Sitting of 23 January 2002

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Zimbabwe
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
9.30 am
Dr. Julian Lewis: It is chastening to observe that Robert Mugabe, who started his time in power in Zimbabwe as an avowed Marxist, seems to be ending it as a fascist.
I am put in mind of the fact that at about the time that Mugabe took control of Zimbabwe back in 1980, the BBC televised a version of Bertolt Brecht's remarkable play "The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui". It painted, in terms of Chicago gangland, a parable of the rise to power of Hitler and the way in which he maintained himself in power, though nothing more than a lethal murderous clown, by means of corruption of the courts, intimidation of witnesses and the substitution of gangsterism for civilised behaviour.
I am reminded of that play in the context of present-day Zimbabwe because of the series of reports that comes out of that wretched country day by day. On 15 January, it was reported that David Mpala, an opposition lawmaker, was critically wounded after 20 ruling party militants attacked him, slitting his abdomen. The police spokesmen said that the incident was being investigated, but claimed that the assailants were unknown and suggested that it could have been a case of carjacking.
Similarly, on 19 January, it was reported that Thomas Tawanda Spicer, the 17-year-old son of a Zimbabwean film maker, was tied to a tree, and beaten and kicked throughout the night. Later, he was taken to a police station where he was reportedly arrested on charges of kidnapping. After first denying any knowledge of him, the police then confirmed that he was in their custody, but have denied him access to his family or to a lawyer.
This is the third debate on Zimbabwe in as many months that has taken place in Westminster Hall. There remain 45 days before the presidential election. Morgan Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic Change states that the country is already engaged in what he describes as "low-intensity civil war". There are road blocks where people are required to produce ZANU-PF cards if they want to proceed. Prisoners are being interrogated in ways that would have Labour Back Benchers and Liberal Democrat Front Benchers frothing at the mouth if they were applied to al-Qaeda suspects in Cuba.
The foreign press is being excluded from the country, and the local press is threatened with being licensed year by year. The chief justice of Zimbabwe has been forced from office; opposition politicians have been murdered; their rallies have been tear gassed and their offices torched. An electoral register excluding up to 2 million
248WH
Zimbabweans on the basis that one parent was born abroad has been drawn up, while the same electoral register allows large numbers of long-dead voters the privilege of receiving a ballot paper.
There are threats to seize UK companies in Zimbabwe, of which there are about 300. Repeated demands are being made for British passport holders to renounce their UK citizenship and, presumably, the protection that that is still reckoned to confer. Since 2000, 156 opposition supporters have been murdered and many more have been kidnapped and tortured. The military have stated that they will not serve under a different Government from that of Mr. Mugabe. Of course, they do not put it precisely in those words. The chief of staff, General Zvinavashe, said that the armed forces could not accept a president who had not fought in the liberation struggle. That was clearly designed to rule out Morgan Tsvangirai.
It is believed that, since the beginning of this month, some 10,000 soldiers have been sent on leave to campaign throughout the country for a Mugabe election win. Legislation is being put into practice to ban foreign journalists from working in Zimbabwe at the earliest opportunity. Two-year jail terms are anticipated for reporters who cause by their journalism "alarm and despondency" in the country.
In short, Zimbabwe is suffering from starvation, inflation and colossal unemployment, while Mugabe and his cronies embezzle funds and channel them abroad in readiness for a possible enforced retirement to Libya or some other bolthole, in the event that they are eventually forced from power.
The head of the Zimbabwe Union of Journalists, Basildon Peta, has produced a remarkable series of reports for The Independent. He notes:
"Critics say the new laws exceed the worst excesses of Rhodesia's white minority government or apartheid South Africa".
The question that I must ask is, why are people who, rightly, strongly criticised white repression in those countries in the past responding so feebly to black repression now? This is a viciously racist and fascistic regime. Where are the mass demonstrations against it? Could it be that people on the left of politics feel a little intimidated by such Mugabe rhetoric—unjustified rhetoric I hasten to add—as, "Britain has a war with us. Prime Minister Tony Blair wants his own version of colonialism in Zimbabwe."? Is it a liberal-left guilt feeling about anti-imperialism, or simply double standards? I do not believe that it is double standards, but I do believe that a bit of liberal angst is creeping into the muted reaction that we are getting to this terrible situation.
Baroness Amos, a Government spokesman in the Upper House, reportedly told the BBC:
"There have been calls for targeted sanctions against the government of Zimbabwe.
The process that we are engaged in with the European Union could result in what are called 'appropriate measures' if the things that we are looking for are not met. What it means is that Britain has been working with partners on this. The EU has the possibility to take 'appropriate measures' … that could be targeted sanctions."

249WH
The report, via the Press Association, goes on to say that Lady Amos added that the Government want to maintain dialogue with Zimbabwe and said:
"We are not ruling anything in or anything out.
We are at a point now where the Government of Zimbabwe have to come back with some written commitments …
And the EU have made it absolutely clear that they will be looking very closely at the action that is being taken by the Zimbabwe government on the ground".
Mr. Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Is not part of the problem that Ministers have remarked more than once that Robert Mugabe came to power by democratic means? Surely the lesson of history is that some of the very worst tyrants, including arguably Adolf Hitler, originally came to power by largely democratic means. That cannot be a justification for what is happening now.
Dr. Lewis: It is certainly true that the system in Zimbabwe seems to be a parody of democracy. Its leaders try to govern by means of institutions that look, on the face of it, as if they conform to democracy while actually being the merest send-up or perversion of democracy in the way that they operate.
I fear that the Foreign Office has consistently applied too much of a softly-softly approach. We saw the same sort of language back in April 2000, when The Independent quoted British officials as claiming that the Cairo meeting between the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), and Mr. Mugabe had restored relations to
"a frozen kind of friendliness",
and that Mugabe would lessen his criticism of UK Ministers if the Government would
"lower the temperature of its commentary"
about him. That is not the approach that is required, or that we were led to expect when the Prime Minister said in May:
"I will make Africa a major personal priority and a priority for the Labour Government."
In June, the Foreign Office said in a press release:
"Relations with Africa will be an important priority for this Government's second term of office."
In a leaked memorandum entitled "Touchstone Issues" and published in The Times on 18 July last year, the Prime Minister admitted that the Government is seen as "insufficiently assertive on Zimbabwe".
It is not assertions that Zimbabwe needs, but effective action. It is hard to believe that right up until recently the deportations of people back to Zimbabwe were continuing at a heavy pace. The Refugee Council expressed serious concern that the Home Office's assessment of the situation in Zimbabwe was so out of date that it was only under severe pressure from the council—and, I might add, from the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats—the Home Secretary suspended deportations of people back into the hands of the Mugabe regime.
There has been much talk about what measures could be applied. We hear that smart sanctions are under consideration by the European Union and America, and
250WH
that the Commonwealth is expected to consider calls for Zimbabwe's suspension. Where is the voice of Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in all this? For that matter, where is the practical action by our Prime Minister, who memorably told the Labour party conference last year that
"on the African side, true democracy, no more excuses for dictatorship, abuses of human rights; no tolerance of bad governance, from the endemic corruption of some states to the activities of Mr. Mugabe's henchmen in Zimbabwe … This is a moment to seize. The kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us re-order this world around us."
