessary on an ad hoc basis. The CSM assesses medicines purely on the basis of safety versus efficacy and does not consider cost effectiveness.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has been asked to provide guidance concerning the clinical and cost effectiveness of atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia. The process of drawing up this guidance involves a detailed appraisal of the available literature followed by drafting of the guidance. The latter activity will include a range of expertise, including psychiatric.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years. [27981]

  Mr. MacShane
  The cost of theft from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the UK over the last four years can be broken down into:

  1998: £470

  1999: £4,400

  2000: £5,200

  2001: £9,630

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [28402]

  Mr. Straw
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office have produced no regulatory impact assessments since August 2001. For further information, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, on 17 January 2002,Official Report, column 483W.

  Religious Persecution
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what training is available in his Department in the recognition of religious persecution. [28644]

  Peter Hain
  Promotion of human rights, including freedom of thought, conscience and religion, is at the heart of our foreign policy. We condemn instances where individuals are persecuted because of their faith or belief, wherever they happen and whatever the religion of the individual or group concerned.

  Our approach is to treat religious freedom as an integral part of our foreign policy. Protecting and promoting freedom of religion is most effective when it is done in the context of the promotion and protection of other human rights. So we emphasise that human rights are everyone's business. That is why we have made human rights an essential element of training for all policy officers, including ambassadors.

  We work closely with Amnesty International and other NGOs in designing and running our Human Rights courses. Courses are open to members of other Government Departments, including the Home Office, to attend.

  In addition all decision-makers in the Joint Entry Clearance Unit and staff serving overseas as Entry Clearance Officers or Managers or Consular Officers receive training on the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1999 and the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

  The FCO also offers its staff a wide-ranging programme of training on inclusion and diversity issues. Our Managing Inclusion course is core training for all grades, both at home and overseas. Regional diversity training is also available for staff engaged locally overseas.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what resources are available in his Department to monitor human rights violations of Christians; [28643]

  (2) what responsibility UK embassies have been given to monitor religious freedom in the host country. [28607]

  Peter Hain
  Promotion of human rights, including freedom of thought, conscience and religion, is at the heart of our foreign policy. We condemn instances where individuals are persecuted because of their faith or belief, wherever they happen and whatever the religion of the individual or group concerned.

  The Human Rights Policy Department (HRPD) is the FCO's central point of advice and expertise on human rights, including freedom of religion. But we emphasise that human rights are everyone's business. Staff at our posts and on geographical desks in London monitor human rights abuses overseas, including persecution of Christians. Human rights is an essential element of training for policy staff, including ambassadors and staff serving overseas as entry clearance officers or managers.

  The FCO, in a number of ways, supports practical projects promoting human rights on the ground, including through the Human Rights Project Fund (HRPF). Since

  767W
  its inception in April 1998, the fund has supported over 400 projects and allocated more than £15 million in some 90 countries around the world. Its budget for financial year 2001–02 has been increased to £6.8 million.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of Christians persecuted across the world in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [28608]

  Peter Hain
  Promotion of human rights, including freedom of thought, conscience and religion, is at the heart of our foreign policy. We condemn instances where individuals are persecuted because of their faith or belief, wherever they happen and whatever the religion of the individual or group concerned.

  Staff at our posts and on geographical desks in London monitor human rights abuses overseas, including persecution of Christians. But the FCO does not collate figures on the number of Christians persecuted across the world, not least because of the difficulty in defining this category.

  Collecting this information for this PQ would represent a disproportionate cost.

  UK Prisoners Abroad
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK citizens are in prisons outside the United Kingdom. [28600]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 306W.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has to extend financial assistance to families visiting relatives in prison abroad. [28514]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The FCO has no plans to extend financial assistance to families visiting relatives in prison abroad. However, consular staff overseas can and do help to arrange family visits to prisoners detained abroad.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent meetings there have been with Argentine officials over the future of the Falkland Islands. [28345]

  Mr. MacShane
  The British Government have held no recent meetings with Argentina about the future status of the islands. We remain committed to the Falkland islanders' right to determine their own future and will not consider a change in the status of the islands unless they wish it. In all our dealings with Argentina we are clear that sovereignty over the Falklands is not open to negotiation.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. [28347]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Falkland Islands are British. There will be no change in the status of the islands unless that is the wish of the islands themselves.
  768W
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the circumstances are under which an Argentine national is able to settle on the Falkland Islands. [28346]

  Mr. MacShane
  The grant of permission to reside in the Falkland Islands is governed by the Falkland Islands' Immigration Ordinance 1999 and all persons, including British citizens, (who do not have Falkland Islands' status), require such permission to be able lawfully to reside in the Falkland Islands. The ordinance does not impose any special restrictions on the residence of Argentine citizens.

  Colombia
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to support the full implementation of the UN recommendations on human rights to the Colombian Government before the next session of the United Nations Commission for Human Rights in March; and if he will make a statement. [29225]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have a regular, continuing dialogue with the Colombian Government about the human rights situation in Colombia, including the implementation of UN recommendations. I had comprehensive discussions about human rights during my visit to Colombia in October last year. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain), plans to chair the regular NGO forum prior to the commission on Human Rights (CHR). NGOs will be invited to discuss FCO priorities, including Colombia, ahead of the CHR meeting in Geneva

  We strongly support the work of the UN in Colombia. Since March 2000, we have already given more than £250,000 to support the work of the UN Human Rights Office (UNHRO) there, which helped the UN to open a new office in Cali at the end of last year, something which has been particularly welcomed by NGOs. I am pleased to announce today that we have committed a further £120,000 to the UNHRO in Colombia so that it can continue its good work.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the Government will ensure that aid provided through the recently agreed EU aid package in support of the Colombian peace process is not diverted to illegally armed people; and if he will make a statement. [29226]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK, like other EU member states, has stressed to the European Commission in Brussels that EU technical assistance to Colombia must be transparent and be channelled where possible through reputable international and local NGOs working in Colombia. British embassy officials have made the same point to Commission representatives in Bogota. We particularly welcome the fact that the Commission has recently appointed a representative to Barrancabermeja to oversee the delivery of EU aid to the Magdalena Medio region.

  Indonesia
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making about the reported persecution of Christians in Indonesia. [28338]
  769W
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps he has taken to encourage a reduction in the level of sectarian violence in Indonesia. [28924]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK's message to the Indonesian Government is clear and consistent: a long-term solution to regional conflicts can be achieved only through political negotiation and consultation with the people. Together with our European partners we are in regular, top-level dialogue with the Indonesian Government, and urge them to maintain law and order and promote reconciliation in areas of conflict. The most recent direct contact was when our chargé d'affaires in Jakarta called on Manuel Kaisiepo, the Minister for Eastern Indonesia, on 29 November 2001. I myself raised the issue with Vice-President Haz during my visit to Jakarta last August.

  Iraq
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the last United Nations weapons inspections in Iraq were made; and what assessment he has made of whether Iraq has acquired weapons of mass destruction. [28893]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The last UN inspection team left Iraq on 13 December 1998. There have been no independent weapons inspections since then.

  In the absence of any independent inspections, we cannot make any categorical assessment of current Iraqi capabilities. We do, however, judge that since 1999 Iraq has pressed ahead with its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his office last had communications with the Libyan authorities concerning the situation in Zimbabwe. [29290]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department has not discussed the situation in Zimbabwe with the Libyan authorities.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last spoke to the Commonwealth Secretary-General concerning the situation in Zimbabwe. [29288]

  Mr. Straw
  1 last discussed Zimbabwe with the Commonwealth Secretary General at the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) meeting on 20 December. I expect to discuss Zimbabwe with him again in the run-up to the next CMAG meeting on 30 January.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last spoke to the Zimbabwean High Commissioner concerning the situation in that country. [29291]

  Mr. Straw
  I have not formally spoken to the Zimbabwean High Commissioner about the situation in his country.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the action the(a) UK, (b) Commonwealth, (c) EU and (d) United Nations are taking to ensure free and fair elections in Zimbabwe. [29324]
  770W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  On 11 January, the EU insisted on invitations to, and accreditation of, international election observers at least six weeks before Zimbabwe's 9 March Presidential election. We are discussing with our European Union partners and others what norms and standards to adopt for judging the electoral process in Zimbabwe.

  The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group said on 20 December 2001 that it expects Commonwealth election observers to be invited and accredited well before the election.

  On 15 January, the UN Secretary General called for free and fair elections monitored by the international community.

  US/UK Agreements
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what his policy is in respect of the sharing with the US Government of intercept material obtained by GCHQ; and in what circumstances it is deemed inappropriate to share such information for reasons of national security; [28629]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the status and importance of the UK/USA Agreement 1948 [28628]

  Mr. Straw
  It has been the long-standing practice of this and previous Governments not to comment on the detail of confidential arrangements which might exist between the UK and the US for the UK's national security.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many extant US/UK agreements there are the existence of which has not been made public; and if he will make a statement. [28741]

  Mr. Straw
  All treaties between the UK and US are published and registered with the UN Secretary General. There are however numerous other forms of agreement between the UK and the US, where there is no obligation to publish. Many of these will be in the public domain. The information needed to compile a list of these is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  China and Tibet
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the numbers of political prisoners in(a) Tibet and (b) China. [28325]

  Mr. MacShane
  According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch there is a lack of conclusive independent information on the numbers concerned. Unofficial estimates of those imprisoned for political beliefs and activities are that they may number in the thousands, with many more in administrative detention. The detention of democracy activists and the widespread use of administrative detention are among the central concerns we raise with the Chinese authorities.

  GCHQ
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is in respect of the monitoring by GCHQ of communications originating and terminating within the UK. [28635]

  Mr. Straw
  GCHQ may monitor communications originating and terminating within the UK only in accordance with law, and in particular with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the purpose of Morwenstow station: and how many(a) US and (b) UK personnel are based there. [28584]

  Mr. Straw
  GCHQ Bude, previously known as the Composite Signals Organisation Station at Morwenstow, employs approximately 200 people and provides intelligence support serving the interest of the UK and its allies. It is long standing policy not to provide details about the operations carried out at Bude or to provide a detailed breakdown of staffing.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many answers to parliamentary questions have not been answered by his Department under exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in each year since 1994. [29419]

  Mr. Straw
  We do not keep separate records of answers that refer to the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. To answer this question would entail checking every answer from FCO Ministers since 1994, which could only be done at disproportionate cost

  The Public Administration Committee's Fourth Report on Ministerial Accountability and Parliamentary Questions published on 10 November 1999 (HC 821) includes at Memorandum 7 a list of answers provided by the FCO during Parliamentary Session 1997 to 1998 which referred to the Code of Practice. None referred to Exemption 13 of the Code. The Committee's Fourth Report published on 13 December 2000 (HC 61) lists answers provided for the 1998 to 1999 Session. Five questions answered by the FCO refer to Exemption 13. (Memorandum 6.)

  The Committee has not yet published a report covering the 1999 to 2000 Session. Two answers from the FCO in that Session referred to Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice.

  International Drug Trade
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of developments since September in Afghanistan on the international drug trade. [28632]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  To date, we have not detected a clear impact on the drugs trade in the UK or Europe but we continue to monitor events closely.
  772W
  We and our international partners are committed to working with the Afghanistan's Interim Administration to tackle drugs cultivation in Afghanistan. We welcome the Chairman of the Interim Administration's edict banning involvement in the drugs trade. Drug control is an important aspect of reconstruction in Afghanistan.

  Intelligence Sharing
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what circumstances material obtained by interception(a) by the UK Government about foreign nationals is passed to the domestic authorities of those foreign nationals and (b) by foreign Governments about UK citizens is passed to the UK authorities. [28624]

  Mr. Straw
  It has long been the policy of this and previous Governments not to comment on intelligence-related arrangements that might exist between the UK and other countries. If any material were identified under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, its dissemination would be strictly controlled by the conditions set out in section 15 of the Act.

  Mrs. Blair
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions his Department has provided support for Mrs. Blair during the Prime Minister's official visits abroad in the periods(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999, (c) May 1999 to April 2000, (d) May 2000 to April 2001 and (e) since May 2001. [28627]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London, and British embassies and High Commissions around the world, have assisted No. 10 in arranging official programmes for Mrs. Blair whenever she has accompanied the Prime Minister on his official visits overseas. This is in accordance with the Cabinet Office Ministerial Code of July 1997. Mrs. Blair has accompanied the Prime Minister on the following number of occasions:

  (a) May 1997 to April 1998: 5

  (b) May 1998 to April 1999: 3

  (c) May 1999 to April 2000: 5

  (d) May 2000 to April 2001: 3

  (e) Since May 2001: 3.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what equipment has been stolen from his Department since 1 May 1997; and what the approximate value of each item was. [26830]

  Mr. Straw
  The following equipment has been stolen from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the UK since 1 May 1997:
  773W

  Items stolen

  Value (£)

  4 June 1997

  LaserJet and monitor screen

  600

  16 June 1997

  Computer CPU

  750

  16 June 1997

  Answerphone

  100

  27 October 1997

  Laptop

  2,000

  27 May 1998

  Video player

  150

  3 July 1998

  CD rom player

  150

  12 November 1998

  Computer mouse

  30

  4 August 1998

  Cannon colour printer

  140

  6 January 1999

  Socket mother board

  300

  Intel processor

  Hard disk

  Video card

  Internal Modem Card

  13 May 1999

  Laptop

  2,000

  3 September 1999

  Laptop

  2,000

  4 October 1999

  Answerphone

  100

  10 January 2000

  Hard disks on 2 computer stations

  400

  21 January 2000

  Hard drives

  900

  Ram and CPU

  Processors on 2 computers

  28 March 2000

  Computer components

  500

  15 April 2000

  Laptop

  2,000

  17 April 2000

  Ram and processors

  300

  26 April 2000

  Ram and processors

  300

  4 May 2000

  Ram and processors

  300

  4 December 2000

  Palm pilot computer

  500

  28 February 2001

  Computer and hardware digital

  1,200

  Camera CDRW

  Drives Firecrest PC

  External CD Rom for laptop

  27 February 2001

  Laptop Toshiba

  2,000

  Unknown

  Scanner

  300

  16 March 2001

  Laptop

  2,000

  11 April 2001

  Minidisc player

  200

  10 April 2001

  Telephone

  80

  13 March 2001

  Shortwave radio

  200

  774W

  Items stolen

  Value (£)

  22 May 2001

  Boxed PC including monitor/keyboard

  1,200

  17 August 2001

  Flat screen monitor

  450

  29 October 2001

  Laptop

  2,000

  10 January 2002

  7x17" monitors

  1,400

  Subcontinent
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the military situation(a) between India and Pakistan and (b) over Kashmir. [29510]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We remain concerned by the continuing military and political tensions between India and Pakistan. We hope that India and Pakistan will continue to seek ways to return to dialogue to resolve all the issues between them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has kept in close contact over the past month with his Indian and Pakistani counterparts, and with other key interlocutors.

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 368W,1,200 on interception of communications, by what means a statement to the House would be made. [28519]

  The Prime Minister
  I am replying to this question as it relates to matters for which I am responsible Should circumstances arise in which a statement of the kind mentioned in my earlier reply needs to be made, I would then consider the appropriate form.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will provide a substantive reply to the letters of 6 July and 18 October from the hon. Member for Billericay regarding the dumping of toxic ash at Pitsea Tip. [12677]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment responded to the letters from the hon. Member on 15 January 2002.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter of 9 August from the hon. Member for North Shropshire concerning delays in testing for bovine TB in the Market Drayton area of Shropshire. [12633]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 November 200]: A response to the hon. Member's letter was sent on 15 January 2002. I apologise for the time taken to respond to this letter.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of 31 July, 29 August, 26 September, 25 October and 22 November to the Minister for the Environment relating to correspondence from Hertfordshire county council; [18926]

  (2) when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters to the Minister for the Environment of 31 July, 29 August, 26 September, 25 October, 22 November and 18 December relating to correspondence from Hertfordshire county council [25458]

  Mr. Morley
  The hon. Member's letter of 31 July and subsequent follow up letters have been transferred to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions as flood damage to highways is their area of responsibility.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 15 January 2002, ref. 26357, if she will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in responding to the letter to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford sent to him via the Foreign Office on 12 June 2001 re Dr. Reza Hussain. [28876]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: A response to the hon. Member's constituent's letter of 12 June was sent on 18 January 2002.

  Recycling
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of her Department's stationery is recycled. [15361]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The percentage of recycled stationery used by the Department is 48 per cent. for paper based products and 23 per cent. for general stationery products. There is an on-going programme of working with our users and suppliers to replace products with suitable and affordable recycled
  776W
  alternatives from sustainable sources. The Department expects to improve significantly its percentages of recycled stationery over the next six months.

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will establish an assessment, in respect of its relevance to environmental protection policy, of the report published on 23 November by the European Parliament's Scientific and Technological Options Assessment Programme on the possible toxic effects from the nuclear reprocessing plants at Sellafield and Cap de la Hague, France. [19873]

  Mr. Meacher
  This report is a public document which has already been the subject of independent evaluation by experts appointed by the STOA panel. The contents of the report and these evaluations have been noted, as have the doubts about the report's objectivity which have been raised by some members of the European Parliament and two of the three independent assessors. The Environment Agency which advises the Government on the disposal of radioactive waste into the environment, has been provided with a copy of the report.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to place an obligation on suppliers to purchase from CHP units. [22602]

  Mr. Meacher
  Government have secured powers under the Utilities Act 2000 to introduce an obligation on suppliers to purchase electricity generated by CHP.

  The Government hope that other measures to be outlined in the draft CHP strategy currently being finalised for consultation will be sufficient for CHP to compete effectively with other forms of electricity generation. If however it becomes clear that CHP is not able to compete effectively, the Government are prepared to examine the case for introducing a CHP Obligation.

  Foot and Mouth
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her calculation is of the percentage of animal sales made during the foot and mouth disease epidemic that were conducted outside traditional markets on(a) video links, (b) via the internet and (c) by other means; and if she will make a statement on the (i) safety and (ii) cost of these methods. [24388]

  Mr. Morley
  The closure of livestock markets to prevent the spread of foot and mouth has led producers to develop a number of other means of selling their stock; we do not have information on the number of animals sold in this way. All animal sales are required to meet movement licence conditions, including bio-security requirements.

  Paul Fly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what was the total expenditure on(a) compensation, (b) Civil Service costs, (c) decontamination, (d) additional rural aid and (e) payments to vets, slaughterers and valuers arising from the foot and mouth disease epidemic [26024]
  777W
  Mr. Morley
  The total estimated expenditure arising out of foot and mouth disease is as follows:

  (a) compensation for animals slaughtered and for seized and destroyed items is £1,114,200,000;

  (b) total Civil Service costs are not yet available;

  (c) costs for cleansing and disinfection are £280,000,000

  (d) additional rural payments are not yet available; and

  (e) total costs for vets, slaughterers and valuers is £72,100,000.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when blood tests for foot and mouth disease will be completed; and what the timetable is for blood tests relating to foot and mouth disease. [27622]

  Mr. Morley
  The blood testing necessary to classify each county in Great Britain as free of foot and mouth disease (FMD) is now complete. Pre-movement blood testing of sheep flocks is also no longer required. Blood testing is still required where a farmer re-stocks with sheep, goats, or camelids following an outbreak. It is expected that most blood testing for re-stocking purposes will be complete by early summer.

  Blood samples are sent from the local Animal Health Office by courier to the laboratory to arrive within 24 hours of the sample being taken. The laboratories have a target turn-round time for FMD blood tests of seven days and currently the mean turn-round time is three days. Results from the laboratories are then made available by computer to the local Animal Health Office.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what forms of testing are carried out by her Department in relation to foot and mouth disease[27625]

  Mr. Morley
  Tests for the detection of foot and mouth disease virus and antibody are performed according to the protocols described in the chapter on foot and mouth disease (FMD) in the OIE Manual of Standards for Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines (2000) which was written by staff at the Institute for Animal Health (IAH), Pirbright. These tests were performed at IAH, Pirbright and five other laboratories on behalf of DEFRA. In addition, one of the antibody detection ELISA tests was improved. This test was validated and the data have been submitted to OIE for their approval as a prescribed test.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures her Department is taking to validate(a) alternative and (b) complementary testing procedures where positive foot and mouth disease cases are confirmed. [27623]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA supports a programme of applied research and test development at IAH, Pirbright. A priority is the development of more rapid and reliable diagnostic tests for use in the laboratory and in the field. Another priority is to develop better methods for identifying infection among vaccinated animals so that vaccinated animals could be safely kept alive. All such tests must be properly validated to ensure international acceptance.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the remaining movement restrictions on livestock farms in Worcestershire, imposed as a result of the foot and mouth epidemic will be lifted. [28899]
  778W
  Mr. Morley
  There are 15 farms in Worcestershire currently under restrictions. It is anticipated that it should be possible to lift all these restrictions by 23 April unless there is any change to the current disease situation.

  Flood Warning Notices
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many flood warning notices were sent by the Environment Agency by(a) county and (b) constituency in England and Wales in 2001. [25002]

  Mr. Morley
  Flood defence is a fully devolved function and DEFRA has policy responsibility only for England. Figures are not available at county and constituency level. The table therefore shows total flood warnings issued by Environment Agency in 2001 in England by region:

  Number

  North East

  61

  North West

  127

  Midlands

  363

  South West

  520

  Thames

  815

  Southern

  774

  Anglian

  684

  Total

  3,344

  Biofuels
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if it is her policy to encourage the growing of crops for biofuels; and if she will make a statement. [26445]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department allocated support of £29 million to solid biomass crops through the Energy Crops Scheme, part of the England Rural Development Programme. We are also working with other Departments to put in place schemes with funding of £70 million which will develop markets for biomass in heat, combined heat and power and electricity generation. Following the Green Fuel Challenge my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that a new duty rate for biodiesel, set at 20p per litre below the rate for Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel, is to be introduced in Budget 2002. Any additional measures to develop biofuels from crops must be based on sound evidence and this Department has recently commissioned a six-month study, on behalf of the Government-Industry Forum on non-food uses of crops, to provide an independent, comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the comparative energy, environmental and socio-economic costs and benefits of biodiesel production in the UK. The study will compare results with those for other relevant green fuels and relevant energy saving measures.

  Farm Incomes
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what were the(a) gross and (b) net farm incomes for each of the past four years for (i) the highest earning decile and (ii) the lowest earning decile. [26028]
  779W
  Mr. Morley
  Income data are available only for farms with an economic size of at least eight European Size Units (ESUs), the minimum considered necessary to occupy a full time farmer. Although nearly half the farms in England fall below this 'full-time' size threshold, they account for only 2 per cent. of agricultural output.

  The information for farms above this threshold is given in the table. Data for the year 2000–01 will be available on 31 January 2002. The income measure "Cash Income" has been used for gross income.

  Ranges of farm incomes for full-time farms in England

  £ per farm

  Cash income

  Net farm income

  First decile (10th percentile)

  Ninth decile (90th percentile)

  First decile (10th percentile)

  Ninth decile (90th percentile)

  1996–97

  5,900

  110,400

  -3,300

  68,700

  1997–98

  -100

  85,700

  -10,800

  40,200

  1998–99

  -700

  78,300

  -13,700

  35,600

  1999–2000

  0

  69,400

  -13,900

  32,600

  Source

  Farm Business Survey

  Remuneration
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the number of individuals in her(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. [26326]

  Mr. Morley
  As DEFRA was created on 8 June 2001, the historical information requested is not available. However, the numbers for the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) are as follows:

  (a) In the Department:

  (i) annual remuneration exceeding £100,000 including benefits (basic salary plus any allowances and bonuses):

  1 April 1998: 1

  1 April 1999: 1

  1 April 2000: 1

  1 April 2001: 4

  (ii) annual remuneration exceeding £200,000 including benefits:

  1 April 1998: 0

  1 April 1999:0

  1 April 2000: 0

  April 2001: 0

  (b) In related agencies:

  (i) and (ii): none in any year

  780W

  (c) the information is available in the annual cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies" (as referred to in the central answer provided by the Minister by the Minister for the Cabinet Office).

  Arable Area Payments
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers, by region, have arable area payment claims outstanding. [26606]

  Mr. Morley
  The regulatory deadline for payment of main scheme claims under the 2001 Arable Area Payments Scheme is 31 January 2002. As at 13 January 2002, 33,830 claims (79.15 per cent.) had been passed for payment. Payments of claims is no longer organised on a regional basis, as in previous years. The number of claims unpaid by processing centre is, however, as follows:

  RPA processing site

  Unpaid claims

  Cambridge

  987

  Carlisle

  688

  Crewe

  335

  Exeter

  3,469

  Newcastle

  221

  Northallerton

  1,895

  Nottingham

  1,098

  Reading

  219

  Total

  8,912

  Agricultural Bureaucracy
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many transactions by correspondence, telephone or e-mail take place on average each year between her Department and farmers subject to each(a) quota, (b) headage payment and (c) area payment. [26693]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: The information is not available and records held by the Department are not sufficiently detailed to enable it to be extracted. The total number of letters received by the Department from farmers in the categories mentioned in the financial years 1999–2000 and 2000–01 were 32,812 and 34,051 respectively. This excludes claim forms and any covering communications which did not call for a response.

  The numbers of claims, payments and quota registrations for the two years were:

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Claims

  Payments

  Claims

  Payments

  Headage based schemes

  181,285

  545,336

  320,271

  794,527

  Area based schemes

  73,447

  1119,159

  72,700

  291,155

  Quota transactions

  18,900

  18,920

  1 For 1999–2000 this includes advance payments for oilseeds and separate payments for non food set-aside.

  2 For 2000–01 this includes separate payments for non food set-aside.

  Agricultural Subsidies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what area payments are available to producers of(a) maize, (b) wheat,

  781W
  (c) barley, (d) oats, (e) sugar beet and (f) other crops; what is the value of each payment (i) in aggregate and (ii) by volume or area; and what are the conditions upon which payments depend. [26001]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: Payments are available to producers under the Arable Area Payments Scheme for crops of Cereals (which include barley, oats and maize), Proteins, Linseed, Rapeseed, Flax, Hemp and Set-aside. Sugar Beet can only be claimed under this scheme for non-food use. It does not attract a payment but may be counted towards a producer's set-aside requirement.

  The payment rates for crops claimed in England in 2001 per hectare are £225.6466 for Cereals and set-aside, £264.3094 for Oilseeds, £259.6757 for Proteins and £270.8829 for Linseed, Fibre Flax and Hemp. There is a further supplement to the basic rate available for Durum Wheat of £84.4647.

  In 2000, the total value of payments made with respect to English applications was as follows:

  £

  Basic payment

  Agri-monetary Compensation

  Maize

  4,340,419

  145,988

  Cereals (excluding maize)

  583,020,470

  19,757,296

  Oilseeds

  88,204,626

  2,984,108

  Proteins

  53,881,564

  1,824,176

  Linseed

  22,363,270

  782,726

  Durum Wheat Supplement

  1,240,699

  12,450

  Set-aside

  100,965,458

  3,456,446

  Total

  854,016,506

  28,963,190

  The Arable Area Payments Scheme (AAPS) offers payments per hectare to growers of the crops already mentioned. There are a number of conditions that land and crops being claimed must meet, the main ones being as follows. Eligibility of land for AAPS is as a general rule effectively restricted to land that was in arable rotation on 31 December 1991. In order to qualify for full payment, all producers claiming more than 15.62 ha must set-aside a certain percentage of their claimed eligible land. All crops claimed under this scheme must be shown and maintained in line with local standards and must be maintained until specified dates. Details of the scheme requirements are published annually in literature available to claimants.

  IACS Payments
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects payment of arable area IACS for the past year to be completed. [R] [26741]

  Mr. Morley
  Industrial action, which has been delaying the processing of arable aid (AAPS) claims, was suspended by the trade unions with effect from 11 January. This allowed the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) to step up the amount of overtime being worked beginning in the weekend of 12–13 January. Overtime working will now continue, as long as the suspension remains in place, until the backlog of claim processing is cleared. The RPA expects to be able to pay the vast majority of AAPS claims within the regulatory timeframe which ends on 31 January. However, because of the 782W
  processing time which has already been lost, it is likely that more claims than usual will be carried over into February. Every effort will be made to keep this to the absolute minimum. As at 13 January 80 per cent. of AAPS claims had been passed for payment.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the average proportion of an arable farmer's income that is made up by an IACS payment at the latest date for which figures are available. [R] [26742]

  Mr. Morley
  Information on total farm output (including direct subsidies), total input costs, and net farm income for full-time arable farms in England is given in the table. The data relate to 1999–2000. In this year, the average subsidy exceeded the average income.

  Data for 2000–01 will be available on 31 January.

  Average output (including subsidies), input and income for full-time arable farms in England (1999–2000)

  General cropping farms

  Cereals farms

  Total farm output (£ per farm)

  207,200

  123,900

  of which:

  Direct crop subsidies (£ per farm)

  28,800

  34,200

  Direct livestock subsidies (£ per farm)

  2,400

  2,300

  Direct general subsidies (£ per farm)

  600

  1,200

  Direct crop subsidies (as a percentage of output)

  13.9

  27.6

  Direct livestock subsidies (as a percentage of (output)

  1.2

  1.9

  Direct general subsidies (as a percentage of (output)

  0.3

  1.0

  Total input (costs) (£ per farm)

  199,100

  112,200

  Net farm income (£)

  8,100

  11,700

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of arable area IACS payments were made to farmers by(a) 1 January 2001 for the preceding year and (b) 1 January 2002 for this past year. [R] [26740]

  Mr. Morley
  By 30 December 2001, 29,075 IACS payments (68.03 per cent.) had been passed for payment, with a value of £495,577,987.14. The figures at the same stage last year was 39,516 (90 per cent.) with a value of £725,996,684.

  Fish Stocks
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when, at the rate of depletion in 2000, stocks of(a) cod, (b) herring, (c) mackerel and (d) plaice will be fished out in (i) UK and (ii) EU waters; and if she will make a statement. [27164]

  Mr. Morley
  It is not possible or meaningful to answer the question in the terms asked. Stock levels in future years will depend, in part, on the abundance of future broods of young fish not yet spawned. Also, the stocks are subject to a range of management measures aimed at restoring them, although the outcome of these measures cannot be precisely predicted at present, the assumption underlying the question that these measures will have no effect is not a reasonable hypothesis.

  Rather than the rate of depletion of stocks, the indicators used for the state of fish stocks are, for each stock, the spawning stock biomass and the level of

  783W
  fishing mortality. Where these indicators fall below the precautionary benchmarks established by scientists, the scientific advice is that action should be taken to raise them to within safe biological limits. The recovery plans already in place for northern hake and for cod in the North sea, Irish sea and west of Scotland and now proposed by the commission for further stocks, together with the decisions taken by the Council of Ministers to set TACs and quotas for 2002 in line with scientific advice, are aimed at reversing decline in fish stocks where it is occurring and is of concern, rather than allowing it to continue.

  Goats
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if goats are to be included with sheep with respect to BSE testing; and what her policy is on the destruction of the national goat herd if BSE is found to be present in sheep. [26898]

  Mr. Morley
  Goats are included in the testing programme for TSEs which we are putting in place to meet the requirements of EU legislation. If BSE were to be found in the sheep flock, the implications for goats would need to be determined in the light of circumstances at the time, taking into account in particular the views of the Food Standards Agency and the scientific advice offered by the EU' s Scientific Steering Committee and by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what reasons lie behind the recent changes to the regulations for the transportation of goats for mating. [26765]

  Mr. Morley
  The movement of animals has been restricted as part of the measures to control the spread of foot and mouth disease. The most recent change to the animal movements licensing scheme affecting goats was introduced on 18 December 2001. From this date, goats were allowed to move freely between At Risk Counties provided an inspection by a Local Veterinary Inspector

  Number of Reactor Cattle Slaughtered for TB in UK

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  19991

  20001

  2001 1,2

  England

  2,211

  2,393

  2,730

  4,120

  4,945

  5,987

  3,558

  Avon

  153

  211

  69

  159

  138

  262

  122

  Bedfordshire

  1

  3

  3

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Berkshire

  5

  6

  —

  4

  2

  —

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  2

  3

  —

  7

  7

  8

  4

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Cheshire

  36

  21

  9

  43

  7

  5

  —

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  623

  462

  292

  789

  840

  1,106

  633

  Cumberia

  5

  8

  21

  10

  7

  4

  2

  Derbyshire

  14

  17

  47

  50

  241

  58

  43

  Devon

  294

  465

  440

  492

  790

  1,105

  538

  Dorset

  54

  43

  103

  91

  99

  78

  58

  Durham

  8

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  East Sussex

  17

  9

  31

  14

  18

  23

  6

  Essex

  2

  1

  13

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  378

  275

  490

  796

  848

  1,046

  570

  Greater London

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  3

  1

  1

  9

  1

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  —

  2

  1

  1

  1

  4

  2

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  306

  462

  556

  769

  795

  957

  618

  Hertford

  5

  —

  —

  13

  —

  1

  —

  Humberside

  2

  —

  6

  1

  1

  5

  4

  Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  784W
  proved satisfactory. As of 15 January 2002, there are no At Risk Counties in Great Britain. There have been no recent changes to the rules regarding the movement of billy goats for breeding purposes.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in which areas the culling of badgers as part of the Krebs trial has restarted; how many badgers have been culled; and what the estimated cost of the trial is. [26754]

  Mr. Morley
  The badger field trial was suspended in February last year because of the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak. Badger culling has not yet recommenced but surveying operations have restarted in all trial areas. Up to the time that the trial was suspended, 2,913 badgers had been culled. The overall cost of the trial has been estimated to be approximately £35 million.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cattle have been culled since 1995 due to being infected with bovine TB, broken down by year and county. [26754]

  Mr. Morley
  The table shows the number of animals slaughtered because they reacted to the tuberculin test broken down by county for England, Scotland and Wales for the years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. A figure by county is not available for Northern Ireland and the relevant figures for each year are shown.

  All figures are produced from the State Veterinary Service IT support system. The figure for 1995 is unvalidated raw data. The use of the system for management reporting only began late in 1995 and it is not now possible to validate this data. For the years 1996. 1997 and 1998 the table shows validated agreed data. Statistics meeting 'national statistics' criteria have been used for 1999 and 2000 but the data are yet to be validated and these are therefore provisional. For 2001 the data are provisional and unvalidated as laboratory results are awaited.
  785W

  Number of Reactor Cattle Slaughtered for TB in UK

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  19991

  20001

  20011,2

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  9

  7

  8

  67

  5

  6

  —

  Leicestershire

  11

  13

  4

  2

  4

  2

  2

  Lincolnshire

  10

  11

  2

  1

  15

  3

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  2

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1

  1

  Northamptonshire

  7

  4

  —

  2

  1

  5

  3

  Northumberland

  19

  16

  6

  8

  11

  9

  38

  Nottinghamshire

  9

  2

  4

  14

  1

  8

  11

  Oxfordshire

  2

  1

  3

  13

  8

  3

  24

  Shropshire

  6

  12

  24

  39

  34

  194

  101

  Somerset

  115

  129

  179

  236

  322

  460

  116

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Staffordshire

  8

  112

  183

  233

  334

  192

  416

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  2

  2

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  Tyne and Wear

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  1

  3

  —

  3

  8

  7

  1

  West Midlands

  —

  1

  —

  3

  1

  —

  —

  West Sussex

  2

  4

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  West Yorkshire

  —

  3

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  92

  80

  230

  236

  398

  430

  242

  Wales

  289

  644

  374

  765

  914

  986

  1,467

  Clwyd

  —

  1

  4

  2

  6

  2

  3

  Dyfed

  125

  252

  181

  406

  491

  478

  1,044

  Gwent

  127

  338

  171

  226

  274

  346

  222

  Gwynedd

  6

  13

  —

  26

  2

  —

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  2

  5

  4

  3

  4

  1

  Powys

  30

  23

  6

  56

  65

  133

  163

  South Glamorgan

  1

  2

  1

  5

  —

  —

  2

  West Glamorgan

  —

  13

  6

  40

  73

  43

  32

  Scotland

  56

  95

  109

  73

  51

  58

  23

  Aberdeenshire

  5

  5

  15

  24

  5

  21

  4

  Angus

  2

  1

  1

  —

  2

  —

  1

  Argyll

  1

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Ayrshire

  3

  7

  1

  1

  —

  4

  2

  Banffshire

  1

  2

  9

  2

  —

  2

  1

  Berwickshire

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Bute

  —

  38

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Caithness

  2

  1

  8

  3

  —

  2

  —

  Clackmannan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumbartonshire

  —

  —

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfriesshire

  6

  1

  2

  7

  12

  4

  —

  East Lothian

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Fife

  —

  8

  2

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Inverness-shire

  1

  1

  2

  —

  4

  5

  1

  Kincardine

  4

  —

  1

  5

  1

  1

  —

  Kinross

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kirkcudbright

  8

  11

  8

  —

  2

  4

  2

  Lanarkshire

  1

  1

  14

  4

  3

  1

  —

  Midlothian and Edinburgh

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Moray

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Orkney

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Peebles

  9

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Perthshire

  2

  2

  7

  —

  4

  3

  2

  Renfrew

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Ross and Cromarty

  2

  3

  1

  3

  2

  —

  —

  Roxburgh

  —

  —

  2

  2

  11

  1

  —

  Selkirk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Stirling

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  4

  Sutherland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Wigtown

  7

  8

  7

  14

  1

  5

  —

  GB Total

  2,556

  3,132

  3,213

  4,958

  5,910

  7,031

  5,048

  Northern Ireland

  3,680

  3,615

  4,923

  6,247

  8,814

  9,109

  8,817

  1 The figures for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are provisional.

  2 Due to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease testing has been greatly reduced. In addition a number of cases await laboratory results.

  786W 787W
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cases of bovine TB there have been in the United Kingdom since 1995, broken down by year and county. [26752]

  Mr. Morley
  The table shows the number of herds affected by new confirmed incidents of bovine TB broken down by country for England, Scotland and Wales for the years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. A figure by county is not available for Northern Ireland and the relevant figures for each year are shown.

  A new herd incident occurs when a herd which was previously TB free either had cattle that reacted to a tuberculin test or had a tuberculous animal disclosed by routine inspection at slaughter. This becomes a confirmed incident where at least one animal is subsequently

  New confirmed TB herd incidents by county for UK

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  19991

  20001

  20011,2

  England

  327

  339

  440

  631

  741

  885

  300

  Avon

  21

  19

  13

  23

  22

  32

  12

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Berkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Cheshire

  2

  —

  —

  2

  2

  3

  —

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  82

  84

  68

  132

  125

  157

  47

  Cumbria

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Derbyshire

  1

  3

  —

  7

  19

  10

  7

  Devon

  62

  68

  87

  100

  134

  182

  68

  Dorset

  5

  6

  15

  8

  20

  10

  8

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Sussex

  2

  1

  4

  1

  5

  2

  1

  Essex

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  61

  56

  90

  130

  133

  171

  32

  Greater London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  37

  59

  79

  111

  128

  145

  52

  Hertford

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Northumberland

  2

  1

  —

  2

  1

  2

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Oxfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  2

  —

  Shropshire

  1

  1

  5

  3

  2

  18

  8

  Somerset

  15

  14

  25

  36

  42

  62

  14

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Staffordshire

  3

  9

  24

  34

  36

  27

  36

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tyne and Wear

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  West Sussex

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  26

  14

  29

  31

  66

  54

  13

  788W
  confirmed as having bovine TB either through laboratory result and/or evidence at slaughter.

  The figures for Northern Ireland relate to new herd incidents only.

  All figures are produced from the state veterinary service IT support system. The figure for 1995 is unvalidated raw data. The use of the system for management reporting only began late in 1995 and it is not now possible to validate this data. For the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 the table shows validated agreed data. Statistics meeting 'national statistics' criteria have been used for 1999 and 2000 but the data are yet to be validated and these are therefore provisional. For 2001 the date are provisional and unvalidated as laboratory results are awaited.
  789W

  New confirmed TB herd incidents by county for UK

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  19991

  20001

  20011,2

  Wales

  69

  110

  55

  86

  127

  150

  104

  Clwyd

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Dyfed

  28

  32

  22

  49

  60

  68

  67

  Gwent

  32

  60

  27

  24

  36

  48

  15

  Gwynedd

  1

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Powys

  8

  12

  2

  6

  13

  26

  17

  South Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  West Glamorgan

  —

  3

  2

  4

  15

  7

  4

  Scotland

  8

  10

  8

  3

  7

  4

  1

  Aberdeenshire

  2

  2

  3

  —

  2

  3

  —

  Angus

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Argyll

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ayrshire

  1

  3

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Banffshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Berwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Bute

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Caithness

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clackmannan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumbartonshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfriesshire

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  East Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Fife

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Inverness-shire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kincardine

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Kinross

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kirkcudbright

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Lanarkshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Midlothian and Edinburgh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Moray

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nairn

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Peebles

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Perthshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Renfrew

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ross and Cromarty

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Roxburgh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Selkirk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stirling

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sutherland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wigtown

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  GB Total

  404

  459

  503

  720

  875

  1,039

  405

  Northern Ireland3

  1,742

  1,505

  1,486

  2,069

  2,713

  2,872

  2,479

  UK Total

  2,146

  1,964

  1,989

  2,769

  3,588

  3,911

  2,884

  1 The figures for 1999, 2000 and 2001 are provisional.

  2 Due to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease testing has been greatly reduced. In addition a number of cases await laboratory results.

  3 Figures relate to new herd incidents only, and include all those that were subsequently confirmed.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many badgers have been culled as part of the Krebs trial to date, broken down by year and county. [26755]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of badgers culled as part of the Krebs trial to date, broken down by year and county, is as follows:

  County

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Total

  Somerset

  0

  0

  100

  0

  0

  100

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  602

  142

  0

  744

  Herefordshire

  0

  0

  55

  0

  0

  55

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  34

  0

  0

  34

  Devon

  238

  158

  147

  23

  0

  566

  Cornwall

  0

  246

  629

  111

  0

  986

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  428

  0

  0

  428

  Total

  238

  404

  1,995

  276

  0

  2,913

  Departmental Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will commission and publish an independent report on the reasons for the level of sickness absence in her Department. [26972]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department does not intend to commission and publish an independent report on the reasons for the level of its sickness absence, but it is planning to carry out its own analysis.

  A comprehensive analysis of sickness absence in the civil service is produced annually by Cabinet Office. Copies of such reports are placed in the Library of the House.

  Responsibility for attendance matters within the Central Science Laboratory, the Veterinary Laboratories Agency and the Centre for Environmental Fisheries and

  791W
  Aquaculture Agency—all former MAFF agencies—has been delegated to the agency chief executives and I have asked them to reply direct. The Pesticides Safety Directorate, the Rural Payments Agency and the veterinary medicines directorate agencies are covered by the departmental response.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the steps that have been taken to control illegal meat imports arriving in the UK via Heathrow airport. [27269]

  Mr. Morley
  Since April last year we have taken a range of initiatives aimed at improving our ability to prevent and detect illegal imports of animal products. These initiatives have been co-ordinated by officials in the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but involve other Departments such as HM Customs and Excise and the Food Standards Agency, and the local authorities who are responsible for controls at ports and airports.

  Checks on imports of animal products at Heathrow airport are primarily the responsibility of Hillingdon borough council. We have regular discussions with council officers about import controls. In addition customs officers and immigration officers are alert to the need to be vigilant to illegal imports of animal products carried in passenger baggage. Local authority officers, customs officers and state veterinary service officers at the airport liaise in organising checks of passenger baggage for illegal animal products.

  Posters have been placed at Heathrow and other airports alerting individuals to what products they may bring in. These are now being improved in the light of experience and discussion has taken place with the airport authority to ensure that posters are sited as effectively as possible.

  Tenant Farmers
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to meet the Tenant Farmers Association; and if she will make a statement. [27619]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Rural Affairs, and my noble Friend Lord Whitty, have all met representatives of the Tenant Farmers Association over the last six months. I can assure the hon. Member that the close contact DEFRA has established with the tenanted sector will be maintained. Further, my noble Friend Lord Whitty has agreed to meet with the Tenant Farmers Association when the outcome of the review of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 is known.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make an assessment of the issues facing tenant farmers; and what action she will take to improve their situation. [27620]

  Mr. Morley
  The Policy Commission on Food and Farming has been established to look at all aspects of the farming industry. DEFRA has been sent a copy of the detailed submission the Tenant Farmers Association 792W
  (TFA) has made to the commission and departmental officials have met with the TFA to discuss the issues raised. DEFRA has also commissioned a review of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. This is being conducted by Plymouth university and their draft report should be available to the Department by the end of January.

  It is not possible to say what if any specific action will be taken in relation to tenant farming issues before the results of this study and the Policy Commission's recommendations are known. However the Government are committed to the establishment of a sustainable, diverse, Modern and adaptable farming industry.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from the Tenant Farmers Association concerning(a) an early retirement and young entrant scheme into the farming industry, (b) her Department's free business advice to all farmers, (c) farm diversification through best practice guides and (d) 50 per cent. rate relief for five years for new non-agricultural enterprises on farms. [27618]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the Tenant Farmers Association (TFA) on 30 October, as did my noble Friend Lord Whitty on 16 July and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs on 21 November. The key topics discussed at these meetings were an early retirement scheme, access by tenant farmers to agri-environment and other schemes under the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy, and the scope for diversification by tenant farmers under existing tenancy legislation. There has, in addition, been correspondence between my officials and the TFA on the free business advice service provided to farmers.

  Fur Farming
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) for what reasons the Fur Farming (Compensation Scheme) (England) Order 2001 (SI 2001, No 3853) does not make provision for(a) the value of male animals and (b) the differential value of different breed of mink; [27755]

  (2) for what reasons the Fur Farming (Compensation Scheme) (England) Order 2001 (SI 2001, No 3853) reduces the compensation payable for the value of breeding stock where (a) the farmer elected to cease keeping mink after 1 October 2001 and (b) the farmer elected to cease keeping mink nine months before the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 comes into force. [27757]

  Mr. Morley
  Under section 5(1) of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000, fur farmers are able to close down at any time between enactment on 23 November 2000 and the coming into force of the ban on 1 January 2003, without affecting their eligibility for compensation. This winding-down period of more than two years allows each fur farmer to choose the best time when to close in order to mitigate any losses, including on breeding and young stock.

  Those fur farmers who choose to close at a later date will derive greater returns for each breeding animal from the market, thus reducing the residual breeding value, and hence the level of compensation. Any differential in the

  793W
  value of different breeds of mink will be reflected in the profitability of the enterprise for which compensation is being provided.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reasons the Fur Farming (Compensation Scheme) (England) Order 2001 (SI 2001, No. 3853) specifies(a) a fixed sum for the value of breeding stock, and (b) a fixed multiplier to determine qualifying income losses; and for what reason there is no appeal under the terms of the order to (a) arbitration and (b) to the Lands Tribunal. [27751]

  Mr. Morley
  Under Section 5(1) of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is required to make a compensation scheme. Due consideration was given to all relevant factors in producing such a scheme. It was not considered appropriate for the Government to leave the determination of the value of breeding stock and the income multiplier to an arbitrator or the Lands Tribunal, if they were to meet their obligation to make a scheme that is fair and reasonable. The calculation of average net trading profits could, however, be referred to an arbitrator or the Lands Tribunal.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many days of(a) moderate, (b) high and (c) very high air pollution there were (i) in the United Kingdom and (ii) in Buckinghamshire in each year since 1997; and if she will indicate the suspected causes of high and very high readings. [27790]

  Mr. Meacher
  DEFRA operate a National Automatic Urban and Rural Network that currently includes about 120 sites throughout the UK. Data are produced continuously on an hourly basis. Ratified data are available up to 30 September 2001. After this date care must be taken in interpretation of the pollution levels recorded since high measurements may be the result of instrument error that is still to be identified.

  An analysis of moderate, high or very high pollution during 1997–2001 has been undertaken to identify the number and severity of such incidents. Pollution at each site is defined according to the pollutant that is in the highest band during the day. The numbers of days in each band for each pollutant in the United Kingdom since 1997 are given in the table.

  There are no National Automatic Urban and Rural Network monitoring sites in Buckinghamshire.

  Number of days of moderate, high and very high air pollution in the United Kingdom (at one or more sites) in each year since 1997

  Moderate

  High

  Very high

  1997

  269

  70

  14

  1998

  259

  49

  12

  1999

  269

  51

  15

  2000

  240

  38

  7

  2001

  250

  69

  19

  High air pollution episodes due to ozone are only recorded in the summer months. The pollution is linked to hot sunny weather when industrial and motor vehicle
  794W
  emissions react under these conditions to form ground-level ozone. Light easterly winds sometimes bring this pollution across to the UK from central Europe. If conditions are very still for several days then high pollution can be generated by pollution emissions from the UK only.

  High air pollution episodes due to sulphur dioxide are either due to emissions from domestic heating systems (coal or oil), or from industrial processes. The former episodes are measured during the winter in urban areas with significant use of these fuel types. Industrial related incidents can be many miles away from the source of the pollution when the plume from the process comes to ground.

  High air pollution episodes due to nitrogen dioxide are related to motor vehicle emissions and, although infrequent, are usually during very cold, still conditions in the winter months.

  High or very high particulate matter (PM10) can be from a variety of industrial, motor vehicle, construction or "natural" sources such as Saharan dust, volcanic eruptions, agricultural dust or fireworks.

  There are no high or very high CO episodes.

  Whaling
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has made to the International Whaling Commission on the decision by the Japanese Government to use satellite technology to(a) track, (b) monitor and (c) capture, (i) minke, (ii) sperm and (iii) Bryde's whales. [28086]

  Mr. Morley
  We are raising this issue directly with the Government of Japan.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what involvement her Department has in(a) public-private partnerships and (b) private finance initiative projects. [27934]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department is involved in four private finance initiative projects as follows:

  1. Broadland Flood Alleviation Scheme

  2. Pevensey Bay Sea Defences

  3. Brooklands Avenue Office Development (Cambridge)

  4. Countryside Agency's Spirit (IT services).

  As yet the Department is not involved in any public-private partnerships.

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years. [27974]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has only been in existence since June 2001. Information covering earlier periods is therefore not available, and could be constructed retrospectively only at disproportionate cost.
  795W
  Annual reports which the Treasury prepares on fraud, covering returns from both the former MAFF and DETR, are deposited in the House of Commons Library.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 12 December 2001,Official Report, column 919-20W, on carbofuran chlorfenvinphos, if she will set out the measures she is taking to help the trade and user groups. [27841]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: My noble Friend Lord Whitty met representatives of the National Farmers Union and the brassica industry on 19 December to discuss the problems that would be faced by trade and user groups. My noble Friend accepts that there would be severe consequences for swede and turnip growers putting them at a serious disadvantage with European competitors. While the approval for carbofuran expired as planned on 31 December 2001, he has agreed, exceptionally, to allow the approval for chlorfenvinphos to continue until 25 July 2003, the date the use of the compound will expire throughout Europe. Action has already been taken by the Pesticide Safety Directorate to maintain the chlorfenvinphos approvals. However, industry is being urged, as a matter of urgency, to find alternatives.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will ensure that the ban on the use of chlorfenvinphos and carbofuran, used in the control of cabbage root fly, comes into force at the same time as in the rest of the EU. [27044]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: Pesticide products containing chlorfenvinphos and carbofuran have been reviewed as part of the general review in the UK of all organophosphate pesticides. The review was undertaken because of public concerns about the potential toxicity of this group of chemicals. Only for chlorfenvinphos has there been strong lobbying to retain its use on swedes and turnips. The approval was due to expire on 31 December 2001 but in the light of strong representations from growers at the end of last year my noble Friend Lord Whitty agreed to extend the approval until 25 July 2003, the date when the approval will expire throughout Europe. This should allow industry time to find alternatives. Unlike chlorfenvinphos, no strong representations have been made for the approval of carbofuran to continue. This approval therefore expired as planned on 31 December.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research her Department has sponsored into alternatives to chlorfenvinphos and carbofuran. [27046]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: None. DEFRA funds generic research into alternatives to conventional pesticides, for example, biological controls, but not into specific chemical alternatives which are primarily for industry to fund. I understand that the brassica industry has done some work to find alternative methods to control cabbage root fly and is being urged to continue this work.
  796W
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect on the competitiveness of UK vegetable growers if chlorfenvinphos and carbofuran are banned in the UK before they are banned in the rest of the EU. [27045]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: My noble Friend Lord Whitty met representatives of the National Farmers Union and the brassica industry on 19 December when the industry's assessment of the impact of the loss of these compounds was discussed.

  My noble Friend accepts that growers would be seriously disadvantaged by the loss of these compounds. He has therefore agreed, exceptionally, to allow the approval for chlorfenvinphos to continue until 25 July 2003, the date when the approval will expire throughout Europe. This should ensure that UK growers' competitiveness in Europe is maintained. However industry is being urged, as a matter of urgency, to find alternatives.

  PIU Energy Review
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the PIU report will be published before the end of January. [28980]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), on 9 January 2002,Official Report, column 816W.

  Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the European commission policy on administrative sanctions in enforcing fisheries policy; what assessment she has made of the compatibility of this approach with the European convention on human rights; and if she will make a statement. [28675]

  Mr. Morley
  Under CFP regulations member states are required to ensure that appropriate measures are being taken to deal with fisheries infringements. These may take the form of criminal proceedings or administrative sanctions. The Government would need to be satisfied that any proposals for a system of administrative sanctions were compatible with the European convention on human rights. Moreover, any proposals to introduce administrative sanctions would be subject to full consultation with the fishing industry and other appropriate interests.

  Recovered Vegetable Oil
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if the use of recovered vegetable oil for producing animal feed is to be banned in the UK; and if she will make a statement; [28696]

  (2) what regulatory impact assessment has been carried out in respect of the EU Animal By-Products regulation; [28695]

  (3) if she will make a statement on the impact of restrictions on the use of recovered vegetable oil upon waste disposal authorities; [28697]

  (4) if she will make a statement on the implementation of the EU Animal By-Products regulation. [28694]
  797W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 January 2002]: The proposed EU Animal By-Products Regulation would ban the feeding of catering waste to livestock. This ban was introduced at a late stage in negotiations and, after political agreement to a common position had been reached, the European commission made it clear that it considered that the ban also applied to used cooking oils. The Government consider that used cooking oils can be safely used in livestock feed if they are protected from contamination by the application of HACCP (Hazard Analysis of Critical Control Points) principles and appropriate quality control. If suitable alternative outlets are not in place, a ban could lead to environmental problems. The UK is therefore opposing the ban on used cooking oils which are subject to suitable controls and has been lobbying Members of the European Parliament to make suitable changes at Second Reading. The UK has also made it clear that, in the event of the ban not being reversed, an extended transitional period would be needed to allow time for alternative, sustainable outlets to be developed.

  Regulatory impact assessments were placed in the Library of the House on 27 November 2000 and 26 February 2001, along with explanatory memoranda on the regulation (reference 12646/00 and 12648/00). However, as the ban on catering waste had not then been proposed, they did not take account of the costs of such a ban. A revised regulatory impact assessment and a further supplementary explanatory memorandum are in preparation. We expect the Animal By-Products Regulation to come into force in member states towards the end of 2002. Relevant industries and other interests will be fully consulted on its implementation.

  Agricultural Shows
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she will make an announcement on the exemption of agricultural shows from the 20 day standstill period; [28691]

  (2) when she will provide guidance to organisers of county shows on livestock movements for shows. [28693]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 January 2002]: On 18 December, the Government announced changes to the livestock movement controls which it intends to introduce in February 2002. It is proposed that animals may move to and from shows and from show to show without triggering a 20 day standstill provided they are individually identified and are kept in approved isolation facilities on the farm of origin before moving to and on returning from shows. The rules will reflect existing protocols and herd health rules. Officials have held detailed discussions with interested parties and written guidance will be issued by the Department as soon as possible.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will reply to the letter from The Surrey County Agricultural Society on the County Show in time for the show organisers to make plans for the animal show on 3 June. [28692]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 January 2002]: We have no record of having received the letter dated 3 June referred to by the hon. Member from The Surrey County Agricultural Society on the County Show.

  Livestock Burial
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has held with other EU agriculture Ministers about on-farm burial of livestock. [28860]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 January 20021: The EU Animal By-Products Regulation contains provisions which relate to the burial of livestock. A common position on the regulation was adopted at the November Agriculture Council, following political agreement at the June Agriculture Council. However, the Secretary of State did not discuss the provisions relating to burial at those Councils; discussions had already taken place at official level.

  Livestock Markets
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when livestock markets will reopen. [29475]

  Mr. Morley
  On 18 December, the Government announced changes to the livestock movement controls which they intended should be implemented from February 2002 provided there was continued progress in eradicating FMD. Further details will be announced shortly and we hope to have the new system in place from Monday 11 February.

  From the start of these arrangements, cattle markets will be allowed to resume, but for sheep and pigs, slaughter markets only will be allowed initially. The question of whether to allow other sheep and pig markets will be kept under review in the light of veterinary and scientific advice.

  When markets do reopen, they will be subject to strict conditions to ensure that an appropriate level of biosecurity is maintained.

  Flood Defences
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she has taken(a) to replace and (b) to repair flood defences nationwide that are due to reach the end of their design life over the next decade. [27114]

  Mr. Morley
  I plan to reduce the risk of flooding by investing in effective flood warning arrangements and in flood and coastal defences in the highest risk areas, and existing flood defences are being repaired, renewed, maintained and improved. As the bulk of expenditure is ultimately met by taxpayers, both DEFRA and the operating authorities have a responsibility to ensure that value for money is obtained when funding works.

  This Department provides grants for flood and coastal defence capital works, and associated studies, which meet essential technical, economic and environmental criteria and achieve an appropriate priority score (based on departmental priorities, urgency and benefit: cost ratio). Further to increases in the last two Spending Reviews, additional funding of £51 million over the four years from 2001–02 was announced in November 2000 following the severe flooding. In all DEFRA flood and coastal defence funding is set to increase from £66 million in 2000–01 to £114 million in 2003–04. Funding for future years will be considered in the Spending Review process

  799W
  Responsibility for deciding which projects to promote and their timing rests with the operating authorities. The operating authority for each area draws on its local knowledge to decide what needs to be done, including the appraisal of design standards within the economic justification of projects.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 6 December 2001,Official Report, column 496W, on flood defence, when the validation will be complete; and whether it will identify when councils completed this task. [27474]

  Mr. Morley
  A list of local authorities that have provided valid information on their flood defence assets to the Environment Agency has been placed in the Library of the House.

  This information was received by the agency in the period to July 2001. Where the agreed programme of inspections requires it, a second round of inspections is under way.

  The ability of some local authorities to carry out inspections, and the Environment Agency's ability to receive and assess that information, and to follow up the non-receipt of inspection reports, was severely impaired by the aftermath of the 2000 floods. I have therefore agreed that the agency should provide a fully validated report for the period to March 2002 which covers all inspections to that date, summarises the condition of defences, and sets out the agreed approach to inspections.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress she is making in securing adequate flood defences for Lewes. [27537]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: Operational responsibility for flood management rests with operating authorities, such as the Environment Agency. The agency has repaired defences in Lewes so that they are largely up to the standard they were before the floods in autumn 2000. The agency is also undertaking a strategic study of the River Ouse catchment with a view to identifying sustainable defence options for Lewes and other towns. I understand that the agency is keeping local interest groups informed of their consideration of defence options. This Department has provided funding for both the emergency repairs and for the strategic study.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 3 December 2001,Official Report, column 96W, on nuclear accidents, what assessment has been made of the need to distribute iodine tablets to the population; and how long it will take average prevailing winds to carry fallout from France to the south coast of England. [22353]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  Potassium Iodate tablets are held at or around various nuclear industry sites throughout the United Kingdom including Ministry of Defence sites as part of the detailed emergency planning arrangements in the vicinity of nuclear power plants. Other stocks are also held centrally.
  800W
  As part of the on-going contingency planning the Department is reviewing stocks and supplies of potassium iodate tablets for use in the unlikely event of a nuclear accident at a nuclear power installation either in the UK or abroad.

  Advice from the Meterological Office is that there is no "average prevailing wind" from France. However, depending upon the meteorological conditions at any given time, the quantity and source location of the radioactivity on the French coast and the area of the south coast in question, it may take a few hours.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  MI5 Records
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on his policy on the release of post-1945 MI5 records into the Public Record Office. [28638]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government's policy on the release of post-1945 MI5 records into the Public Record Office is that such records should be released when they are over 30-years-old unless release would pose a risk to national security. The Security Service is responsible for determining the sensitivity of the records it holds.

  Special Branch (Historical Records)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the extent of preserved police special branch historical records, and his policy in respect of release of such material into the Public Record Office. [28626]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The records of the Metropolitan police special branch created up to April 2000 are designated public records and are subject to the review and disposal requirements of the Public Records Act 1958.

  During the review process records that are of no historical importance nor of continued administrative use are routinely destroyed. Records that have a long-term historical value are selected for preservation and are transferred to the Public Record Office where they are to be found in class MEPO 38. The records in the class cover a wide range of subjects and are intended to reflect the range of duties performed by the branch. They include both policy files and individual case papers. The earliest surviving records of the branch date from 1888.

  The MEPO 38 class currently holds records created for the most part up to 1936. Of these, a number are still withheld from public inspection. They are being assessed for continuing sensitivity using the criteria set out in the 1993 White Paper, "Open Government", (Cm 2290), and will be made available to the public when no longer considered sensitive according to those criteria.

  Records created after 1936 are also being reviewed and those of historical importance will be selected for permanent preservation.

  HM Land Registry
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Chief Executive
  801W
  of HM Land Registry will reply to the letter of 24 November 2001 from Dr. and Mrs. Pim about case reference 700/01/202[29374]

  Mr. Wills
  Correspondence about individual land registration cases is a matter for the Chief Land Registrar. The Land Registry's target for responding to letters connected with a complaint is five working days. In the current financial year to December 2001, it met this target in 92 per cent. of cases. I understand that, owing to an administrative error, Dr. and Mrs. Pim's letter was regrettably mislaid in the Land Registry and a reply was not sent within the target time. I also understand that the Chief Land Registrar wrote to Dr. and Mrs. Pim on 18 January to apologise for the delay in writing to them and to give them the information they required.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what equipment has been stolen from the Lord Chancellor's Department since 1 May 1997; and what the approximate value of each item was. [26832]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This answer relates to the Department's offices and courts throughout England and Wales. Of the total figure for the year 2000–01 of £151,603.48 (listed in the table), £129,000 resulted from four separate incidents of theft. This comprises the separate figures of £73,000 (12 April 2000), £15,000 (18 May 2000), £16,000 (28 June 2000) and £25,000 (11 November 2000). Of these amounts, the cheques included in the figure of £73,000 have been recovered and the remainder (cash) was borne by one of the Department's PFI contractors. The figure of £15,000 was also borne by a PFI contractor. The figures are as in the table.

  Date of incident

  Items stolen/lost

  Value (£)

  Financial year 1997–98

  11 April 1997

  Cash

  200.00

  26 April 1997

  Cash

  55.00

  1 May 1997

  TV/video

  450.00

  11 May 1997

  Cash

  500.00

  11 May 1997

  Printers x 4

  1,000.00

  16 May 1997

  Video recorder

  350.00

  20 May 1997

  Printer

  250.00

  22 May 1997

  Laser printer fax machine

  250.00

  3 June 1997

  Laptop

  1,000.00

  1 July 1997

  Recorder and CD

  1,000.00

  23 July 1997

  PC mouse

  10.00

  17 August 1997

  Laser printer

  250.00

  18 August 1997

  Pen

  150.00

  9 September 1997

  Laptop

  1,500.00

  15 September 1997

  Video recorder

  250.00

  7 November 1997

  Desk tops x 5 and printer

  300.00

  22 November 1997

  Video recorder

  250.00

  16 December 1997

  PC

  1,500.00

  22 December 1997

  Laptop

  1,500.00

  6 January 1998

  Laptop

  1,000.00

  9 January 1998

  PC

  1,000.00

  12 January 1998

  PC mouse

  10.00

  12 January 1998

  Printer, keyboard and telephone

  250.00

  17 February 1998

  Answering machine

  73.00

  5 March 1998

  Assorted cutlery

  65.00

  12 March 1998

  External security light

  100.00

  19 March 1998

  Laptop

  50.00

  19 March 1998

  Colour TV and file server

  50.00

  20 March 1998

  Fife server and chips

  3,000.00

  21 March 1998

  Cufflinks

  50.00

  27 March 1998

  Cash

  160.00

  29 March 1998

  Keyboards x 4, mouse and barcode reader

  300.00

  29 March 1998

  Pocket memo recorder

  10.00

  Total

  16,883.00

  802W

  Date of incident

  Items stolen/lost

  Value (£)

  Financial year 1998–99

  03 April 1998

  Cash

  230.00

  14 April 1998

  Contents of payphone

  80.00

  18 May 1998

  PC

  150.00

  19 May 1998

  CPU's missing

  1,000.00

  29 May 1998

  Video recorder

  200.00

  29 May 1998

  Printer cables

  20.00

  2 June 1998

  Mobile phone

  100.00

  12 June 1998

  Computers x 4

  4,000.00

  12 June 1998

  PC

  250.00

  24 June 1998

  Laptop

  1,300.00

  27 June 1998

  TV and CD radio

  800.00

  29 June 1998

  TV/video, TV, radio

  800.00

  6 July 1998

  CD

  49.00

  10 July 1998

  Wallet

  130.00

  11 July 1998

  Safe and laser printer

  50.00

  14 July 1998

  Laptop

  2,000.00

  15 July 1998

  Safe

  1,015.00

  20 July 1998

  Cash

  102.00

  21 July 1998

  Roof Lead

  1,500.00

  21 July 1998

  External security camera

  200.00

  24 July 1998

  Laptop

  1,300.00

  27 July 1998

  First aid boxes

  148.00

  5 August 1998

  Pen and lighter

  90.00

  6 August 1998

  Office CD

  350.00

  12 August 1998

  CD/radio

  129.00

  20 August 1998

  Mobile phone

  95.00

  17 September 1998

  Video recorder

  350.00

  24 September 1998

  Printer

  200.00

  9 October 1998

  Printer

  49.00

  21 October 1998

  Handbag and contents

  110.00

  21 October 1998

  Laptop

  49.00

  29 October 1998

  Printer

  700.00

  20 November 1998

  Laptop

  49.00

  10 December 1998

  Laptop

  2,500.00

  14 December 1998

  Handbag and contents

  50.00

  16 December 1998

  Vacuum cleaner

  100.00

  19 March 1999

  Laptop

  49.00

  29 March 1999

  Specialist phone

  50.00

  1 April 1999

  Payphone and cash

  500.00

  Total

  20,844.00

  Financial year 1999–2000

  10 April 1999

  Cash

  67.00

  26 April 1999

  Payphone

  505.00

  9 May 1999

  Roof Lead

  500.00

  10 May 1999

  PC

  49.00

  15 June 1999

  Mobile phone

  113.00

  4 July 1999

  Union flag and rope

  65.00

  11 August 1999

  PC

  1,500.00

  16 August 1999

  Keyboard and printer

  49.00

  17 August 1999

  Payphone

  340.00

  20 August 1999

  Laptop

  1,500.00

  20 August 1999

  Laptop

  1,500.00

  24 August 1999

  Payphone

  340.00

  15 September 1999

  Cash

  340.00

  16 September 1999

  Payphone

  200.00

  26 September 1999

  TV and CD player

  318.85

  13 October 1999

  Mobile phone

  158.25

  21 October 1999

  Mobile phone

  50.00

  28 October 1999

  PC

  49.00

  29 November 1999

  Wallet and contents

  120.00

  30 November 1999

  Attempt to defraud court service

  49.00

  9 December 1999

  Laptop

  200.00

  10 January 2000

  Hard drives x 3

  600.00

  13 January 2000

  Video camera

  500.00

  20 January 2000

  Purse

  49.00

  1 February 2000

  Laptop

  49.00

  2 February 2000

  Payphone

  50.00

  19 February 2000

  Union flag

  40.00

  16 March 2000

  Dictaphone

  69.81

  19 March 2000

  Vending machine

  340.00

  Total

  9,710.91

  Financial year 2000–01

  3 April 2000

  Barrier rope

  116.00

  3 April 2000

  Rope

  116.32

  12 April 2000

  Cash and cheques

  73,000.00

  12 April 2000

  Cashbox

  49.00

  21 April 2000

  Electronic postal scales

  500.00

  29 April 2000

  Tape recorder

  38.42

  803W

  Date of incident

  Items stolen/lost

  Value (£)

  18 May 2000

  PC base units x 15

  15,000.00

  13 June 2000

  Handbag and personal palm pilot

  400.00

  22 June 2000

  TV/video

  250.00

  28 June 2000

  PC's x 54

  16,000.00

  1 July 2000

  Laptop

  1,500.00

  3 July 2000

  Mobile phone

  50.00

  3 July 2000

  Mobile phone

  50.00

  27 July 2000

  Cash

  2,300.00

  8 August 2000

  Mobile phone

  117.50

  10 August 2000

  Laptop

  1,000.00

  30 August 2000

  Union flag

  109.24

  20 September 2000

  Payphone

  550.00

  21 September 2000

  Laptop

  500.00

  27 September 2000

  Laptop

  1,500.00

  27 September 2000

  Laptop

  1,500.00

  28 September 2000

  TV/video

  160.00

  28 September 2000

  TV/video

  160.00

  6 October 2000

  PC

  150.00

  11 November 2000

  Lapstops x 9, keyboards x 2, projectcor and mobile phone

  25,000.00

  15 November 2000

  Laptop

  500.00

  16 December 2000

  Cash

  140.00

  8 January 2001

  PTO break in

  49.00

  11 January 2001

  Department mobile phone

  100.00

  2 February 2001

  CCTV camera

  600.00

  21 March 2001

  Laptop

  49.00

  26 March 2001

  Data stolen

  49.00

  Total

  151,603.48

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the sum imposed as fines by magistrates courts in the latest 12-month period for which figures are available; how much of that total was collected; and if he will make a statement. [28595]

  Mr. Wills
  Magistrates courts committees are responsible for the collection of a range of debts imposed through the courts, including fines, fees, compensation, confiscation orders, legal aid contributions and some maintenance orders. It is not possible to separate out just the fines from the total.

  The total amount imposed by magistrates in the period October 2000 to September 2001 was £358,702,837. Further amounts were imposed by other agencies, including the Crown court, making a total of new impositions which the magistrates courts had responsibility for collecting of £374,440,914.

  The total amount of money collected by the courts in the same period was £232,220,021. Most fines etc are paid by instalment, by agreement with the court. Some of the instalments on impositions made in 2000–01 are therefore not yet due for payment. The gap between the amount imposed and the amount collected is due in part to defendants' inability to pay as well as their attempts to avoid payment. Severe sanctions are available to the courts for non-payment, including the seizure of goods and imprisonment. Nevertheless the present situation leaves much room for improvement. The Access to Justice Act 1999 strengthened the powers of the magistrates courts committees to take effective action against defaulters and we have introduced an information sharing arrangement with the Department of Work and Pensions, which enables magistrates courts committees to trace a significantly increased proportion of defaulters.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 15 January 2002,Official Report, column 172W, what progress has been made with the PFI scheme for a new court house in Colchester. [28677]

  Mr. Wills
  Work on completing the outline business case for the provision of new and refurbished magistrates courts across Essex is in progress. It is anticipated that the business case will be ready for submission to the Essex magistrates courts committee, its paying authorities, my Department and the Office of Government Commerce's project review group for approval by the end of February.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Costs
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimates are of the administrative costs, in total and per claimant household, of(a) child benefit and (b) working families tax credit. [116782]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Child benefit is a universal, non-means tested payment made to families regardless of the level of income. The latest estimates for child benefit are that the total administrative cost is1 £125 million, or an average cost per family of £0.34 per week.

  WFTC is an individually assessed, income-related payment made to families with children where at least one partner works for at least 16 hours a week. The amount of the payment is dependent upon a range of factors including the hours worked, the size of the family and the age of the children. It may also take account of expenditure the family incurs in respect of child care. It is administered by the Inland Revenue; and they estimate that the total administrative cost is £133.8 million (£1.92 per family per week). I understand that they will publish further figures shortly.

  Notes:

  1 The figures for child benefit are the estimated administrative costs for 1998–99 taken from the Social Security Departmental Report: The Government's Expenditure Plans for 2000–01 to 2001–02.

  2 These figures are estimates for the 12 months to March 2001.

  Benefits (Belgium)
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what assessment he has made of the speed with which(a) UK nationals who have worked in Belgium but live in UK and (b) Belgians who have worked in UK get benefit claims dealt with by the Belgian authorities;

  (2) how many people living in the UK are in receipt of supplementary benefit pending satisfaction of claims against the Belgian authorities in relation to employment benefits. [17376]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on the time taken to process benefit claims from UK nationals which rely on contribution records from the Belgian authorities could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information on the
  805W
  speed with which benefit claims from Belgian nationals are dealt with by the Belgian authorities is solely a matter for those authorities.

  As at 30 November 2001 there are two people living in Great Britain and in receipt of income-based jobseeker's allowance while we are awaiting details of their contribution record from the Belgian authorities. The Northern Ireland Assembly is responsible for social security matters in Northern Ireland.

  Income Support
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will rank each local authority area in England by the percentage fall in the number of households claiming income support between March 1997 and March 2001. [17771]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information has been placed in the Library.

  Social Exclusion
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what estimate has been made of the administrative cost to the(a) state, (b) unsuccessful applicants and (c) successful applicants of the competitive grant schemes, provided by his Department and its agencies open in each year since 1997 to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion; [22401]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the application form for each of the competitive grant schemes administered by his Department and its agencies open in each year since 1997 to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion; [22408]

  (3) if he will publish a list of the grants made under the competitive grant schemes administered by his Department and its agencies open in each year since 1997 to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion; [22416]

  (4) if he will list the competitive grant schemes, administered by the Department and its agencies, open in each year since 1997 to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion; and, for each scheme in each year (a) the number of applicants, (b) the number of successful applicants, (c) the total of grants awarded, (d) the number of pages in the application form and (e) if the grant can be used to fund the core costs of the applicant organisation; [22429]

  (5) how many competitive grant schemes administered by his Department and its agencies were open in each of the last 10 years to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion. [22435]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 12 December 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answers given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) on 19 December 2001, Official Report, column 482W and 8 January 2002, Official Report, columns 783-84W.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in(a) the constituency of Buckingham and (b) the UK have been prosecuted twice or more for benefit fraud in each year since 1992. [22522]

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in(a) the Epsom and Ewell constituency and (b) the UK have been prosecuted at least twice for benefit fraud in each year since 1992. [23426]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on benefit fraud at constituency level is not available. Nationally, our research suggests that approximately 5 per cent. of prosecutions involve a person with a previous conviction for benefit fraud. We are putting in place mechanisms to identify second and further convictions.

  Age Discrimination
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on age discrimination in financial services. [23218]

  Mr. McCartney
  We have recognised the importance of tackling age discrimination in employment sectors, including the financial services sector. That is why we have targeted this sector among others, as part of our age positive campaign. Through working with Age Champions, we have been challenging ageism in the financial sector by promoting the business benefits of age positive employment practices. We are considering ways of strengthening the campaign over the coming year.

  Our new website, www.agepositive.gov.uk, includes initial research we have undertaken to identify ageist employment practices across a range of sectors which include financial services. The research is also available in the Library.

  Benefit Application Forms
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many benefit application forms his Department and agencies produce; to which benefits these forms relate; and if he will place copies of each form in the Library. [24213]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  There are 64 benefit application forms produced by the Department for Work and Pensions. These relate to the following benefits:

  Attendance Allowance

  Back to Work Bonus

  Bereavement Benefit

  Child Benefit

  Child Maintenance Bonus

  Disability Living Allowance

  Guardian's Allowance

  Housing and Council Tax Benefits

  Income Support

  Industrial Injuries

  Jobseeker's Allowance

  807W

  Maternity Allowance

  Minimum Income Guarantee

  Retirement Pension

  Social Fund

  Vaccine Damage Payment

  Invalid Care Allowance

  Incapacity Benefit.

  Copies of all forms have been placed in the Library.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people living in tenements in Scotland have received half their entitlement to the winter fuel payment because of a computer error relating to residents in separate tenement flats at the same street number; and what action is being taken to ensure they are paid their full entitlement as soon as possible and that the problem will not recur. [25871]

  Mr. McCartney
  To ensure all eligible people in a household receive the correct level of winter fuel payment, the addresses are matched to ascertain how many people live at each address. The Department is aware that there have been problems regarding people living in tenements in Scotland and, to alleviate this, the Department clerically matches the addresses in areas where there are many tenement flats. This should ensure that the correct payment is made, and this system ought to prevent problems reoccurring. We are unable to provide the figure in the form requested but where an underpayment has come to light, corrective action has been taken.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much money is estimated to have been overpaid in winter fuel payments in each year since 1997(a) to people who have been paid more than they are entitled and (b) to people who are ineligible for the benefit; and how much of this money has been recovered[27762]

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

  The Department makes every effort to ensure that addresses are matched with household composition to avoid overpayments. Where we become aware of either overpayments or underpayments, corrective action is taken to put it right and prevent this reoccurring.