On 14 January, Mugabe promised the Southern African Development Community that the presidential elections would be free and fair, and that recent cases of political violence would be "fully and impartially investigated". Apparently, that was good enough for the President of Malawi, the chairman of the SADC, who said:
"Let's give Zimbabwe a chance. President Mugabe has made a commitment to us as SADC—let's wait and see."
After that regional summit in Malawi, Mugabe boasted:
"The whole meeting supported our position"
and he claimed that he would like "free and fair" presidential elections to go ahead. That was also enough for South Africa's deputy Foreign Minister, who said that there was no alternative to using "quiet diplomacy" to persuade Mugabe to restore the rule of law. He said:
"Let's try at this very difficult time to assist, to take measures that will help us stabilise the situation."
That is in stark contrast to Morgan Tsvangirai's call for South Africa to impose direct sanctions on Zimbabwe by cutting transport links and stopping fuel and electricity supplies. That call will evidently fall on deaf ears.
The sad fact is that the gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has achieved more effective action against Robert Mugabe than the Commonwealth, the United Nations, the EU and the Governments of Britain and South Africa put together. Basildon Peta, the head of the free journalists in Zimbabwe, has stated that the EU, the UN, Britain and the Commonwealth have done precisely nothing. He said:
"All we can do is brace ourselves for years of dictatorship, and pray that someone, one day, comes to our aid."
He also said:
"An unfortunate truth for many Zimbabweans is that we cannot rely on institutions such as the Commonwealth, the British Government or the European Union, which purport to be the custodians of democracy, for relief against wayward leaders like President Robert Mugabe."
Tony Worthington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Lewis: I am bringing my remarks to a conclusion, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Tony Worthington: The hon. Gentleman's speech has contained some fine rhetoric, but he has not yet said what he would do. Before he brings his remarks to a conclusion, will he say what he would do?
Dr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I have said that tough sanctions should be

251WH
brought into play. I may be somewhat ahead of my party's position, because I would not rule out direct intervention in the event that this dictatorship is not seen to bring matters back into a constitutional position.
Tony Worthington rose—
Dr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman will have his chance to contribute shortly. I want to develop the point that I was about to make when he intervened.
I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), will respond to the debate, because as he knows I consistently supported the Government when they took action against tough regimes. He has remarked on that fact to me, and I am grateful that he acknowledges my support. I supported the Government over Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan, and I hope, in the not too distant future, to be able to support the Government over Zimbabwe as well.
I began by drawing a parallel between Mugabe's regime and Nazism, and I want to go back to that to conclude my speech. Desmond Tutu has rightly described the Zimbabwean political leadership as having gone
"bonkers in a big way."
That reminded me of the famous despatch that our ambassador in Germany sent back as early as June 1933, only a few months after Hitler had come to power. The ambassador, Sir Horace Rumbold, was retiring and was sadly about to be replaced by an appeaser. In his valedictory address, he said:
"I have the impression that the persons directing the policy of the Hitler Government are not normal. Many of us, indeed, have a feeling that we are living in a country where fantastic hooligans and eccentrics have got the upper hand."
His recommendation then was that Hitler should not be appeased. Our recommendation now is that Mugabe should not be appeased either.
9.47 am
Tony Worthington: I agree with a surprising amount of what the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) said, but it is the duty of Opposition Members to be specific about what they would do. He claimed that Morgan Tsvangirai was in favour of sanctions, but as I understand his statements, his appeal is that they should be targeted against Mugabe and his narrow band of people who are looting the country.
When the hon. Gentleman says that he does not rule out direct intervention, he should explain what that means. Does he want British intervention? Should any intervention be under the United Nations or should it be regional intervention? That should be spelt out. For all his rhetoric, the hon. Gentleman has not made it clear how his position differs from that of the Government.
I shall be honest about this and admit that this problem is an embarrassment. Something is going on in the heart of Africa. The British reaction—not the Labour party's—to the situation in this previously and still potentially prosperous country has been muted. That is because, for a long time, we believed
252WH
that any intervention by this country would be counterproductive. If we protested, we would be seen as intervening on behalf of white farmers in that country, and that would feed into Mugabe's rhetoric. I think that we were wrong, because the main sufferers have been poor blacks, and they are suffering more and more.
Our reticence has had some strange side effects. If we had realised the depths of Mugabe's iniquities, we would have protested more effectively, and would not have been returning opposition people to Zimbabwe. There is a great deal of difference between protesting and taking effective action.
There is no doubt that Zimbabwe is a potentially prosperous country which Mugabe is progressively destroying, institution by institution. That is what is suggested when a chief officer in the army threatens a coup if the opposition win, when the judiciary is packed with Mugabe supporters, when the police stand by while atrocities occur, and when there are attacks on the opposition. Wherever there are abuses of human rights, we must protest. I was delighted to hear a Tory Member call for an ethical dimension to foreign policy, and I hope that he will spread his influence among his colleagues.
Dr. Lewis: I will do my best
Tony Worthington: It must be pointed out that the main losers in Zimbabwe are poor blacks, and that the need for humanitarian aid is mounting as the economy collapses. Nearly 100 members and supporters of the MDC have been killed, and thousands have been tortured, maimed and raped by ZANU-PF supporters. That can be authenticated.
We should praise the sheer courage of opposition politicians who are risking all for democratic government. Last Saturday, 10,000 MDC supporters turned up for a peaceful rally at the White City stadium. The rally was cancelled, and 25 MDC supporters were tortured and hospitalised by ZANU-PF supporters while police stood by. That is outrageous. We can already see that these are not free and fair elections, because of the intimidation that has already occurred.
The hon. Member for New Forest, East referred to the violence and corruption, and to people being forced to buy ZANU-PF cards in order to go about their daily business. That, too, is outrageous, as are the laws that are being passed. I was interested to read this morning that it is intended to proceed with the restriction on press freedom that was postponed for a short time. Recently an Act was passed, the General Laws (Amendment) Act 2002, which it is estimated will disfranchise more than 1.5 million people. Postal voting from overseas is being restricted to those who are effectively in the Government's employ. Those in rural areas can vote only if the local headman will vouch for them: in other words, they must be approved by Mugabe. The impact of the licensing of Zimbabwean journalists could not be clearer.
It is plain, then, that Mugabe has no intention of holding free and fair elections. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, he has broken the promises that he made at the Abuja meeting in September. He has already failed to take the action required of him by SADC members on

253WH
15 January. We can see that he will break the promise made just last weekend to President Osabanjo of Nigeria that he would stop all election violence immediately.
Mugabe claims that what is happening is British interference, but that is not true. It cannot be British interference that has caused 2,500 people to leave Zimbabwe for South Africa each day. That is the official figure; I suspect that the actual figure is far higher. The Independent estimates that there are now some 400,000 Zimbabweans in this country. Many are here illegally, but the fact that they are avoiding the tyranny in Zimbabwe cannot be due to British action.
I am sure that African leaders are increasingly realising what an enemy of Africa Mugabe is. It is not Britain but poverty-stricken Zimbabwe that is damaged by his action. Assistance from the World bank, the African development bank and the European investment bank has already been withdrawn from Zimbabwe, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, the inflation levels are frightening: the latest recorded figure is 112 per cent.
In June last year, the European Union invoked article 8 of the Cotonou agreement. After all, why should our assistance go to a Government who stimulate political violence, do not allow election monitoring, have ended freedom of the media and judicial independence, and have allowed and even encouraged the illegal occupation of property? At the meeting of the General Affairs Council of the European Union on 28 January, the EU must agree to use every possible means to target the corrupt resources of Mugabe and his narrow group, and to make their lives as difficult as possible by forbidding them to travel.
We have a bad record on the issue of corrupt leaders and their resources—leaders such as Abacha, Mobutu, Milosevic and Saddam Hussein. We must now see whether all the laws passed in the world since 11 September to prevent money laundering work. They must be imposed rigorously against Mugabe. I am sure that the ordinary people of Zimbabwe will rejoice if he can be prevented from gaining access to the looted resources that he has gained from not only his own country, but the Congo.
Sanctions, however, must be targeted; they must not be general. We have learned over and over again that when we impose general sanctions, the victims of such people as Mugabe become double victims. Sanctions, among other things, set up black markets and give power to supporters of Mugabe and the like, so that they look after themselves and those outside the network lose further.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: Sanctions were imposed on Libya to force it to give up the Lockerbie bombers. Libya is now a close ally of Mugabe. Perhaps the success of those sanctions will cause the Libyans to advise him to pay a great deal more attention to what we are suggesting.
Tony Worthington: Believing that requires a considerable leap of faith. It is touching that the hon.
254WH
Gentleman believes it, but I think that it would be difficult for him to find anyone else who considers that Gaddafi's influence will be crucial in this instance.
Mr. Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman should not dismiss Gaddafi's influence so lightly. There is evidence that he has contributed about half a million pounds to Mugabe's election expenses so far. Moreover, there are reports of Libyans being granted fertile land, particularly in areas near Harare. The hon. Gentleman underestimates the potential influence of Gaddafi and the Libyans at his peril.
Tony Worthington: This is becoming a little esoteric. The fact is that general sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe would mostly damage those who have already been damaged by Mugabe's activities. I find it difficult to identify any imposition of general sanctions in the world that has been really effective. Where they have been effective, for instance in South Africa, it has taken decades. We want our action to be effective a little more quickly than that.
There is no doubt that there should be targeted sanctions. The International Development Committee has considered what are often described as smart sanctions, although there is not too much smartness around. I hope that the legislation that has been introduced around the world by an enormous number of organisations can be proved to work in the case of Mugabe.
We must continue the pressure for an end to political violence, and for unrestricted access to election monitors. I believe that the exertion of pressure by the European Union can be a huge advantage. One of our problems is that Mugabe uses our colonial past against us. He cannot do the same to the 15 countries of the European Union. This is a good example of the way in which the EU's foreign policy activity can be very helpful to us. I am surprised—although perhaps not—that the hon. Member for New Forest, East rather down-played the contribution that can be made by the EU.
The African countries must now fully punch their weight, especially South Africa. It is losing because of Mugabe. From Mugabe, we must have only action. The illegal seizure of lands must cease. The recent judgment by his court that illegal seizures of white-owned land were justified must be reversed. There must be invitations immediately to international observers from bodies such as the Commonwealth and the EU. He must let international journalists, including from the BBC, back into the country.
We must intensify that pressure in any way we can without harming the ordinary people of the country. The whole international community, regardless of colour or race, must tell Mugabe that his behaviour is leading his country into total wilderness.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. It may be for the benefit of the Chamber if I ask right hon. and hon. Members to call to mind that the general convention at sittings is to ask the three Front-Bench spokesmen to commence winding up 30 minutes before

255WH
the termination of the debate. I ask those participating to bear that in mind and to make their contributions concise, clear and pertinent.
10.1 am
Mr. Francis Maude: The Chamber owes a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) for raising this issue and for the way in which he has introduced the subject. I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) and welcome the tone of his contribution. It is encouraging that there is growing consensus. I hope that we can approach the issue with as little partisan spirit as possible.
Why does the great issue of Zimbabwe matter to us? It matters because of our history, our connections and our historic obligations to it, and because of its strategic importance. It is at the centre of southern Africa. What is happening there is contaminating and destabilising the whole region. Therefore, for every reason that one can think of, it is in Britain's interest and a matter of honour and obligation to do whatever we can to assist the beleaguered people of Zimbabwe.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East and the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie have talked about what is happening in Zimbabwe. It is now a matter of public record and without contest that matters are descending ever further into what amounts to—it sounds like a paradox but it is not—state-sponsored anarchy. It brings to mind what Mao Tse-Tung did in China in the 1960s—an ageing despot increasingly out of touch with his people, with the world moving on beyond him. Like Mao, Mugabe is unleashing the forces of anarchy, effectively declaring war on his own people and deliberately subverting the rule of law. He has only one objective. It is nothing to do with land; we all know that. There is an issue with land but it can be dealt with sensibly. This is about one thing only: power. It is about that ageing despot clinging to power. He will do anything to accomplish that.
We have heard the saga of murder, beating, invasions, systematic brutality and the way in which the economy is being deliberately subverted and disrupted, so that there is widespread shortage of food and starvation in many parts of the country. I have visited Zimbabwe twice in the past 18 months, the last time in February. I had the privilege of meeting so many amazingly brave, fine people who are striving to make their country better. Whether they are white or black, they all think of themselves, rightly, as Zimbabweans. It is their heritage, their country, and they feel that it is being taken away from them.
During a tour of the high-density suburbs of Harare, I was guided around by a wonderful man called Wilfred, who had been a senior commander in the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army under Mugabe. He was a genuine war veteran. A lot of people who are described as war veterans are not. They are plainly too young to have been anything other than toddlers in arms at the time of the so-called war of liberation.
Wilfred said, "This is not what we fought for. What is going on at the moment is as bad or worse than anything we suffered under the old Smith regime." These people have a sense of betrayal and a desire to move on from the past and to make their own lives. Wilfred had become an
256WH
entrepreneur: he was running his own business and trying to make a success of it in appalling circumstances. We must all move on from the post-colonial guilt which sometimes overhangs our approach to black African countries. Certainly most Zimbabweans have moved well past post-colonial resentment, which undoubtedly had an effect.
What can Britain do? We must speak out. We must make our voice heard unequivocally. Britain has not always done that since matters began to deteriorate in February 2000. The Minister's colleague, the current Minister for Europe, did speak out when he had responsibility for these matters. I praised him on many occasions for doing so. Sometimes one felt that he was not entirely in accord with the Foreign Secretary at the time, but he was right to do so. With his background of anti-apartheid campaigning he perhaps had almost unique authority and credibility to speak out in that way, but I would like to hear the same clarity of articulation from the current Minister.