  Stakeholder Pension
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the Stakeholder Pension; and how much this will add to the total value of a pension. [25926]

  Mr. McCartney
  As set out in our 1998 Green Paper "Partnership in Pensions" the Government's long-term pension reforms are designed to ensure that all pensioners have a decent income in retirement, building on the foundation of the basic state pension available to all. This means everyone recognising their responsibilities; with those who are able, saving for their retirement, the Government supporting those who cannot save, and the private sector providing affordable and secure second pensions.
  808W
  Before April 2001, many of those who could put money aside to provide for themselves in retirement had no straightforward, good value way to enter a pension scheme. Stakeholder pensions, which were introduced from that date, offered such people a good value, flexible product. Annual charges are capped at 1 per cent. of the fund's value, meaning more of what people pay in goes towards their pension. There are no additional charges for stopping and starting payments or transferring between stakeholder schemes. They are widely available but are particularly aimed at moderate to higher earners who do not already have access to an occupational pension or a good personal pension with an employer contribution. Stakeholder pensions are an important part of the framework this Government have now put in place to give everyone access to a good value pension arrangement and a decent income in retirement.

  The added value of a stakeholder pension will vary according to the charging structure of the particular scheme, the investment returns achieved and the individual's pattern of payments.

  Poor Households
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of persons in poverty in working households without children are working more than 30 hours per week and are aged 25 years or over. [25979]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Poverty and social exclusion are complex multi-dimensional issues, affecting many aspects of people's lives—including their living standards, health, housing, the quality of the environment and not just low income. The third "Opportunity for all" report (Cm 5260) sets out the Government's strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion and presents the latest information on the indicators used to measure progress against this strategy. Specific information regarding low income is available in "Households Below Average Income 1994–95 to 1999–2000".

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he will allow annuity holders(a) to draw down the assets and (b) to set up phased annuity schemes for the purposes of assessing entitlement to the proposed pension credit. [26019]

  Mr. McCartney
  Income drawdown plans may be taken out by personal pension fund holders, but most drawdown providers generally only recommend this option for people with significant funds. Personal pension savings may be split in parts and annuitised separately. Income and potential income from private pensions will be relevant for the purposes of assessing entitlement to pension credit.

  Share Ownership
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many shareholders there are in each region; and what proportion of the adult population of their areas they represent. [26240]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information available for the latest year is in the following table.
  809W

  Stocks/shares/unit trusts/PEPs/ISAs holders in 2000–01

  Government office region

  Number of adult stocks/shareholders in the region (Thousand)

  Proportion of adult population of the region who are stocks/shareholders (Percentage)

  Number of adult stocks/shares/unit trusts/PEPs/ISAs holders in the region (Thousand)

  Proportion of adult population of the region who are stocks/shares/unit trusts/PEPs/ISAs holders (Percentage)

  North East

  240

  11

  510

  23

  North West and Merseyside

  940

  18

  1,630

  31

  Yorkshire and Humber

  700

  18

  1,220

  31

  East Midlands

  570

  17

  1,020

  30

  West Midlands

  560

  15

  1,080

  29

  Eastern

  980

  24

  1,590

  39

  London

  1,080

  20

  1,740

  32

  South East

  1,560

  26

  2,510

  42

  South West

  730

  21

  1,290

  36

  England

  7,360

  20

  12,580

  34

  Wales

  270

  12

  570

  25

  Scotland

  630

  16

  1,070

  27

  Total Great Britain

  8,250

  19

  14,220

  32

  Notes:

  1. The estimates are based on sample counts that have been adjusted for non-response using multi-purpose grossing factors that control for tenure, Council Tax Band and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non-response.

  2. Questions on assets are a sensitive part of the FRS questionnaire and have relatively low level of response, and hence higher levels of imputation, compared to other parts of the survey. Responses are imputed in around 1 in 10 cases. Evidence also suggests some under reporting of capital by respondents.

  3. The final two columns of the table refer to adults reporting one of more of the categories: stocks and shares, unit trusts, PEPs and ISAs.

  4. The results are for Financial Year 2000–01 and the number of adults figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey (FRS)

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received in respect of the appropriateness of the application form for disability living allowance for haemodialysis patients; and what proposals he has to make amendments to it. [27545]

  Maria Eagle
  No such representations have been received and no changes are planned to the disability living allowance claim which would affect haemodialysis patients.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for each of the last three years, how many and what percentage of(a) applicants for disability living allowance whose applications were accepted and (b) appeals against these decisions to reject applications were upheld; and how many of them were haemodialysis patients. [27545]

  Maria Eagle
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he plans to conduct a review of the operation of the disability living allowance. [29519]

  Maria Eagle
  As with other social security benefits, the operation of disability living allowance is kept under review. We have recently made significant improvements to the DLA claim form, we are currently piloting revised arrangements for obtaining relevant information from claimants' general practitioners, and in consultation with organisations representing disabled people, are testing an alternative system for extra-costs disability benefits based on activities for managing life.

  Statistics and Reports
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the publication dates of statistics and reports due to be released by his Department and its agencies during calendar year 2002. [28392]

  Mr. McCartney
  Information on the release dates of statistics published by the Department under the national statistics banner is notified in the National Statistics Update issued by the Office for National Statistics and is available in the Library. Release dates four months ahead are given and the information is rolled forward one month at the end of each month.

  Correspondence
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Chelmsford, West (Mr. Burns), of 5 December 2001,Official Report, column 430W, on numbers of letters received by his Department, if the details of letters received between 20 June and 20 July are available. [29888]

  Maria Eagle
  In my written answer of 5 December I said that information between 20 June and 20 July was not available in the format requested. That was incorrect. The information requested is as follows.

  We received 1,137 letters for ministerial reply between 20 June and 20 July. Of those 814 (72 per cent.) were answered within 20 working days, 244 (21 per cent.) were answered within 21-40 working days and 79 (7 per cent.) were answered in more than 40 working days.

  Unemployment (South Tyneside)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans his Department has to help unemployed people over 50 years of age back into work in south Tyneside. [15022]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We are committed to helping people of all ages back into work. Our range of back to work programmes, including new deal 50 plus, new deal 25 plus and new deal for disabled people have helped to ensure that the employment rate for the over-50s has increased each year for the last four years. All of these programmes are operating in south Tyneside. In addition, extra support is available in south Tyneside through the local action team for jobs and work-focused interview site.

  Benefits Agency
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what were the staffing levels for each of the last five years in the Benefits Agency offices at(a) Elthorne road, London N19, and (b) Seven Sisters road, London N7, the number of callers per day for the equivalent period and the average waiting time. [23637]

  Malcolm Wicks
  This is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Jeremy Corbyn, dated 9 January 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking, if he will state the staffing levels for each of the last five years in the Benefits Agency offices at (a) Elthorne Road London N19 and (b) Seven Sisters Road London N7, the number of callers per day for the equivalent period and the average waiting time.
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information that is available is in the attached table.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Seven Sisters Road Finsbury Park office

  Elthorne Road Highgate office

  Average staff days per month

  1996

  443

  315

  1997

  377

  329

  1998

  348

  304

  1999

  379

  402

  2000

  369

  427

  Average number of callers per month

  1996

  5,912

  5,340

  1997

  5,631

  4,936

  1998

  5,217

  4,602

  1999

  5,695

  5,050

  2000

  5,039

  4,553

  Initial waiting time 10 minutes or less based on the average number of callers (shown as a percentage)

  1996

  57

  72

  1997

  57

  43

  1998

  43

  68

  1999

  34

  70

  2000

  41

  63

  Initial waiting time 30 minutes or less based on the average number of callers (shown as a percentage)

  1996

  82

  98

  1997

  94

  85

  1998

  91

  100

  1999

  87

  100

  2000

  85

  97

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  GCSE Point Scores
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what was the average annual change in points score at GCSE in(a) specialist, (b) grammar and (c) all secondary schools in each of the past five years. [19239]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: The information requested on the change in average GCSE/GNVQ point score for schools in England is shown in the table:

  (a) Specialist

  Score in former year

  Score in latter year

  Change

  1995–96 and 1996–97

  38.8

  39.9

  1.1

  1996–97 and 1997–98

  40.1

  41.5

  1.4

  1997–98 and 1998–99

  40.7

  42.2

  1.5

  1998–99 and 1999–2000

  41.5

  42.5

  1.0

  1999–2000 and 2000–01

  41.8

  42.4

  0.6

  (a) Specialist

  (b) Selective

  (c) All schools

  Change

  Score

  Change

  Score

  Change

  1996–97

  1.1

  57.0

  0.6

  35.9

  0.5

  1997–98

  1.4

  59.4

  2.4

  37.0

  1.1

  1998–99

  1.5

  60.7

  1.3

  38.1

  1.1

  1999–2000

  1.0

  62.1

  1.4

  38.9

  0.8

  2000–01

  0.6

  62.8

  0.7

  39.3

  0.4

  Note:

  As the number of specialist schools increases year on year, the column for 'specialist schools' refers to schools which were designated as specialist for both the appropriate academic years, hence two figures are given for each year. For example, throughout the academic years 1995–96 and 1996–97 there were 102 specialists. Throughout 1996–97 and 1997–98 there were 174 specialists. In the table above the 39.9 figure in the first row refers to the average point score of the 102 schools in 1997. The 40.1 figure in the second row refers to the average point score of the 174 specialists in 1997.

  Adult and Community Learning
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the spending per head of population is on adult and community learning in(a) Buckinghamshire and (b) the Chesham and Amersham constituency. [27124]

  John Healey
  Spending per head of population (adults 19 and over) on adult and community learning in Buckinghamshire was £4.74 in 1999–20001. Figures for the Chesham and Amersham constituency are not available, as expenditure is calculated on an LEA basis only.

  1 Source: Audit Commission

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the spending per head of population is on(a) adult and (b) community learning in the Greater London area, broken down by constituency in this financial year. [27265]

  John Healey
  Set out is information for each London borough and for London overall for 1999–2000. This is the latest year for which final published data are available from LEA returns to the Audit Commission. Information is not available by constituency. The figures are £s per adult (aged 19 and over).
  813W

  London boroughs

  £

  City of London

  n/a

  Camden

  4.64

  Greenwich

  n/a

  Hackney

  7.35

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  14.60

  Islington

  3.57

  Kensington and Chelsea

  5.89

  Lambeth

  7.76

  Lewisham

  8.90

  Southwark

  3.21

  Tower Hamlets

  13.32

  Wandsworth

  5.37

  Westminster

  15.61

  Barking and Dagenham

  6.47

  Barnet

  0.74

  Bexley

  15.61

  Brent

  6.26

  Bromley

  9.49

  Croydon

  10.39

  Ealing

  0.52

  Enfield

  0.28

  Haringey

  8.95

  Harrow

  2.22

  Havering

  1.18

  Hillingdon

  4.83

  Hounslow

  4.66

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  8.47

  Merton

  6.42

  Newham

  5.79

  Redbridge

  7.38

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1.92

  Sutton

  17.49

  Waltham Forest

  7.32

  London overall

  6.99

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the use of claims based on individual learning account funds to support terrorist activities. [26774]

  John Healey
  We have no evidence that ILA funds have been used for terrorist activity.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many ILA learning providers have to date(a) had complaints and (b) had no complaints made against them. [27159]

  John Healey
  We have had complaints concerning non-compliance with the ILA rules and regulations against 565 ILA learning providers out of a total of approximately 8,500 registered on the England ILA database.

  We had serious concerns about 86 providers and are in the process of investigating 82 of these.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many of those ILA learning providers that have had no complaints made against them have received all payments owed to them for the ILA scheme. [27159]

  John Healey
  We have as a matter of priority been working to validate outstanding claims to providers. On 814W
  21 December, all learning providers that have had no complaints made against them received payment for claims they had submitted up to 21 November.

  We intend making a further payment by Friday 25 January 2002 for learning confirmed between 21 November and 23 November.

  Officials will be writing to learning providers once arrangements for future payments for learning that was booked on the ILA system up to its closure on 23 November are finalised.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if consultation on a replacement scheme for individual learning accounts will be by invitation only; and if she will consider submissions from all interested parties. [27161]

  John Healey
  Although the views of providers, account holders and other key partners are being particularly sought, we welcome and will consider submissions from anyone who feels they have a contribution to make on a successor programme to ILAs.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what equipment has been stolen from her Department since 1 May 1997; and what the approximate value of each item was. [26821]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The table details the equipment stolen from the Department for Education and Skills since 1 May 1997 along with the approximate value of the stolen equipment.

  Description

  Number of items

  Approximate value of item (£)

  Total approximate value (£)

  Financial year 1997–98

  Laptop PC

  5

  1,000

  5,000

  Printer

  2

  300

  600

  PC chips

  4

  125

  500

  PC hard drive

  1

  900

  900

  IT kit

  13

  1,035

  13,455

  Power drill

  2

  145

  290

  CCTV camera

  1

  1,000

  1,000

  Mobile phone

  1

  200

  200

  Total

  21,945

  Financial year 1998–99

  Laptop PC

  7

  1,000

  7,000

  Palmtop PC

  1

  250

  250

  PC chips

  From 205 PCs

  423.57

  86,831

  Total

  94,081

  Financial year 1999–2000

  Laptop PC

  5

  1,000

  5,000

  Palmtop PC

  1

  250

  250

  PC processing unit

  2

  1,000

  2,000

  Mobile phone

  1

  60

  60

  Total

  7,310

  Financial year 2000–01

  Laptop PC

  2

  1,000

  2,000

  Palm pilot PC

  1

  300

  300

  Nokia WAP phone

  1

  200

  200

  Mobile phone and charger

  1

  100

  100

  Total

  2,600

  815W

  Description

  Number of items

  Approximate value of item (£)

  Total approximate value (£)

  Financial year 2001–02

  Laptop PC

  3

  1,000

  3,000

  Mobile phone

  2

  100

  200

  Video phone

  1

  200

  200

  Phone charger

  1

  25

  25

  Dictaphone

  1

  40

  40

  Chair

  1

  80

  80

  Total

  3,545

  The total number of items stolen since 1 May 1997 amounts to 265 at a total approximate value of £129,481

  Note:

  Electronic security tags are fitted to all portable IT equipment held in London. The tags raise an alarm at reception of an unauthorised person attempts to remove the kit. The level of theft outside London is so low that it is not justified to extend tagging to the Darlington, Runcorn and Sheffield sites of the Department.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list those items valued at more than £50 which have been stolen or lost from her Department in each of the last four years. [28001]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The table details items valued at £50 or more which have been stolen from the Department for Education and Skills in each of the last four years.

  Description

  Number of items

  Approximate value of item (£)

  Total approximate value (£)

  Laptop PC

  7

  1,000

  7,000

  Palmtop PC

  1

  250

  250

  PC chips

  From 205 PCs

  423.57

  86,831

  Total

  94,081

  Financial year 1999–2000

  Laptop PC

  5

  1,000

  5,000

  Palmtop PC

  1

  250

  250

  PC processing unit

  2

  1,000

  2,000

  Mobile phone

  1

  60

  60

  Total

  7,310

  Financial year 2000–01

  Laptop PC

  2

  1,000

  2,000

  Palm pilot PC

  1

  300

  300

  Nokia WAP phone

  1

  200

  200

  Mobile phone and charger

  1

  100

  100

  Total

  2,600

  Financial year 2001–02

  Laptop PC

  3

  1,000

  3,000

  Mobile phone

  2

  100

  200

  Video phone

  1

  200

  200

  Chair

  1

  80

  80

  Total

  3,480

  The total number of items valued at £50 or more that have been stolen or lost in the last four years amounts to 263 at a total approximate value of £129,416

  Note:

  Electronic security tags are fitted to all portable IT equipment held in London. The tags raise an alarm at reception if an unauthorised person attempts to remove the kit. The level of theft outside London is so low that it is not justified to extend tagging to the Darlington, Runcorn and Sheffield sites of the Department.

  Nursery Provision (London)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what records are kept by her Department on 816W
  the extent of early years nursery provision in each London borough for the last five years; and if she will publish such records. [28082]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department collects data on the numbers of three and four-year-old children taking up free early years education places at (1) maintained nursery and primary schools, and (2) maintained early years settings (other than maintained nursery and primary schools), independent schools, and private and voluntary early years settings in England, that are registered with Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships, in each local education authority area in England. These data are collected each term throughout the year as part of the Department's Nursery Education Grant data collection exercise.

  The Department also collects data on the numbers of three and four-year-old children taking up early years education places in the spring term at (1) maintained nursery and primary schools in England, as part of its annual Schools Census data collection exercise, and (2) maintained early years settings (other than maintained nursery and primary schools), independent schools, private and voluntary early years settings in England, that are registered with Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships, as part of its annual Early Years Census data collection exercise.

  Figures for 1997 to 2001 for LEA areas in England for three and four-year-old children in maintained nursery and primary schools were published in Statistical Bulletin 11-2001 "Provision for children under five years of age in England—January 2001" which is available from the Department's website www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/or the Library. In addition, figures for three and four year old children taking up free early years education places in maintained nursery and primary schools and maintained early years settings (other than maintained nursery and primary schools), independent schools, private and voluntary early years settings were published in a table alongside the bulletin on the Department's website.

  Ministerial Transport
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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[28102].

  Estelle Morris
  I last used the railway service on Thursday 6 December to travel from Paddington to Bristol. I use the network on a regular basis in connection with my official duties and for travel to and from my constituency.

  All travel is conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code and the accompanying guidance document, "Travel by Ministers".

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what is the pay entitlement of a teacher who has achieved the upper pay spine when changing schools. [28189]
  817W
  Mr. Timms
  Crossing the threshold entitles a teacher to be paid on point 1 of the upper pay scale. That entitlement continues to apply when a teacher changes schools. Further progress on the upper pay scale will be on the basis of discretionary performance points awarded by individual governing bodies. The School Teachers' Review Body is considering whether such points should be portable, as we have proposed. Portability would be consistent with expecting all schools to take account of the same general criteria in awarding such points. It would also facilitate movement between schools.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she is taking to ensure consistency between schools in allocating upper pay spine awards. [28190]

  Mr. Timms
  Progress on the upper pay scale for classroom teachers will be on the basis of discretionary performance points awarded by governing bodies at individual schools. The Department sent guidance on school salary policies and performance points to schools last September. This said that points should reward substantial and sustained performance and contribution to the school that showed greater breadth and depth than the threshold standards. The guidance also made it clear that schools would have to interpret and develop these general criteria in the light of local circumstances and priorities.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what changes she plans to the head teachers' retirement package arrangements; and if she will make a statement. [29264]

  Mr. Timms
  £10 million of standards fund money was made available in each of 2000–01 and 2001–02 to support an early retirement scheme for head teachers. This was a two-year scheme aimed at raising the standard of leadership in schools. Although the financial support that this scheme provided will not continue beyond the end of this financial year, it will still be open to employers to grant early retirement to head teachers where they believe that doing so would be beneficial.

  Rural Transport
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a direct grant allocation to Shropshire county council to support the additional transport costs incurred by a rural county. [28332]

  Mr. Timms
  In 2002–03 Shropshire's Education SSA will increase by £6.88 million or 6.16 per cent. Shropshire will also benefit from an overall increase in Standards Fund grant of almost £160 million; and an increase of 2.75 per cent. in the direct grant for schools. We believe that this is a good settlement sufficient to cover all the cost pressures on Shropshire next year, including the additional transport costs incurred by a rural county.

  However, we are currently working up a new funding system for introduction in 2003–04. As part of that work we are taking account of the costs associated with rural areas such as home to school transport.

  School Expulsions
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures are in place to ensure that an expelled pupil is able to carry on in education; and what steps are taken if a pupil continues to disrupt. [28344]
  818W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department's guidance to local education authorities is that ideally many permanently excluded pupils should rejoin a mainstream or special school within days or weeks of exclusion. Those permanently excluded pupils who are not re-integrated into a new school should be offered opportunities in Pupil Referral Units (PRU), FE colleges and or on work experience. Rapid re-integration is particularly important for excluded primary pupils and I expect that most of them would be re-integrated within one term. Conversely, for pupils approaching the end of compulsory schooling, a return to school may be unrealistic and in those cases alternative provision like a PRU or FE college is more appropriate.

  The guidance does not direct that alternative provision must be found immediately for a permanently excluded child. The Discipline Committee must meet to review the decision no later than 15 school days after notification of the exclusion. During this time the guidance states that the head teacher should plan for the child's continued education. This can be by setting and marking work for the child to do at home. Where a parent lodges an appeal, I expect the school and LEA to work together to secure the pupil's on-going education. Following an unsuccessful appeal, reintegration into a school or PRU may take some time.

  Reintegration Panels are responsible for co-ordinating services for excluded pupils. They must draw up an individual re-integration plan for each excluded child. This plan should be in place within a month of the governors upholding the exclusion and it is reviewed on a monthly basis. It should include a target date for return to school, once the school to which the child will return has been identified.

  Pupils who continue to be disruptive may be excluded from their new school or, as a last resort, from a Pupil Referral Unit. However, we now have a network of Learning Support Units in schools and Pupil Referral Units to support our drive to tackle poor behaviour and continue to raise standards in schools.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils in the Uxbridge constituency have been statemented in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in each of the last five years. [28487]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The available data are shown in the table:

  Number of pupils with statements of SEN in the Uxbridge constituency—position in January each year

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  2001

  122

  163

  2000

  115

  174

  1999

  100

  170

  1998

  105

  175

  1997

  107

  180

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average percentage of special needs children is in(a) all schools in England and (b) faith schools in England. [28609]
  819W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The available information is shown in the table:

  Maintained primary and secondary schools: percentage of pupils with Special Educational Needs—as at January 2000

  Percentage

  All schools

  Faith schools

  SEN pupils with statements

  2.0

  1.5

  SEN pupils without statements

  18.7

  17.1

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  Primary School Heads
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of primary school heads are estimated to earn more than £60,000 per annum. [28572]

  Mr. Timms
  The School Teachers' Review Body's leadership group pay survey for 2000 estimated that 0.2 per cent. of primary school heads earn more than £60,000 per annum.

  Education (Somerset)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much the Government have spent on education in Somerset in each of the financial years since 1996–97, broken down by areas on which the funding has been spent. [28743]

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

  Somerset

  £million

  SSA

  Grants

  Total

  Cash

  1996–97

  150.908

  1.558

  152.465

  1997–98

  150.711

  6.912

  157.623

  1998–99

  165.321

  2.392

  167.713

  1999–2000

  175.623

  6.161

  181.784

  2000–01

  186.168

  16.266

  202.435

  2001–02

  194.974

  24.882

  219.855

  Change1

  44.066

  23.324

  67.390

  Real terms: prices2000–01

  1996–97

  166.659

  1.720

  168.379

  1997–98

  161.463

  7.405

  168.868

  1998–99

  172.299

  2.493

  174.792

  1999–2000

  178.722

  6.269

  184.992

  2000–01

  186.168

  16.266

  202.435

  2001–02

  190.218

  24.275

  214.493

  Change1

  23.559

  22.555

  46.114

  1 Change since 1996–97

  Notes:

  1. Figures reflect Education SSA plus all school related revenue grants.

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

  3. 2001–02 figures are provisional.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much her Department spent on advertising in Somerset between 31 December 2000 and 31 December 2001. [28744]
  820W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In the period 31 December 2000 to 31 December 2001, the Department for Education and Skills spent £11,513 on advertising on Somerset local radio. There was no expenditure on advertising in Somerset local press.

  People living in Somerset will also have been exposed to national advertising run by the Department for Education and Skills. It is not possible to calculate what percentage of spending on television advertising can be allocated to Somerset because half of the county falls into the HTV West television region and the other half falls into the West Country television region.

  Sex Education
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on her policy on sex education in schools. [28767]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The responsibility for determining a school policy on sex and relationship education rests with governing bodies and head teachers. Our Sex and Relationship Education guidance, published in July 2000, clearly states that governing bodies and head teachers should consult parents in developing their sex and relationship education policy to ensure that the views of parents and the community are reflected. All schools must have a policy, which is made available for inspection and to parents.

  The Department recommends that sex and relationship education should be supported by a school's wider curriculum for Personal Social and Health Education (PSHE) and Citizenship. In this way, schools can ensure that pupils receive their sex education in the wider context of relationships and are prepared for the responsibilities and experiences of adult life.

  Standards Funds
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the standards funds allocated to Stoke-on-Trent local education authority in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [28771]

  Mr. Timms
  The table shows allocations for the standards fund for Stoke-on-Trent local education authority in 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02. The figures include both Government and local authority contributions.

  Standards fund allocations for city of Stoke-on-Trent council

  £

  1999–2000

  Administrative Support in Small Schools

  57,084

  Applications for Education Action Zones

  30,000

  Books for Schools

  1,585

  Class Size Initiative

  1,080,242

  Computer Systems for Chairs of Education

  2,000

  Drug Prevention

  39,355

  Early Years Training and Development

  67,342

  Education and Health Partnerships

  19,000

  Education Maintenance Allowance Pilots

  1,024,683

  Ethnic Minority Achievements

  614,112

  Laptops for Heads of Small Primary and Special Schools

  15,466

  Literacy and Numeracy Summer Schools

  119,500

  Local Education Authority Music Services

  148,000

  Local Recruitment Measures

  50,000

  National Grid for Learning

  1,000,000

  Playing for Success

  100,000

  Primary Literacy and Numeracy Strategies

  687,782

  Qualifications

  46,275

  821W

  Standards fund allocations for city of Stoke-on-Trent council

  £

  School Asset Management Plans

  33,610

  School Improvement

  1,445,382

  School Leadership

  122,631

  School Security

  115,898

  Social Inclusion

  342,484

  Special Educational Needs

  272,855

  Support for Parent Governor Representatives

  1,000

  Work Related Learning at Key Stage 4

  49,500

  Working Environment Fund

  99,860

  Year 6 Literacy and Numeracy Booster Classes

  277,910

  Total

  7,863,556

  2000–01

  Administrative Support for Small Schools

  172,735

  Beacon Schools

  56,000

  Best Practice Research Scholarships

  34,335

  City Learning Centres: Design and Capital Costs

  300,000

  Class Size Initiative

  1,165,476

  Developing and Extending Maintained Nursery School Services

  69,032

  Devolved Formula Capital for Schools

  1,501,654

  Early Years Training and Development

  67,858

  Education and Health Partnerships

  33,706

  Ethnic Minority Pupils and Traveller Achievement

  614,112

  Excellence in Cities: Development

  25,676

  Excellence in Cities: Excellence Challenge

  12,739

  Excellence in Cities: Gifted and Talented Children

  361,000

  Excellence in Cities: Learning Mentors and Learning Support Units

  676,000

  Key Stage 3 Numeracy: Secondary Schools Conference

  14,656

  Literacy and Numeracy: Summer Schools and Key Stage 3

  132,000

  Local Education Authority Music Services

  238,000

  National Grid for Learning

  1,000,000

  New National Curriculum

  90,500

  Maintained Nursery Capital

  92,200

  Performance Management Training

  207,252

  Pilot Education Maintenance Allowance

  2,397,843

  Playing for Success

  125,000

  Primary Literacy and Numeracy Strategies

  860,176

  Qualifications

  36,429

  School Improvement

  1,640,597

  School Laboratories for the 21st Century

  155,850

  School Leadership

  85,985

  School Security

  114,362

  Seed Capital Challenge

  172,790

  Small Education Action Zones

  20,000

  Small School Support Fund

  86,834

  Social Inclusion, Drugs and Youth

  1,067,179

  Special Educational Needs

  341,025

  Specialist Schools

  158,386

  Study Support

  180,886

  Summer Schools for Gifted and Talented Pupils

  18,000

  Support for Parent Governor Representatives

  1,200

  Teacher Incentives

  13,682

  Teaching Assistants

  758,183

  Teenage Pregnancies

  93,000

  Working Environment Fund

  99,860

  Year 6 Literacy and Numeracy Booster Classes

  247,392

  Total

  15,539,590

  2001–02

  Adult: Pupil Ratios in Reception Classes

  346,792

  Advanced Skills Teachers

  152,000

  Child Protection Co-ordinators

  39,600

  Children in Public Care

  41,661

  Children of Asylum Seekers

  3,500

  City Learning Centres

  2,400,000

  Class Size Initiative

  1,255,664

  Devolved Capital

  2,226,443

  Drug Prevention and Advisers

  65,760

  Early Professional Development

  264,800

  Early Years Training and Development

  76,293

  Education Health Partnerships

  32,798

  Ethnic Minority Achievement

  614,112

  Excellence in Cities: Beacon Schools

  70,000

  Excellence in Cities: Excellence Challenge

  211,101

  822W

  Standards fund allocations for city of Stoke-on-Trent council

  £

  Excellence in Cities: Secondary1

  1,778,000

  Gifted and Talented Children Summer Schools

  18,000

  Induction of Newly Qualified Teachers

  441,363

  Information Management Strategy

  153,893

  Key Stage 3: National Implementation

  274,803

  Literacy and Numeracy Summer Schools

  100,000

  Local Education Authority Music Services

  264,400

  Maintained Nursery School Service

  140,650

  National Curriculum

  90,336

  National Grid for Learning

  1,356,063

  NDS Condition Funding

  1,696,708

  Performance Management

  136,283

  Playing for Success

  120,036

  Primary Literacy and Numeracy Strategies

  927,979

  Qualifications

  15,870

  School Achievement Awards

  340,950

  School Improvement

  997,000

  School Laboratories

  287,409

  School Leadership

  95,563

  School Security

  112,855

  Seed Capital Challenge

  191,087

  Sick Children

  11,903

  Small Education Action Zones

  415,414

  Small Schools Fund

  336,606

  Social Inclusion: Pupil Support

  1,282,329

  Special Educational Needs

  434,461

  Specialist Schools

  341,809

  Study Support

  284,029

  Supported Early Retirement Scheme for Heads

  40,000

  Teachers' Sabbaticals

  36,000

  Teaching Assistants

  1,118,490

  Teenage Pregnancies

  93,000

  Truancy Buster Awards

  8,000

  Year 6 Booster Classes

  261,114

  Year 9 Booster Classes

  76,500

  Total

  22,079,427

  1 Including Gifted and Talented Children, Learning Support Units and Learning Mentors

  Specialist Colleges
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have applied for specialist college status in the last six months. [28925]

  Mr. Timms
  The total number of schools that have applied for specialist college status in the last six months is 261.

  HIV
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what requirements there are for HIV prevention work to take place in(a) schools, (b) colleges and (c) universities. [28931]

  Mr. Timms
  Sex education, which must include teaching about HIV, AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, is compulsory in all maintained secondary schools. It is discretionary in primary schools. There are no requirements for HIV prevention work to take place in further or higher educational establishments.

  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who is responsible for funding HIV prevention work in(a) schools, (b) colleges and (c) universities. [28932]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government distribute funding to local authorities through formula assessed Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs). Local education authorities then distribute funding to the schools they maintain, enabling
  823W
  them to fulfil their statutory obligations. Local NHS funding could be used to fund or contribute to HIV prevention within schools, colleges and universities, for example in the production of information resources. Alternatively, schools, colleges and universities may choose to buy in or work with non-statutory local organisations.

  Leeds Schools
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many whole-time equivalent teachers were employed in Leeds schools in(a) 1997 and (b) 2001. [28976]

  Mr. Timms
  Full-time equivalent regular teachers in the maintained schools sector in Leeds were as follows:

  Number

  January 1997

  5,900

  January 2001

  6,040

  Teacher numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many environmental appraisals have been published by her Department since 1 January 2001; and if she will list the last four. [29048]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: None.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the last occasion was on which she requested an environmental appraisal before making a policy decision. [29049]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: The Department for Education and Skills has procedures in place to ensure that environmental appraisals take place when necessary. Examples of policy decisions which included appraisal of environmental impacts are: guidance to schools in England on energy and water management which Ministers aim to issue in spring 2002; obtaining accreditation in 2001 for environmental management of one of our headquarters sites to an international standard; and, in the school curriculum, the Growing Schools programme. This last initiative, launched in 2001, encourages teachers to use farming and growing to help pupils explore different aspects of sustainable development such as the effects of climate change, the life cycle of plants and animals, the values and traditions of rural communities, and the place of agriculture in today's economy.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what procedures her Department has to ensure environmental appraisals are undertaken prior to(a) administrative and (b) policy decisions being made. [29050]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: Administrative procedures are monitored by an inter-site facilities management working group. This is supported by our procurement policy, which includes guidance on including environmental considerations in whole-life purchasing decisions. On policy, our business planning
  824W
  process reminds policy officials to consider their policy impact on the environment in annual planning, which senior officials review at key points in the year.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans her Department has to appraise the environmental implications of its Spending Review submission to the Treasury.

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: As part of this Department's Spending Review submission to the Treasury we will, in common with other Departments, report on the sustainable development impact of our bids, including any environmental impact.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many officials from her Department have attended the Environmental Appraisal and Integration into Policy training course run by the Civil Service College. [29052]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: No officials from my Department attended the first of these courses. The course will run three times a year, and has been brought to the attention of my officials. Officials learn about environmental issues through on the job training and written guidance, as well as formal courses by the Civil Service and other training providers.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much(a) Staffordshire and (b) Hertfordshire spent on education as a percentage of SSA in each of the past five years. [29076]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Education as a percentage of SSA

  Year

  £

  Staffordshire

  1996–97

  102.0

  1997–98

  102.3

  1998–99

  101.3

  1999–2000

  101.1

  2000–01

  100.5

  Hertfordshire

  1996–97

  102.7

  1997–98

  101.8

  1998–199

  100.8

  1999–2000

  99.7

  2001–01

  100.1

  Note:

  1. Information is taken from data published in the 2001 and previous years' Departmental Annual Reports. Budget figures up to 1999–2000 were taken from local authorities' latest Revenue Account returns submitted to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and for 2000–01, from LEAs s52 Budget statements.

  2. From 1997–98 Staffordshire does not include Stoke-on-Trent

  Foreign Language Programmes
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the use of foreign language television and radio in(a) secondary school education and (b) post-secondary school education. [29095]
  825W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Foreign language broadcasts which have been carefully scripted with content, structure and language level appropriate to the target learners can be a valuable resource for teaching school pupils and older students. They can provide access to a range of authentic native speakers, up to date and topical materials, and opportunities for introducing cultural elements to language learning.

  Broadcasts aimed at the native-speaker audience which are accessed from abroad, normally require selection and mediation by a teacher to ensure suitable content, accessible language and effective use for learning purposes.

  Student Debts
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent assessment she has made of the extent to which the possibility of having incurred a debt upon graduation affects the numbers of people who attend university; and what plans she has to change the relative contributions of(a) students and (b) Government to higher education funding.

  Margaret Hodge
  Some research, such as that published by the Department in 2001 on "Issues Affecting Decisions on Participation by Lower Socio-Economic Groups" (SEGs), indicates that finance and concern about debt are factors which can deter people from going on to higher education. However, assessing the deterrent effect is difficult in the light of welcome increases in entry numbers. Final UCAS figures for autumn 2001 show that acceptances of English domiciled full-time higher education students are up by 5.9 per cent. compared to the same time last year, building on the rising trend of previous years. But as yet there is no evidence that the proportion of lower SEGs entering HE has increased significantly. Our review of student finance is considering both the student debt issue, particularly in relation to the lower socio-economic groups, and the relative contributions of students, parents and the Government to student support. We expect to make an announcement on the outcome later this year.

  Ofsted
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the findings of the recent Ofsted inspection into Gloucestershire local education authority. [29260]

  Mr. Timms
  My officials have discussed the report with the council's lead members and officers. I am assured that the authority recognises the weaknesses identified by Ofsted, and will be addressing the recommendations in the year ahead. I await the authority's post-Ofsted action plan, which will set out the action proposed.

  Teacher Shortages
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent assessment she has made of teacher shortages in Gloucestershire; what steps she is taking to improve the situation; and if she will make a statement. [29261]
  826W
  Mr. Timms
  Information on the number of teacher vacancies in local education authorities is collected once a year in January as part of the annual census of teachers and vacancies. In January 2001, the vacancy rate for Gloucestershire was 0.3 per cent. compared with 1.4 per cent. nationally. This amounts to a total of 14 vacancies across the maintained sector. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out our longer term proposals for teachers and teaching in a pamphlet, "Professionalism and Trust", published in November 2001.

  Grammar and Spelling Tests
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her policy is on grammar and spelling tests in(a) primary and (b) secondary education. [29302]

  Mr. Timms
  In order to make sense of what they read children need a clear awareness of grammar for both literal and inferential understanding, both of which are assessed in the reading tests at each key stage. At Key Stage 1 and 2 spelling is assessed by a separate test. At Key Stage 1 the outcome of the test is reported separately, while at Key Stage 2 it contributes to an overall level for writing. At Key Stage 3 spelling is an integral part of the judgment leading to an overall level for writing. Grammar is assessed within the context of pupils' writing at all key stages. Criteria for grammar that allow teachers and markers to make judgments about pupils' performance are integral to the mark schemes.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many answers to parliamentary questions have not been answered by her Department under exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in each year since 1994. [29414]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information available is shown in the table.

  Year

  Number

  1996–97

  3

  1997–98

  1

  1998–99

  4

  1999–2000

  2

  Prior to 1996 the information was not collected.

  Community Learning
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what is the spending per head of population on adult and community learning in(a) Worcestershire and (b) the West Midlands; what is the average spending per head in (i) the shire counties and (ii) England; and if she will make a statement. [26404]

  Mr. Healey
  The following is the average spend on adult education per adult (aged 19 and over):

  Worcestershire: £0.36

  West Midlands*: £2.78

  County Councils: £3.80

  England: £4.42

  827W
  *For the West Midlands Region. Figures calculated on the basis of the population 18-65. (Source: Audit Commission figures for 1999–2000.)

  These figures reflect decisions taken by individual local authorities on the nature and scale of adult and community learning (ACL) in their area. Since 1999–2000 all areas including Worcestershire have benefited from significant increases in funding. In 2002–03 we will be providing a record £167 million for ACL in England, a 9 per cent. increase in recurrent funding for adult education on 200102. Since April 2001 responsibility for adult and community learning has rested with the Learning and Skills Council. One of the objectives behind this change in responsibilities is over time to reduce inequalities in opportunities between areas.

  Net institutional expenditure1

  £ million

  London authorities

  All sectors

  LEA name

  LEA no.

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  City of London

  201

  0.457

  0.616

  0.711

  0.733

  0.761

  0.808

  0.830

  0.797

  0.855

  0.949

  Camden

  202

  45.457

  52.452

  53.300

  51.394

  50.328

  53.280

  56.664

  57.310

  58.500

  72.210

  Greenwich

  203

  78.867

  78.255

  85.843

  83.782

  87.994

  90.972

  93.758

  87.796

  96.735

  109.433

  Hackney

  204

  55.790

  62.233

  63.317

  57.181

  66.951

  64.959

  66.288

  68.743

  70.663

  81.482

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  205

  37.264

  38.810

  41.915

  43.281

  43.294

  42.879

  44.203

  45.983

  47.374

  55.246

  Islington

  206

  45.795

  61.737

  75.272

  68.639

  55.063

  61.704

  61.675

  65.165

  65.323

  67.182

  Kensington and Chelsea

  207

  23.424

  27.869

  25.236

  25.239

  24.699

  27.099

  26.479

  27.881

  28.807

  34.967

  Lambeth

  208

  57.424

  65.382

  68.624

  69.624

  63.629

  60.189

  56.362

  64.542

  63.565

  92.356

  Lewisham

  209

  65.517

  68.233

  65.033

  72.597

  74.904

  80.350

  80.578

  90.030

  93.794

  107.164

  Southwark

  210

  64.814

  65.988

  66.224

  59.549

  61.919

  68.458

  70.382

  73.393

  80.902

  105.177

  Tower Hamlets

  211

  69.583

  79.720

  84.052

  96.829

  95.239

  99.152

  104.346

  102.995

  110.154

  125.519

  Wandsworth

  212

  65.671

  73.924

  67.513

  54.490

  55.076

  54.506

  49.255

  50.343

  53.413

  90.383

  Westminster

  213

  34.185

  52.072

  44.889

  45.636

  45.608

  46.574

  49.295

  49.686

  53.011

  54.171

  Barking and Dagenham

  301

  42.632

  45.810

  50.196

  51.444

  55.179

  58.364

  61.674

  62.652

  69.252

  74.408

  Barnet

  302

  69.253

  79.162

  90.885

  83.599

  66.345

  68.799

  73.678

  74.283

  78.312

  126.585

  Bexley

  303

  51.545

  56.351

  57.978

  59.756

  56.434

  58.330

  61.781

  64.175

  70.925

  86.209

  Brent

  304

  59.098

  64.424

  67.128

  51.972

  45.151

  45.152

  47.351

  51.575

  55.738

  105.460

  Bromley

  305

  61.423

  59.857

  53.196

  50.180

  51.215

  47.047

  42.582

  43.776

  48.168

  108.076

  Croydon

  306

  69.349

  78.298

  83.105

  78.762

  68.111

  76.522

  79.009

  79.640

  84.937

  118.172

  Ealing

  307

  76.826

  79.802

  70.017

  68.895

  69.944

  71.799

  74.338

  75.745

  81.036

  108.799

  Enfield

  308

  66.894

  78.218

  83.569

  79.795

  74.649

  77.335

  84.951

  87.727

  94.540

  119.979

  Haringey

  309

  56.588

  61.198

  66.749

  75.059

  77.838

  82.195

  87.263

  88.067

  91.712

  96.460

  Harrow

  310

  47.399

  52.058

  58.719

  57.319

  62.193

  64.302

  67.205

  66.538

  69.757

  75.762

  Havering

  311

  56.957

  62.829

  69.007

  61.451

  64.297

  65.078

  66.123

  67.812

  70.998

  86.336

  Hillingdon

  312

  57.856

  54.832

  50.422

  42.060

  38.617

  40.609

  42.035

  41.072

  42.528

  98.818

  Hounslow

  313

  56.593

  62.483

  71.891

  70.047

  72.494

  73.523

  77.119

  77.458

  83.255

  94.208

  Kingston upon Thames

  314

  30.942

  34.493

  37.406

  31.503

  31.903

  31.841

  32.422

  31.560

  33.985

  48.316

  Merton

  315

  39.133

  42.586

  48.938

  46.024

  48.242

  46.783

  48.604

  49.516

  51.652

  59.060

  Newham

  316

  67.077

  74.398

  82.244

  81.463

  87.535

  90.663

  102.744

  102.969

  106.445

  119.340

  Redbridge

  317

  52.732

  60.647

  68.704

  72.055

  74.107

  77.169

  81.436

  83.533

  90.317

  103.514

  Richmond upon Thames

  318

  28.811

  32.416

  36.249

  37.091

  39.573

  40.818

  41.977

  43.524

  44.938

  46.781

  Sutton

  319

  37.152

  38.980

  36.405

  32.337

  36.787

  37.090

  39.089

  40.433

  44.144

  67.998

  Waltham Forest

  320

  65.673

  67.816

  67.467

  68.529

  65.281

  74.027

  73.812

  76.509

  80.809

  97.962

  1 Total funding on schools is given by Net Institutional Expenditure which covers all school-based recurrent spending, including teaching and non-teaching staff salaries, school premises costs, equipment and supplies, and unspent balances held by schools at the year end. It excludes spending on special schools, central administration and support services such as transport and school meals as well as capital expenditure.

  NIE includes school balances for most years. However, balance information was not available for some previous years, and in some cases for special schools. Therefore, NIE figures across the series may not be strictly comparable.

  Expenditure data for 1990–01 to 1998–99 inclusive are taken from ROI returns; data for 1999–2000 taken from local authorities' S52 outturn statements.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prosecution (Official Secrets)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been begun in each year since 1972 under Official Secrets legislation; and what the outcome was in each case. [28631]

  Schools Spending
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what has been the total spending on schools in each London borough in each of the last 10 years. [28177]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is contained in the table. Expenditure in running these authorities was affected by schools becoming grant-maintained during the early part of this period, and by the return of grant-maintained schools to LEA-maintained status in 1999–2000.

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The available information, from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, relating to England and Wales for the years 1979 to 2000 is shown in the table. This covers proceedings under the Official Secrets Act 1911 and 1989 and tabulates the outcomes of cases completed in the years shown by category.

  It is no longer possible, from the data held centrally, to identify court proceedings for such legislation prior to 1979, nor is it possible to identify summary offences under the Official Secrets Act 1920.
  829W

  Persons proceeded against for offences under the Official Secrets Acts, by outcome, England and Wales 1979 to 2000

  Type of sentence

  Proceeded against

  Withdrawn, dismissed acquitted

  Found guilty and sentenced1

  Fine

  Community service order

  Partly sentence

  Fully suspended sentence

  Immediate custody

  1979

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1980

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1981

  4

  —

  3

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1982

  8

  —

  7

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5

  1983

  4

  —

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1984

  13

  1

  5

  3

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1985

  3

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  —

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1987

  3

  1

  4

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1988

  11

  3

  3

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  1989

  —

  —

  8

  —

  —

  —

  8

  —

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1991

  5

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1992

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1997

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1998

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1999

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2000

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Persons shown as found guilty may have been proceeded against in earlier years. In some cases a Voluntary Bill of Indictment was issued, so no magistrates' court proceedings will have taken place.

  Government Technical Assistance Centre
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of the Government Technical Assistance Centre; and what(a) its budget and (b) establishment are in the current financial year. [28640]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The role of the Government Technical Assistance Centre, now known as the National Technical Assistance Centre (NTAC), is to provide assistance to the investigations of United Kingdom intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

  It will do so by providing techniques for lawful interception of Modern multimedia communications and by processing those lawfully intercepted communications in order to provide intelligible material to the intercepting agencies. NTAC also provides techniques to derive intelligible evidence from lawfully seized computer data.

  NTAC was established in response to the 1999 Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit report "Encryption and Law Enforcement". It is a Unit within the Home Office and operates from the headquarters of the Security Services.

  NTAC is not an investigative facility. Its function is to process lawfully acquired data on behalf of its customers so that such data may be made intelligible and then acted upon by investigators within the relevant customer agency.

  Since the summer of 2001 NTAC has been operational in its role in respect of lawfully seized computer data. It plans to commence operational work in respect of lawfully intercepted communications in summer 2002.
  830W
  Budget 2001–02:

  The NTAC budget for 2001–02 is £16 million. Of this, £1 million is Running Cost provision and £15 million is capital provision from an overall three-year Capital Modernisation Fund (CMF) allocation of £25 million. The purpose of the CMF moneys is to establish the technical facilities necessary for NTAC to undertake its operational role.

  Establishment 2001–02:

  The current (January 2002) operational establishment of NTAC is 16 and will rise to 18 by the end of the current financial year. This includes senior management, operational and support staff. The establishment will rise further as new operational capabilities come on stream.

  NTAC also runs a technical programme which is developing its technical facilities. This currently comprises 14 staff and will disband when NTAC is fully operational.

  Surveillance
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what controls exist to regulate the monitoring of the location of individuals through signals sent by mobile phones. [28327]

  Mr. Denham
  Communications data, including location data, may be supplied voluntarily for specified purposes (e.g. investigation of crime) under the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Telecommunications Act 1984. It may additionally be supplied in obedience to Court Orders.

  A new regulatory regime will be provided by Chapter II of Part I of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This will be brought into force in due course.
  831W
  Under Chapter II, an authorising officer must consider that the communications data are necessary for one of the purposes specified by the Act and that the conduct involved in obtaining them is proportionate to what it seeks to achieve.

  Access to communications data will be subject to oversight by the Interception Commissioner.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been

  Description of the item

  Value (£)

  Analysis of 30 items of reported theft in 1997–98

  Laptop computer

  6,000

  Laptop computer

  3,000

  Laptop computer

  3,000

  Laptop computer

  3,000

  Laptop computer

  3,000

  Laptop computer

  2,000

  Laptop computer

  2,000

  Laptop computer

  1,500

  Laptop computer

  1,500

  Personal computer

  1,550

  Personal computer

  1,005

  Personal computer

  434

  Computer printer

  1,593

  Computer printer

  329

  Computer monitor

  500

  Computer keyboard

  40

  Computer mouse

  22

  Computer mother board

  150

  Fax modem

  130

  Mobile phone

  118

  Video camera

  1,500

  Video camera

  800

  Video

  300

  Tools

  500

  Tools

  131

  Field gates

  240

  Pressure Washer

  3,317

  Armoured cable

  200

  Desk fan

  41

  Desk fan

  40

  Total value of 30 cases of theft

  37,490

  Analysis of 15 cases of reported theft 1998–99

  VCR taken from classroom—HMP

  98

  Missing video recorded and four blank videos HMP

  106

  Missing telephone/answering machine from Cleland House—HMP

  25

  IT equipment missing—HMP

  0

  Theft of laptop containing inmate records during course—HMP

  69

  Loss of computer discs and equipment—HMP

  800

  Loss of computer discs from Education Department—HMP

  992

  Break-in at FSS outstation

  3,150

  Missing IT equipment—HMP

  33,773

  Theft of various computer items after break-in at Salford—DPAS

  Not known

  Handheld computer stolen from car—HMP

  400

  Theft of laptops from storeroom—HMP

  20,421

  Stolen memory from laptop—FSC

  0

  Theft of hired video recorder—HMP

  80

  Theft of Camcorder—HMP

  399

  Total value of 15 cases of theft

  60,313

  Analysis of four cases of reported theft 1999–2000

  Computer keyboard stolen from office in QAG

  80

  Theft of computer equipment from Grenadier House

  16,500

  Theft of 25 PCs, servers and equipment from Quest House

  11,000

  Theft of components from sun server from Quest House

  74,000

  Total value of 4 cases of theft

  20,580

  832W
  initiated under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; what the outcome was in each case; and if he will make a statement. [28634]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  None.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what equipment has been stolen from his Department since 1 May 1997; and what the approximate value of each item was. [26838]

  Angela Eagle
  A list of equipment stolen from my Department in the last four years and approximate value of each item stolen is provided in the following tables.
  833W

  Description of the item

  Value (£)

  Analysis of 25 cases of reported theft 2000–01

  Theft of 7 laptops

  31,000

  Theft of IT equipment

  100

  Theft of 2 Home Office computers from ICL premises

  6,000

  Theft of computer parts

  4,000

  Laptop and projector stolen on away day

  8,000

  Video player stolen from locked room

  100

  Theft of modem linking franking machine to supplier

  180

  Eternet card discovered to be missing from laptop PC

  80

  Laptop stolen in house burglary

  1,200

  HMPS—Laptop computer unlocatable

  1,000

  HMPS—Laptop computer taken from locked cabinet

  229

  HMPS—Theft of pressure washer

  125

  HMPS—Dictation machine gone missing

  377

  HMPS—Theft of laptop computer (mugging)

  2,000

  HMPS—Bicycle stolen from outside prisoner's place of work

  89

  HMPS—A Hewlett-Packard laser jet printer stolen

  1,085

  HMPS—Theft of laptop, printer and mobile phone

  73

  HMPS—Theft of two video cassettes

  128

  HMPS—Theft of industrial hoover

  200

  HMPS—Prison Service employee house burgled—computer and printer stolen

  2,650

  HMPS—Prison Service issue laptop stolen from boot of car

  1,000

  HMPS—Training and development unit burgled

  5,000

  HMPS—Theft of 3 canteen bags

  39

  HMPS—Theft of portable generator

  340

  HMFSI—Disappearance of 4 laptops from locked room

  9,000

  Total value of 25 cases of theft

  73,995

  Asylum Seekers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum-seekers are receiving(a) accommodation and subsistence support and (b) subsistence support only from the National Asylum Support Service. [28779]

  Angela Eagle
  As at the end of September 2001 the number of asylum seekers (including dependants) supported in National Asylum Support Service (NASS) accommodation was 32,8901,2. A further 19,9001,2 asylum seekers (including dependants) were receiving voucher only support from NASS.

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 10.

  2 Cases which have had their support ceased are excluded from these figures.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to produce guidelines for the protection of women seeking asylum based on the Immigration Appellate Authority's adopted comprehensive gender guidelines. [28073]

  Angela Eagle
  We have not identified a need to issue separate guidance on dealing with women asylum seekers. However, in 2000 we reviewed our instructions to asylum caseworkers and incorporated some of the suggestions and principles contained in the guidelines produced by the Refugee Women's Legal Group.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people claimed asylum from(a) Zimbabwe, (b) Afghanistan, (c) Macedonia, (d) Yugoslavia and (e) Pakistan in each month since January 2000; and how many have (a) been accepted, (b) had their applications rejected, (c) returned to their country of origin and (d) are yet to have their application resolved; [28237]
  834W
  (2) how many people claimed asylum in the United Kingdom each month since January 2000; and how many have (a) been accepted, (b) had their applications rejected, (c) returned to their country of origin and (d) yet to have their application resolved. [28238]

  Angela Eagle
  The number of applications lodged in the United Kingdom between January 2000 and September 2001, both in total and by nationals of the requested countries, is shown in Table 1. Information on the decision outcomes and removals relating to these applications is not readily available.

  The number of asylum and exceptional leave to remain (ELR) grants made to nationals of the requested countries, and in total, and the number of applications refused are shown in Table 2. However, these initial decisions do not all relate to applications made in the same period. A proportion of applications which received an initial refusal result in an appeal being lodged.

  Between January 2000 and September 2001, 15,810 principal asylum applicants (to the nearest five) were removed from the United Kingdom, including persons departing 'voluntarily' after enforcement action had been initiated against them and persons leaving under assisted voluntary returns programmes. This figure excludes 570 dependants of asylum seekers who departed during the period April to September 2001. Comparable information on the numbers of Zimbabwean, Afghan, Macedonian, Yugoslavian and Pakistani asylum seekers removed over the same period is not available.

  The number of applicants who have applied for asylum since 1 January 2000 and are currently awaiting an initial decision on their asylum application, and the number awaiting the outcome of appeal determinations, is not available, and would be available only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case files.
  835W
  Information on asylum applications, initial decisions and removals are published quarterly. The next publication will be available from 28 February

  Table 1: Applications1,2,3 received for asylum in the United Kingdom from selected nationalities, excluding dependents, January 2000 to September 2001

  Number of principal applicants

  Afghanistan

  Zimbabwe

  Pakistan

  FRY4

  Macedonia

  Other nationalities

  Total

  January

  315

  30

  335

  895

  5

  4,530

  6,110

  February

  460

  50

  225

  780

  5

  4,590

  6,110

  March

  365

  75

  305

  545

  5

  5,390

  6,680

  April

  510

  55

  315

  380

  5

  5,595

  6,855

  May

  430

  85

  310

  450

  10

  5,435

  6,725

  June

  395

  115

  260

  590

  10

  5,175

  6,545

  July

  405

  75

  265

  475

  5

  5,645

  6,870

  August

  495

  70

  220

  410

  *

  5,570

  6,770

  September

  535

  90

  215

  395

  5

  5,555

  6,790

  October

  560

  90

  230

  485

  10

  5,860

  7,230

  November

  550

  130

  250

  405

  5

  6,155

  7,500

  December

  535

  150

  230

  250

  5

  4,960

  6,125

  January

  510

  125

  215

  270

  *

  5,260

  6,380

  February

  615

  125

  170

  375

  *

  4,235

  5,520

  March

  680

  145

  175

  330

  15

  4,470

  5,815

  April

  700

  110

  220

  375

  25

  3,570

  5,000

  May

  900

  130

  180

  200

  30

  3,855

  5,290

  June

  910

  115

  235

  160

  25

  3,855

  5,300

  July

  825

  145

  300

  165

  125

  4,560

  6,125

  August

  930

  150

  265

  285

  140

  4,905

  6,670

  September

  745

  190

  225

  175

  125

  4,600

  6,060

  Total

  12,365

  2,235

  5,155

  8,400

  550

  103,765

  132,470

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5 with * = 1 or 2.

  2 May exclude some cases lodged at local enforcement offices between January and March 2000.

  3 Provisional figures.

  4 The Former Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) is comprised of Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro but the majority of FRY applications are thought to be from Kosovars.

  Table 2: Initial decisions1,2,3,4 made on application form selected nationalities, January 2000 to September 2001

  Number of principal applicants

  Zimbabwe

  Afghanistan

  Macedonia

  FRY

  Pakistan

  Other nationalities

  Total

  Total initial decisions

  2,035

  12,245

  405

  24,285

  8,200

  159,010

  206,180

  of which considered under normal procedures

  Granted asylum

  85

  2,315

  *

  500

  265

  15,995

  19,160

  Granted ELR

  40

  6,310

  45

  2,335

  220

  17,605

  26,555

  Refused

  1,865

  3,615

  355

  21,245

  6,965

  114,760

  148,810

  of which considered under backlog clearance exercise5

  Granted asylum or ELR under backlog criteria

  35

  10

  5

  165

  685

  9,425

  10,325

  Refused under backlog criteria

  5

  *

  *

  35

  65

  1,225

  1,335

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5 with * = 1 or 2.

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

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

  4 Provisional figures.

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

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people claimed asylum in the United Kingdom each month since January 2000(a) having apparently arrived via another EU country, (b) having apparently arrived via a safe country outside the EU and (c) having apparently arrived direct from their country of origin; and how many have (i) been accepted, (ii) had their applications rejected, (iii) returned to their country of origin and (iv) yet to have their application resolved. [282391]
  836W
  2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Angela Eagle
  I regret that reliable information on the entry routes of asylum seekers from their country of origin to the United Kingdom is not available. In 2000 more than two thirds of applications (68 per cent.) were made in-country (that is by people who had already entered the United Kingdom).

  Information on asylum applications, initial decisions and removals are published quarterly. The next publication will be available from 28 February 2002 on the Home Office

  837W
  Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Civilian Casework Officers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of civilian casework officers in the police force to help reduce the paperwork of police officers; and what plans there are to increase their numbers. [13501]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 12 November 2001]: While recruitment is a matter for individual chief officers, we are committed to encouraging broader use of support staff to handle the paperwork involved in case preparation. The recently published "Diary of a Police Officer" found that police officers were spending almost as much time in the police station as they were on the street. A large part of this problem results from paperwork and changes are needed to enable officers to focus on delivering policing. The requirement for additional powers to enable support staff to deal with more of this work is being considered as part of the police reform programme.

  In the White Paper "Policing a New Century", published on 5 December 2001, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced that he was setting up a task force, chaired by Sir David O'Dowd, to consider how to take forward the recommendations in "Diary of a Police Officer", and other relevant reports, in order to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens on the police.

  Essex Constabulary
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers from the Essex constabulary are seconded to metropolitan London. [28422]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 18 January 2002]: I understand from the chief constable of Essex police that there are no officers from Essex police on secondment to the Metropolitan police.

  Police Salaries
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the starting salary is for police officers in(a) London and (b) the rest of the UK; after how long a new police officer will receive a pay rise; and if he will make a statement on police pay with special reference to rises they have had since 1997, and pay rises they will receive. [27672]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 18 January 2002]: A police officer will earn £17,733 on recruitment, rising to £19,842 upon completion of initial training, which is generally after 32 weeks. Police officers in London, who joined after 1 September 1994 and who are not in receipt of housing allowance, receive an additional London allowance of £4,338 plus London weighting of £1,773.

  Police pay is increased annually by reference to the median percentage of the manpower index of non-manual private sector workers. In 1997 the increase was 3.5 per cent, in 1998, 4 per cent, in 1999, 3.6 per cent, in 2000, 3 per cent. and in 2001, 3.5 per cent.

  Police officers progress up their pay scales by annual increments until they reach the top of their scale.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the public service agreement target for the average staff cost per investigation where an irregularity is corrected was achieved by March 2001. [21289]

  Angela Eagle
  There has been no such public service agreement target for the Home Office.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for departmental efficiency. [16914]

  Angela Eagle
  The Home Office has a Public Service Agreement (PSA) commitment to deliver 3 per cent. per annum running costs gains in each of the years, 1999–2002.

  This target has been successfully delivered in both 1999–2000 and 2000–01, and work is under way to achieve the current year target.

  Community Service
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had concerning the introduction of compulsory community service for young people. [15014]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has had no such discussions recently. The Home Office is currently considering how young people, particularly those not in further education or employment, might participate more in community based activities. This may include participation in the development of millennium volunteers, the participative content of the citizenship and democracy programme in schools, the development of such programmes in further education and the opportunities for volunteering and community support offered by the Experience Corps.

  Crime (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the proportion of violent crime and burglary associated with drug addiction; and what plans he has to tackle this problem(a) in Coventry and (b) in the UK. [28884]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: While there is strong evidence to show a relationship between drug misuse and acquisitive crime, the current research is insufficiently advanced to reveal a precise link with individual types of crime. Work is on-going in this area through, for example, the new English and Welsh Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring programme of interviewing and testing arrestees in eight locations.

  We have in place a number of initiatives aimed at diverting drug misusers away from crime and into treatment. These include interventions such as arrest referral, drug treatment and testing orders, and the piloting of drug testing at various points in the criminal justice system under the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. In the current financial year we also launched the Communities Against Drugs

  839W
  Programme (CAD) with £220 million of central Government funding aimed at tackling drug markets and other drug-related crime at local level.

  Security Service
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will give individuals who obtain access to their Security Service files the right to challenge perceived inaccuracies in those files; [28032]

  (2) whether an individual requesting access to his Security Service file will (a) be granted access to all the contents of his or her file other than any items which would involve harm to national security or (b) be denied access to his or her entire file if some, but not all, of its contents would involve harm to national security if disclosed; [28034]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the average time which will be taken to furnish an individual who has requested access to their Security Service file with the contents of that file; [28037]

  (4) whether it will be considered to be in the national interest for the Security Service to be obliged to disclose discontinued files on Government Ministers to those individuals while they remain in their posts; [28029]

  (5) whether discontinued Security Service files on the (a) Deputy Prime Minister, (b) Foreign Secretary and (c) right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) will be released if requested by those individuals; [28028]

  (6) what advice he has been given about the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 on access by individuals to files on them compiled by the Security Service; [28033]

  (7) if it is his intention to impose charges on individuals who request access to their Security Service files; [28036]

  (8) what overall assessment he has made of the effect on the security of the Security Service of enabling individuals to have access to their Security Service files; [28038]

  (9) what personnel will be allocated by the Security Service for the processing of applications by individuals to see their Security Service files; [28035]

  (10) if he will make a statement on access by individuals to files about their activities compiled by the Security Service, with special reference to his placing a certificate relating to this in the Library; and what criteria will be applied in determining whether the release of a Security Service file on an individual to that individual will harm national security. [28027]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Security Service complies with the Data Protection Act 1998.

  Section 7 of the Act creates a general entitlement for an individual to ask and be told whether personal data on them is being processed and if it is, be told certain information about that data. However, the Act also provides at section 28 an exemption on grounds of safeguarding national security that applies, among other provisions, to section 7.
  840W
  As I stated in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on 19 December 2001, Official Report, column 492W, I have signed, at the request of the Security Service, a new certificate describing in general terms the personal data that the Security Service may process that requires exemption under the Act under section 28. A copy of that certificate, with the public reasons for my signing it, was placed in the Library. I have placed a condition on the Security Service to report to me on their use of the certificate.

  Anyone can make a subject access application to the Security Service, including Government Ministers. The Security Service will seek to respond as quickly as reasonably possible.

  Without anticipating the outcome of any such application, one of the Security Service's statutory functions is protecting national security. In perhaps the great majority of cases the service will need to rely on the section 28 exemption to avoid damage to national security. That will include use of the long established "neither confirm nor deny" approach—an approach acknowledged by the national security panel of the Information Tribunal. In response to a subject access application, the service will, consistent with section 28, consider whether the neither confirm nor deny approach needs to be followed and, if not, to what extent the withholding of all or some information is still necessary to safeguard national security.

  The Director General of the Security Service has informed me that he is keeping under review the resources required. In line with the Act, the service charges a £10 subject access application-handling fee.

  The Data Protection Act 1998 is compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998.

  Police Officers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have left the(a) Metropolitan police, (b) West Midlands and (c) Greater Manchester police, in each month in each of the last three years for which figures are available; how many and what proportion (i) resigned, (ii) retired, (iii) transferred to another force and (iv) were dismissed; and if he will make a statement. [27842]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: The information requested was not collected centrally on a monthly basis. Information on the categories of wastage requested is collected once a year by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and is set out in the tables.

  (a) Metropolitan Police

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Resigned1

  337

  365

  435

  Retired

  1,100

  838

  676

  Transferred to another force

  234

  244

  382

  Dismissed2

  60

  45

  31

  Deaths

  19

  16

  12

  1 Retirements includes officers retiring on medical grounds

  2 Dismissals include officers required to resign

  841W

  (b) West Midlands Police

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Resigned1

  76

  86

  101

  Retired

  203

  181

  171

  Transferred to another force

  47

  42

  59

  Dismissed2

  17

  5

  9

  Deaths

  0

  9

  2

  1 Retirements includes officers retiring on medical grounds

  2 Dismissals include officers required to resign

  (c) Greater Manchester Police

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Resigned1

  44

  41

  57

  Retired

  282

  235

  238

  Transferred to another force

  13

  15

  28

  Dismissed2

  13

  13

  4

  Deaths

  7

  7

  3

  1 Retirements includes officers retiring on medical grounds

  2 Dismissals include officers required to resign.

  Prison Sentences
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison sentences of five years and more were handed down in(a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001. [27894]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information held centrally on the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, relating to England and Wales, shows that 3,823 persons were sentenced to immediate custody for five years or over in 1998, 4,009 in 1999 and 4,033 in 2000.

  Statistics for 2001 are not yet available.

  Rape
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the attrition rates for reported rape offences in the last 15 years are compiled on the same basis in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in terms of the proportion of cases(a) prosecuted and (b) resulting in a conviction for rape. [27861]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I understand that neither the Scottish Executive nor the Northern Ireland Office produce attrition rates for rape offences. My officials have contacted officials in the Scottish Executive and in the Northern Ireland Office and our understanding is that were they to produce attrition rates, they would be compiled on much the same basis as those produced for England and Wales.

  The number of offences recorded and detected by the police together with the number of offenders convicted or cautioned (although in Scotland a caution is a sanction following a charge being proved in court) would be directly comparable, to the extent that each country uses its own principal offence rule for statistical purposes where offenders are convicted of more than one type of offence at the same time.

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years. [27985]
  842W
  Angela Eagle
  The estimated costs of losses to the Home Office, its agencies and non-departmental public (NDPB) bodies through theft and fraud are set out in the table.

  Fraud and thefts

  £000

  Home Office

  Agencies

  NDPB's

  Total

  Accounting period

  1997–98

  —

  —

  —

  1113

  1998–99

  3.8

  114.4

  70.1

  188.3

  1999–2000

  204.3

  165.4

  0.0

  369.7

  2000–01

  79.8

  84.4

  0.0

  164.2

  1Analysis between Home Office, executive agencies and non-departmental bodies cannot be provided.

  Note:

  Cumulative total for 1997–2001 is £835.2 million.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by his Department in each of the last four years. [27967]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department does not maintain central records of the cost of every building refurbishment project carried out by the Department including its Executive Agencies and to provide the information requested would be at disproportionate cost. However, in central London and Croydon, the approximate position over the last three years is as follows:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  6.7

  2000–2001

  35.2

  2001–01

  111.5

  1Up to end of November 2001.

  I would also refer to the response given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 23 October 2001, Official Report, column 218W.

  Immigration
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications from(a) long stay and (b) indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom there were from (i) wives of UK men and (ii) husbands of UK women as at 31 December 2001. [28025]

  Angela Eagle
  I regret that information on individual types of cases undecided cannot be determined.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of time was taken to process the application of a wife of a UK citizen who has been married for over 12 months and living in the UK, over the most recent 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [28026]

  Angela Eagle
  We do not routinely publish average processing times for individual types of application. We aim to decide all straightforward applications within three weeks, but at present it is taking up to eight weeks due to the exceptionally high number of applications received in 2001, especially in recent months, and process changes
  843W
  which are being introduced to improve our longer term performance. We are working to reduce this to three weeks as soon as possible.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of breached antisocial behaviour orders resulted in a custodial sentence in Staffordshire in 2001; [26926]

  (2) how many antisocial behaviour orders were breached in Staffordshire in 2001. [26927]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on court proceedings for 2001 will not be available until the autumn.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Metropolitan police recruits were undertaking the 18 weeks training and 10 weeks street duty course during each of the previous 24 months. [26942]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has provided the following figures for Metropolitan police service recruits undertaking the 18-week training course at Hendon during each of the previous 24 months. The figures include a small number of experienced officers rejoining the service who undertake a two-week refresher course.

  Year/month

  Number in training school

  1999–2000

  December

  316

  January

  409

  February

  357

  March

  325

  April

  412

  May

  324

  June

  368

  July

  384

  August

  277

  September

  275

  October

  394

  November

  441

  December

  494

  2001

  January

  576

  February

  458

  March

  652

  April

  689

  May

  783

  June

  830

  July

  833

  August

  913

  September

  685

  October

  709

  November

  940

  December

  993

  Street duty courses are run locally on each of the 32 boroughs. The numbers undertaking this course are not recorded centrally and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Football
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he takes to monitor football players and club officials travelling overseas for matches; and if he will make a statement. [27169]
  844W
  Mr. Denham
  This is a matter for the football authorities and their specialist security advisers. The Government are kept informed and liaise with them regularly.

  Road Accidents (Breath Tests)
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidance he issues to police officers on breathalysing drivers immediately following a road accident in which there is fatality or serious injury; and if it is normal practice to breathalyse drivers in these circumstances; [26720]

  (2) if he will ensure that it becomes normal practice for police officers to breathalyse drivers immediately following a road accident in which there was a fatality or serious injury. [26719]

  Mr. Denham
  It is the policy of the Association of Chief Police Officers that all drivers of vehicles involved in a collision where police attend should be breath-tested. This has been the position since 1996. I am satisfied that the policy is applied appropriately by all police forces.

  Police Numbers (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the number of police officers serving in rural areas. [26963]

  Mr. Denham
  The allocation of resources to rural areas is a matter for individual chief constables. This Government responded positively to the outcome of independent research into the policing of sparsely populated areas by the creation of the Rural Policing Fund to direct extra resources to rural forces.

  In 2000–01 £15 million was allocated to 31 forces with more sparsely populated areas. In 2001–02 this was increased to a full-year allocation of £30 million. We are making available a further £30 million in 2002–03 to the same forces. Essex police benefit from the Rural Policing Fund and were allocated £503,710 in 2001–02. They will receive the same in 2002–03. It is for chief constables to determine how this money should be used to improve the policing of rural areas.

  In addition the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) is enabling all forces to take on a total of 9,000 extra recruits, over and above their previous recruitment plans for the three years to March 2003. Essex police has been allocated 197 CFF recruits over the three years.

  Police Houses
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what right to buy would be enjoyed by a serving Metropolitan police officer with a secure tenancy of a police house since July 2000, with non-secure tenancies from 1995 to 2000 and with a wife who was previously a long-term local authority secure tenant. [26952]

  Mr. Denham
  Those Metropolitan police service tenants who became secure tenants as a result of the changes to the Housing Act 1985 made in the Greater London Authority Act 1999, would not normally be eligible for a right to buy until July 2002.
  845W
  From the details provided, it is not possible to establish precisely the impact of a spouse who was previously a long-term local authority secure tenant.

  Police Numbers (Thames Valley)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were serving in the Thames Valley police force on 1 January(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002. [27151]

  Mr. Denham
  Figures are not collected for police strength at 1 January. Figures for police strength at 31 December in the years 1999 to 2001 have been provided by the Chief Constable of Thames Valley police. The force is unable to provide information for the position on 31 December in the years 1996 to 1998. For these years the table shows strength figures at 30 September provided in statistical returns to the Home Office.

  Year and month

  Number of officers

  30 September 1996

  3,682

  30 September 1997

  3,705

  30 September 1998

  3,790

  31 December 1999

  3,732

  31 December 2000

  3,750

  31 December 2001

  3,763

  Departmental Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will commission and publish an independent report on the reasons for the level of sickness absence in his Department. [26969]

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

  The Home Office and its agencies have introduced new guidelines, policies and procedures with a view to meeting its target to reducing sickness absence, published in its Service Delivery Agreements for April 2001 to March 2004.

  Newspaper Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the expenditure of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title in each year since 1997. [26984]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Each campaign may use national and regional media. The target audience and information to be conveyed influences the choice of media used. For national campaigns a mix of broadsheets and tabloids is frequently used. For regional advertising, space has been taken in many prominent regional newspapers as well as local papers.

  A breakdown of expenditure on newspaper advertising by title could be supplied only at disproportionate costs. Figures for Home Office expenditure on advertising were
  846W
  given in response to a question from the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) on 19 December 2001, Official Report, column 478W.

  Police Paperwork
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce paperwork for police officers. [28476]

  Mr. Denham
  On 1 November 2001, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published PA Consulting's study "Diary of a Police Officer" which had considered what more could be done to free police officers from the unnecessary paperwork and other obstacles which prevent them from spending more time in public.

  In the White Paper "Policing a new century" (CM 5326), published on 5 December 2001, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced that he was setting up a taskforce, chaired by Sir David O'Dowd, to consider how to take forward the recommendations in this, and other, relevant reports, in order to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens on the police.

  Drug Offences (Uxbridge)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug-related offences were committed in the Uxbridge constituency in each of the last five years. [28535]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Recorded crime figures include statistics on drugs offences, such as possession, but do not record whether other offences are related to offenders' drug habits. Furthermore, the information that is collected on the number of drug offences is only available for the Metropolitan police force area as a whole and would therefore not be a useful guide to the number of drug offences in Uxbridge.

  The NEW-ADAM research programme of interviewing and drug testing those arrested by the police sheds some light on the links between drugs and crime, although again the conclusions do not relate specifically to Uxbridge. Research so far, based on eight locations in 1999–2000, indicates that more than three-fifths (by value) of acquisitive crime is committed by users of both heroin and cocaine/crack.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what recent discussions his Department has had with other EU Governments about the list of aggravating circumstances relating to drug trafficking; [28377]

  (2) what recent discussions his Department has had with EU Governments regarding the minimum and maximum sentence tariffs for drug trafficking offences. [28376]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  On 23 May 2001 the European Commission published a draft European Council Framework Decision laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking. It sets out proposals for common minimum, maximum sentence tariffs as well as common aggravating circumstances for drug trafficking offences. The proposal is currently being discussed at
  847W
  official level in the European Union Council working groups responsible for drugs and criminal law. Home Office officials are represented on these working groups.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions his Department has had with Turkey regarding drug control measures. [28378]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government have developed close co-operation with Turkey at an operational level because it is a key country on the supply route of heroin to the United Kingdom. In addition between 1994 and 1999 we provided over £1 million for anti-drugs assistance, mainly in the form of training, and we expect to provide up to £300,000 for training and equipment in 2001–02.

  Police Numbers (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there are in Portsmouth, South; how many are from ethnic minorities; and if he will make a statement. [24943]

  Mr. Denham
  The deployment of officers within the Hampshire Constabulary is an operational a matter for the chief constable.

  I am told by the chief constable that the Portsmouth division had 399 police officers on 31 December 2001, of whom eight (2 per cent.) were from minority ethnic communities.

  It is not possible to provide figures for the Portsmouth, South constituency as it is an integral part of the Portsmouth division and officers will be deployed around the division in response to need.

  Graffiti
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) reported incidents of, (b) arrests for and (c) charges brought for graffiti there were in the Metropolitan police area in (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 2000–01. [272798]

  Mr. Denham
  It is not possible to distinguish offences of graffiti from other types of criminal damage in the Home Office figures for recorded crime, arrests or court proceedings as the details of individual offences are not collected centrally.

  Football Matches
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of policing football matches(a) in the Metropolitan police area and (b) other police areas has been in each of the last five years; and what proportion of these costs was paid for by the football industry. [27592]

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

  Prisoners (Drug Deaths)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison inmates died while in custody as a result of illegal drug misuse during 2001. [28077]
  848W
  Beverley Hughes
  No prisoners died as a result of illegal drug misuse in prisons in England and Wales during 2001.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many HGV drivers were prosecuted in each of the last five years for driving a goods vehicle with maximum loaded weight of over 7.5 tonnes in the offside lane of a motorway with three or more lanes in England and Wales. [17408]

  Mr. Denham
  The offence of driving a heavy goods vehicle having a maximum laden weight exceeding 7.5 tonnes within the offside lane of a motorway with three or more lanes is contrary to Regulation 12 of the Motorways Traffic (England and Wales) Regulations 1982.

  The Home Office Court Proceedings Database does not identify this specific offence separately from others within the offence category 'motorway offences (other than speeding)', of which there were in total 3,213 offences proceeded against in 2000.