Too often, the argument that we must pursue quiet diplomacy and not disrupt our influence by being counter-productive has degenerated into what an Australian Prime Minister called the pre-emptive cringe. We must beware of that. We owe it to Zimbabwe to speak out.
The pre-emptive cringe reached its culmination in the Abuja agreement in early September. We must be clear about it: that was a sham. Mugabe agreed to that agreement for one reason only: to get himself into what was going to be the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Brisbane. As we know, that has been postponed but it was transparently obvious that that was what it was about: buying time to allow him to strut his stuff in front of the world's media at the Brisbane meeting.
It was clear, even in the few days between that agreement and the events of 11 September, which caused the postponement of the meeting, that nothing was being done to implement it. In fact, all the reports I had from Zimbabwe said that, even in the few days immediately after the agreement, matters were getting worse: the intimidation was being intensified.
That shows that Mugabe cares about the Commonwealth, about being able to be part of that important organisation, and about the veneer of respectability that continued membership confers upon him. I urge the Minister to use all Britain's considerable influence to ensure that at the reinstated CHOGM in a few weeks or couple of months, Mugabe is not allowed to make a grand entrance.
We saw the damage last year when Mugabe was given the full red carpet treatment by President Chirac in France and by the Belgian Prime Minister. The propaganda coup that that gave him in Zimbabwe was considerable. We must beware of that. He must be denied the propaganda oxygen that continued membership of the Commonwealth confers on him and his regime.
What can be done now? Aid has been reduced. We do not like that but it is obviously necessary. The military advisory team has been removed. That was the one thing that people in Zimbabwe said to me they did not want. They saw the presence of even a small contingent of British troops there as a stabilising influence on the

257WH
army. I revert to the points that were made by my hon. Friends the Members for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) and for East Devon (Mr. Swire) about the effect of Libya. The small vacuum created when the British military advisory and training team left last year has been filled by Libyans. My impression is that Zimbabwe is stiff with Libyans these days, and that some of the slack has been taken up by advisers from China's People's Liberation Army. Taking the BMAT team away as a modest gesture of protest has therefore had an unfortunate effect.
What can be done? The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie mentioned targeted sanctions, as did my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East. That option must be the answer, as my party has urged for many months. It is not necessarily a matter of targeting sanctions against Mugabe himself. Morgan Tsvangirai has always told me that it is a mistake to focus all the action against Mugabe, and that attention should be turned to the gangsters who surround him and sustain him in power.
The number of such people—about 20—is not huge. They could be subject to financial sanctions, and their assets could be examined. They should not be allowed to travel, and their histories of wrongdoing, which largely go back to the Matabeleland massacres of the early 1980s, could be investigated. It has taken a long time to make any progress on such matters, even to talk about suspending the Mugabe regime from the Commonwealth. I am glad that that is at least being discussed now, but we must move in the direction of targeted sanctions against individuals.
What of Mugabe himself? If he departs voluntarily, what should our attitude be? I suspect that it would stick in everyone's gullet if Mugabe were allowed to slip off to a cosy and quiet retirement home in Libya or some other chosen location. However, it is in the overwhelming interests of Zimbabweans that he should leave. The price that has to be paid for seeing him leave voluntarily might be that a line has to be drawn under his regime of tyrannous misdeeds. However, all my contacts and knowledge lead me to believe that most Zimbabweans would joyfully pay that price. Of course, there will be a human desire for vengeance and retribution, but people in Zimbabwe just want to see the back of Mugabe and to get their country back. They will accept drawing a line under his personal misdeeds if that means that he leaves voluntarily and quickly. We should therefore be sufficiently realistic and grown up to accept that that would be a price well worth paying.
We must be aware of the danger that the threat of endless pursuit of Mugabe, into his old age and wherever he is, is likely to make him more desirous of clinging to power. We should be aware of the danger that, like a wounded and cornered animal, he would be willing to do anything for that.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie spoke of the presidential election. We must abandon the pretence that there is any prospect that it will be free and fair. It cannot be, even though the Zimbabwean Parliament is discussing the media law today. The other laws that have been passed, the gerrymandering and the systematic intimidation of those who oppose Mugabe make it unrealistic that the election could be free and
258WH
fair. Even the presence of monitors would not change that. Their investigations could only provide more incontrovertible evidence of what has been going on, if that were needed.
However, that is not to say that the elections will be won by Mugabe. The parliamentary elections 18 months ago were subject to gerrymandering, intimidation and vote-rigging—every tool of the dictator was deployed to secure victory, but he only just managed it. Many Zimbabweans will have taken heart from that, and seen that they have the power to make a difference, despite all that is being done by Mugabe. We therefore should not simply assume that Mugabe will succeed in his aims. He may very well not succeed, and if he loses the election and tries to cling to power, Britain and the international community will have some difficult questions to answer.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East raised the possibility of intervention. We should not be mealy-mouthed about the fact that that would result in hair-raising problems for Britain. However, it would be impossible for Britain and the international community to stand aside and allow to remain in power someone who has lost an election even though everything was in his favour.
My plea to the Government is that they should lead international opinion and use Britain's influence in the world to good effect. They should spend some of the international political capital that the Prime Minister has undoubtedly accrued in recent months to help the people of Zimbabwe. The country could be incredibly prosperous and stable. It has some of the best educated and most literate people in Africa, and it could be a fantastic success story.
Britain should use its influence to make a difference in what is a very good cause. We have obligations of honour and history to Zimbabwe, and we must discharge them.
10.16 am
Tony Baldry: I shall try to make my comments as brief as possible.
It seems to me that Zimbabwe challenges the ways in which the Commonwealth and the Government put principles into practice. I should like hon. Members to consider a simple and straightforward statement from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), who is responding to the debate. Answering an oral question a couple of weeks ago, he said that the Government welcomed the public reiteration by Pakistan's President Musharraf of his commitment to stick to his road map to democracy and to hold national and provincial elections by October 2002. Yet Pakistan is still suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth, while Zimbabwe is not.
Pakistan was suspended immediately under the Millbrook terms. Since then, at the Commonwealth ministerial action group on the Harare declaration in Durban, it was recommended that Pakistan remain suspended until democracy was restored there. The Millbrook terms are unambiguous: they state that once a suspended country returns to the Commonwealth it
"must reinforce the need for change … even after two years."

259WH
Although Pakistan is making progress towards democracy, it remains suspended from the Commonwealth. In contrast, Zimbabwe—which is introducing the strikingly undemocratic Public Order and Security Bill and other legislation—has had no action taken against it by the Commonwealth. Such double standards do not reflect well on the Commonwealth.
Zimbabwe is also challenging the way in which the UK Government respond. The Department for International Development has reduced overall development aid to Zimbabwe in the past year, but the total amount is still larger than it was in 1997, when the Government came into office. The Department's most recent report states that development aid should be
"focused on systematic poverty reduction in ways that support local ownership."
It added that the Government
"has … increased its commitment of assistance for well thought-out programmes in key sectors in reforming countries … which in turn will improve the quality of public expenditure management as a whole, and help reduce corruption".
It is clear that the DFID principles regard improving democracy as a totem for supporting development aid, but that is not happening in Zimbabwe.
The Government's support for the land reform programme in Zimbabwe is very confused. Indeed, that programme, more than any of DFID's other programmes, puts into sharp relief the confusion of the Government's approach to Zimbabwe, democracy and development principles.
The communiqué from the Abuja agreement last September rightly observed that
"land is the core of the crises in Zimbabwe and cannot be separated from other issues of concern to the Commonwealth, such as rule of law, respect for human rights"
and democracy. The same communiqué also refers to the UK Government's financial involvement in land reform and welcomes the
"re-affirmation of the United Kingdom's commitment to a significant financial contribution to such a land reform programme and its undertaking to encourage other international donors to do the same".
That would be welcome if the land reform programme remotely assisted poverty reduction. It does not. The Zimbabwean Government's "fast-track" land reform programme is not fair land reform. It does not meet the Abuja agreement terms and it does not deserve bilateral aid from the Government.
A paper presented last year to the Southern African Regional Poverty Network asserts that the situation for huge numbers of farm workers in Zimbabwe
"is still unsatisfactory. They are still poor in absolute terms, and access to services such as health and education in particular is far from satisfactory".
As the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) said, the solutions in respect of Zimbabwe are not easy, but I believe that if we are to have statements of principle, whether from the Commonwealth or from the Prime Minister speaking, as he did recently, in India about the need to support democracy, we must be consistent. Neither the Commonwealth nor the United Kingdom Government are being consistent in their approach to Zimbabwe in putting principles into practice. That is bad for the
260WH
people in Zimbabwe where, tragically, 500,000 people now face starvation, bad for general support for the Commonwealth and bad for the integrity of international development.
10.21 am
Mr. Hugo Swire: This is the second time that I have taken part in a debate on Zimbabwe, and I am most grateful for the opportunity to speak. While I, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) and the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington), deplore the actions of President Mugabe and his supporters, I wish to speak, in the time remaining to me, mainly about the plight of those ordinary citizens who are suffering from Mugabe's mismanagement of the economy.
Zimbabwe has traditionally been seen as the most industrialised country in the southern African region, and one which has traditionally produced a grain surplus. However, it is now clear that under President Mugabe's mismanagement the economy is in crisis. There is a grain shortage and hundreds of thousands of people face starvation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) commented, according to the World Food Programme, more than 550,000 people in the far north-west and south of the country now face severe food shortages.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office website states:
"for many years Zimbabwe's per capita income was significantly higher than that of most sub-Saharan African countries. Mining (gold, ferrous alloys, asbestos and nickel) accounts for about 33% of exports, and manufacturing 23% of GDP. Commercial farming (tobacco, meat, cotton, maize, sugar, and plants) is export oriented, accounting for around 19% of GDP, and earning 40% of the country's foreign exchange."
More than 80 per cent. of financial transactions that pass through institutions in Zimbabwe pass through institutions that are owned or managed by whites, practically all of whom oppose ZANU.
The project document that accompanies the latest emergency operation in Zimbabwe from the World Food Programme states:
"all economic indicators currently show negative trends. The gross national product is expected to decline five per cent in 2001, amounting to a cumulative decrease of 18 per cent during 1999–2001. The country is facing an acute foreign exchange crisis limiting its ability to import fuel, energy and basic food grains to meet the looming food deficit. The prices of basic commodities and services continue to increase following the fuel price increase of 70 per cent in June 2001. Rapid inflation combined with high levels of unemployment and the increasing cost of living have deepened the poverty and eroded the purchasing power of poor urban and rural households."
The project document provides the following worrying evidence:
"The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation/WFP Crop and Food Supply Assessment Mission, carried out in May 2001, determined that there would be a shortfall of 447,000 tonnes of maize during the April 2001-March 2002 marketing year."
The document states that the reason is that
"due primarily to disruptions caused by land acquisition activities, the large-scale commercial sector experienced a decline of 30 per cent in area planted under all crops and a 54 per cent drop in maize area planted during the main season. Mainly because of the poor production in commercial areas, cereal production in 2001 was 24 per cent lower than last year and 8 per cent lower than the ten-year average."

261WH
I am arguing that according to local experts, the only country in southern Africa with a grain surplus—and a narrow one at that—is now South Africa. One Harare-based economist told BBC News Online that the Zimbabwean Government had
"pretty much mismanaged the tendering process. There's very little on the way. For months they denied that there was a need to import, and by the time the government changed its tune most of it was allocated. There's not much more than a week or two's supply left."
The scandal does not end at Government mismanagement. According to the state-owned Herald newspaper:
"the government has seized 36,000 tonnes of maize from commercial farms who were refusing to hand it over to the Grain Marketing Board (Zimbabwe's monopoly supplier). More than 6,000 tonnes was seized from a German-owned farm, the paper said, despite efforts from German embassy staff to stop the process."
While the people starve, the Government are seizing food to feed Mugabe's henchmen. That scandal cannot be allowed to continue. I ask the Minister, what are the British Government doing to ensure that pressure is put on President Mugabe to allow that vital aid to reach those people who need it the most?
President Mugabe turns 78 next month and he is reputed to be in failing health. According to a report in Africa Confidential on Vice-President Simon Muzenda's birthday last October, Mugabe said:
"The biggest prayer of my life is that God gives me more life to see me through the land issue. I have the backbone to pull through, the courage, and I am fearless but I need God's blessings."
As that report depressingly concludes:
"Such blessings may bring an election victory but they are ruining the country."
10.27 am
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The debate has been short but notable, not simply because of the degree of unanimity across the Chamber but because it is the first time that I have heard Peter Tatchell and Bertolt Brecht quoted with approval by Conservative Members.
I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on obtaining the debate, but we should not need to have it. The only reason that we are having it, as the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said, is because of Mr. Mugabe's determination to retain the presidency of his country at all costs—indeed, at any cost, as long as that cost is borne by his countrymen and women.
In this country, to some extent, our focus has been on the plight of white farmers, some of whom have bloodcurdling stories to tell of intimidation and violence. I suspect that I am not the only Member in the Chamber today who has received representations from constituents with relations in Zimbabwe. I do not propose to mention any names, for fear of further persecution, but some of the personal stories that have been relayed to me in letters and e-mails and by other means are extremely distressing.
Black citizens also suffer in Zimbabwe. The farm workers, some of whom have spent generations on one farm, are not the beneficiaries of some benevolent form
262WH
of land redistribution. They have become the consequential, and sometimes frightened, victims of illegal land appropriation. The legitimate political rights of black citizens have been removed.