  The 'motorway offences (other than speeding)' category includes offences committed under the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984, s17(4) and the Motorways Traffic (England and Wales) Regulations 1982, Regulations 5–12 and 14.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Civil Service Pensions
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he plans to change the civil service pension scheme to allow widows and widowers to retain their pension after remarrying; and if he will make a statement [29262]

  Mr. Leslie
  The civil service will be introducing new pension arrangements with effect from 1 October 2002. New entrants will be given a choice between a new final salary pension scheme and a stakeholder pension with an employer contribution. We are giving active of the current pension scheme an option to move into the new final salary scheme on 1 October if they wish. The new scheme, which has a higher employee contribution rate than the current scheme, will allow widows and widowers to retain their pension if they remarry. We have no plans to change the arrangements in the current scheme whereby widows and widowers will normally lose their pension entitlement should they remarry.

  Civil Service Secondments
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the salary and other costs of a civil servant from one UK Government Department who is on loan to another UK Government Department are met from the budget of the Department of origin of the civil servant or the Department to which the civil servant is transferred on loan. [29520]

  Mr. Leslie
  There are no central rules on this. It is a matter to be settled between the two Departments involved.

  Ministerial Transport
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [28093]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I last returned from official business in Hull by train on Monday 21 January.

  BBC Monitoring
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for what reason the Winter Supplementary Estimates 2001–02 included provision to transfer sums from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence to the Cabinet Office in respect of BBC monitoring. [28330]

  Mr. Leslie
  Since 1997, funding to support BBC Monitoring's capability to monitor, translate, and report items of interest from foreign broadcasts and media has been provided by four stakeholders: the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence, BBC World Service Broadcasting, and the Cabinet Office. Following a review, the four stakeholders agreed in May 2001 to redistribute funding between them in a way which reflected more fully the relative scale of their 850W
  requirements for BBC Monitoring's services. The sums transferred in the winter supplementary estimate give effect to that change.

  Lobbying
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether Government agencies are permitted to incur expenditure on lobbyists where the Government itself is the intended recipient of such lobbying. [28323]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to him of 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 97W. Decisions on expenditure will be for individual Government agencies to take in accordance with the guidance on Government accounting.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many answers to parliamentary questions have not been answered by the Cabinet Office under exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in each year since 1994. [29418]

  Mr. Leslie
  As far as I am aware, only one answer to a parliamentary question has been refused, in this House, under exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford

Women and Children: Trafficking
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will introduce legislation to combat the increase in trafficking of women and children into the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation and domestic labour.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the United Kingdom is at the forefront of the international effort to tackle the heinous crime of trafficking in human beings. We have already signed the United Nations protocol on the prevention and suppression of trafficking and negotiated a European Union framework decision on trafficking for the purposes of sexual and labour exploitation. We are committed to introducing domestic legislation to give effect to those measures.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I declare an interest as a council member of Anti-Slavery International, which, as the Minister knows, is presently working hard on this subject to help the Home Office. Does the Minister agree that, according to Europol, the trafficking of women and children is increasing quite substantially in Europe and yet the United Kingdom has virtually no legislation, nor any planned, on the subject? I understand that some East European countries have such legislation. The Minister has spoken of the framework decision. Surely the European framework decision does nothing to enforce the law nor to protect the victims of such trafficking.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, a good amount of legislation is already on the statute book in respect of some of these issues. They are covered by several sections of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Also a review of sexual offences was set up in 1999. A considerable amount of enforcement work is carried on at the present time with Project Reflex which was set up in March 2000 and which involves the National Crime Squad and the Immigration Service working together. There have been investigations and there have been prosecutions. However, there are gaps in the legislation.
The decision on the framework document will be expected at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 28th February. Legislation covering offences set out in that document will have to be introduced within two years of the adoption of the framework decision.
1380
While I cannot say whether there will be legislation this year or next, once we have signed up to that decision we shall be committed to legislate within two years. That implies that if legislation is not brought forward in this parliamentary Session it will be in the next.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the 66 children who have gone missing from West Sussex social services' register, probably into child trafficking, were all unaccompanied child asylum seekers? What can the Government do to protect unaccompanied child asylum seekers?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, a large number of unaccompanied children arrive as asylum seekers. In regard to the children in West Sussex, they were in the care of the social services department; they were not in immigration detention. It is alleged that members of their families collected them. We have carried out investigations. Following Project Reflex, from the end of February a new unit with dedicated teams will be fully operational at Gatwick and at Heathrow. It will be a combination of the Immigration Service and the National Crime Squad. As far as we are aware, investigations took place into what happened to those children. Some 200 were identified, but despite arrests, no prosecutions were issued due to kick of evidence and the unwillingness of the victims to give evidence.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although, as the noble Lord said, legislation may be desirable, have the Government taken legal advice as to whether such a form of trafficking can be prosecuted as a form of slavery?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, trafficking, as opposed to smuggling, is a form of slavery. The definition of trafficking includes the exploitation of a person at a later date for sexual exploitation or labour market exploitation. That is not the issue in relation to the gap in the legislation. There are many Acts already on the statute book under which we can charge people if they are involved in facilitating that. We have carried out prosecutions. There have been 15 arrests in relation to facilitators; there have been seven convictions in the UK and six overseas. At the moment in this country trials relating to these offences are pending following investigations that have taken place since 2000.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister join me in commending the West Sussex social services department for at least exercising its powers under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 to provide safe accommodation for children thought to be at risk of trafficking? Will he also exonerate West Sussex social services from any blame for the children who have gone missing from its care? They were probably abducted and went, against their will, into the hands of the traffickers. Does the Minister consider that it is necessary to provide similar services in local authority areas that are situated around international airports? Will the Government make money available for that purpose?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I hope that nothing that I have said has implied any criticism of West Sussex social services department. I did not intend to imply criticism. In relation to the children, it operated on the best available information. A young unaccompanied child arriving at an airport creates a difficult situation. Last summer I was present on one occasion when that happened. I sat in on the conversations with the Immigration Service and the social services who were being contacted because they could not be certain about the person who was collecting the child. Enormous care is taken in that respect. I hope that our new operation at Gatwick and at Heathrow—funded from SR2000—which will be fully operational later this month, and which will, in due course, be rolled out across the country, will meet the concerns of the noble Lord.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, while I welcome the reply that the Minister has given to my noble friend, can he confirm that the distinction that he has drawn between smuggling and trafficking in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will be incorporated into the legislation when it is eventually laid before the House? Can he also confirm that so far we have perhaps underestimated the size of the problem? Notwithstanding the obvious scandal of children being seized from social services, regardless of who is to blame, in the light of reports by people like Carron Somerset, the recent comments of the head of the Vice Squad in London, the reports of Anti-Slavery International and the investigative reports recently undertaken by the BBC, does he agree that this is just the tip of a terrible iceberg?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that may be the case, but without the evidence it is difficult to put numbers on it. We simply do not know. Regarding the definitional aspects of "trafficking" and "smuggling", we do currently distinguish between them, and I am certain that the new legislation will do so. Last week the Home Secretary announced that forecasting legislation will come before your Lordships' House in the near future. The penalties for those involved in trafficking will be raised from a maximum of 10 years to 14 years, in order to he on a par with those for drug trafficking.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister accept that not all children who come to this country and are exploited are exploited by complete strangers? What are the Government's plans to protect children, such as Victoria Climbié, who come to this country and are exploited by relatives, however distant?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, yes, that is the case. People are exploited even for their social security benefits. I say to the noble Baroness that the best thing to do is to await the outcome of the public inquiry. I am sure that that will have recommendations which I hope—and everyone would trust—will be speedily acted upon.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, welcome as the news is of the Government's
1382
work to help this problem internationally and in Europe, not least of the problems that we face—which of course to a degree facilitates trafficking—is the relative ease with which in the past people have entered the country? They are perhaps not adequately checked or controlled or it is not made sure that they have a proper place to go to. If we tightened up that aspect of our administration, perhaps we would actually do a great deal to restrict the possibility of trafficking within this country.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord in some ways is raising a wider question. I do not want to hide behind the general reply, but many of these issues will be covered in the fairly extensive White Paper which the Government will be presenting to the House early next month.

Coal Industry
2.45 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to provide additional assistance to the coal industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government have spent nearly £140 million so far under the UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme. We currently have no plans to extend it, or to introduce a new scheme beyond July 2002.
Future policy will be informed by the PIU Energy Review, the Clean Coal Technology Review and the House of Lords' report into security of supply. If the conclusions of those reviews suggest that a further coal subsidy scheme may be appropriate, we shall of course give further consideration to the issue.
We are also working to ensure that the new EU regime gives us the flexibility to pay suitable types of aid if appropriate.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. The Government are to be congratulated on the much needed assistance which they have given recently, in spite of strong opposition from the European Union.
Is my noble friend aware that there are still some 6,000 jobs involved in what remains of the industry and that there is continuing pressure for more redundancies? Is he further aware that Britain's power stations are consuming more coal because of the new electricity trading arrangement, and that the extra 20 per cent of coal that is now being consumed comes entirely from imports? That is surely something that he is looking at. Is it the Government's intention to retain a British coal industry in the review that is taking place on the energy industry in this country?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is clearly a question of security of supply here. A strong case can be made for maintaining a level of coal-fired generation for that reason. It is more difficult to do that in terms of the coal supply because there is a wide diversity of coal supplies across the world. Therefore, it is difficult to argue on security of supply arguments. Our particular scheme very much related to the particular problems that the coal industry was facing at the time when it was introduced—there were low international coal prices; the introduction of NETA; and the lifting of the gas consents policies. These factors do not operate now. Therefore, any policy that we take forward will be in the light of the PIU report.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister not agree that his reply produces a sense of déjà vu to quite a lot of us? Massive subsidies have been poured into the coal industry in this country and others for the last 40 years. The industry has consistently proved that it cannot compete with market forces. It is time that all governments woke up to this.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme was introduced to deal with a particular situation. As I have said, it had a number of very specific factors. It was clearly right at that moment to introduce the scheme to make certain that the industry, where it was viable—that was a key part of that scheme—would be able to survive that short-term situation. As I have also made clear, those short-term factors do not at this moment apply.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the North East of England, where there used to be so many collieries, there is just one left? Ellington Colliery in east Northumberland is still producing 7,500 tonnes of quality coal every year. It has a direct workforce of 400 people with many more from associated companies. The pit also has an estimated supply available for the next seven years. Does the noble Lord appreciate that in an area of Northumberland—I happen to know it very well; I have lived there practically all my life—where new industry is very difficult to attract, that the continuance of coal production at Ellington will be very socially desirable?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, where coal-mining is viable, there is no problem. The problem arises if it is not viable in the long term. In such cases, we are concerned about the impact of any closure on coal communities. That is why the Government introduced a series of schemes originating from the Coalfields Task Force. The Coalfields Enterprise Fund and the Coalfields Regeneration Trust were introduced to help communities that were affected by coal closures. During the time that the Government have been in power, the number of coal-miners has not decreased enormously, whereas, under the previous government, it declined from 230,000 to something like 7,000.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most important ways in which the Government could assist the coal industry is to set up without delay a clean coal technology plant, together with CO2 separation? That process has been developed successfully in other countries, and, if developed over here, it would open up an exciting new chapter in the long history of the coal industry, put it on an equal footing with renewables and contribute substantially to the Government's climate change objectives.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and I have debated the question of clean coal technology; it is an extremely important issue. On the energy side, it is important to show that we can have generation with clean coal technology. However, as I hope that I have made clear before, that does not necessarily imply that the coal supplied would come from this country if it is produced more cheaply in other parts of the world.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Government's policy has, no doubt, encouraged the relatively few remaining pits in Britain to maintain high levels of productivity and an acceptable regard for safety? Does he also accept that there have been recent reports that petro-coke is to be imported into this country? That may provide someone else with profit, but it will hardly help the coal industry or the British environment.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in cases in which international coal is cheaper, it is difficult to see the basis on which the Government could make certain that that coal did not come into this country.

Rights of Way Condition Survey 2000
2.52 p.m.
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in response to the Rights of Way Condition Survey 2000 published by the Countryside Agency on 11th December 2001.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government will continue, by means of regulations, to implement a range of measures provided for in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The measures are designed to improve the administration and management of rights of way. Moreover, the Government are providing substantial additional funding to local authorities to accompany the new measures, which will assist highway authorities in bringing the rights of way network up to the standard that we expect.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but the Question is about the existing network and the existing system. The survey refers to the network's "existing inadequate condition".

1385
Apart from the provision of signposts where footpaths intersect with metalled roads, the ease of using the paths has been unchanged since 1994. Eleven per cent of the footpaths and bridleways are reported to be "not usable". Walkers meet "serious problems" approximately every two kilometres on the existing footpath network, and horse riders meet serious problems on bridleways approximately every 2.4 kilometres. In those circumstances, is not the Minister being rather complacent? Will he talk to the Countryside Agency about what can be done now to make sure that, by the time of the next survey, matters are improved?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is one way of putting it. The other way is to say that 89 per cent of ramblers find the footpaths satisfactory. Local authorities and others have made some efforts to ensure that the footpaths are open. The moneys and powers available under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 do not relate simply to new measures under that Act; they relate to the improvement plans that local authorities are required to produce under that Act to improve existing rights of way.
The noble Lord is wrong to say that the measures and moneys to which I referred in my Answer do not deal with the problem: they do. Much of the activity will have to be carried out through the local authorities, but the Countryside Agency still stands there to help in that task.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, what consideration have the Government given to the levels of investment recommended by the Rights of Way Condition Survey 2000—£69 million to improve the condition of the United Kingdom's paths network to the standards envisaged by the national target?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in line with what we said during the passage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, the Government have allocated between £12 million and £19 million a year to allow local authorities to build up to that standard. Some of the money in that aggregate figure is to deal with other measures outside that, but there is a substantial long-term improvement programme.
Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, in view of the good news announced today that the Government intend to allocate an extra 13 per cent on average to the national parks in England and in view of the fact that so many people enjoy walking, will the Minister discuss with the chairman of the English National Parks and Broads Authority ways of ensuring that some of the increased moneys can be used to keep footpaths open?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is one of the functions of the English National Parks and Broads Authority. My colleague, Alun Michael, is in constant discussion with the chairs of the national parks to ensure that that responsibility is fulfilled.

House of Lords Christmas Cards
2.56 p.m.
Lord St John of Fawsley Lord St John of Fawsley asked the Chairman of Committees:
Whether the arrangements made with regard to the latest House of Lords Christmas cards were satisfactory.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, as far as I am aware, the arrangements were quite satisfactory. I have had no complaints about the Christmas cards that I sent out, although, I regret to say, I did not send one to the noble Lord. If the noble Lord can indicate what the particular problem is, we could deal with it. If I cannot, the works of art panel could.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer. Does he realise that, like Bognor, he is the last resort? Does he know that I addressed myself to the Printed Paper Office and was told that the matter was nothing to do with that office? I was told to go to the Attendants Office. On arrival at the Attendants Office, I was told that it had nothing to do with them and that I should go to the Printed Paper Office. So I have come to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord is very satisfied with the card. May I ask him whether he realises that the principal card—which follows the barbarous custom of standing on its side—did not and does not? It fell down. Having fallen down, it refused to get up. The envelopes were far too small for the cards. Does he realise that? The effect was that, when the cards were put in, the envelopes burst. Does he realise that the glue had long ago lost whatever adhesive quality it might have had? My unfortunate secretary had to go and buy, at her own expense, a glue stick to stick them down.
Finally, would the noble Lord advert to the fact that, although the exterior of the card contained a beautiful picture of Westminster Abbey, the interior described it as Westminster Cathedral? That must be the anachronism of the millennium. All one can say to that is, "Pas encore" and to the noble Lord. "Where will it all end?".
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am reminded of the alleged last words of His Majesty King George V in relation to Bognor.
As for the size of the envelopes, I managed to get the cards into the envelope without too much difficulty. Perhaps I have slimmer fingers than the noble Lord. My spit must be more adhesive than the noble Lord's. The reference to Westminster Cathedral was unfortunate. As the noble Lord suggested, Westminster Cathedral had not been built at the time the picture was painted.
It was, I understand, a translation from the French, but it was somewhat mistranslated. "Eglise", which was in the original title, was mistranslated as "cathedral" instead of "church". However, neither is correct because it is an abbey.

1387
As to where the noble Lord should go with his problems, complaints about such matters should perhaps be addressed to the chairman of the Advisory Panel on Works of Art which decides which card shall be produced. I understand that there is a meeting in March. If the noble Lord wishes to address his problems to it, I am sure that the panel will take them up.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I should like to apologise to the House for the mistake over Westminster Cathedral, which provided a lot of innocent amusement to many Members of the House before Christmas. Is the noble Lord aware that this time we received more congratulations on the cards we had chosen than in any previous year in which I have been involved in selecting Christmas cards with the assistance of my panel?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am glad about that. The panel is to be congratulated on the fact that as a result of the increase in price more than £1,300 was donated to the Save the Children Fund and more than £800 was donated to the House of Lords fund for the advancing of public understanding of Parliament through the acquisition of works of art. I believe that the Advisory Panel on Works of Art does a rather good job.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that as a member of the panel I want to pay tribute to its chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, for her extremely hard work and leadership in connection with all its work? Does he agree that perhaps those who criticise might consider putting their names forward to join the panel, which year after year takes infinite trouble when undertaking the extremely difficult job of choosing a Christmas card which, it hopes, will please the majority of your Lordships?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, will be extremely grateful for that comment, coming as it does from someone who has spent much of her time as a member of the works of art panel. There is no doubt that as one walks around the House and looks at the pictures on the walls one can see that a very good job has been done in recent years. There is now more variety. Furthermore, there is not just one Christmas card; there are, at most, four. There is a range of cards from which people can choose, most of which, I believe, fit into the envelopes.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am sure we all want to pay tribute to the works of art panel, which does indeed work hard on our behalf. However, since my noble friend tabled the Question, a number of people have said to me that to a considerable degree the mechanics went wrong—the size of the envelopes; the fact that in some cases they did not arrive at the same time as the cards, and similar mechanical problems. I am sure that the works of art panel will give careful attention to what happened when it makes its decisions this year.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, yes, that is a perfectly fair point. I had not heard of the difficulties people have had, but I am sure that the works of art panel will look into them. The printer was changed two years ago when, I understand, the original printer went bankrupt. I hope that we do not force this one into bankruptcy by over-egging the pudding. I am sure that these problems will be taken up by the works of art panel.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, will the noble Lord endorse my suggestion to the panel that as regards this year's cards an image of the Parliament choir might be an appropriate addition to the selection of designs on offer and that some of the money available for charity should go to the young musicians' charities which the Parliament choir supports?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, that suggestion can be taken up by the works of art panel. In the light of certain calendars and so forth produced by women's institutes and others, the question of the dress for the card might be worthy of consideration.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the chairman of the works of art panel—and during my time that goes back to Lord Reilly—has always been willing to accept suggestions from Members; for instance, removing the year of printing? The year used to be included, which meant that one could not send cards overseas the following year when posting early for Christmas. Is the noble Lord also aware that the present chairman has welcomed suggestions from Members and has agreed that we can attend the meeting in March?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness is right. As to using last year's cards, I dare say that we all do it, but it s important to remember not send the same card to the same people two years running.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that I was a member of the Advisory Panel on Works of Art for three years and was then dismissed for making artistic suggestions? With regard to my noble friend's question about the mechanics, does the Chairman of Committees realise that I received 500 cards which had nothing to do with the House but came from the Victoria and Albert Museum and seemed destined for a person even higher than anyone in this House? I had the greatest difficulty getting rid of them and when I finally did so it took me another week to get hold of my own. Surely, these mechanics ought to be looked at.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I cannot think of anyone of a more elevated status than the noble Lord. However, I am sure that all his comments and criticisms will be taken on board by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and her panel.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Incorporation of provisions of the Treaty of Nice]:
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 9, after "10," insert "other than Article 2, paragraph 22, revising Article 214(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we turn from the excitement of designing Christmas cards to the more leaden but nevertheless important matter of European Union legislation. Amendment No. 9 covers ground which we examined during the Committee stage and involves amending Article 214, paragraph 2, of the second treaty of the European Communities, which proposes that in future there shall be qualified majority vote decisions for who should be president and members of the European Commission.
We on this side of the House are against that proposal and hoped—it was obviously a vain hope—that the Government might have stood out against it. It means a substantial step forward in the politicisation of those appointments. As I indicated in Committee, it never was the intention of the founding fathers of the European Communities—subsequently the European Union—that the Commission should be full of politicians or people who had to use political skills and arts in order to obtain their position. It was the dream of Jean Monnet, whom I had the privilege of meeting once or twice, that the commissioners and the president of the Commission should be dedicated servants of Europe and of the European aims and ambitions, but should not be high profile political figures who struggled up the political ladder in order to receive the nomination.
Therefore, I still see the proposal, which has been slipped into the Nice treaty, as going the opposite way to the intentions of those who truly had the interests of European unity at heart. It also moves the opposite way in another sense; that is, by elevating the whole business of the appointments of the servants of Europe up to presidents, elected commissioners, commissioners appointed by a majority and so forth, the status of the Commission and its president is subtly changed. We know what the present president wants because he has said it so often: he wants the Commission to become the government of Europe. I have quotations of his before me and I can confirm that he has said that several times. That is not, I understand, the policy of Her Majesty's Government and it is certainly not the wish of noble Lords on these Benches.
The Commission has had a certain role, designed by Monnet. Hitherto it has had the monopoly over the right to propose initiatives to the Council of Ministers,
1390
along with a good many other powers. Originally it was seen as the driving force or motor of European integration. I believe that that is why Monnet sought such skilled but low-profile civil servants who would use quietly that driving force to push matters forward without igniting too many political sparks and creating too many antagonisms in the member governments. That is what he saw as the way forward. But that era is probably now over. To quote Jacques Delors, the era of top-down decision making and legislation is over. Already the Commission is having to cede considerable power to the Council of Ministers and, indeed, to national agencies through soft legislation, concentration on frameworks rather than detailed regulation and so forth.
All that is to the good, but if one rose up against that and returned to the notion of presidents and commissioners appointed by QMV, one would reverse what could be quite a desirable trend, that of moving away from the élite, top-down nature of the European Union which has done so much damage and threatened its legitimacy in ways that Community officials and national governments are now seeking to try to remedy. Indeed, in a later amendment we shall consider the ways in which proposals are being put forward for a remedy and for reshaping the European Union into a more democratic form.
Part of the democratisation of the Union involves reasserting the point that the European Commission is a subordinate institution. It is not a superior institution set somewhere higher up the pyramid of the command structure of Europe; rather it is subordinate to the elected national parliaments and to the member states which have signed the treaties that brought it into being and gave it its powers. For those reasons, the European Commission is their servant. I feel that it is extremely important for us to remind ourselves, the Commissioners and the President of the Commission of that fact. Otherwise what is already evident to the Commission will become even clearer; namely, that it is losing the trust and confidence of the people and that it has become remote from the citizens. Those are words that appear in the Laeken Declaration and in the European Commissioners' own White Paper on governance. The Commissioners appear to be lofty, remote individuals who do not act in a subordinate and serving way on behalf of Europe, but rather in a more imperious and centralising way. That is extremely unhealthy and not what I believe true democrats or those with the true interests of Europe at heart would want to see.
On top of all that has come today another warning. There is talk of proposals for a full confederation between France and Germany. The matter was discussed yesterday at the Goethe Institute in Germany. The confederation would have common armies, common embassies and a common seat at the United Nations—one can rely on that. If that is to be the arrangement, then we can guess whose candidates will always be preferred and which majority will always prevail when it comes to appointing the high officials of the Commission. It needs no expertise to assess how such matters will turn out.

1391
All this I believe to be profoundly unhealthy and not in accordance with what is now the quite desperate need for the European Union institutions to reassociate themselves with the grass roots of Europe and with its citizens in an intimate way; that is, not by inventing new institutions at the centre but rather by coming back and listening to people at the grass roots and in the national, democratically elected parliaments. That is the vital and overriding need. This proposal goes against that. Although the matter was discussed in Committee, I do not believe that it was brought to a vote or to a decision. Nevertheless, some very important matters are being brought forward here which merit further explanation from Ministers. It is in that spirit that I move the amendment. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, is quite right. We debated this issue at considerable length in Committee and the position of the Government was made clear at that time. Where QMV is in the interests of this country, we shall agree to it. Where it is not in Britain's interests, we shall not agree to it. It really is as simple as that.
That is how we approached the negotiations on the Nice Treaty itself. Where we felt strongly that an issue was of such fundamental importance that the decision must remain within the United Kingdom, with the Government and with Parliament, we simply said no. We did not agree to extend qualified majority voting. We stated in advance that we would not accept QMV for taxation, social security, defence, border controls, treaty changes or the Community's own resources; that is, its budget. We did not accept any extensions for those issues and thus the UK veto remains in place on all of them.
However, we do believe that it is short-sighted to oppose QMV in principle. It is important to recognise that QMV can work for this country. It built the single market on which over 3 million United Kingdom jobs and thousands of businesses depend. It is simply not true to say that Britain always loses out and that others always win with the extension of QMV. In 1999, the United Kingdom was not outvoted on any single issue, but Germany was outvoted twice, France outvoted three times and Italy eight times. I regret that I do not have the figures for 2000 and 2001—I am not leaving those to one side because they do not prove my point, it is simply that they were not available to me.
When the UK joined the then EEC a considerable number of articles in the Treaty of Rome were already subject to QMV. But as the EEC, later the European Union, has grown larger, so there has been a need to extend qualified majority voting in order to stop decision taking from coming to a grinding halt. Of course the biggest extension of all came about with Mrs Thatcher—now Lady Thatcher—in her negotiation of the Single European Act in 1986. Literally thousands of directives and regulations have been passed using the articles that were extended for
1392
QMV at that point. It allowed progress to the single European market to be accelerated and I am bound to say that I think that it was a very good thing.
The Government support QMV for appointments. We support it because we believe that it will lead to greater efficiency. It will help to secure quick decisions that lead to the appointment of the right person, irrespective of that person's nationality. The President of the Commission provides political guidance for the whole of the Commission. The Nice treaty will give the President more flexibility to organise the College of Commissioners and its work in the most effective way possible. Of course that is a vital job.
It is precisely for that reason that it would not be right for one country to be able to block appointments or, worse, hold to ransom policy decisions by insisting on having its own candidate. I cannot stress strongly enough that we want the best person for the job. We shall want to see that person appointed on the basis of merit and experience, not on nationality.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, said that he wanted to see less politicisation in appointments. I agree with him wholeheartedly on that point. What we disagree on is the best way of achieving it. However, the irony of the situation is that those very officials—one of whom the noble Lord quoted earlier in his remarks—about whom the noble Lord has such strong misgivings were, on the whole, elected unanimously. Thus unanimity really has not delivered for the noble Lord what he claims. As a result, I really cannot understand his reluctance to move away from a system that has not given him what he wants.
I urge the noble Lord to look at the other side of the argument; to look at the positive side of why QMV is, in this instance, in the United Kingdom's interest. Decisions on appointed officials will be taken more effectively and deliver for him what he wants—which is, among other things, less politicisation—and the process will be more diligent and efficient.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for giving way. There is a report in a newspaper today which states that, under this system, when appointments are made to Commission jobs, British officials are likely to lose out and will not be treated as well as they are treated now. Can the Minister comment on that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have no reason whatever to believe that British officials will lose out. The noble Lord knows as well as I do that, frankly, it is very hard in this country to have a reasoned debate through the media about what are likely to be the effects of any development in Europe. I do not know in which newspaper the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, read that, but one of the pitfalls into which many of our journalists fall very quickly is to assume that all changes away from qualified majority voting will be against this country's interest.
I was endeavouring to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and others, that that is not the position of Her Majesty's Government. If we had thought that

1393
it would be detrimental to the interests of this country, it would have been included in the list of things that we were not prepared to do. That list was put into the public domain before we began the negotiations and, despite all the efforts to move around, we stuck to it and delivered what we said we would.
We should not make these appointments on the basis of "Buggins' turn", on the basis of nationality or, indeed, as may have been the case sometimes in the past, on the basis of cross-border rivalry. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, and I agree that we need the best people for the job. I believe that QMV will deliver that far more efficiently and allow such people to get on with their duties. I hope that, on reconsideration, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will recognise that what he is trying to defend has not delivered for him what he said it could.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. At the beginning of her response, she made some remarks about qualified majority voting generally. I said at an earlier stage of our proceedings that if I were pressed for a view on where we on these Benches stand on this matter, I would have to resort to Evelyn Waugh and say that we liked QMV "up to a point, Lord Copper". In other words, the case for majority voting where certain powers and competencies are in the hands of the Council of Ministers and European institutions is perfectly valid, particularly in relation to the commendable goal we have sought over the years—often with more support from this side of the House than the other—of a great single market opening out with low tariffs all around it. That would make a major contribution to the greater liberalisation of world trade and a major contribution to the prosperity of the European peoples by opening out free trade. That was something for which we were quite happy to see qualified majority voting.
If one tries to draw lines—this is notoriously difficult—as to where one begins to have proper caution and proper doubts, it is when one sees the qualified majority voting device beginning to be used and insisted on not for maintaining and developing a gigantic common market—which, as we have always recognised, requires some political machinery at the centre—but for building something else; namely, a political union. This is where one begins to wonder whether the QMV device is the right one.
Clearly, this is one of the many examples which have slipped through in the later generation of treaties—to some extent at Amsterdam and also at Nice—and no doubt there are more on the tapis for the next treaty occasion, the next IGC and so on.
Some will say that it is a very good thing that the QMV device should be used to build a political union. It was always the cry of the former German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, that there had to be political union. He said that there had to be political union otherwise the euro would not work; that you could not run a single currency without a single government authority and, therefore, political union
1394
there had to be. There might have to be temporary transitional arrangements in the mean time, a stability pact which might or might not hold together—it looks a little ropy at the moment—but political union was the ultimate aim and every energy should be strained to achieve it.
That is not, as I understand it, the policy of the United Kingdom Government. The Prime Minister has used a number of interesting phrases, particularly in later days. He began with the "heart of Europe" and all that. We have now moved away from that to being a "pivotal player" instead, which seems a rather different concept. We have also moved away from the commitment to political union. Instead, the Prime Minister has spoken about a "union of nation states", which is not all that different from the Europe des patries concept uttered by General de Gaulle two or three decades ago.
A political union is not what we want. There should be considerable additional caution when it comes to ticking the box and okaying the extension of qualified majority voting—not for bona fide regulations and rules or the removal of tariffs and barriers which open up the prosperity of the European people, but for a different project; namely, the political union aim.
Some will of course say that it was all in the original treaties and that we should not have signed up to ever closer union if we did not believe in it—but sign up we did. There are now those on all sides, including some who are quite close to the leaders of the governing party, the Labour Party, who are saying that a sensible and confident British Government should now say that the preamble to the Rome treaty should be opened up and that the phrase "ever closer union" belongs to a world of integration, hierarchies and pyramid building which is no longer consistent with the network arrangements and the looser interfaces between European nation states, which are now much more comfortable and will suit much better the proudly independent states applying to join the European Union and which will raise its total membership from 15 to 25.
It may be much wiser if we abandon the insistence on ever closer union; abandon—or reinterpret at the very least—the concept of political union; and avoid the accelerating processes which reinforce political union by majority vote. The noble Baroness said that the aim was to allow decisions to be made quickly. Perhaps this is one area where, in the name of democracy and getting it right—she is quite correct, things have not always turned out right in the past—the word "quickly" should not be in the vocabulary. Perhaps we should think about slower, more ponderous, more considered and more cautious methods for arriving at the right personnel for staffing this very important mechanism at the heart of the European Union; namely, the Commission.
The Minister teased me a little by pointing out that the unanimity system has not always produced candidates who have acquired universal acclaim. Some of the remarks circulating about previous presidents of the Commission and the present

1395
president indicate that it is not only on these Benches but rather more widely through Europe that people feel we can do better in the future.
However, I refute the Minister's proposition that the way to do better is to reinvent another system by questioning whether any system can automatically produce good candidates. The weight is against me in that the past arrangements have produced bad candidates and bad results. We have no pudding to eat by which to discover the proof of the noble Baroness's proposals, the proposals of the Nice treaty and the proposals of the Bill that QMV will miraculously produce better presidents in the future. Frankly, I am not sure whether that is where the matter of good or bad presidents lies. I believe that it lies in a better understanding by Ministers, and by those who elect them, of what we want out of Europe—which is not a central government in Brussels intervening in, to use the phrase of my noble friend Lord Hurd, the nooks and crannies of national life. If it does so, it ends up not uniting Europe, but dividing Europe.
That is where I stand, and that is my reason for proposing the amendment. Nevertheless, we have "knocked this issue around" to a considerable extent in earlier debates as well as in this one. I do not think that there will be any agreement between us, but the matter has had a good airing. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 to 12 not moved.]
3.30 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert "and the Declarations adopted by the Conference (other than Declaration 23(5))"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 14, the logic being that both concern the same crucial declaration attached to the treaties. Both are concerned with the future shape and nature of the European Union. Therefore, they relate to fundamental matters concerning our relationship with the Union and what contribution we wish to make in the future to its changing pattern.
The European Union now faces the obvious upheaval of enlargement. It also faces many other enormous changes and forces at work. We touched on these matters in Committee. However, we did not test the feeling of your Lordships. For that reason alone, they merit further discussion. In addition, since the Committee stage an enormous amount has happened which is relevant to the future of the Union and to the proposals in Declaration 23. We certainly need to discuss these matters. There are one or two areas where this House badly needs some positive clarification of the way in which matters are going.
Looking at the overall scene, Declaration 23 is concerned with the way in which the processes of discussion of the future of the Union should now be carried through. The amendment would cut a big swathe into that declaration. It would remove from the agenda of processes four specific areas which those
1396
who drafted the Nice treaty were anxious should be discussed and analysed. The fact that I have moved the amendment does not mean that I do not want them to be discussed. It indicates our belief that, given the way in which the discussion is going, it could lead to a flawed and unsatisfactory result.
In particular, the declaration points towards further discussions on the delimitation of powers. That is a kind of jargon or code for a bigger issue which is looming. It is the question of whether there should be a constitution, possibly based on an amalgamated single treaty for the whole of the European Union, embracing—this is far from being decided—not only matters under pillar one, but those under pillar two and pillar three as well.
Behind that is the thought that, somehow, competences or responsibilities can be nicely layered, like some beautiful cake or ice cream, with certain competences sealed up for ever at supra-national (European institutional) level, and that certain competences can be permanently allotted to lower levels; namely, to nation states and even to regions. As I shall explain, I believe this to be a wholly unrealistic view of the way in which the world works. The idea that these matters are static and can be sealed for ever, locked in some constitution, is an absurdly. Nevertheless, it is a widely held aspiration.
The second item to which the declaration urges that attention should be turned is the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which I shall also discuss. The third is the simplification of treaties—which sounds excellent on the surface, but I believe that there is a great deal more behind the idea than is revealed at first glance. The fourth is a slightly condescending reference in the declaration to the role of national parliaments. Again, it is a central matter which should and does concern your Lordships very much and to which we need to give close and detailed attention even at this stage of the Bill.
The idea then expressed in the declaration, on which our amendments are focused, is that all these matters should be handled and wrapped into a process which should then come before a convention. That is to begin very soon—on 1st March, I believe, although I may have the date wrong—under a chairman who, rather to everyone's surprise, turned out to be, on the French nomination, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, a very distinguished former President of France. The work of the convention should, in turn, lead to an intergovernmental conference in 2004 which will bless a constitution and various solutions to the items that I have outlined.
My first question to the Minister is: what part are we in this Parliament—both in this House and in the other place—to be allowed to play in the convention? In my view it is unthinkable that it should not include as a delegate a Member of this House. The plan, as I understand it, is that the parliament of each member state should send two members to M. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's convention and, in addition, the European Parliament should send some 16 members.

1397
I confess that I find the whole project extremely worrying. First, there is the obvious point of how much "say" two members from each parliament will have in the convention. There is also the question of who will write the agenda, control the minutes and all the rest. Secondly, this seems to be an upside-down process. If the future of Europe is to be discussed—and Europe's democratic existence derives from the democratic parliaments and legislatures of the member states of which it is composed—it is the European institutions that should be sending delegates, possibly two from each major European institution and two from the European Parliament and so on, to the national parliaments to involve them in our discussions on how we see the future of Europe and the relations of each member state with the European Union as a whole.
To return to my specific question, when are we to know about the arrangements for the convention? Will it include only Members of another place, or are Peers to be involved? Who will choose them? When they have been chosen, and off they go to the convention, how will they re-connect with the two Houses and tell us what is happening? Could we have a specific answer to a mild request; namely, would it be possible for the two MPs—assuming that there will be only two—to report to the European Union Select Committee of this House? That seems to be one practical way in which we could have some access to what is happening as these very important issues about the future structure and constitution of Europe are discussed at the convention.
It seems to me that if the task—I merely repeat what the endless treaties and presidency conclusions assert—is to involve national parliaments in the processes and decisions of the Union, the involvement must be a two-way matter. We must see regular and continuous reports from whomsoever "represents" our two Houses at the convention. I have to put the word "represents" in quotation marks, because no single member of a parliament can represent the whole parliament. It is essential that we have strong reassurances and clear undertakings on the way in which the events and unfolding debates at the convention are reported back, so that both Houses can be properly and genuinely involved.
That involvement must be more than just a grand seigneur concession from the centre, allowing the various parliaments humbly to send a couple of members who will be lucky if they get much of a say. We do not want any of that. We want a clear undertaking that your Lordships will be properly and continuously informed. I suspect that that is not just a party matter. The process will presumably have to be conducted through our excellent European Union Committee structure, which is widely praised and applauded for its work. That would be a good platform through which your Lordships could be kept in touch. I hope that those important questions will be specifically addressed and answered. The matter is becoming urgent, because there are only a few weeks to go before this particular show gets on the road.
1398
Behind the whole idea of the convention are the two bigger questions of the legitimacy of the European Union—a matter that is now of great concern to the Commission, as its European governance White Paper shows—and the aim of creating the great new architecture of a constitution. The Laeken declaration, which came out a few days after the summit, recognises the point about legitimacy. It repeats what is in danger of becoming a mantra—although it should be treated as a serious set of undertakings—that it is essential that,
"the European institutions must be brought closer to its citizens".
It then goes on to make a number of proposals, many of which would have the opposite effect and take European institutions considerably further away from the citizen.
The declaration then eventually comes to a paragraph that says, in a slightly throwaway tone, that the question of democratic legitimacy also—that should read "only", but the declaration says "also"—involves the role of national parliaments. It asks, somewhat casually:
"Should they be represented in a new institution, alongside the Council and the European Parliament?"
Surely the opposite of that is needed. It goes on:
"Should they have a role in areas of European action in which the European Parliament has no competence?"
That is very nice of them. The next question is:
"Should they focus on the division of competence between Union and Member States, for example through preliminary checking of compliance with the principle of subsidiarity?"
That sounds as though national parliaments are being thrown the sop of having to try to work out whether a constitution with specific levels of competencies could operate.
I do not like the tone of that section of the Laeken declaration. It seems very condescending and sounds as though it was written by people who do not understand that their democracy, their existence and certainly their finance and their salaries come from national parliaments, not from the higher ether.
At some stage, the authors of the declaration—which I suppose was endorsed by Ministers—assert that the democracy of the European Union springs not from voting, political systems and democracy in the nation states, but,
"from the democratic values it projects, the aims it pursues and the powers and instruments it possesses".
That is a fantastical theory that democracy can be derived out of thin air. That is not true. Democracy comes from citizens and people voting and electing their representatives through their established political systems. Until that is understood, the chances of European governance being upgraded to bring it nearer to the citizens are slim.
I should like the opposite of what is proposed. It is archaic and anachronistic that we do not find ways of involving the hard-working Members of the European Parliament in our affairs by bringing them into the machinery of our two Houses. Maybe the MEPs

1399
should be involved in some of our committees. I agree with one of the more authoritative members of the new Italian Government, Mr Tremonti, who says:
"More decisions should originate in national Parliaments".
That is an important insight that is worrying the Italians very much at the moment. Mr Berlusconi's Government have been accused of being anti-European, but he has rightly insisted that, like other good Europeans, he wants European institutions to be reformed in a democratic way. That means decisions not being dumped on parliaments or agreed by treaty process and then delivered for a rubber stamp to parliaments. The decisions should originate in national parliaments.
The implications of that are very large and they will not be particularly welcomed in the Commission, because they lead us to the question whether the Commission's monopoly in the initiation of decisions should remain. In practice, it is being eroded somewhat already, as I said earlier, but it is a big question. If more decision-making originated in national parliaments, the process would be much slower. We could forget the word "quickly" that the noble Baroness used. It would probably be less efficient and there would probably be more arguments.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I was struck by the noble Lord's remark about the Commission initiating decisions. Will he clarify that? The Commission initiates proposals, but the decisions are still left to the Council.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, that is a more precise way of putting it. The Commission initiates proposals and ideas, as well as, in some cases, decisions. The noble Lord is right to press me to use a wider definition.
The two Houses of the Westminster Parliament have the scrutiny reserve arrangements, which are more elaborate than those in some other national parliaments of member states. Some hopes and weight have been placed on those arrangements as the device by which this national Parliament can be more involved in the decision-making process and in the processes leading to the creation of full legislative instruments. The scrutiny reserve system is good, but, having had a little experience of operating it and listened to those who have had much more experience, I do not believe that it is enough. First, it has no legal force and can be over-ridden, modified or bypassed by talking about concepts of provisional agreement when scrutiny reserve is refused. That means that the arrangements can be got round.
The system is not limited to Commission proposals or decisions, but covers a variety of other EU-related ideas and initial thoughts. However, it comes too late in the process. The ideas have already been formed elsewhere. We may have to insist in the future on something different from the old Community method, which still leaves the sensation that matters are being
1400
decided at a higher level and come to the national parliaments too late down the line. Sometimes they are debated or blocked, but all too often they are pushed through.
Another thought that is growing in influence and being more widely discussed—although I was surprised when I first heard it—is that the Danish method of prior consultation should be more widely emulated. Under that system, Ministers are mandated before they go to the Council, limiting what they may negotiate there without further consultation in Copenhagen. Five or 10 years ago, people dismissed that system out of hand, saying, "It is much too slow; the Danes have it wrong. If we had it, it would slow things down. What about our beloved momentum?" Today, however, as people feel increasingly left behind by this centrally driven momentum, ever more voices are beginning to say that perhaps that type of mandating is the way to bring parliaments back in on the act and ensure that we have close and continuous debate on matters that are eventually decided in the Council of Ministers rather than being asked simply to accept matters that have been settled elsewhere on a prerogative treaty basis and given a "Lump it or leave it" choice.
All those issues need careful analysis and discussion. I do not think that they are debated enough either in the other place or among your Lordships. This Report stage at least gives us the chance to consider them in rather more detail.
As for the central idea of a constitution, as I said the obvious danger is that we set in stone a highly fluid process in a rapidly changing world. Some powers that are not with the European institutions may yet have to go to them. However, I am absolutely certain that some powers that are with the European institutions most certainly have to come back to national parliaments.
Voices are being raised not only in Britain but across Europe in favour of degrees of repatriation of power and competences. There has to be a European-level pattern of decision on many issues, such as the environment and agriculture, and there have to be national decisions as well. Those matters are being increasingly dealt with by committees and agencies that are a mix of supranational officials, European institution officials, Commission officials and national officials. They are very complex matters and will become more complex, thereby making it ever more difficult to envisage a system that cleanly cuts between the levels of competence so that one lot is dealt with always at one level and another lot at another level.
Finally, on the constitution issue, a very interesting report was organised by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament, expressing the thoughts of our Scots friends on whether Scotland's interests were best served by working with and through the London Government, whether they should go straight to building up a much stronger regional presence in Brussels, and whether ideas such as the second chamber of a senate as suggested by the Prime Minister would be of any use to them. I am glad to say that it

1401
was a robust report and that, on the latter point, it came to the clear conclusion that such an arrangement would be absolutely useless and would not help Scotland at all. It also came to the even more encouraging conclusion that Scotland's interests were best served by working closely with the London Government on the Brussels scene and in the European Union rather than by trying to bypass the London Government.
I hope to be forgiven for going at length into these detailed matters. However, we are dealing with the entire future of the European Union, and debating a very big subject on which amendments have been grouped, including the amendment dealing with the reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. As I said, I think that that is the only reference in the documentation from the Nice treaty. The reference is not in the treaty—the Minister has rightly corrected me on that—but is attached to the final act of the treaty. I think that that is the right phrase. It is therefore something we are entitled to discuss.
We on this side have no love for this charter at all: we question its necessity and we question the motives behind its creation. It seems to be involved not merely with important fundamental rights, to which we all adhere, but with a whole range of detailed social interventions elevated into rights, which may be important but are clearly a matter for nation states and not for supranational institutions. The whole endeavour has been described as an attempt to lock Europe into a failing economic and social model. Are we right to worry that it is going to turn out to be something more than—in the words of the former Minister of State for Europe, Mr Vaz—"just Beano"?
Yes, I think we are. We have now the words of Commissioner Vitorino that the Commission has agreed to apply the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Every proposal for legislation and every regulation submitted for adoption by the Commission will undergo prior review for compatibility with the charter. Additionally, proposals or regulations that affect fundamental rights will require a formal declaration of compatibility. That is the preliminary ruling of the European Court of Justice Advocate General. Therefore, all those assurances that the charter would not be taken too seriously and was just a shop window are turning out to be invalid. The charter is turning out to have a far more central role than the assurances we were given seemed to imply.
We on these Benches would like to think that the Giscard convention—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we would like to think that the Giscard-chaired convention will lead to a more modern, less centralising view about the way in which the European Union should be shaped. Frankly, however, I doubt it. I believe that there is a flawed perception of Europe that not only has prevailed but will prevail at the convention. Regardless of any performance in front of the curtain
1402
at the convention, behind the curtain there are much more powerful plans afoot. One I mentioned earlier, for a Franco-German confederation, is apparently being openly considered.
Moreover, I have read in the newspapers, with my eyebrows raised, that our own dear Foreign and Commonwealth Office has a new plan—I hope that the Minister will tell us that it is nonsense—for forming a UK-France-Germany triumvirate to run the European Union. This seems to be missing the fundamental point about the whole problem of the European Union and European unity: the Union has to be more democratic and involve more widely all current and future members.
We are therefore left with an uneasy feeling that Declaration 23 is pointing in the wrong direction. Our amendment seeking to remove large sections of it may be criticised for not recognising the spirit of Nice, but then we never thought that the spirit of Nice was a very nice spirit. While we want to see enlargement carried forward, we do not believe that these types of ambitions, aims and conventions are a necessary part of that process. I beg to move.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I would like simply to point out, as I did when speaking to earlier amendments, that I do not think that we can correctly insert into the list of treaties and Community treaties in the European Communities Act 1972 declarations that do not have treaty force. I do not think that we can correctly do that.
As for Amendment No. 13, the question is: if there is to be another intergovernmental conference in 2004, as the heads of government have decided—they do not need any treaty authority to decide that; they can simply decide it—is it better to prepare it by means of personal representatives and Ministers, leading to a decision at heads of government level, which is how it was done in the past, or is it better to have a wider range of interests, particularly national parliaments, playing a role in the preparation? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, that it would be good to know how and when we are going to play that role, but that is our current choice. I have extensive experience of the preparation of past intergovernmental conferences. I believe that a wider basis for preparation is better than the preparation method which I personally suffered.
The second point of importance is that, if there is to be a convention, the agenda should not be restricted. The earlier part of Declaration 23 puts the process in the context of a deeper and wider debate on the future of the European Union, and the subjects themselves—which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned—are expressly stated to be inter alio. Of course, on some of those points there can be an upside—for example, on treaty simplification—but also a downside if, for example, a large number of member states wanted the European Charter of Fundamental Rights in the treaty. It is important therefore that it should be clear that when the convention states that there could be changes in the treaty, that that should also embrace the possibility of no changes in the treaty.

1403
On balance we do not need to treat this declaration as a treaty. It is not. That would be the effect of Amendment. No. 13—of carrying in a lot of declarations and taking one out. We do not need to do that and for that reason I do not support the amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, in his interesting 26-minute speech, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, raised a wide number of issues about the future of the European Union, to which it would be impossible to respond in full. However, some important issues are raised under the amendments which, although we on these Benches do not intend to support the amendments, we should like the Minister to address.
We on these Benches do not share the level of anxiety about foreign conspiracies against the straightforward and noble English which seemed to run as a theme through the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I loved the description of "more powerful plans afoot behind the curtain". Evidently the French and the Germans are hiding behind the curtain waiting until some good honest Englishman comes out so that they can stab him in the back as he goes by, Hamlet style.
I am sure the serried ranks of Conservatives listening to the speech of the noble Lord agreed with him, but the rest of us may have been a little puzzled. I remind him that a large number of the issues he raised in relation to national parliaments were dealt with in the Committee report of your Lordships' House published over a week ago. It is possible that some Conservatives may even have read that report, since there were Conservatives on the committee. It dealt with the whole question of the role of national parliaments and a second chamber. However, we are looking forward to the preparation of the next inter-governmental conference and the subjects to be covered there—in particular the role of the convention and how this time we report back to this House on important issues. On that we should like the Minister to respond.
As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, the convention is due to start in March. There are intended to be representatives of national parliaments in attendance. No doubt greater attention will be given to first chambers than to second chambers in the appointments. But, given the work of your Lordships' House, in particular of your Lordships' European Union Committee, and given the extent to which there is a level of expertise across the different Benches in this House on European matters, it is something which this House will want to follow in detail. We should therefore like a clear indication from the Minister, following the Written Answer given to a Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, that,
"your Lordships' House will be given the opportunity to debate such a Motion subject to agreement between the usual channels"—[Official Report, 17/01/02; col. WA 174.],
that the time will indeed be made available, and soon, for this House to do that. In the course of such a debate, arrangements whereby your Lordships' House
1404
will be kept regularly abreast of the development of discussions in that convention—not only the EU Committee but the Chamber as a whole—should also be taken into account. Those are the matters which seem to us to be the most important to take on board at this stage.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I do not often agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, but his last point in relation to this House debating the convention and being given a progress report as to what is taking place in the convention during its period of office, is a very good one and I hope that it will be taken up by the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, in referring to the role of national parliaments said, quite rightly, that there was an air of condescension on the part of European officials to national parliaments. That extends to all the institutions of the European Union, including the European Parliament. I remember as a member of the European Union Select Committee of this House attending a meeting of the national parliaments. It was quite clear at that meeting, at which the European Parliament was very well represented, that those representatives believed that the national parliaments were subordinate to themselves instead of the other way about. That is why many officials, including the president of the Commission and various leaders of various countries, want the parliament to be responsible for direct taxation, not only for the financing of the administration of the European Union, but also for the policies.
I happen to believe that the role of national parliaments must be maintained and indeed strengthened. If we believe national parliaments to be the bedrock of the European Union, we cannot continue to agree to Ministers being able to go to Europe without the sanction of Parliament and make agreements on high political policies. We must embark on adopting a system whereby, before Ministers go across to make important decisions, they not only carry the opinion of Parliament, but also the sanction of Parliament as well. That would restore real democracy to where it belongs; that is, with the national parliament.
Furthermore, I believe that Parliament has already ceded too much power to the European Union. At this point we ought to be negotiating for a return of powers, as was promised in the Maastricht treaty under the subsidiarity clause. I remember the debates which took place in this House in which that was always held up as the great achievement—"game set and match" was the exclamation by the then Prime Minister—whereby we were going to reclaim some of the powers we had ceded. Since then we have not regained any that I can manage to locate. This is an opportunity to negotiate some powers back to national governments and national parliaments.
With regard to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, according to M. Chirac and Herr Schroder the plan is to impose a written constitution on the European Union. That is what

1405
they said and we can only believe that that is what they intend. People like myself are criticised because we read what such people say and we believe them. When Chirac says that the charter should be the basis of a written European constitution, then he is entitled to be believed. Since he and others are going along that road, I should like the absolute assurance—I am sure I will not get it—of the Minister this afternoon that that is a road down which the British Government will not take us. I hope that I get an answer, but I rather think that I probably shall not. They want to give the European Union a legal personality. That means that it would have the status of a single state; in other words—again, this phrase is often mentioned by people on the Continent—"a country called Europe".
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, also raised the question of representation at the convention. It is, of course, to be led by M Giscard d'Estaing, who is not a Eurosceptic, as everyone knows. He is a committed European integrationist and so are his two vice-chairmen. Before I entered the Chamber this afternoon I was told by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that Giscard d'Estaing demanded a salary of a million pounds for chairing the convention. That report appeared in a newspaper today which I have not yet read. Just who does this chap think he is to demand such a salary? Does he think that he is David Beckham? Perhaps the noble Baroness will say whether she has heard of that great demand.
I am glad to see that two House of Commons Select Committees are now beginning to show their teeth and demand that Parliament, not government, selects the parliamentary delegates to the convention. It must surely be right that Parliament should select the parliamentary delegates to the convention—anything else is a sham. I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us this afternoon that the Government recognise the democratic legitimacy of that and that they agree with the view expressed by the House of Commons through its Select Committees.
I believe that I raised my next point in Committee. I am really concerned about the representation of those people who simply do not want any further integration; indeed, they want to regress from further integration. It seems that they will not be represented at all. After all, in this country, they represent if not a majority, very nearly a majority. It seems to me that they will not be represented. That simply is not good enough. It is not good enough to have the convention packed with the lickspittling lackeys of European integration.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, have I said something that amuses people? That is what I think and that is what I say. There should be a strong counterweight to what is likely to be a foregone conclusion if there is not that counterweight.
The Government have no excuse for not taking that large body of British opinion into account. There are all kinds of Eurorealist organisations. Indeed, the
1406
organisation, SOS Democracy, represents Eurorealist opinion throughout Europe. I believe that those bodies ought to be consulted. There are certainly very many organisations with larger numbers of members than either political party which ought to be consulted. I wonder whether the Government might like to consult those various Eurorealist organisations instead of forever taking a one-sided view that the European Union must forever develop along the lines of a single state.
I have asked a number of questions. I should, of course, be delighted if the noble Baroness is able to answer them. I have perhaps expressed a different point of view than that which is usually expressed in this House, but I believe that Parliament must start to reassert itself. If it does not, progress towards a fully integrated European state will undermine its status and undermine democracy in this country and, I believe, in all the other countries of Europe as well.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I should like to address a few words on the subject of the amendment—perhaps that is rather a change in this debate. If the amendment were carried, its effect would be exactly the opposite to that which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, wishes to achieve. By knocking out subjects to be discussed in the convention and in the future IGC, he will simply make the remit wider and not narrower. Therefore, I do not support that.
As regards the subjects that have been identified for the next convention and IGC which, of course, have now been made much more elaborate by the decisions reached at Laeken, I do not share the noble Lord's dislike of the reference to the delimitation of powers. I believe that the European Union could benefit from a clearer delimitation of powers. The argument that he used against it which was that you could not set everything in concrete because there may need to be changes in the future of which one is not able to take account in 2004 is, of course, an argument usually used by the maximalists in the European Union to resist any delimitation of powers because they do not wish to see themselves constrained in any way.
Therefore, I believe that a situation where. for example, the provisions of subsidiarity in the Maastricht treaty were made a bit clearer and a bit easier to apply would be of benefit to all member states whether they be maximalist or minimalist as there would be less bickering about where the dividing line runs and a better chance of applying subsidiarity in a practical way. The problem with subsidiarity is that it is a wonderful principle but it is extraordinarily difficult to apply. It has not been applied properly in the European Union at any stage. Therefore, to my mind, it would be a good thing if the European Union moved towards a situation where it could apply it and even perhaps towards a situation where there was some body of a somewhat more objective kind which would adjudicate on which side of the subsidiarity line particular proposals lay. I refer to the idea that has been mentioned of France and Germany's constitutional courts. I do not want to get into the

1407
constitution point on this, but I refer to something like that that would adjudicate whether a proposal from the Commission was on the wrong side of the subsidiarity line.
I do not think that we should be afraid of that, any more than I think that the reference in the declaration which we are debating to the powers of national parliaments is something we should shy away from. I believe that national parliaments have a bigger role to play. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that I am not an admirer of the Folketing system. In my experience the Danish delegation in Brussels spent 99 per cent of its time negotiating the Folketing committee while all the rest of us were negotiating with each other to get the right result out of European legislation. Therefore, I do not think that that is a good system, nor do I think that it would work in either House of this Parliament.
Finally, I make a plea that we do not now start lengthy and heated debate about whether it is acceptable to use the word "constitution" as regards what will be talked about in Brussels in the convention and in the IGC. If you look at the origin of the European Union, you are bound to come to the conclusion that the treaties of Rome and Paris of 1952 and 1956 are in fact constitutional documents. They are not a constitution but they are constitutional documents and they have always been treated as such, as have the amendments to them. I was converted to the view that one should not shy away from the word "constitution" by two lectures given respectively by the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, and the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. That involves a reasonably eclectic choice of views on the European Union. Both noble Lords argued—in my view persuasively—that it would be an advantage to Europe to have a constitutional document that was clear, more precise and easier to assimilate by its citizens than the present amalgam of the treaties of Paris, Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice and the Single European Act. I hope that we shall not become lost in a lengthy semantic discussion about the word "constitution"; what matters is what goes into it.
I conclude by saying that I hope that the amendment is not agreed to because it would not have its intended effect.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, about the relations of national parliaments to the European Parliament, I wish to lick a little bit of spittle. One wise thing that Mr Major did at the time of Maastricht was to agree with the increased intercourse that should take place with national parliaments and the European Parliament. If have to say that this national Parliament was one of the most remiss in taking up that offer. Thus it was that the European Parliament—I was a member of its economic committee for some 10 years—itself inaugurated relations with national parliaments. Once again, a conspicuous feature of those meetings—at which we discussed, among other things, the advent of the single currency—was the absence of British representation.
1408
My final point is that all is not lost. We should renew efforts to secure better relations with the European Parliament. In the case of this national Parliament—the British national Parliament—the House of Lords, which has an extensive structure for the oversight of European legislation, should be the Chamber that promotes that relationship.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I want to put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, whose remarks I heard with some interest. He admitted that subsidiarity was not really working as he had hoped it would. Does he envisage the convention—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it would be proper if the noble Lord put his questions to the Minister rather than to another Member who has participated in the debate.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am quite happy to put questions to the Minister, provided that she can answer on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. If she agrees with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, which was to the effect that subsidiarity should start to bite in the European Union in a way that is not—
Earl Russell: My Lords, we are on Report and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, cannot answer for himself. It is therefore unfair to ask a question of him.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thought that I had made it clear that I was now asking the Minister whether she agreed with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay; namely, that subsidiarity should be made to bite in future in relation to actions associated with the Treaty of Rome. My question is very simple. As we move towards the convention, does the Minister, on behalf of the Government, see the process of integration and the acquis communautaire being reversed? Does she see Articles 2, 3 and 6.4 of the Treaty on European Union and Protocol 30 of the TEC, which applies specifically to subsidiarity, being reversed or not? If not, we shall be dealing with just another pious hope from the Europhiles, which they know perfectly well has no chance of being met in reality.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in replying to this debate I shall address Amendments Nos. 13 and 14, on which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said that he placed so much importance. I am only sorry that his enthusiasm was not shared by his noble friends.
The declaration on the future of Europe, which was agreed at Nice, encapsulates key commitments, for which the Government fought very hard. Nice opens the way for enlargement, with no need for further institutional change. Before the next IGC in 2004 there should be a deep and wide debate involving ordinary citizens. The main agenda items for that IGC should be, First, a more precise delimitation of powers between the

1409
EU and member states, reflecting the principle of subsidiarity. The second item should involve the status of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights; that is, whether—and, if so, how—it should be incorporated into EU treaties. The third item involves simplification of EU treaties to make them clearer and better understood without changing their meaning. The fourth item involves the role of national parliaments in the European architecture.
The declaration also makes it clear that in addressing those issues there is a need to improve the democratic legitimacy and transparency of the EU and its institutions in order to bring them closer to citizens of member states. Much of this debate reflected those concerns.
I find it hard to understand how the Opposition would explain to our friends in the candidate countries why they seek to exclude from the treaty provisions that would allow candidate countries to participate in the next IGC; Amendment No. 13 would have that effect. It is absolutely right that as soon as candidate countries have signed accession agreements they should be allowed to participate in the IGC on an equal basis. It should not matter that they have formally not acceded to the European Union. That is a proper sign that we value their membership and input. Amendment No. 13 would exclude that possibility.
It is important to make it clear to all noble Lords that in this context we are discussing the United Kingdom's agenda. Successive British governments sought to place that agenda at the heart of the European debate. That agenda will lead to a more efficient, more comprehensible and—this is probably the most important point—more accountable EU, which we all want. We on this side of the House believe that the EU has been a great success but we certainly do not think that it is perfect. We are clear that the way to secure reform is to take part in debates on those issues, to put our case and to win the arguments. That is what we intend to do up to—and, indeed, at—the IGC in 2004.
I turn briefly to the way in which we expect that debate to be conducted—many noble Lords have concentrated on that—and the Government's approach to the issues. It is important to debate the issues with our partners. In December the Laeken European Council agreed to set up the convention, as we have discussed. That should be the means for taking this debate forward. The convention will bring together representatives of member states' governments, national parliamentarians, MEPs and, of course, the Commission. There would also be arrangements to allow NGOs and other representatives of civil society to make their views known. That is all to the good, too.
I remind noble Lords of the Written Answer that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. In Answer to a Question tabled by my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen, I said:
"The other place will be given the opportunity to debate a Motion nominating members to the convention, and your Lordships' House will be given the opportunity to debate such a Motion subject to agreement between the usual channels".—[Official Report, 17/1/02; col. WA 174.]
1410
I cannot say fairer than that. From the beginning of our discussion of this issue, which was originally prompted by an oral question from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, I have sought to gather together the views of noble Lords and I have sought to convey them to the appropriate channels elsewhere in government. The noble Lord asked me for a categorical assurance about representation from your Lordships' House. The noble Lord will know that I am not able to give him that absolute assurance, but I can tell him that I very much hope so. On behalf of noble Lords, that is the argument that I have put with every fibre that I can muster. I hope that the noble Lord has been doing so, as has, I hope, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. We all know that there will be a great deal of pressure from another place for not only the two representatives but perhaps also the two alternatives to come from another place.
I put it to the noble Lord that this is not only a matter for the Government to decide; it is a matter in which we must all bear some responsibility in putting forward to our political colleagues in another place our arguments for representation in your Lordships' House. I know that I have done my part and I hope very much that your Lordships are also putting forward those arguments with all the gusto that can be mustered.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that no Eurosceptic will take part in the convention. I do not know who will be nominated. Each country will choose its own representative and, of course, the European Parliament will do so, too. I understand that Jens-Peter Bonde, who, I believe, is a well-known Danish Eurosceptic MEP, is likely to be part of the convention. Unless my memory deceives me, I recall the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referring with great admiration to that Danish gentleman. I hope that, if that is the case, the noble Lord will be pleased with that outcome. However, that is a matter for others to decide. Extensive as our ties may be, I am afraid that they do not extend to choosing the Danish members.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right. Jens-Peter Bonde is a very good friend of mine and I understand that it is possible that he will be on the convention. I do not know how big the convention will be but it will be very large, and one little tit-bit will not be enough to satisfy me or any other Eurosceptic.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord is at least able to agree with me on the likelihood of that gentleman's involvement. But we shall see. None of us knows whether that will definitely be the case.
The point is that the convention is meant to produce options and ideas. But final decisions will remain where they should be—with the member states' governments in the intergovernmental conference itself. Those decisions will be taken, as the EU treaty rightly provides, by unanimity of the member states and in accordance with their own constitutional

1411
provisions. Of course, in the United Kingdom that means ratification procedures involving Parliament, as for the Nice treaty today. That is right, too.
I now turn to the substance of what we can describe as the four Nice issues. We have not reached a final view on any of the agenda items. It would be foolish to do so now, more than two years in advance of the IGC. I do not believe that that would be sensible or right. We want to hear what the public in this country think and we want to look at the ways in which we can approach the convention. But I hope that I can outline some of the main elements of our thinking to your Lordships.
We welcome the fact that the demarcation of powers between the EU and member states is on the agenda. I believe that the overwhelming majority of your Lordships will welcome that. It has been a recurring theme in our discussions, as, indeed, it has been again today. As the Prime Minister said in Warsaw, we need to focus the EU on what matters to its citizens and stop it doing things which it does not need to do. I hope that that is music to many of your Lordships' ears. That is why the Prime Minister argued in Warsaw that it is,
"both desirable and realistic to draw up a statement of principles according to which we should decide what is best done at the European level and what should be done at national level".
In particular, we are keen that two important principles already in the EU treaties—that is, subsidiarity and proportionality—should be given greater practical effect. Subsidiarity means that the EU should act only where member states cannot achieve the objective on their own. Of course, proportionality means that when the EU does act, it should do so as lightly as possible, consistent with achieving the result.
I turn to the charter of rights. This Government believe in human rights. We believe that people need to know what their rights are and that EU institutions need to respect them. That is what the charter of rights, proclaimed at Nice, is intended to achieve. It is a worthy aim and one which we on this side support. Of course, the charter is a political declaration. We have been over that point on a number of occasions. It is not the law; it is not present in the EU treaties; nor is it referred to in the Treaty of Nice itself. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and I were able to agree our position on that point.
At this point in previous stages of the Bill the Opposition have reached for their thick, and no doubt growing, files of press criticisms labelled "Romano Prodi" and have found one saying that the charter should, indeed, be legally binding. Let me be clear about that. There is no secret that the Commission and, indeed, some member states want to make the charter legally binding and to incorporate it into the treaties. We have not agreed to that. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that there cannot be any change in the status of the charter unless we and all other member states so agree because such a change would require unanimity. However, we have agreed that the 2004 IGC should consider whether to incorporate the charter into the treaties and, if so, how. That is the
1412
mandate agreed by the Cologne European Council and repeated in the Nice text, and that is what we shall stick to.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness again and I am obliged to her for giving way. Does what she has just said mean that the Government remain opposed to the charter being incorporated into any treaty? Will they maintain that opposition at the 2004 conference? Can we have an absolute assurance that, although they rarely do it, the Government will, on this occasion, use the veto?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it clearly means that that is our position in discussing the Nice treaty. The noble Lord now asks me to give an absolute undertaking for the year 2004. He is right. I shall not give such an undertaking for the straightforward reason which I hope I articulated earlier: I do not believe that at this stage it is sensible so to do. At this stage we have not finalised the agenda or heard all the arguments. I believe that it would be disingenuous to say that we agree to this being incorporated into the agenda but that we shall not even listen to what is said to us about it. Therefore, I am being absolutely straightforward with the noble Lord. He is probably not in the least bit disappointed with what I said. I assume that he is probably rather pleased that I have not been able to give him that assurance. However, I shall not do so because I do not believe that I am in a position to do so honestly.
I turn to the issue of treaty simplification. We agree with those who say that the treaties are almost impossible to read and that greater clarity is desirable. That is why we decided at Nice that the 2004 IGC should also consider how to simplify the treaties in order to make them understood. I believe that we are all aware that that will be a challenge. The treaties are complicated largely because they are agreed by unanimity, and each phrase or sentence usually represents some sort of compromise designed to safeguard the interests of one or other member state. In many cases, frankly, that has been the United Kingdom. But we are determined that we should make the effort.
We are also determined that we should not wait until 2004 to begin the process of clarifying what the treaties do and do not mean. The Government have started by making available in an easy-to-read form information on the Nice treaty in a booklet published shortly after Nice and on the rest of the EU treaties via the FCO website. We intend to build on that work.
I turn to the role of national parliaments. I believe that that is where many of your Lordships' concerns are focused. We have long believed that national parliaments should be more closely involved in monitoring and shaping EU decisions. That is why this Government introduced stronger scrutiny arrangements when we came to office in 1997. Of course, we ensured that all three pillars were brought under the scrutiny of the two committees: one in the other place; one in your Lordships' House. I believe that that has been a welcome change. That is why we

1413
sought debate in this Parliament on matters of EU importance, as we did before and after the Nice treaty. That is why the Prime Minister has proposed, as one possible solution, a second Chamber of the European Parliament made up of representatives from national legislatures.
But, of course, noble Lords opposite are right. There are several proposals on the table; for example, from France Prime Minister Jospin has proposed a congress of national parliaments, and today ideas have been put forward from Denmark on the issue of mandating. We must consider these issues on their merits. What matters to all of us is that national legislatures, with which most of our European citizens most readily identify, should continue to have an important role in EU matters as the EU enlarges its membership and develops its activities.
The noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, helpfully pointed out that it is quite clear from the declaration that the words "inter alia" are used, so other issues may be added to the four that I articulated.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was exercised about the article in the Financial Times claiming the existence of an FCO plan for a kind of Security Council arrangement in the EU, with the UK, France and Germany as the prominent group. That is not true. It has not been proposed, and has not even been discussed within the Government. As for the other most interesting story about the £1 million to be paid for any chairman—mentioned, I believe, by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon—that sounds both silly and misguided to me, as was the article from the Financial Times. However, if I am wrong, I shall write to the noble Lord and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.
The Nice declaration does not limit what we can talk about at the IGC. Clearly, that would not be right. The world is moving very fast, and it is not possible to predict the EU's priorities in the year 2004. I am sure that the noble Lord would say, rightly, that we were being foolish were we to attempt to do so. We are looking at the proposed agenda items on that basis.
We look forward to this debate on the future of the European Union. Our aim is further to reform the Union so that we can continue to deliver what I believe most of the citizens of Britain and Europe want, and do so in ways that command their consent and support. On this side of the House we approach the debate with confidence. Since 1997, we have learnt that our approach, which is pro-Europe and pro-reform, is one that is working. The success of the Nice treaties confirm that, as does the agenda for 2004 agreed at Nice. The agenda is in the interests of Britain. We believe that it is also in the interests of Europe as a whole.
I hope that I have been able to answer the majority of the questions raised. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, made a very comprehensive address on the issues involved. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that I have answered the matters raised sufficiently so as to allow him to withdraw the amendment. If we did not
1414
take this agenda forward and were to vote against it, I believe that that action would place us in real difficulty when discussing with our European colleagues those very items about which the noble Lord and so many of his colleagues have expressed concern. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, this afternoon's debate has been most interesting. We have addressed some quite fundamental issues to which we shall no doubt be turning our minds in different contexts in future weeks and months. The Minister answered many points most fully. She teased me about the apparent lack of troops behind me when I began my opening remarks. I confess that, for a moment, I felt a little like the Duke of Wellington at Waterloo waiting for the Prussian troops to arrive at the end of the day. If I spoke at length, it was because I wished to deal with a number of fundamental issues that had not been previously addressed, and may not have been properly considered in the other place. However, I also did so to give my "troops", who were otherwise engaged, time to arrive in the Chamber.
I shall deal briefly with some of the issues. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who has great experience in these matters, spoke about dividing lines and the need to circumscribe and limit the powers of the European institutions and of the Commission. I used to be of that view when I believed that Europe was working in the old way. Indeed, I confess that I once wrote a book in which I said that that would be a good idea. However, like ships passing in the night, just as the noble Lord has come to that conclusion I have moved on from it. It seems to me that the new fabric of international relations, and the new network arrangements of the much more flexible kind that are emerging, make the idea of a written constitution, as proposed, completely out of date and inappropriate for the kind of Europe that we want to see.
However, I recognise that that thought belongs to tomorrow and that, for today, the cliché is, "Let's have a constitution". That seems to be the general idea. Clearly, it will be pushed at this convention. I envisage with some foreboding the attempt being made to write all this down. I believe that it will end in tears, but that is the wisdom of the moment and everyone thinks that it is okay. I understand the distaste of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for the Folketing and seeing parliaments becoming involved in endless "negotiation" to control their Ministers, thus removing lovely quality time in which officials can get on with the wonders of negotiation. But that, again, is the pattern for tomorrow: there will be more demand than ever from parliaments and peoples who are more empowered and have greater access to more information to have a far bigger say in how these matters are decided. Negotiations will become more difficult, as will momentum, but, on the other side of the coin, there will be more democracy. It is slow; it is infuriating; it is maddening; and it does not always fit in with aims and vision. However, it is the way that the world ought to go, and I believe that it will go in that direction.

1415
I have made it quite clear that I very much favour a stronger role for national parliaments. My reason for wanting to knock this piece out of the declaration is that we do not like the proposal that the role should be designed not by our own discussion and debate, and by our elected government, but by a superior convention that, somehow, sets out some new role for us. The question of how it is done is at issue. We do not find the tone of the suggestion in the declaration to be encouraging.
I turn to the applicant countries and the question of whether their invitation to be involved would be damaged by the amendment. I agree that it would. However, I cannot see the need for a declaration, let alone a treaty, merely to arrange that there should be an invitation for those applicant countries to be fully involved. I am totally in support of their full involvement. In fact, I believe that their involvement has not been sufficient thus far. That can be easily overcome. We do not need to make elaborate summit declarations to achieve that aim.
I turn to the two core matters under discussion. As for the convention details, the Minister very frankly and openly said that she could give no categoric assurance on how the representation will be organised. I assure the noble Baroness that we have been trying. Obviously, I cannot speak for members of other parties, but we have been trying to put forward the point of view that your Lordships' House should have a say in these matters. I believe that that was the pattern in a precious arrangement as regards the embryo of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. We know that a Member of this House was able to speak for us; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. I had hoped that that would happen again on this much bigger issue. That is why we have been trying to push that point, and we shall continue to do so.
I am quite sure that the noble Baroness is doing her utmost, but the basic problem is this: is it really right that this great national Parliament, with all its history and authority in its two Houses, should be represented just by two people attending a convention in Brussels? I believe that the inventors of this convention idea have got it wrong. This is not the way in which the future of Europe can be democratically decided. It may go ahead; indeed, it probably will. But I do not believe that it will inspire vast confidence that the future of Europe is in democratic hands. Although our two members will be chosen and will no doubt do their best, they will have an enormous uphill problem to connect with the feelings of both the other place and of this House about how the future of Europe should be organised. I am left with the feeling that that is a very unhappy position, and one that I do not think we should necessarily accept.
As for the charter details, the Minister said, again, that she could give no undertaking about what will happen in 2004. She said that the Government have not agreed that the charter should be fully embedded in the treaties. However, in a preliminary ruling,
"the Commission has agreed to apply the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Accordingly every proposal for legislation, and every regulation submitted for adoption by the Commission, will undergo prior review for compatibility with the Charter".
1416
As we are nearing the end of the debate, I do not want to ask more questions, but a question that has not been answered and that hangs in the air is whether the Government have agreed that point. They may say that they have not agreed anything in relation to the charter, but something has happened and the Commission has taken on a role. I wonder whether the Government have objected to that. I do not know. Perhaps we shall learn about that at another time. Clearly we shall not learn about it from what we have heard this afternoon.
Although through the proposal to change this declaration we have raised many broad issues—these two particular issues merit very serious attention—I do not believe that they have received the full attention that they deserve nor have we received the full assurances that we seek. For that reason I wish to test the opinion of the House.
4.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 115; Not-Contents, 177.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Glentoran, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Goschen, V.

Attlee, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Bell, L.

Greenway, L.

Blaker, L.

Hanham, B.

Boardman, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Henley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Higgins, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Burnham, L.

Hogg, B.

Buscombe, B.

Howe, E.

Byford, B.

Howell of Guildford, L

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Jopling, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Kimball, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Kingsland, L.

Chadlington, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Colwyn, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Lucas, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Luke, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lyell, L.

Cuckney, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Denham, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mancroft, L.

Dundee, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Montrose, D.

Elton, L.

Moynihan, L.

Erroll, E.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Ferrers, E.

Noakes, B.

Fookes, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Fowler, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Onslow, E.

Freeman, L.

Palmer, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Geddes, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

1417

Peel, E.

Selsdon, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Rawlings, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Reay, L.

Strange, B.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Swinfen, L.

Renton, L.

Thatcher, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Trefgame, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Vivian, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Waddington, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wakeham, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Weatherill, L.

Selborne, E.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Addington, L.

Gilbert, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Alli, L.

Golding, B.

Amos, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Andrews, B.

Goodhart, L.

Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Goudie, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Avebury, L.

Greaves, L.

Bach, L.

Greengross, B.

Barker, B.

Grenfell, L.

Barnett, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Billingham, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Blease, L.

Harrison, L.

Borrie, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Bragg. L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Brennan, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Brett, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hoyle, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Carter, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Chandos, V.

Christopher, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Jeger, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jones, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Layard, L.

David, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Levy, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Lipsey, L.

Desai, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dholakia, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Dixon, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Dubs, L.

Elder, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

McNally, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Maddock, B.