It is clear that Mr. Mugabe does not believe in apartheid: when it comes to damaging the interests of citizens of Zimbabwe, he does not discriminate against them because of the colour of their skins. A feature of his behaviour has been the agreements entered into and the undertakings given that have been abandoned before their ink has dried. Reference has already been made to the empty sham of the Abuja agreement, which, as the right hon. Member for Horsham rightly said, was designed to try to ensure that Mr. Mugabe could take his place at Brisbane.
The Mugabe Government are still characterised by intimidation of the judiciary, the expulsion of independent journalists, the persecution of their political opponents and the introduction of repressive legislation, with one purpose only: to secure Mr. Mugabe's re-election. There is nothing more repressive than the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Bill—Orwellian in conception and, no doubt, totalitarian in application. There are reports in a national newspaper today of anxiety in the ranks of members of ZANU-PF, which suggest that the consideration of that Bill has been adjourned because of those very anxieties.
In truth, Mr. Mugabe ought to be grateful for that delay, because the Bill would create an offence of causing fear, alarm and despondency. If anyone has caused fear, alarm and despondency in Zimbabwe, it is Mr. Mugabe himself. He has engendered the same consequences throughout southern Africa, which caused Mr. Mbeki—until now, by no means a trenchant critic of the Mugabe regime—to say on 21 January:
"The instability in Zimbabwe has gone too far … Poverty, economic instability and unemployment have continued to affect that country."
For months, there has been an overwhelming case for sanctions, targeted against the elite surrounding Mr. Mugabe. I do not for a moment pretend that the simple imposition of those sanctions would, overnight, restore Zimbabwe to the kind of democracy that we would all hope it to be, but restrictions on bank accounts and travel should be in place now. If we need any example, we have only to look across the Atlantic to the United States Congress, which has passed legislation in both Houses to allow the President to implement such sanctions were he to consider them appropriate.
The hon. Member for New Forest, East mentioned the possibility of direct intervention. He is right to say that he has supported direct intervention in other places, but direct intervention in Zimbabwe would be extremely difficult both from a political and a military point of view. Which of the surrounding countries would be the obvious candidate to give us host-nation military support? We could hardly conduct operations in Zimbabwe all the way from Brize Norton or RAF Lyneham. Which of those countries would be willing to give us the political support on which it would be necessary to base the moral authority for intervention?
Again, as the right hon. Member for Horsham rightly says, if Mr. Tsvangirai and his brave colleagues are successful in the presidential election but Mr. Mugabe

263WH
refuses to accept the result, very difficult questions will shortly present themselves not just to our Government, but to those of the European Union and perhaps to the United Nations.
Zimbabwe stands on the edge of the abyss. The breakdown in law and order is palpable. As we have already heard, grain shortages are acute—3 million people have registered for food relief and almost 600,000 people in the countryside are now considered to be at risk of starvation. Inflation runs at more than 100 per cent. Unemployment stands at 60 per cent. Three quarters of the people of Zimbabwe live in poverty. It is estimated that 25 per cent. of the population may have HIV. It is further estimated that 2 million Zimbabweans have fled illegally to South Africa.
If we talk about direct intervention and applying sanctions other than in a targeted way, we must remember that a possible consequence will be a further flight to the south from Zimbabwe. That would place enormous strains on the South African economy, which has suffered from a reduction in inward investment and a decline in the value of its currency as a result of the very instability and lack of confidence that Mugabe's behaviour has created.
We are talking about someone who ignores the condemnation of Kofi Annan, Mary Robinson, Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela—hardly 21st century defenders of British colonial rule in the past two centuries. Their independence is not in doubt, yet Mr. Mugabe seeks to bolster his position with oppressive legislation that undermines the human rights of every citizen of his country.
I believe that Zimbabwe under Mr. Mugabe has forfeited its right to membership of the Commonwealth. When the Commonwealth leaders meet in Brisbane on 2 March, unless material improvement has been demonstrated, their duty is clear: suspension, with the credible threat of expulsion, is the minimum necessary.
10.36 am
Mr. Michael Ancram: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on securing this debate and on the robust and effective way in which he opened it. This is a most timely and important debate on what all hon. Members agree is a matter of enormous importance, not only for the people of Zimbabwe but for southern Africa generally and the wider international community. He made a powerful case, and we are all grateful to him for doing so.
It is shameful, however, that for the third time in as many months this subject is being debated at the instigation of an Opposition Member. It would certainly not be taking place if it were left to the Government to initiate such a debate. For the Government, this is an international crisis that they wish they could pass by on the other side. This impending catastrophe challenges the last vestiges of their ethical foreign policy, and I suspect that it will prove the graveyard of that ethical foreign policy. The Government's reluctance to face up to this spiralling disaster, to take any initiative or, indeed, to do anything, other than wring their hands and talk about talks, is nothing short of an abdication of responsibility. I do not blame the Minister. I blame his boss, the Foreign Secretary, and the Prime Minister, too, because they have simply dodged this issue.
264WH
Let us be clear: we are not debating a far-off problem of which we know little. We know Zimbabwe well; we know it much better than we knew Bosnia or Kosovo. We know that Zimbabwe faces a growing nightmare of fascism, the destruction of democracy, the suspension and abrogation of human rights and the undermining of justice and the rule of law. We know that it faces a growing humanitarian crisis, as we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and for East Devon (Mr. Swire).
We know, too, that the birth of this new rogue state is already responsible for an economic downturn among Zimbabwe's immediate neighbours, not least South Africa. The usual suspects of the rogue-state brigade—not least Libya, as we have been reminded this morning—are already eyeing Zimbabwe with anticipation. The Government's response has been, if I recall the phrase rightly, one of "quiet diplomacy"—to do nothing, and nothing is what they have done. However, doing nothing in the face of evil is not an option.
We should not be squeamish about what is happening in Zimbabwe. In the past year, there have been 48 political murders, 329 abductions, 2,245 cases of torture and 992 cases of unlawful detention. Foreign journalists have been labelled as terrorists. Draconian laws have been introduced to block basic democratic freedoms of expression and assembly. Every day, 2,500 Zimbabwean refugees are now entering South Africa. The rand has suffered and much-needed investment in the region has been lost. In short, Zimbabwe is collapsing internally, and externally it is exercising an increasingly malign influence. The international community cannot stand idly by.
For some time, Conservative Members have been pointing the way. Our calls are not new. In March last year, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who made such a strong speech, attacked the Government's "supine inaction" and urged
"the imposition of travel bans and criminal investigations of those of Mugabe's henchmen who sustain him in his murderous and repressive regime".—[Official Report, 27 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 800.]
I remind hon. Members that my right hon. Friend was mocked by the Government for making those suggestions. Yet despite the previous Foreign Secretary deriding him then and the current Foreign Secretary deriding me now for proposing targeted sanctions against Mugabe, his henchmen and their ill-gotten foreign stashes, there are at last faint signs that the Government are beginning timidly to give support to those—including the United States, which has been robust on this matter for a long time, and now Europe—who are now moving in this direction.