Filkin, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Gale, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Geraint, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

1418

Milner of Leeds, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Mishcon, L.

Serota, B.

Mitchell, L.

Sharman, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Sheldon, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Newby, L.

Simon, V.

Northover, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Parekh, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Paul, L.

Stallard, L.

Pendry, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Peston, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Taverne, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Radice, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Tope, L.

Razzall, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rea, L.

Uddin, B.

Redesdale, L.

Varley, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Rennard, L.

Walmsley, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Walpole, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Rogan, L.

Whitaker, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Whitty, L.

Roper, L.

Wigoder, L.

Russell, E.

Wilkins, B.

St.John of Bletso, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Sandwich, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Sawyer, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.2 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 not moved.]
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"EFFECTS OF THE TREATY OF NICE
Within three months of the ratification by Her Majesty's Government of the Treaty of Nice amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, the Government shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a White Paper on the economic, political and constitutional developments arising therefrom."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we can deal briefly with this matter. I should like to think that the Government will accept that the principle behind the amendment—perhaps not the precise wording—is entirely worth supporting. What concerns us all and what concerns the Commission, those who drafted the Treaty of Nice and governments throughout Europe is the gap between the activities of the European institutions—what they are up to and what their treaties mean—and what the citizens of Europe really want and expect from the European Union. There is discontinuity.
Although the European Parliament obviously has a vital role to play, particularly in relation to monitoring the Commission and other aspects of the European institutions, it is not really in the loop of accountability and connection. That is what is missing. It is therefore

1419
vitally important that there should be much better knowledge of the meaning of these treaties. Amendment No. 18, to which we shall come to in a moment, puts the case even more vividly. Amendment No. 17 makes the modest request that there should be an explanatory White Paper on the economic, political and constitutional developments arising from this particular treaty within three months of its ratification.
The word "constitutional" is important. I think that it is generally accepted that constitutional developments are now at the forefront of the European agenda. It has not been openly agreed but it is now widely recognised that the matter of the euro—we have so far avoided discussing it in these debates and perhaps that should continue—is bound up intimately with constitutional matters and is, indeed, itself a political matter. I noticed in Le Monde on New Year's Day a huge headline, saying,
"Après l'euro, la constitution".
The two things follow as night follows day; they are linked together. So it is very important that Parliament and, through Parliament, the people are given an explanation of what constitutional developments are going on. The amendment goes some small way to meet that. I agree that White Papers are not the stuff of every bookstand and news-stand. But they can be given an additional interpretation. They can be simplified and presented to people. At present, there is widespread lack of information, combined with a healthy demand for that information which is not being satisfied, about what was agreed at Nice. What is being agreed in these treaties? What are the rulers up to when they meet and turn their ideas into often very complex language—the world of frameworks, decisions, declarations and so on?
Amendment No. 17 is an ordinary plea that our Parliament be given a better explanation of what has been going on. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the Government have made this proposal necessary because they spent so much time before, during and after Nice trying to persuade people that Nice involved nothing more than minor changes which were necessary in order to allow enlargement to take place. Our debates in Parliament have been worthwhile if they have exposed what complete nonsense that was.
During our debates, we have been able to point out that, among other things, the Nice treaty proposes that qualified majority voting should take the place of unanimity in a whole range of matters which the Government have not sought to pretend have the slightest bit to do with Nice or that they are changes needed in order to make enlargement possible. Simply because of all these other matters dealt with at Nice—the replacement of unanimity by qualified majority voting in a whole range of matters, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, and all the proposals surrounding the controversial issue of the European defence force and the rest—it is necessary to put them on paper and for the Government to explain why they
1420
are important. That would be beneficial and would help the Government to explain to the people what Nice is really all about.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Nice is about reform for enlargement. In particular, it is about reforming the European Union's institutions for enlargement. That is what the changes under discussion will deliver.
I would just say to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that I do not believe that anyone speaking for the Government has ever claimed that it is not an important treaty. Others may have done so. Others have said that it is a treaty which is far more far-reaching and radical than any treaty before. I am bound to say that I think that the truth lies somewhere between the two. It is not nearly as radical as some treaties, but it certainly is an important treaty. It represents, in the view of the Government, a good outcome for the United Kingdom. It will deliver a stronger Britain in a wider Europe.
Let us enumerate what has happened during the course of the treaty. We have opened the door for enlargement. We have won more relative voting power for Britain. We have delivered a more efficient Commission, securing more QMV where this is in the United Kingdom's interest and preserving our veto where we said we would. We have achieved a more effective system of justice in the EU that will help cut down delays and have secured a more flexible EU, while safeguarding the interests of all member states. That result meets all the objectives that we set ourselves at Nice. It is further evidence that the Government's policy of positive engagement in Europe is really working.
The amendment tabled by the Opposition calls for,
"a White Paper on the economic, political and constitutional developments"
resulting from the Nice treaty to be published within three months of its ratification. The Government are always ready to provide information to Parliament on the European Union and, and indeed, about the Nice treaty. We have a good story to tell on both. Your Lordships can turn to our websites or to the speeches of my right honourable friends in another place. Indeed, your Lordships can turn to speeches made in your Lordships' House.
The White Paper proposed in the amendment is unnecessary. The Government have kept Parliament fully informed of the negotiations on the effect of the Nice treaty. A White Paper, Reform for Enlargement, was published in February 2000. It clearly set out the Government's position on the 2000 IGC. Parliament is debating the implications of Nice right now.
I recall other treaties. Noble Lords are now suggesting that we should publish a White Paper in the wake of Nice, but when the Conservative Party was in power, there was no White Paper to follow up what many of your Lordships would regard as a far more radical treaty—the Treaty of Maastricht.

1421
We shall continue to keep Parliament informed of developments in the European Union as they occur. We have a good record on that. There is no evidence on which to doubt the Government's word on that. Indeed, yesterday we laid before Parliament and published our latest six-monthly report of developments in the EU. In addition, Parliament will have ample opportunity to contribute to and debate the future of Europe in the lead-up to the next IGC in 2004, as we have just discussed.
All the changes agreed at Nice will be about delivering the modernised and reformed European Union that we all want. It will be an EU better equipped to deal with enlargement. Parliament has been kept fully informed of those changes, and the electorate has supported them—as we saw in June. That is why we stand by them, and why we cannot support the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, there may be one flaw in the amendment. It states:
"Within three months of the ratification by Her Majesty's Government of the Treaty of Nice amending the Treaty on European Union"—
and so on—
"the Government shall lay before both Houses of Parliament".
That sounds all right, and normally I would support it. But there is a fly in the ointment, is there not? The treaty cannot come into operation until the Irish have had another referendum, because all members must ratify before the provisions can come into law. Has the noble Baroness any news as to when—if at all—another referendum will be held in the Irish Republic?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as for the shortcomings, alleged or actual, of the amendment, that is not a matter for me—it is not my amendment, it is that of the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. As for the current position regarding Ireland, I have no further news to deliver to your Lordships beyond what I have already said about how the issue is being tackled.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I shall not pretend that I am anything but disappointed by the reply of the noble Baroness. The amendment represents a perfectly clear and modest request that Parliament deserves to have answered in the affirmative.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, raised the question of the whole ratification process. The amendment mentions ratification by Her Majesty's Government, which is of course a narrower concept. In a sense, the treaty has already been signed by the Government, and in the Government's mind it is just a question of getting it through the two Houses and onto the statute book, and that will be their business done. As the noble Lord pointed out, ratification of the treaty as a whole is very much on hold. We need a White Paper not least to explain to the British public
1422
what is plan B, supposing that the Irish do not so reorganise their system that they can have another referendum that will come out a different way. Let us suppose that, maddeningly, the people continue to speak in the same tone. What happens then? Have we worked in vain? Will another treaty be designed? Will we return to our original plan, which was a treaty to deal with the mechanics of enlargement—in so far as they needed to be dealt with by a treaty—which would have long since been passed without any problems in Ireland or anywhere else? Or are we to try some new avenue?
Those are matters that deserve an answer in due course—not now, obviously. Parliament deserves an answer, which, among other things, should be included in a White Paper. However, apparently that is not to be. We feel deprived, but we have made known our views. Having done so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"PUBLIC INFORMATION
(1) This Act shall not come into effect until Her Majesty's Government have communicated to every household in the United Kingdom the constitutional and governmental effects of the Treaty of Nice.
(2) A communication under subsection (1) shall be—

(a) in writing,

(b) in plain English,

(c) in popular form, and

(d) impartial."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should emphasise that this amendment is proposed in a purely impartial spirit as regards the content and utility of the Treaty of Nice. It is not about whether I am in favour of or against the treaty, it is to do solely with democracy and the effectiveness of democracy vis à vis the European Union. Whatever our view of the future of the Union—whether or not we want it to proceed step by step to up to ultimate unification—should not affect our desire to ensure that, so far as possible, the democratic content is maximised as we move along the road.
It is surely no secret that the British public are more ignorant of and confused by the European Union than they are of any other great political project during the lifetime of anyone in this Chamber. That it is a great project, I am sure that we all agree. Some may wish that it was less great; some may wish that it was greater. But that it is of the most profound importance to every man, woman and child in these islands, there can be no doubt.
I do not want to enlarge more than a little on the degree of ignorance, non-involvement, non-engagement and disconnection that exists. We need only consider a single statistic—the electoral turnout at the last European election—to have put before us a measure of the apathy, alienation, confusion and lack of relatedness of the public towards the Parliament of

1423
Europe and Europe itself. Only slightly more than 23 per cent of our fellow citizens exercised their precious vote—a far lower figure than in any other election in our history; far lower than the turnout in any comparable European state.
If we add to that the knowledge that roughly one-third of voters aged 30 and under were not registered to cast their vote at that time, and pursue an analysis of whom among that 23 per cent turned out by age profile, we end up with the statistic that only about one in 10 of voters aged under 25 voted in that election. Given that the younger generation are supposed to be the standard bearers for the future of this country, and given that I have heard a great many assertions that the young are much more in favour of that project than are the old, that should give us all immense pause.
I want to say one other thing about democratic engagement, which relates to social exclusion. I give the Government great credit for their attempts to grapple with social exclusion. Your Lordships may remember that soon as the Labour Party was elected to power in 1997, the Prime Minister immediately set up 18 teams—I think it was 18—to engage different aspects of social exclusion. All those efforts came down to one overriding principle, which was set out clearly in the report of policy action team 10: the motive force of self-help. That team said, on behalf of all the other teams, that the most important element in raising communities out of exclusion was self-help. It is manifestly apparent that self-help is the most important element of a vibrant democracy. Self-help starts with voting.
The sense of being excluded from the European Union—partly because it is so complex, partly because it is so distant and untouchable—and its aspirations is felt by far more of our fellow citizens than just those whom we normally think of as socially excluded. If we are concerned about the quality of our democracy—as we are, for we had a great debate for two days last week about how democracy would be best served by the reform of the House—and about the malaise that is apparent in our democracy, the first thing that we must do is to reach out—I repeat—reach out to those who feel themselves to be excluded from the political process.
We may say that they should not feel excluded. We may say that there is information available on the Internet. We may say, as the Government have said about the Bill, that a White Paper was published last spring, at a cost of £11.50. We may say that it is on the Internet and that anyone with a bit of gumption and effort can have access to the Internet. We may say that a leaflet has been published—as it has—and that they can get hold of it in their public library. I have the leaflet here. Any noble Lords who have seen it may agree with me that it is about as unenticing to the sort of people about whom I am concerned as it could conceivably be. There are no headings and no illustrations. It is in small type. It is dense and abstract.
All the arguments have a certain currency, but a limited one. The facts are the facts. I do not accuse the Government of wilful indifference to the third—or
1424
even half—of the populace that feels totally cut adrift from Europe and its institutions and development. I do, however, accuse them of lack of imagination. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, wrote to me on 17th December. He said:
"It is simplistic … to say that only a certain percentage of households are connected to the internet".
It is not simplistic; it is a fact. It is simplistic to assume that those who do not have access to it will get access to it for the purposes of reading a relatively indigestible White Paper—indigestible to the sort of people about whom I am concerned. If they read anything, such people will read a red-top tabloid newspaper.
We often hear those who support the European Union most strongly parade the argument that the whole project has been derailed because the tabloids have misrepresented the European Union again and again, giving partial and wrong facts and stupid examples of the malfunctioning of the Union. I have sympathety with that argument, to a degree, but that stops at the point at which one realises that we—in any government—have done absolutely nothing to inform people and get round the back of the rubbish that is sometimes published about the Union. If we were really concerned about it, we would have been informing the public in a popular, plain English way from the beginning. The only time that we really connected with the public was in the referendum of 1975—nearly 27 years ago.
To those who say of the amendment that we should have had this for Maastricht, I say that I agree. I also agree with those who say that this is not the most important treaty on Europe that there has ever been. However, we must make an urgent start. I would have preferred it if we had had a series of popular, plain English information communications decades back. We did not, so let us start. There is no advantage to anyone in the House or beyond in leaving the British public—in particular, the bottom third or so, in socio-economic terms—completely out of the debate.
Sometimes, in politics, we need to make gestures. It is not enough to say, "It's on the Internet; go and get it" or "Go to the library and read it". It is just like election time. I do not think that Jack Straw or the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean—were she allowed to fight an election—would be content to say to the electors of wherever that the information was on the Internet or that they should go to the public library. We all endlessly stuff leaflets through people's door at election time to show people that we care about their vote. It is the only way of imparting information that carries the message that we want people to read it, and we care about that because we want them to vote for us. I have exactly the same sense about the EU and the state of Parliament in our country today.
There are people who think that the European Union and the Government do not care a toss about them and that the elite in this country has no interest in what they think—or, indeed, whether they think. We must show them that that is untrue. The only way in which we can do that is by putting through every door

1425
in the land a popular, plain English tabloid-type leaflet, illustrated, written and set out in a way that will be accessible and appealing.
Jack Straw wrote to me, saying that the Government's costings said that it would take £5 million to print all the leaflets and get them into every house. I have done a costing with the Royal Mail and with a newspaper; it was £1.5 million. Be that as it may, it is tempting to say that we should bear the cost of engaging the public wholeheartedly in this great project, even if it were £50 million or £500 million or—dare I say it?—£5 billion. The costs of the present situation will be incalculable further down the road—they may be incalculable already. It might cost £5 million. That is the cost of a few smart bombs rained on Afghanistan. It is the cost of six MEPs. Against the background of what we are discussing, it is of no great account.
I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, said in Committee. He likened the European Union to the building of a great cathedral. For too many of our countrymen, the great edifice of the European Union is reminiscent of an underground bunker. I want to engage people's hearts and minds. Democracy grows from the ground up. Unless we engage hearts, as well as minds, it will be useless. I do not want that. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, before my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean responds to the debate on this important matter, will she allow her mind to brood over the undoubted fact that the treaties themselves are largely unintelligible? That has been admitted on all sides. It seems odd that we shall, no doubt, again discuss Nice and any measures that are in force or will be brought into force. We shall probably discuss the degree of real scrutiny of proposed European legislation which comes to this House and to another place. We shall discuss all those issues and I have no doubt that the Government will give us the benefit of their latest knowledge.
However, the unassailable fact which underlies the whole concept of explanation and the validity of communication between the Government and the people—many Members are extremely friendly to the present Administration and the whole concept of Europe, as has been explained to us—is that the documents on which everything stands—the treaties from the Treaty of Rome onwards and the amendments which have been made—are admitted to be largely unintelligible. Until that fact is dealt with, there can be no thorough discussion either of the Treaty of Rome or any of those that have been past since.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have great sympathy for much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. He will agree with me that, even allowing for the problems which are bound to arise when one is legislating for a number of countries using different languages, the language used by the
1426
Commission and in European legislation is often almost entirely incomprehensible. The exercise which the noble Lord proposes would be useful if it only compelled officials to try to write in words which ordinary people can understand.
Luckily for the purposes of this debate, a classic example of that occurred in the past few days. When we previously debated the Bill, we discussed the funding of European parties. I drew attention to Article 191, which refers to the funding of European political parties, and to the power which was to be granted to make regulations governing the funding of such parties. I drew the attention of the House to Declaration 11 on Article 191 of the treaty establishing the European Community. That declaration reads:
"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 begged to question what on earth that meant.
Obviously, the first part of the declaration was absolute rubbish. How could one have any funding of European political parties unless there had been a transfer of powers to the European Community? Unless someone had given the EC the power to use our taxpayers' money to fund political parties, why on earth was it doing so in the first place?
Secondly, I questioned what on earth the words,
"do not affect the application of the relevant national constitutional rules",
could possible mean. Quite clearly, national constitutional rules could not have any bearing on the funding of a party which was not a national party but which was a European-wide political party. Therefore, it was as plain as a pikestaff to me that that was typical European gobbledegook and that Declaration 11 was sheer nonsense.
Today I received a courteous letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, for which I am grateful. However, lo and behold, she states that the wording which I quoted, and which I have quoted again today, was proposed by the United Kingdom. The Government are responsible for that wording. According to the noble Baroness, the purpose of the wording is to make it plain that Article 191,
"does not in any way affect the right of member states to regulate national political parties in accordance with their own constitutional rules".
Whatever that declaration said, it certainly did not say that. If the English language means anything at all, whatever that declaration means, it cannot possibly mean that.
If our officials are dishing out that kind of rubbish to be included in declarations which are then incorporated in the annexes to treaties, we really are in a mess. I therefore hope that the fact we have spotted some of the nonsense which our officials are feeding out to the Government will be a stern lesson for them. I repeat that Declaration 11 does not mean what the noble Baroness says it means and it is complete nonsense in the context of Article 191.

1427
Let us learn a few lessons from that. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is on to a rather good thing. I do not want to see too much money spent on it, but I think it would be good if for once officials were required to explain in plain English, rather than European nonsense, what some of the measures to which we are supposed to subscribe really amount to.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, helpfully reminded us that the sin of obscurity in legislative documents is one of which we in this country are as guilty as are the drafters of legislative instruments in Brussels or other capitals. I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing the amendment. It is important that the communications of the EU should be resoundingly clear when they are intended to set out fundamental changes in the balance of authority between nation states and the EU.
With the benefit of historical hindsight, it may be true that early EU documents were not designed with that in mind partly because they were the instruments of those who were playing a game of grandmother's footsteps. They were slowly, but none the less surely, developing institutions the full significance of which they understood well but which they were not ready to trumpet in every quarter.
Therefore, what my noble friend says is particularly timely, not so much in the context of the Treaty of Nice, which he admitted is not the right document with which to start the process, because of its textual obscurity, its legislation by reference and the relatively minor changes that it makes compared with some of the previous international agreements—the Treaty of Maastricht, the Single European Act and so forth—but, as we embark on the preparations for the 2004 IGC, it is certainly right and timely to have the necessity of clarity of communication with the citizens of Europe very much in mind.
It is not necessary to rest the case for that on the somewhat equivocal evidence of poor turnout at European elections. The turn-out at all elections has been declining notably, not, I think, because people have not been able to comprehend the issues at stake, but perhaps because they do not see any great issues of principle dividing those on either side of the argument. Alternatively, perhaps they are simply content or, perhaps, the sheer complexity of the issues that face modern governments and their electorates make it difficult to come down firmly and clearly on one side or the other.
Personally, I think that it is wrong not to exercise the democratic right to vote and thus to choose that which has been so hard fought for. Indeed, the other day perhaps I was guilty of a slight indiscretion in criticising a speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, in the debate on the future of the House of Lords for not having attached sufficient importance to the right to vote. However, I believe that my noble friend is right to say that citizenship and the casting of the vote should be encouraged by the comprehensibility of the documents we put before the public.
1428
I do not think that it is quite fair to suggest I hat either this or the previous government have not taken some steps in the right direction. We have seen the domestic innovation of the publication of Explanatory Notes to accompany legislation, although I have to say that, not infrequently, the Explanatory Notes are as incomprehensible as the Bills themselves. Nevertheless, it has been an encouraging attempt. We have also seen leaflets produced. The leaflet flourished by my noble friend is a somewhat paltry affair, but then some might criticise the document itself as being somewhat paltry.
However, although it would be possible to say a good deal more about the Treaty of Nice than has been attempted in the leaflet, and although it would probably be easier to describe many of the underlying principles—as has been done in several speeches made during the course of our debates on the Bill—which the treaty seeks to incorporate, the detail of the legislation does not lend itself easily to a pamphlet which would be readily understood by the general public. That is not to adopt an exclusive attitude; rather it is a comment on how the document was drafted and, indeed, on how so many of our international agreements are drafted nowadays.
Returning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, I fear that it forms a part of what might be described as the "British legislative disease", which we are exporting to Europe, rather than importing European gobbledegook into our own way of doing things. So far as concerns constitutional documents, I would prefer to travel much further down that road and incorporate the kind of language used in the Code Napoleon, because its meaning is a great deal clearer. The great constitutional documents of the 18th century, such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man, as well as the more modern European Convention on Human Rights, are pellucidly clear to the lay person and thus highly suitable for circulation as aspirational documents. They encourage the highest expectations and the best urges of those seeking to explain and elevate our democracy. But a document such as that before us, one that requires the experts to undertake a good deal of digging in order to be precisely sure of the meaning, is very unsuited to the kind of treatment that my noble friend wishes to initiate.
I hope that he is not successful in persuading the House that this is the right time to embark on such an exercise. I do not doubt that a right time will come—I do not advocate the doctrine of "un-right time". Rather I would advocate that the next major European constitutional agreement should very much reflect the kind of thinking expressed by my noble friend and that those who share his view will strongly support the proposal that our citizens should be given every opportunity by their national government to follow and understand the constitutional documents being adopted by the European Union on their behalf.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Bell: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I do not speak

1429
from the high ground of a discussion about democracy or the need to include excluded people or, for that matter, in order to discuss the merits and demerits of the Nice treaty, but rather purely from the communications perspective.
It is quite obvious that the Government do wish to communicate with people about the Treaty of Nice because they have set up a website and published a leaflet. I would argue that that is not a particularly competent way to communicate and not really in line either with the Government's well-earned reputation for being able to communicate effectively with the public—which they have done so successfully since they first came to power—or in the context of many other of their activities.
Last year the Government spent some £146 million on publicising various aspects of their policies: advertising careers in nursing and the police, promoting the take-up and use of working families' tax credit and campaigning against benefit fraud. Why not spend a mere £1.5 million on communicating with the public about the Treaty of Nice which, if it results in a "stronger Britain" taking its place in a "wider Europe"—as the Government state in their leaflet—strikes me as something well worth communicating to a much wider audience than simply those who have access to the Internet and those who are so minded to contact the FCO and request a copy of the leaflet. It is a fact about the Internet that it is not accessible to almost 50 per cent of the population, in particular if one includes not only those who cannot gain access, but also those who simply will not seek access or do not have the faintest idea of what to do when they do access it.
The leaflet lists five key benefits that will result from the enlargement of Europe, including increased trade, more jobs and greater co-operation, all of which seem to me to be extremely compelling. I do not think that the Government need fear spelling out in plain language those benefits in a simple leaflet to be dropped through the letter-box of every household in Britain. I shall give one or two reasons why I believe that the Government should adopt the amendment.
First, it is rather a good idea. I was very heartened when the noble Baroness, in summing up on a previous debate, made three points of particular relevance in the context of this amendment, one of which was that the Prime Minister wants it to be made clear that Europe is all about things that matter to UK citizens. If that is the case then it is perfectly reasonable to present the Treaty of Nice in a leaflet explaining that it will touch on those issues that matter to UK citizens.
Secondly, at one point the noble Baroness said that the Government already have in place the website and the leaflet, and that they would be willing to do more. I would be delighted if that "do more" included the adoption of the idea of putting out a well-written, easy-to-consume leaflet about the Treaty of Nice that argued the case for it and against it impartially, thus allowing the people to take a view. After all, if the Treaty of Nice is a force for good, then more knowledge and information about it would enhance
1430
the good things it will do for British citizens. If, on the other hand, in their opinion it turns out to be a force for bad, then it would enable British citizens to make clear their concerns about it. The Government would then be able to address those concerns. I see nothing lost by following that route.
Furthermore, it is a very low-cost idea. I spent some 40 years in the communications industry, much of that time in advertising. These days advertising is no longer regarded as the ultimate method of communication. The media have fragmented and the commission system is abolished, so no longer is there any reason why advertising agencies should propose very large advertising budgets. It does not increase their incomes. Media fragmentation has resulted in the development of direct marketing, which is, basically, what is being proposed here. A leaflet dropped through the letter-box of each household is a direct marketing approach. It is cost-effective and efficient; it can be measured; and it is modern. I know that the Government like to do things that are modern.
I believe that the Government could easily accept this amendment and I urge them to do so.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he said that he saw no reason why the leaflet should not include government statements on why the European Union provides so many advantages for Britain. Does he classify that as being impartial?
Lord Bell: My Lords, it depends on how it is expressed. The art of communication in the industry I come from is about information and persuasion. It is virtually impossible to give information without it having some persuasive effect, particularly if the information is seen by the recipient as a benefit. I do not think that the leaflet should be turned into propaganda and it is perfectly possible for the Government to have people from either side put their arguments in it. But, setting aside the issue of whether or not the Government coat it in persuasion, the mere issue of what the Treaty will do for people's lives in Britain is sufficiently important that I would run that risk.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I, too, have a good deal of sympathy with the amendment because, on occasions such as this, I have been convinced that international draftsmen are not so much confused as seeking refuge in complexity.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is chairman of the Citizenship Foundation. My interest in the amendment arises from my role as the founder president of the Institute for Citizenship. Like the Citizenship Foundation, we seek to preach and teach good citizenship and an understanding of parliamentary government, both in our own Parliament and in Europe. Prior to the previous European elections, the Institute for Citizenship endeavoured to explain and encourage an interest in the elections to the European Parliament—particularly among young people—under the slogan,

1431
"Get the vote out". I fear that we were not successful because, as the House knows, the turn-out was as low as 23 per cent—a catastrophic figure which should worry us all.
In analysing this after the election, the most frequently reiterated phrase was, "We didn't know enough about it". In the new year, just before the House resumed, I attended a civic service in my former constituency of Croydon. I asked one of my former constituents, "Who is our Euro MP?", to which he replied, "Well, you are, mate, aren't you?". I never met anyone in Croydon who knew who was our European Member of Parliament—thanks to the list system, I gather that there are six of them—but, in the old days, when we had James Moorhouse, at least we knew who he was and what he was up to. Today, I fear, people know nothing or very little about the European Parliament, which is increasingly impacting upon our affairs.
I have added my name to the amendment because it is important that the people of this country understand what is being done here in Westminster in their name. Thanks to the 30-year rule, we now know that, in the 1975 referendum, we who were active in seeking a "yes" vote leading into the European Economic Community were not told at the time that we had signed away our fishing rights, worth billions of pounds, which has virtually killed our fishing fleets. Any further intrusion of this kind must be clearly spelt out. I urge your Lordships to look at this in the Library, as I have done, and in the Daily Telegraph of last week.
We are not now concerned with the EEC but with the European Union. It is crucially important that the people of our country are kept fully informed and made fully aware of the impact of the Bill on our national affairs. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, calculated that the leaflet would cost £1.5 million. He mentioned that Jack Straw thought that this was an under-estimate and calculated that it would cost £5 million. Five million pounds is a paltry sum in economic terms. In my view, it would be money very well spent if, as other noble Lords have said, the leaflet spelt out clearly and in plain English the impact of the Nice treaty and the Bill on our future.
There is a feeling that we are signing away our freedoms and, notably, our sovereignty. The leaflet suggested by the noble Lord would protect the Government if it all went wrong and, importantly, it would spell out to the electorate the impact of the Nice treaty prior to a referendum on our entry into the euro, if and when it comes.
It is far easier to lose our freedoms than it is to regain them. The greatest enemy of freedom is apathy. We should do all we can to ensure that the electorate of our country know what is being done on their behalf. It is in that spirit that I warmly support the amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, with one proviso—that it might perhaps go a little further. It states that the proposed communication, which I
1432
support, should be in writing, in plain English, in popular form and impartial. It should also contain the proviso that it should be truthful or accurate.
I say that because of what happened the last time a British government consulted the British people in a referendum. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, reminded us, that was in 1975, when the people voted on whether or not we should stay in what was then the European Common Market. It is worth remembering what happened then, much of which was encapsulated in a Radio 4 programme on 3rd February 2000 at eight o'clock. That programme, which was entitled, "Document: A letter to The Times", is well worth listening to again, or perhaps noble Lords should at least look at the transcript. In that programme, the BBC confessed that in the 1975 referendum it was heavily biased in favour of a "yes" vote before and during the campaign, and even, amazingly, that the "yes" campaign was generously funded by the CIA.
Worse than that, the leaflet that the then government put through every letterbox in the land has turned out to be inaccurate. In the letter from the Labour government headed by Mr Wilson—
Lord Waddington: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will give way. Is not it also worth reminding noble Lords that, in 1975, those members of the Labour government who were recommending a "yes" vote in the referendum said, in commending the union, that the public would be glad to hear that the threat of monetary union had been removed?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. I was about to quote from the pamphlet in question. Mr Wilson assured the public that the threat of economic and monetary union,
"could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and so putting jobs at risk".
And then the immortal words,
"This threat has been removed".
It is for that reason that I support the amendment. I hope that the pamphlet will be accurate and truthful, and that its impartiality will be judged by more than the government of the day.
6 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I am sorry. I do not mean to persecute him, but, before he sits down, did the noble Lord say that the "yes" vote in 1975 was partially funded by the CIA? Did I hear him correctly? If so, is it the case that on the previous Report day he said that it was the Soviet Union and today is saying that the last vote on Europe was funded by the CIA. I am becoming very confused.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Acton, heard me entirely correctly. The information was contained in the BBC Radio 4 programme broadcast on 3rd February 2000, which went out at eight o'clock. It was entitled "Document: A letter to The Times". Indeed, all the

1433
supporting written evidence is to be found at Georgetown University, in Washington. The noble Lord goes to the United States often, so he can go and read it for himself. Or he can simply read the transcript of the programme to which I have referred. It confirms beyond peradventure that the CIA gave massive funding to the "yes" campaign in this country in 1975.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment, for the reasons in particular given by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. I assume, indeed I hope, that such a provision would come into force before the decision on the euro. It is my belief that most people in this country still see that as merely a financial decision. It is vitally important that there should be some way—as is offered by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips—of explaining to people that we are looking at constitutional change; that it will be irrevocable; and that it will affect every aspect of their lives.
That is still not being brought home to the public. They are still thinking in terms of the euro, and in terms of money and markets. All those are important. But most important of all is that we should continue, through Parliament, to make our own decisions. Those decisions will be taken away from us if we are not very careful. Therefore, I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for the particular reasons that he gave. I must apologise for not having been present earlier: no doubt these points have been made already. But perhaps the House will not mind my repeating them briefly. This is a constitutional issue, and that is what matters.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, my noble friend is known for his complete devotion to participatory democracy. I share his view. I agree with him that citizens deserve better information about Europe. But why should we leave it at Europe? If asked, quite a number of people, for example, would not be able to describe how the Stock Exchange works—although it probably affects them in their daily lives as much as many other matters. There is a huge range of matters about which people do not know a great deal. There is a vast amount of knowledge; we cannot all know all of it.
It would be useful if citizens were given greater information about this important subject. However, to achieve that, much more is needed than a simple leaflet about a treaty. We need a press which takes a responsible attitude towards this subject—which, until recently, the press has not. I have detected a slightly more responsible attitude recently, but stories about fishermen with hairnets and all the other rubbish in years gone by did not help.
We also need a willingness on the part of government to unleash the European movement from its shackles. We must suppose that we are in the run-up to a referendum, but so far the European movement has been told not to utter so much as a whisper.
The main reason why I have doubts about the effect of the proposed new clause is the use of the word "impartial". The noble Lord referred to leaflets that
1434
are put through doors at election time. I may claim to have written as many such leaflets as most other Members of this House. I have stood for election six times, and I have always written my own election literature. Although I say it myself, occasionally I produced a rather good leaflet—simple and easy to read, illustrated, in large print, and taking up two sides of an A4 sheet of paper. But it was not, nor was it intended to be, impartial. The minute you start putting out a leaflet which says, "Some people may think this. Some people may think that. The Government think this", the leaflet will not be short. It will not be plain; it will not be simple; and it will not be popular.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am glad to be associated with this amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, moved with great eloquence. In putting forward such views, he speaks for those far beyond his own party.
As for the cost of the proposal—referred to by my noble friend Lord Waddington—if it reached the stratospheric sums mentioned, I should have to disengage my support. Together with other noble Lords, I believe that this would be quite a cheap exercise. The actual sum would be minuscule compared with the amount that the Government spend on advertising almost every week, let alone the amount that the European Union spends on promoting its views—sometimes dedicated in a particular direction. So I do not believe that the cost problem is a deterrent.
Why do I believe that it would be right for the Government to accept the amendment? I accept the point that the impartiality criterion is a difficult one. I have it from my noble friend Lord Bell—who is an expert sans pareil in handling information and in persuading people—that separating information from persuasion is always very difficult, although it can be done.
If those who draft the treaties and documents are serious, and if the Commission is serious, about bringing Europe nearer to the citizen, the thirst for information about what is implied in this treaty, and in others, must be met. That thirst is very great; it is much greater than it was even a few years ago. Thanks to the information revolution, people have far better access to information. The movement is afoot in Europe for a less centralised and less remote pattern of European institutions which no longer try to conduct our affairs from the top down.
The demand for plain English is admirable and right. We should resist "Euro-babble" wherever it occurs. There are inherent difficulties in the complex relations between nations being put together by treaties. This is an argument for fewer treaties and less activism by the central European institutions, so that what they do, and the responsibilities that they assume, can be explained in simpler words—in any language, but obviously in our native language, English, with which we are particularly concerned.
I hope that the amendment will be supported by all parties. I waited, breathless, to hear whether the Front Bench colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips,

1435
were going to support it. In the end, I think I detected that discretion was to be the better part of valour, and that we should have wait another day for their support. I hope I am wrong. This is an excellent cause for all parties that believe in democracy, liberty and freedom. They should recognise its value and support it.
As my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth rightly said, this is a constitutional matter—purveying to people what is being done to their constitution—not ours, but theirs—in their name. It is not only a financial matter. That should be understood before any referendum on the euro is called. I believe that it is increasingly being understood. The constitutional issues have now come to the centre of the debate.
The amendment does not affect the treaty. Those who are terrified of touching the treaty in any of its sacred aspects can be reassured. It merely brings a small ray, a beam, of common sense into this area, where there is so much babble about closeness to citizens and more democracy, and so little action. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will press his amendment to a decision. I certainly support it.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, might I ask what is probably a very stupid question? If the amendment is accepted, and if every household in the country receives a lovely communication through the door—clear, impartial, and written in beautiful English which everyone can understand—what happens if they decide on the basis of that information that they do not like the treaty? What can they do about it? I understand that there is not to be a referendum on the treaty. Will there be an election before the treaty comes into force? What can people do about it if they do not like it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, to answer the last point raised by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, first, there has been an election since the treaty was published. We stated categorically in our election manifesto that we would ratify the treaty if we were elected. The British people have had their chance and we all know what they said clearly in June.
Let us come back to the point of the amendment. I think that we all agree on the need for information about the Treaty of Nice and about the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union, although I must point out that the amendment is about only the constitutional and governmental effects of the Treaty of Nice, not the entire panoply of difficulties that some of your Lordships have expressed relating to some of the deeper constitutional issues, which are not solely to do with the Treaty of Nice. We can agree that it is important that we communicate to the public on the issue.
The Government have been doing that since before the Treaty of Nice was negotiated. We published a White Paper in February 2000 before the start of the IGC that led to Nice. That White Paper set out in clear and simple English the issues involved and the Government's approach. That document was and still
1436
is available on the Foreign Office website. In addition, we have regularly held debates on the issues in this House and in another place and we have provided further information to Parliament and to the public on the outcome of Nice. Parliament has received a detailed explanatory memorandum to accompany its consideration of the Bill, spelling out the issues. That is also available on the Foreign Office website.
The British public have also been able to secure a host of information on Nice and on the EU from the Foreign Office through our website, through our publications, through the media and through other organisations that many people use to secure information. Some of your Lordships also referred to the short booklet that the Government have published for the general public spelling out the issues. We believe that it spelt them out in the clear and impartial way referred to in the amendment. As we have already discussed, what some regard as impartial may not be altogether consistent with what others regard as impartial, but it is certainly the Government's view that the booklet is impartial. We send it out to anyone who writes to us about Nice.
All the necessary information has been made available. Mailing it to every household could be done only at disproportionate cost. It was not done for any of the previous treaties. I am sure that all your Lordships, who are tremendously knowledgeable about Europe, agree that some of those treaties were a great deal more radical than this treaty, including those negotiated by Conservative governments. I do not understand why it is suddenly so important to do that for the Treaty of Nice, which makes changes that are much less fundamental than those in some previous treaties.
Some of your Lordships have alluded to the considerable handicap that this country has, which most of our partners in the European Union do not have. It is one reason why the British public remain among the least informed on European issues. The problem is that it is very difficult to provide objective information on Europe via the media. Europe is an emotive issue in this country and a sensible debate through the media—a debate that does not include many raised voices—is almost impossible in this country. That is one reason why we target the public directly. We have already heard categoric statements from some of your Lordships repeating what has been put forward in the press recently relating to moves made in the Foreign Office for some sort or security council arrangements in the EU. That is plain nonsense, but some will believe what is put in the press. I did not hear the programme to which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, referred earlier, but the funding in 1975 was voted for by Parliament. As far as I know, it was split equally. I do not know whether the noble Lord believes that the CIA was funding in addition to that or whether he believes that the CIA was funding both sides. One should not always believe everything that one hears a journalist say.
Let us leave that on one side and come back to the point of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said that it was not enough to have