Bringing Mugabe to book even at this eleventh hour must be the immediate objective. He must be brought to see the downside of ignoring the democratic norm and the weight of international opinion behind it. With our associations with Zimbabwe, we can no longer shelter behind the lily-livered shield of post-colonial sensitivity. It did not stop the Prime Minister jumping in with both feet in India to offer advice on Kashmir, so why are we so sensitive about Zimbabwe? If we have a constructive contribution to make—I believe that we have—we should make it and not just talk about it.

265WH
Action cannot wait. It is clear that President Mugabe has no intention of keeping his promises to ensure free and fair elections. Already this week, we have seen the first Movement for Democratic Change rally of the presidential campaign tear-gassed by the police. That will not be the last time that we see that.
We know that international action must, above all, involve Zimbabwe's long-suffering neighbours, especially South Africa. In the end, they can exert the greatest pressure on Mugabe and his henchmen. What assistance are the Government offering those countries that we must seek to bring into the international coalition to deal with this problem? In the other great international coalition, both Pakistan and India have received substantial packages of support, so what proposals does the Minister have for south African countries whose assistance we also need?
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) asked what action could be taken. He must have heard from many speakers that the actions that we can take are now clear. They include international sanctions targeted personally against Zimbabwe's elite and, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, suspension from the Commonwealth. They also include suspension from the Southern African Development Community and from other organisations that convey respectability. What action are the Government taking to initiate such procedures? In the event of other developments, such as the rumoured possibility of an army takeover and the postponement of the presidential elections, can the Government tell us what contingent response has been prepared to meet such a situation?
A lot can be done, so why are the Government still dragging their feet? It is not for the want of fine words. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East reminded us what the Prime Minister said in his great "I will mend the world" speech that he delivered to the Labour party conference in October. It worth recalling the words that he used. He talked about
"no tolerance of … the activities of Mr. Mugabe's henchmen in Zimbabwe".
"No tolerance". Strong words, but what did they mean? From the inaction that we have seen, they were not worth the breath with which they were uttered. They created false hope that has now been dashed by "supine inaction". That inaction continues.
The Foreign Secretary goes to central Africa, where he is today, but he does not go anywhere near Zimbabwe. The Prime Minister—the man who spoke of "no tolerance"—goes to Africa later this month or early next month and we are told that he too will give Zimbabwe a wide berth. Once again, there will be more talks—of that we can be sure—but Zimbabwe does not need more talks. It needs action.
I should like to quote a member of the Movement for Democratic Change, who said this week:
"We are fighting on all fronts using the only tools we have—the truth, the written and spoken word, and the courage of our leadership and membership throughout the country."
266WH
A spokesman of the MDC said recently:
"In this deteriorating situation where the abuse of civil and human rights has become commonplace, where fear rules and freedoms exist in word only, we urge the European Union to take appropriate measures … We urge the governments of Europe to remember the pledge made at Nuremberg—'Never again'."
Never again—that should be the wake-up call to this Government, whose inaction on Zimbabwe to date has been a disgrace and a betrayal of the values for which this country should stand.
We owe Zimbabwe our support. There is still time—just. If the Foreign Secretary has not the stomach for this task, he should make way for someone who does.
10.45 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on proposing this debate. I am aware of his close personal interest in Zimbabwe. His usual eloquently expressed concern is shared by many in the House and in the country at large.
I was also extremely grateful for the contribution of the former shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), and the particular stress that he placed on the importance and the greater effectiveness of the House approaching the problems in Zimbabwe in a bipartisan spirit. I am only sorry that the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), did not enter into the same spirit. To claim that the Government have done nothing does him no credit.
All hon. Members have stressed the need for tough action. We agree with that. However, our approach to Zimbabwe must put Zimbabweans first. That means that, when it comes to combating the abuses of the Mugabe regime, we should act rationally and effectively. Whatever the right hon. Member for Devizes says, in his heart of hearts he must recognise that the Government's long-held view—that we act best when we act with our international friends—is the most effective strategy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) said, the importance of international action is paramount. It is vital that we do not play into President Mugabe's hands and allow him to portray this as a neo-colonial struggle with Britain.
The Government believe that their efforts to build a strong international consensus on Zimbabwe has borne fruit. The European Union has tried constructive engagement with Zimbabwe for 10 months, and there has been no response. On 11 January, the EU gave the Zimbabwean Government seven days to take immediate action on election observers and free access for the international media, but their response has been neither specific nor satisfactory. EU Foreign Ministers now have no choice but to discuss appropriate measures against Zimbabwe at their meeting on 28 January. In their deliberations, they will also consider the views of members of Zimbabwe's civil society and opposition parties, all of whom are keen to ensure maximum international scrutiny of the presidential elections.
On 20 December, the Commonwealth ministerial action group—CMAG—condemned Zimbabwe's serious and persistent violations of the fundamental values of the Commonwealth. The group put Zimbabwe

267WH
on its formal agenda, ensuring that Zimbabwe's status in the Commonwealth will be debated at the Heads of Government meeting in Australia in March. CMAG Ministers will discuss a recommendation to suspend Zimbabwe from the organisation at their meeting in London on 30 January. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear on 8 January that Britain would argue for Zimbabwe's suspension if conditions continued to deteriorate. Well, they have. Britain shares the view of Australia and others that countries that violate the values of the Commonwealth should not have a seat at that table.
The United States and other countries are also considering measures. They have not taken concrete steps yet, because—like us—they have been listening closely to the views of representative groups in Zimbabwe and have wanted to act in international concert. However, the US Government's line on Zimbabwe is strong, principled and unambiguous, and we welcome it.
During last November's passage of the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, the United States Congress set out a clear bipartisan view that Zimbabwe's fundamental problems are not about land or black majority versus white minority interests; nor are they about unfinished colonial business. Congress made it clear that the problems arise from the Government of Zimbabwe's authoritarianism and political violence. The support of the Bush Administration for that Act sends a clear message to the Government of Zimbabwe about the political consequences of their actions, and American views on that are close to those of the European Union.
Several right hon. and hon. Members, including the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), described the Abuja agreement as a sham. The Government accept that it has failed, but we still believe that it was worth getting an agreement to lock the fellow African countries into the process and make the international consensus on Zimbabwe more effective. As the shadow Foreign Secretary admitted, that approach is vital.
I was going to describe the picture in Zimbabwe as it has developed since 27 November, but to be perfectly honest I would rather concentrate on other matters in the short time available. In any case, the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe was eloquently described by other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for East Devon, who made an excellent speech about the state of the Zimbabwean economy, and my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, who painted a bleak but nevertheless accurate picture of it.
Some people ask why the countries of the region do not do more. It is easy for outsiders and for us to ask that question, but it is much more difficult for those in the region who make the decisions. The countries of southern Africa face the brunt of the breakdown in Zimbabwe and of Mugabe's misrule. They know what Zimbabwe's economic implosion would mean. They feel the effects of the collapse in investor confidence and know the bizarre reality that, by frightening away investors, the Government of Zimbabwe have effectively imposed sanctions on their country and the whole region.