1437
information on the Internet. Of course it is not enough in itself, although more than 55 per cent of the UK is in touch with the Internet. We have the highest Internet usage of any country in Europe. Thanks to this Government's policies, that figure is much higher for children and young people.
The information is made available on the Internet not just for those who access it directly. Your Lordships will know that media organisations and other so-called multipliers of information and news use the Internet as one of their primary sources. We are taking approximately 10,000 hits a month on the FCO website. Noble Lords may say that that is not very many. It may not be—although it is one of the highest usages of any official information in Whitehall—but those multipliers have to be brought into the equation. We believe that it is right for the Government to make such heavy investment in the Internet and in the ways we have published information.
That is just one part of our strategy of raising awareness about the EU. We also work in partnership with organisations, think tanks, private companies, institutions and others to spread information. We undertake research to show where the need for information is greatest and to develop the strategies that we believe are needed. I hope that your Lordships will be able to agree that that is a far more sophisticated and cost-effective way of providing information than simply sending out an unsolicited mailshot.
I have a great deal of sympathy for what my noble friend Lord Bruce said about the treaties being incomprehensible. That is why we are so supportive of what the convention is trying to do and of the aims of the IGC in 2004. However, I am bound to say that my noble friend's point would not be met by the amendment, which is closely focused on Nice alone, not what has gone on before. He will be much better helped by the proposals that the Government are supporting on the IGC. Of course there are problems with the criss-crossing of the references between various treaties, conventions and declarations. That is why we have said that a simplification of the treaties is very important, with a view to making them clearer and better understood, without changing their meaning.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, referred to the letter that I sent him. As with many issues, I believe that these matters require careful reading. Sometimes documents have to be read two or three times to understand exactly what is meant. I am not at all unhappy that it was a British draft that went forward to make it absolutely clear that there should not be leaking of money from European sources into national political parties. His main point was that the provision was not clear and the words were gobbledegook. A lot of such provisions are very difficult to understand. That is why we need to look clearly at the treaties. I have great sympathy with the noble Lord. Noble
1438
Lords will be able to judge for themselves about the gobbledegook from the letter that has gone into the Library of the House.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Baroness must concede that the letter does not say what she says that it ought to have said. What would have been wrong if the declaration had said that the provision of Article 191 does not affect in any way the right of member states to regulate their own political parties? That—rather than what it says—is apparently what it means.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the declaration says that it does not affect the application of the relevant national constitutional rules. I agree that that is not as clear as what the noble Lord just said, but it is perfectly clear to those who understand the ways in which such conventions and treaties work. I am far more of a novice, I am sure, than the noble Lord, but even I understand that that is what it is trying to say. I also think that it says it, although perhaps not as articulately as he has just done. I also suggest to him that it is not quite as much of a minefield as he suggests. However, your Lordships can judge for yourselves as the letter is in the Library.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, was quite right that the earlier treaties were written by those who did not have the same sensitivity to the importance of public understanding of what the government do. That is absolutely true. These are enormously complex issues in which we are constantly making cross-referrals. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, is a past master at that. He is extraordinarily nimble in nipping about the various treaties, making cross-references. That is why it is so important for us to take these issues forward in the IGC.
Let us talk about cost. When the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, originally raised the issue with us, he estimated that the cost would be about £5 million. I should say that the Foreign Office has great experience of tendering for leaflets. Additionally, we checked with our FCO print suppliers, who are employed on a value-for-money basis, and they agreed with the noble Lord that the cost would be about £5 million. The noble Lord has now reduced his estimate, and told us the basis on which he did so. I am hound to tell him, however, that government tendering is always very difficult; we have, for example, to take competitive bids. In relation to this specific proposal, we have also considered value for money. On that basis, we agree with his original estimate.
However trivial the noble Lord may think such a sum, in Foreign Office terms, it is a great deal of money: it is 20 times our annual budget for public diplomacy on the European Union; in other words, 20 times what we have in the kitty for informing the public on these issues. We have £250,000, with which we manage to fund a huge range of projects—targeting those who know the least about the EU, giving them information, and trying to stimulate debate. I think that that is far more effective than sending out an

1439
essentially unsolicited mailshot on just the Nice treaty—which, as we all know following the deliberations on this Bill, contains technical amendments and would mean virtually nothing to the vast majority of the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said that that would be "reaching out". I truly do not believe that blowing £5 million on such a leaflet would be reaching out as he seemed to suggest. It would also entail our cancelling all our current work in providing information on the EU.
What are we doing? I was asked to give some examples of what more we could do. The noble Lord, Lord Bell, said that he was encouraged by my earlier comment that we could be doing more. We are, first, funding a series of visits to all regions of the United Kingdom to talk about Europe directly to people in companies and organisations and to hear what concerns them. I myself was doing that only two Fridays ago.
Secondly, we are funding an information campaign to give people the facts that they need on introduction in the euro-zone of euro notes and coins.
Thirdly, we are funding academics to examine the issues surrounding the future of Europe and to give us their insights—of course on an impartial basis—by means of discussion in seminars and papers which are distributed.
Fourthly, we make grants to organisations to bring together the public and opinion formers in open debates on Europe.
Fifthly, we are in partnership with the Post Office to make available information on Europe in Britain's post offices.
Sixthly, we give money to an organisation running a European youth parliament which publicises the EU among young people from diverse backgrounds—thereby dealing with the inclusion point—and in their educational institutions. Our research shows that young people are one of the least educated groups on Europe.
Seventhly, we run various projects to raise awareness of the EU among women—which is another group that the surveys tell us are less informed on Europe than we should like.
I think that that is real reaching out, trying to see where the need is and focusing on that real need. I believe that that is a far more genuine and—to use the term used by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips—"imaginative" reaching out than the mailshot which he tried to persuade us would be so much more imaginative.
I have gone through that long list because it is important that your Lordships do not think that we are sitting on our laurels and doing nothing about the issue; we are doing a great deal. I have described just a small sample of the work that the Government are doing to raise awareness on Europe. Crucially, if your Lordships were to be successful on the issue and the
1440
Government proceeded on that basis, it would he possible to proceed on none of what I have just enumerated.
I am proud of our record on genuinely reaching out to those whom we need to get more in tune with events in Europe and inform better. I think that we are taking the right action, which is far better than seeing all the money thrown away for the sake of a narrowly cast, ill-targeted and unsolicited mailshot, which I honestly do not believe will go much further than most people's dustbins.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, argued that we provide information in general elections. Of course we do, but general elections are times of high political drama. During general elections, there is an active curiosity about policies and candidates. I therefore believe that the amendment raises a genuinely separate issue. Moreover, as we have discussed, such issues are very often much more complicated than the types of reason why people vote in general elections.
I hope that I have persuaded your Lordships that the Government are not against informing the people of Britain about the Nice treaty or about our policies on Europe. Indeed, we are doing much more than any previous government to raise awareness on Europe. I think that that is the right approach.
I remind some noble Lords opposite that, earlier this year, when I circulated an unsolicited document on the changeover to euro notes and coins, some of your Lordships came to me to object that it was unsolicited and that I should not have had the temerity to send it. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is asking us to do that on a grand scale. It is very interesting indeed that the Conservative Party has embraced the proposal quite so enthusiastically. I think that a far better strategy is that which I have outlined to your Lordships. I hope that your Lordships will be able to support the Government and reject the amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all who have taken part in this mini-debate, which has been very interesting and illuminating. It would be wrong, having proceeded for an hour and 10 minutes, for me to do more than touch on a very few points.
I cannot help but resist the principal point made by the Minister, that all the Foreign Office's other initiatives would cease if the proposal were adopted. That is a question of the Government getting their finances in order. They have spent £66 million so far on informing business about entry to the euro; to spend £5 million—if that is what the sum is, although I believe it to be a great deal less—on informing the public about the Nice treaty seems to be a very proportionate amount.
Noble Lords have made various positive points, although there have been some negative ones. Some noble Lords have said that implementing such a proposal is impossible; some have said that it is not the right time; some said that we should have done it earlier; and some said that one cannot be impartial. I think that those are all defeatist arguments, and that

1441
if we believed them we should pack up and go home. Whatever else one may say and whatever arguments may be adduced, I do not think that any person in this Chamber would deny that we have a massive problem of public ignorance about the European Union and resentment about the fact that they are ignored and overlooked in relation to it.
It is a massive problem, and nothing that the Minister said came anywhere near to dealing with it. With 10,000 hits a month on the Foreign Office's website, it would take almost 500 years for the whole population to obtain information from the wretched thing. We also know that it would be out of date every year. The website is a pathetic justification of inaction and goes nowhere near dealing with the scale of the problem that we have in this country.
Therefore, encouraged as I am by those who have supported the amendment, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
6.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 164.
1442

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Tebbit, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Thatcher, B.

Stewartby, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Vivian, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Waddington, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Weatherill, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Grocott, L.

Addington, L.

Hamwee, B.

Alli, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Amos, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Ampthill, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Andrews, B.

Harrison, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Avebury, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Bach, L.

Hollick, L.

Barker, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Barnett, L.

Hooson, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Berkeley, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Billingham, B.

Hoyle, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Blease, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Borrie, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bragg. L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Brennan, L.

Jones, L.

Brett, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Layard, L.

Brookman, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Lipsey, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Listowel, E.

Chandos, V.

Lockwood, B.

Christopher, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Clement-Jones, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Crawley, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

McNally, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Maddock, B.

Dholakia, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dixon, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dubs, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Elder, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mitchell, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Newby, L.

Filkin, L.

Northover, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Gale, B.

Parekh, L.

Geraint, L.

Patel, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Gilbert, L.

Pendry, L.

Golding, B.

Peston, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Goodhart, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Goudie, B.

Radice, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Greaves, L.

Rea, L.

Greengross, B.

Redesdale, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

1443

Rennard, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Roper, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Russell, E.

Tope, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Turnberg, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Serota, B.

Uddin, B.

Sharman, L.

Varley, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Walmsley, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Simon, V.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Weidenfeld, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Whitty, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Wilkins, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Syrnons of Vernham Dean, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Taverne, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Northern Ireland: The Euro
6.40 p.m.
Lord Harrison Lord Harrison rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what they are doing to promote Northern Ireland's welfare within the European Union now that the Republic of Ireland has adopted euro coins and notes.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the euro has landed and has landed successfully. Nowhere in the United Kingdom will its arrival be more influential than in Northern Ireland, sharing, as it does, a euro-land border with the Republic. It is time to wake up to that reality and to assess the obvious and the less obvious implications of the euro's success on the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland.
In making that assessment I am grateful to those noble Lords who will contribute to the debate tonight. The depth of their experience of Northern Ireland is as oceans to my puddle of knowledge. I hope that they will forgive me if I intrude this debate into your Lordships' House when the peace process has yet to be fully secured. But the world moves on and I believe that this is too important a debate to leave idling on a vacant plot.
I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for consenting to reply to the debate. He will know that last week's NOP poll showed the Principality voting in favour of accepting the euro and that Holyhead in his own beloved north Wales is prepared for the euro, just as in the past it has traded in the punt. Why is that? It is because, as the local Daily Post has put it,
"The consumer must be served".
It is just so with Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland has the opportunity to lead the United Kingdom in showing Britain the way by promoting, through adopting the euro, the restoration of the common currency that existed in the British Isles for some 50 years in the past century. Indeed,
1444
Northern Ireland, by adopting the euro de facto if not de jure, can remind Britain that one of the not unimportant reasons for the United Kingdom going in is to offer solidarity to Ireland in its own bold embrace of the euro. Good neighbours, I remind your Lordships, make good friends.
But even as we debate, the acceptance of the euro is gathering apace. The Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce reports that seven out of 10 of its 4,000 members favour entry, manufacturing industry, hard hit by an overvalued pound, being even more enthusiastic than the service sector. Retail industry in border towns is showing the way by facilitating a dual currency economy more intense than the punt/pound exchange which preceded it. In Newry, at the new shopping centre of The Quays, euros are now available directly from cash machines. As Declan McChesney of the local chamber of commerce and trade puts it,
"We will use the euro to facilitate the growth of shopping in Newry",
a town only one hour's drive from half the population of the island of Ireland.
The changeover from punt to euro acceptability has also been enlisted to help Newry's bid to achieve city status in the Queen's Golden Jubilee Year. In passing. I remind some English eurosceptics that notes in Northern Ireland and Scotland have never borne the Queen's head—so often touted as a sine qua non of a nation's sovereignty. Kevin Murdoch of Newry Building Supplies Limited, with a staff of 95 and a turnover of £17 million, declared that his firm will accept euros or lose business.
In Londonderry, managing director Luke Hasson of the 165 year-old family owned department store, Austin and Co, declared that his firm is moving with the times and that the euro will be good for Northern Ireland business because,
"The new single currency will now deliver price transparency on both sides of the border".
Even in Belfast, stores such as Eason's will accept euro coins and notes where formerly punt coins were refused. The euro, with its hinterland of a single market of 300 million people and growing, betokens more than a simple foreign currency replacement for the punt which previously served just 1 per cent of that population in the Republic.
Northern Ireland is admirably placed to reach into the deep pockets of that ever expanding single European market. Other businesses and industries are now mobilising to catch the swelling tide of that commerce. Sir Reg Empey, as Northern Ireland tourism Minister, notes that two-thirds of inbound tourists will hail from euro-land. Rightly, he is encouraging a joint marketing of the tourist attractions of Ireland north and south. When cash rich American tourists return to Europe this summer on multi-destination tours of euro-land, an excursion to a euro-compliant Northern Ireland will be attractive and possible and thus will bring jobs and prosperity to the north.

1445
Or take the small tourist village of Belleek, the most westerly point of the United Kingdom, where Mr Michael McGrath hires out holiday cottages to continental tour operators. For the past two years his tariffs have been expressed in euros.
"Even the electricity in the cottages is priced in euros"
declares this forward looking entrepreneur.
Tourism is a crucial industry for Northern Ireland and one where the euro will be a determining factor. So, too, with farming. Douglas Rowe, President of the Ulster Farmers' Union, bemoans the current strength of sterling which has had such a negative effect on farm incomes. As well as sucking food imports into Northern Ireland, agri-food exports are less competitive in the broader trading zone of the 300 million people in euro-land, Mr Rowe asserts. He notes also that farm support payments, set in euros, significantly reduce when converted to the blighted, Blighty pound. And, as with any other business, uncertainty in these matters is an inhibitor of sensible planning, investment and development. Small businesses, and not just those in the agri-food sector, are particularly vulnerable. But it is heartening to hear the positive response of David Shaw, Northern Ireland deputy president of the normally eurosceptical Federation of Small Businesses. Shaw suggests that the euro has opened up a new trade route for Northern Ireland. In the future, goods and services will be brought in via the south and not through Britain because,
"of the eurozone's greater price transparency".
The banking and financial products industries are, of course, in the front line of euroseep. Incidentally, I reject the pejorative phrase "eurocreep". Apart from the fact that it rhymes with Uriah Heep, I consider myself a euro warrior, not a eurocreep. No wonder, then, that the Ulster Bank has held over 100 seminars helping customers to familiarise themselves with the new currency. It is anxious, if not unctuous, for the new business that is available. Indeed, this is hardheaded business speaking, not the academic reflections of an end of Business debate in the House of Lords on a cold Tuesday evening in January.
If ever further proof were needed of the effectiveness and reality of the new currency, let me now turn to a life of crime. Cross-border smugglers dealing in everything from petrol, cigarettes and sheep, are fully euro happy. Drug runners and money lenders are euro conversant. The new 500 euro note is undoubtedly a useful bill of exchange for money launderers. Those crimes will not come out in the wash unless we take active steps to combat the single European market of crime and criminals as it manifests itself at Ireland's cross-border point. One further thought on things nefarious. If the euro is good enough for the wicked, then, in my teenage children's parlance of superlatives, it ought to be "wicked" enough for the rest of us!
On 4th December last year, the Northern Ireland Assembly debated the euro for the first time, on the motion of requesting government help to acclimatise Northern Ireland to its de facto dual currency status.
1446
That was, of course, an interim proposal, for the real ambition must be for the United Kingdom to enter EMU, as is stated government policy, provided that the five economic tests are met. Northern Ireland is a sixth economic test, and the Government must not offload responsibility for the current state of play by referring all matters to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Assembly is plainly looking to Her Majesty's Government for a lead and guidance on this national—indeed, supranational—issue.
How will Her Majesty's Government respond to Northern Ireland's peculiar position as euro border country? How will the Government strengthen the fight against euro-related crime? How will they invigorate the fight for jobs, business and prosperity in businesses as diverse as retail, farming, tourism and finance, which will be increasingly subject to euro-seep? How will the Government further help the excellent Northern Ireland Euro Preparations Forum in its pivotal role of awakening business and citizens to the fact of the euro? And how will they help the Northern Ireland Assembly in its task of improving the daily lives of its citizens as a result of the onset of the euro? Will Ulsterbus, for example, give change in euros on both sides of the border? Will students from Northern Ireland on foreign study courses be able to collect their grants in euros? And how will Her Majesty's Government promote Northern Ireland as a euro-friendly location for inward foreign direct investment?
In closing, I turn to Northern Ireland's engagement with the EU and the European Commission. Northern Ireland has in effect been an Objective 1 area for a number of years. How will money from Brussels, such as the £500 million that is now being released under the "Peace II" programme, be handled? Will Northern Ireland lose out because we are out of the euro zone?
Do the Government believe that the coming of the currency will benefit the peace process? When I was an MEP, I used to observe with hope my fellow parliamentary colleagues, Messrs Hume, Nicholson and Paisley, together approach Presidents Delors and Santer when it came to fighting for money and help from Brussels for Northern Ireland. Is it too much to hope that, in the words of David, a market-stall jeweller in Newry, who was quoted recently in the Observer,
"the euro will make people think in a manner which is practical, not sectarian in nature"?
Is it too much to hope that the coming of the euro may be linked with the coming of peace? Can the different traditions on the island of Ireland find a common home in our diverse and diversifying European Union, which is now advancing with a single currency?
6.53 p.m.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I would like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for initiating this debate in your Lordships' House today. I was most interested in what the noble Lord had to say.
I should declare a kind of interest in this subject because I am the president of the Northern Ireland European Movement—future developments in

1447
Europe being a subject in which I have been interested for some time. As a member of a small, in global terms, people who see themselves under pressure on all sides, I welcome the potential change of focus and reassurance offered in a new Europe.
As an Ulster Unionist living on the island of Ireland, the experience can be like that of living in a row of houses where every other resident wants you evicted and will use all means to do so. The Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Brian Cowen, wants to "hollow out all Britishness" from Northern Ireland, and that can only include me and my family. Such fascist talk would not be allowed if Europe was the Europe of the regions, celebrating and valuing all its peoples and their cultures.
The idea of the euro is nothing new. When euro-land celebrated the issue of its first notes and coins, did anyone raise a glass to Richard Whately, the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin, who proposed the establishment of a uniform currency in Europe exactly 150 years ago? The archbishop proposed that the design of the coins should have no indication of nationality which might awaken national jealousies. That even meant dropping the image of Queen Victoria—a bold idea in the mid-19th century.
For the record, Richard Whately was born in London in 1787, was a former professor of political economy at Oxford and was Archbishop of Dublin from 1831 until 1863, which was not an easy period in Irish history—not that there are any easy periods in Irish history.
As has already been pointed out, Northern Ireland differs from any other part of the United Kingdom with regard to the euro because of its land border with euro-land. There can be no doubt that special measures are required for the Province. To put things simply, until 31st December 2001, we had a minor currency on our doorstep; from 1st January 2002, we have a major global currency on that doorstep. Previously, tourists and business visitors travelling from, say, Dublin to Belfast would want to change their currency to sterling. I suggest that they may now not be so keen to move from that major currency to sterling; they would expect to be able to continue to use their euros.
It is my understanding from all that I have read and heard that the changeover in coinage and notes has had little, if any, negative effect on the border regions of Northern Ireland. In most areas, retail businesses are operating in both currencies. I reflect the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, who paid tribute to the entrepreneurs and businessmen of Northern Ireland; to them, like all true businessmen, business is business and politics is politics, and they do not necessarily—if ever—intertwine.
Business people are well versed in the meaning of the changeover. Here I feel that it would be only fair to pay tribute to the Northern Ireland Euro Preparations Forum for the way in which it has prepared, without taking sides, the ground for the euro. The forum—a small group of businessmen supported by a unit in the Northern Ireland Civil Service—has run a campaign
1448
of seminars and media information throughout the Province that has received much praise. I again noted the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, when he talked about the work of organisations such as Ulster Bank and the CBI. I join him in his tributes.
Without doubt the biggest area in which help for Northern Ireland is required is the ensuring of a fair allocation of funding, especially in view of the possible inclusion of new states. The second is to ensure that every support and help is given to industry to expand and invest. American investors, for example, will look with renewed interest at investing in the Republic because of its location now in a larger economy instead of Northern Ireland. Those issues have to be examined and a counter-balance given.
Continued and enhanced methods of promoting Northern Ireland are vital. The key issue for me is the enhancing of representation at the heart of Europe. The office in Brussels that looks after Northern Ireland's interests must be supported in all respects. It is my view that that is the vital element of welfare that Northern Ireland requires in this challenging period.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lards, I. too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for providing us with an opportunity to reassure our good citizens in Northern Ireland and thus enabling them to cope with what I regard as rather limited challenges.
An element of society for which I do not have authority to speak are the money launderers in both the North and the South. But the Irish Times provides a staple diet of financial scandals and tribunals. I am told that on day one when the euro came to Dublin a steady stream of handcarts conveyed obsolete punts to banks where, unfortunately, awkward questions were asked about where so many punts had been for all those years. No doubt the Irish Times will in due course provide pages of answers courtesy of the relevant tiresome tax authorities. The tax authorities are very tiresome so far as concerns launderers.
My assessment of the impact of the Irish Republic joining the euro is that, although there may be temporary minor problems, they will prove to be no greater than the hiccups which occurred when the Irish punt came into being. Then, we had two currencies working quite happily within one geographical unit and that was not seen as much of an obstacle.
Agriculture is the victim of some uncertainty, but that appears to arise from, and be caused by, delays in making payments where the decision-making is far too cumbersome. Those disadvantages require attention. I say without any bitter criticism of the department of agriculture and its convoluted name throughout the United Kingdom that there are times when it could take rather more, and speedier, notice of Northern Ireland's special problems, in particular in the drawing down of certain payments where an inexplicable delay appears to occur.
The tobacco industry in Northern Ireland is vulnerable, but for an entirely different reason. Concern arises not from the euro or exchange rates

1449
but, rather, from taxation rates and from the Government's current tax policy, which has fuelled the demand for non-UK duty-paid cigarettes. Such cigarettes already account for around one-third of the market. The fear is that any further increase in that taxation will raise the demand for, and the attraction to, non-UK duty-paid cigarettes with disastrous effects on United Kingdom manufacturers.
It would be churlish to ignore the Chancellor's recent decision to move away from above-inflation tax increases. It is hoped that that will not be a one-off step in one Budget but a move which will be continued over a period of years—this is not a quick-fix issue—otherwise, the percentage of smuggled cigarettes will increase from the horrifying figure of 16.5 billion in 2000–01, representing a staggering 21 per cent of the market.
Therefore, it is a great mistake to imagine that Irish entry into the euro-zone will transform trading conditions in any particular commodity. I am not dismissing the minor problems arising from the introduction of the euro in the other end of the island, but I believe that we can—one may say this facetiously—depend on the ingenuity of the Irish to nullify any and all resulting inconveniences. They are very good at that.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I was not intending to speak this evening but am prompted to do so by one or two remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison. The noble Lord complained about the strength of sterling. However, perhaps I may point out to him that over the past two or three years sterling has not risen against the US dollar, the Canadian dollar, the Swiss franc, the Swedish krona, the Australian dollar or the New Zealand dollar; indeed, it has weakened against some of those currencies and, specifically, against the American dollar. The international community has had grave doubts about the euro—not in relation to the changeover as such but the long or medium-term viability of economic and monetary union with a single interest rate fitting all countries with widely differing economies.
The noble Lord then went on to talk about the problems faced by traders in the border areas and of how they will have to adapt to the euro in order to survive. Of course, I take his point that some are adapting, and good luck to them; I hope that they profit from it. But American tourists who cross the border at Niagara Falls to the Canadian side must change their US dollars into Canadian dollars, unless things have changed in the four or five years since I was last there. French people who go to Geneva to shop—it is usually the other way round; the French economy is much larger than the Swiss one—must change their French francs into Swiss francs.
Therefore, there is nothing new about the problems faced by traders in Newry or anywhere else in the North. It may be to their advantage to take euros but it is not the end of the world. People who live in border
1450
areas elsewhere are quite used to changing money. Frankly, I believe that the noble Lord is exaggerating somewhat when he says that it will he an absolute necessity for everyone in Northern Ireland to take the euro.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, on initiating this timely debate. I shall echo many of his arguments.
Because Northern Ireland has, as the noble Lord said, the UK's only land border with the euro-zone, it is likely to feel the impact of the euro rather more keenly than Great Britain. In one sense, of course, because of its geographical proximity to the Irish Republic, Northern Ireland has been used to intensive trans-border commerce and the concomitant currency exchange for three-quarters of a century.
As is common in all border areas between nation states, the Irish boundary reveals a sharp and immediate appreciation on the part of consumers of the effects of currency fluctuations on the relative prices of goods. The Irish punt and the pound sterling originally had the same parity until the Irish Republic, on joining the European Community, decided to stop pegging the punt to the pound. Since then, punt and pound, suitably and swiftly adjusted to reflect whatever the prevailing parities the finance markets determined between the two currencies, have long been virtually interchangeable. And so it has continued ever since the Irish Republic joined the euro.
We should rejoice in the good news that Northern Ireland is well placed to be the leading region in the UK in terms of adopting and adapting to the new euro coins and notes and participating fully in the euro-zone whenever the UK decides formally to enter.
As other noble Lords have remarked, the preparation both for living alongside the euro and, later, for belonging to the euro-zone has been quite well undertaken, particularly in Northern Ireland. Not least, as I said, that derives as much from its experiences of living with a floating punt over the past 20 years. Ireland's full participation in the euro should also give Northern Ireland a competitive advantage if that is widely recognised and the opportunity afforded fully seized; that is to say, it can piggy-back on the Irish Republic's enthusiastic and extensive participation in the commercial life of the European Union. It was that, as much as anything else, that promoted the emergence of the "Tiger" economy.
When it joined the European Union, Ireland determined to throw off its old stereotype of a rural, conservative and rather nationalist community with more than a touch of theocracy in its system of government. One might say that it substituted the de Valera approach for the value-added one. Its embrace of Europe was wholehearted and without qualification, so that now it has become a modern liberal democracy with an economy based more on technology than agriculture. It is also a country that more than pulls its weight in peace-keeping operations throughout the troubled parts of this world.

1451
Northern Ireland should be encouraged to follow that example. Of course, there are voices to be heard that are replete with nostalgic expressions for the emblems, flags and insignia of yesteryear. In recent years they have seized on the defence of the pound sterling and have been against the UK adopting the euro. Whatever the case for Euroscepticism, this must be the weakest. Northern Ireland, both because of its geographical position and its unfortunate history, has more to gain economically and politically than any other part of the United Kingdom in becoming an integral part of Europe, including membership of the euro. Most sensible people in Northern Ireland realise that, especially the business sector, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, and echoed by another noble Lord. That has been in the forefront of all these debates. All sections of the community know how much Northern Ireland has benefited from having Objective 1 status in the European Union, and having the added bonus of the Peace Dividend moneys from Brussels. Even Ian Paisley knows that: in his role as an MEP, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, he quite properly sought to maximise the amount of European money that Northern Ireland receives, even though for domestic consumption he adopts a strident anti-European stance. Whatever the short-term political gains that he achieves from this, this incoherent and inconsistent posturing serves the longer-term economic and the wider political interests of Northern Ireland very badly indeed.
Her Majesty's Government would best promote those interests by taking a very much more positive lead in advocating the case that, on balance, the sooner the UK joins the euro the better for all concerned. The continuous incantation of the mantra of the Chancellor's five principles increasingly lacks credibility as a reason for further prevarication and procrastination. Were he free to do so, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Minister would agree with my main contention that the future of Northern Ireland's welfare within the European Union would be for the UK as a whole to decide to join the euro-zone within the next few months.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for giving us the opportunity to pursue this most interesting debate, which. I suspect, could continue for a long time in other circumstances. As noble Lords know, I have lived in Northern Ireland for most of the latter part of my life. I worked as a chief executive of a subsidiary to a multinational plc for 25 of those years, and was pretty familiar with dealing in a variety of currencies from around the world, as well as being used to conducting business both north and south of the border.
As other noble Lords have said, people in the whole of Ireland are accustomed to dealing in multi-currencies. Ever since Dublin left the sterling standard and the punt was created we have had two currencies in the island: the punt and the pound. During my time in business the exchange rate has fluctuated
1452
enormously—probably in the total of my lifetime from minus 20 to plus 20, or something in that region, with a 40 per cent variance over the years. But no one fusses about that. You can go to any shop almost anywhere in either country and pay with sterling or with punt and receive the right change with account being made of the currency differentials. So we are completely used to trading and living in the retail world, and in the tourist world, with a variety of currencies.
The dollar is not a stranger in the Province, or in Ireland. As is well known, many of our kinsmen live in the United States or in Canada. They return home at least once a year, and also send money home. Therefore, we could argue that we are used to dealing with three currencies.
I have read some of the same newspaper cuttings mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, but I put a slightly different emphasis on them. According to my information there is really no great disturbance, or problem, with the prospect of having two currencies.
However, it is worth noting that the location of a nation's economic base, as well as the nature of its economic neighbours, are both important and relevant. The six counties of Ulster have the huge benefit of being part of the United Kingdom, which, arguably, is the second most powerful economic nation in the world. They will not want to give that up for a currency that has, frankly, failed so far; indeed, one that has not shown any great value or benefit.
Why are we nervous about this development? First, 80 per cent of the exports from Northern Ireland go outside the euro-zone. Secondly, Ireland made a very hit-and-miss decision to join the euro in a hurry. At that time, I believe that they made what was probably for them the right decision, but one that was taken at the wrong time. The Irish had to reduce their interest rates by 2 to 3 per cent in order to join the euro when their economy was—and still is—seriously overheating. That took away their ability to manage the overheating and the in-built inflation. We do not know what will happen at the end of this period. However, if they come down with what I believe is known as a "bumpy landing", it will be uncomfortable for Northern Ireland, and perhaps for others. But they did themselves some good because they negotiated a very good deal with the Germans. They came in with a very good punt/mark parity.
But so much for that part of the equation. There are other matters that impact on the situation. There are exchange rate repercussions. Our exchange rate is tied to sterling, which means that we have quite a significant difference in exchange rates between Europe and the United Kingdom; indeed, that is well understood and well known. But what will that mean to a small economy like that of Northern Ireland? It is not all bad news. Certainly retailing will be squeezed, and there will also be a surge of certain types of imports, but there will also be a significant increase—there has been and it continues—in property speculation, as well as money coming in and going out from the South.

1453
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, referred to money coming in in wheelbarrows. With a strong currency, there is an opportunity to go and have fun in a cheaper country. People are investing in the Republic. As the world goes on, I am sure that those investments will both grow and improve. Therefore, in the personal sector, you could say that there is an opportunity for a windfall. There is a well-known saying, "Earn in a strong currency, and spend in a weak currency".
There is yet another factor that is, perhaps, more important and more effective than anything else. I am not arguing for a special case for Northern Ireland, but we do have taxation problems that have been imposed upon us. We have significantly higher taxes on tobacco products, and that is exacerbated by the exchange rate differences. We have significantly increased taxes on fuel and on heavy goods vehicles. When added to the exchange rate difference, that has a very negative effect.
There is one further tax that has just come on board, so to speak; namely, the aggregate tax. This is a 10 per cent tax on all aggregates extracted and used in Northern Ireland. This is a serious problem because the granite base and much of the aggregate base is found in the border areas. It means that "Bloggs" across the road has a considerable advantage over his competitors in the North because he is not paying his aggregate tax. It is not only the stone, it is also the products into which the stone is placed. I have in mind black top for the roads, concrete blocks, and so on. We have a serious problem in that respect, and one that is impacting quite badly. It is made a great deal worse because Customs and Excise are simply not equipped to manage the smuggling that is taking place. Technically, if the law were adhered to, everyone coming across the border with aggregates of any sort would be made to pay the taxes. But we all know what happens. The only time that we have ever managed to shut the border, with great help from the Irish Republic, was during the time of the foot and mouth outbreak. They could not keep the terrorists from travelling backwards and forwards, but for a while, thank goodness, they kept the sheep and the cattle from travelling backwards and forwards.
At this stage, dealing with the problem is not realistic, unless Her Majesty's Government are prepared to get together with the Republic and put much more effort and more resources into Customs and Excise to manage smuggling. Smuggling leads to crime. Most smuggling is well organised by gangs of paramilitaries and criminals, so there are many financial and trading difficulties, but that is in no way related to the fact that we no longer handle punts but euros.
7.20 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Harrison for initiating this debate. It is particularly topical to me because I had the great benefit and pleasure of being in
1454
Northern Ireland on Thursday, Friday and Saturday of last week. I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Molyneaux, Lord Rogan and Lord Laird—the latter was good enough to introduce a number of his colleagues—for the extremely informed and civilised conversation we had on problems of all sorts.
In the past I have had the benefit of talking to local politicians, such as Sir Reg Empey, and more recently, thanks to the courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, the Speaker of the Assembly, to a disparate group including business people, such as Dr Diljit Rana, who was originally from the Punjab, but who now thrives in business and in life, contributing to the community by serving, I believe, as a justice of the peace.
I hope that on these occasions we regard ourselves as colleagues in a common endeavour. This evening we are in danger of agreeing with each other. That must mean something: perhaps gloomily that we are all getting too used to each other, but I am sure it means something more positive.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, was right to say that Northern Ireland has a resourceful population which is able to adapt and to benefit. I hope that the success—I know he was referring to success in the context of business—will show itself in the wider political dimension.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, said, and as other noble Lords have echoed, Northern Ireland has a land border with the euro-zone, a characteristic that I believe in the rest of the European Union is shared only by Sweden and Denmark. As noble Lords have said, for a long time Northern Ireland has been familiar with informal arrangements for trading in dual currencies. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that Northern Ireland has been used to dealing with more than dual currencies if one takes into account the dollar.
I believe that it will be said that since the euro is a major currency, there will be more demand for its acceptance than there was for the punt. That may be so, but as noble Lords have said, in the past Northern Ireland, its business people and its economy have been able to make opportunities out of divergences and I am sure that they will continue to do so in the future.
It is fair to say that in general Europe has been a good friend to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland received over £930 million from EU Objective 1. Even in the time that I have known Northern Ireland—only 10 years—that has transformed the Laganside area of Belfast, has upgraded the Belfast to Dublin rail link and has set up an electricity interconnector with Scotland.
There is the further allocation of £575 million for a transitional Objective 1 programme for the period 2000 to 2006. In the context of the population of Northern Ireland, those are not insignificant sums. Northern Ireland has received £73 million under the Community initiatives funding, and further substantial funding to which your Lordships have referred under initiatives Peace 1 and Peace 2. The European Union has also contributed some

1455
£29 million to the International Fund for Ireland, which supports developments on both sides of the border.
We need to bear in mind that the devolved Assembly has an important role to play. I believe that we should all bend our backs to support that Assembly, to which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, paid such tribute last evening. Foreign policy is a matter for the United Kingdom Government under the terms of the Northern Ireland Act, but the Executive has a significant role to play. I believe that that will develop. The noble Lord, Lord Laird, was good enough to commend the work of the Northern Ireland Euro Preparation Forum. The Executive in Northern Ireland has been heavily involved in preparing and helping local businesses in that endeavour.
I also believe that the Executive has done extremely well—I refer to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Its lobbying was critical in the early granting of foot and mouth disease-free status to Northern Ireland. Even in its short life, it has had significant successes, rather more than the Jeremiahs would pretend. It is absolutely essential that I underline the commitment of Her Majesty's Government to the Northern Ireland Executive and to the developing role that it will play in the European context.
I turn to some particular points. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, was right to talk about the problems of organised crime, also referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Molyneaux and Lord Glentoran. The task force, chaired by my colleague, Jane Kennedy, the Minister with responsibility for security, is having notable successes, particularly in the context of cigarette smuggling where recently there have been significant, notable seizures.
The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, spoke about prosecutors. I entirely agree with what he said. Whenever prosecutors on a pan-European basis get together, they agree that borders are not a barrier to organised crime; they offer an opportunity. Therefore, we must ready ourselves for joint actions on prosecutions, whether in the Northern Ireland context, the Republic of Ireland context, the wider United Kingdom context, or increasingly in the general European context.
1456
Of course, the director of public prosecutions in Northern Ireland—an admirable public servant with whom I worked closely for two years—has a statutory relationship with the Attorney-General in the United Kingdom and therefore co-operation is already available. In the context of what the noble Lord, Lord Laird, said about culture, it is heartening that the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages makes specific reference not only to the Irish language, but also to the Ulster Scots language on which he gave me a concentrated seminar. I was grateful for that because I have a personal interest in the survival and the continuing prosperity of the Welsh language in Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Laird, scored a notable first. He referred to an historical incident 150 years ago, which is only a second or two away in terms of Irish matters. He referred to an historical incident and drew benefit and optimism from it. We do not often hear of such matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, distressed me because I used to be a practising member of the Bar. I am a member of the Bar of England and Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic. When he spoke of the plethora of tribunals offering gainful and profitable employment to lawyers, I sighed and wished I were back at the Bar again. There appear to be more tribunals in the Republic of Ireland than there are days of the week. I know that this is a private occasion and that this will go no further, so I can tell your Lordships that I suggested that if the number of tribunals ever declined in the Republic they should set up a tribunal on tribunals. I intend that as a modest joke, but it was seized upon with acclamation and applause by all the barristers in Dublin.
This short discussion demonstrates three points: one, the resilience that has admirably demonstrated itself over the past years; two, the capacity for adaptation, change, reform and improvement that has been shown in Northern Ireland; and three, that, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, pointed out, the coming of the euro will prove itself to be a significant opportunity for Northern Ireland. Even in this brief time I believe that it is showing signs of success. I repeat my personal gratitude for the content and tone of all the speeches that we have heard this evening, and to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for offering us this opportunity.
House adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.

  Court Sitting Hours
  Court Sitting Hours
  Government Bills: Human Rights Issues
  Government Bills: Human Rights Issues
  Climate Change Levy
  Climate Change Levy
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997: Central Register
  Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997: Central Register
  Police: Baton Guns
  Police: Baton Guns
  Tobacco Advertising
  Tobacco Advertising
  A400M Military Transport Aircraft
  A400M Military Transport Aircraft
  Defence Estate: Stewardship Report
  Defence Estate: Stewardship Report
  Millennium Dome
  Millennium Dome
  Mayoral Referendums
  Mayoral Referendums
  Car Occupant Fatalities
  Car Occupant Fatalities
  Car Occupants: Seat Belts
  Car Occupants: Seat Belts
  Objective 1 Funding: Merseyside
  Objective 1 Funding: Merseyside
  Single People: Accommodation
  Single People: Accommodation
  Affordable Housing in Rural Settlements
  Affordable Housing in Rural Settlements