268WH
Indeed, President Mugabe's economic policy has crippled Zimbabwe's economy far more effectively than external sanctions ever could. The region knows that. Just as the world is warming to the idea of an African renaissance, Zimbabwe is trying to row the continent back to the bad old days of a one-party state. It is no wonder that the Southern African Development Community has taken action to express its concerns and to set out clear benchmarks for the Government of Zimbabwe's future conduct. To answer the question posed by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, the prospect of concerted regional action is growing.
In contrast to what the hon. Member for New Forest, East suggested, the United Nations Secretary-General and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights have recently added their moral weight to the international consensus, which is a sign that events in Zimbabwe threaten peace and security in the region. Let me make it clear, however, that Britain's policy of international action has not stopped us acting or taking unilateral decisions if we think that that is right.
Mr. Swire: On unilateral action, what thought have the Government given to the aftermath of the election if Mugabe wins it, but it is deemed unfair, or to the alternative scenario in which Mugabe loses the election, but refuses to go?
Mr. Bradshaw: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I will not speculate about what might happen in one, two or three months' time. At the moment, it is vital that we concentrate on the immediate steps, which we are trying to make as international and multilateral as possible. I explained that some precipitative unilateral action will not work because it plays into President Mugabe's hands.
In recent weeks, we have seen reports of ZANU-PF thugs carrying out appalling atrocities against opposition supporters. We have seen efforts to deny the opposition the right to campaign and the media to report freely. We have seen reports of plans to rig the voting process and a statement by the chief of the Zimbabwean defence forces that the army would not support the opposition candidate even if he were the people's choice. The British Government unreservedly condemn those flagrant attacks on democratic principles and practice. The violations show that Zimbabwe's ruling party knows that it cannot win a free and fair election. Instead, it is choosing to rig the process and bludgeon its way through.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I understand why the Minister declines to speculate, but if we are inviting countries surrounding Zimbabwe to be part of a political coalition that might have consequences for their economies, are we able to say that we will give them economic assistance if their economies are damaged because they have signed up to something that all hon. Members think is appropriate?
Mr. Bradshaw: We are holding detailed discussions with those countries and already provide economic assistance to many of them. We shall certainly give requests for help sympathetic consideration. International observers are a key to free and fair

269WH
elections. The EU has insisted on the invitation and accreditation of international observers at least six weeks before the elections. The tragic truth about Zimbabwe's leaders is that they no longer offer constructive answers or desire genuine co-operation; they simply create more extreme problems and resort to ever more implausible allegations against outsiders.
There are those—we have heard their voices today—who say that the efforts of the international community to date have been too little, too late. I do not share that interpretation because it assumes that there could have been a magical solution if only we had tried harder to find it. The hon. Member for New Forest, East suggested that in this country that approach had something to do with a liberal-left guilt about colonialism. I have been on the same side as him in all the arguments about intervention since we have both been in the House, and I sincerely suggest that that is not the case. The issue is how we approach the problem most effectively, without playing into President Mugabe's hands. Some of the quotes that he gave, not least by Baroness Amos, who is the Minister with responsibility for sub-Saharan Africa, were out of date and did not reflect the progress that the Government have made.
It is our view that the only people who could have prevented the crisis, and still could prevent a meltdown, are those in positions of authority in Harare. Zimbabwe is a sovereign country. It runs its own affairs, but one thing is certain: the course being taken by the Government of Zimbabwe is unsustainable and, ultimately, self-defeating. Zimbabwe's leaders need to know that one day they will be held personally accountable for their stewardship.
Although we have focused on the present, we should not overlook the future. Let me reiterate the Government's strong desire to resume a close relationship with a democratic, open and forward-looking Zimbabwe. In the right conditions and with the right international support, Zimbabwe can again become a beacon of hope for Africa—stable, prosperous and a good neighbour. That will take time and effort, and we will continue to work to that end. We look to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and more widely, for support in that.

Coal Industry
10.59 am
Mr. John Grogan: I am proud to represent the largest remaining coal mine in the United Kingdom, the Selby complex—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Will right hon. and hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly, please, so that we can continue with our business in the proper fashion?
Mr. Grogan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am proud to represent the Selby complex, which is the largest remaining coal mine in Britain. The Government have a creditable record on dealing with coalfield issues and the coalfield communities since 1997, when they came to office. Sometimes it has taken passionate debate in Parliament and elsewhere to bring that about, but that is how it should be. The Government have been responsive to arguments made by coalfield communities and MPs about justice. They have dealt with the legacy of decades of coal mining and its effect on our communities; the legacy of the strike of the 1980s; and issues such as implementing the largest ever compensation scheme for industrial disease. Only last week, they recognised for the first time the special needs of the poorest mining pensioners and their families and are making special provision for them. They have dealt with those who were unfairly victimised in the aftermath of the strike and, just before Christmas, they ensured that those people have proper pension arrangements. They have also dealt with the major issue of the regeneration of coalfield areas through the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and other mechanisms. That is a proud record indeed.
As well as offering justice, the Government have ensured that the coal industry has a part to play in Modern energy policy, not out of sentiment or respect for the past, but out of sheer economic need and necessity. In 1997, when the Government came to office, there was a widespread feeling that coal was discriminated against and that gas was favoured by market arrangements. Measures were taken, including new electricity trading agreements, a moratorium on gas-fired power stations and, latterly, the introduction of subsidies. That big move from the Government ensured the survival of much of the British coalfield. I understand that the latest figure for subsidies paid is more than £130 million; the Selby coalfield in my constituency has got more than £140 million in subsidy arrangements. There can be little doubt that without those subsidies Britain's coalfield would probably be about half its remaining size. That is a record to be proud of.
Essentially, I want to make four points. I know that a number of hon. Members representing coalfield areas want to speak on particular issues; the future of the Prince of Wales colliery, for example, will be mentioned by some of my hon. Friends. I wish to underline the continuing importance of coal nationally and internationally. When I was preparing for this debate in the Tea Room yesterday evening, one of my hon. Friends from the south of England looked at me and said, quite seriously, "You mean there is still a coal

271WH
industry?" Internationally, 40 per cent. of all electricity is still generated by coal; there is no indication that that is likely to change. In Britain, just over one third of our electricity is generated by coal and £1 billion of our national income depends in some way on the coal industry. There are nearly 300 million tonnes of proven reserves of UK coal; BP estimates that perhaps 1 billion tonnes of coal are available for the country's energy needs.
Coal therefore still makes an important contribution to our overall energy pattern and portfolio. Today's debate is taking place against the context of the energy review which, together with the accompanying clean coal technology review, will be published by the end of the month, so Ministers tell us. That is a specific commitment; I am used to being given the commitment that reports will be published in spring, summer or winter, which is a bit more flexible. However, a publication date of the end of January is pretty specific. The energy review is ambitious; the Government are looking at a period of 50 years. Imagine looking in 1952 at this country's energy needs in 2002; the venture is extremely ambitious.
The background papers to the review are worthy of brief examination as they suggest that there has been a stark decline in coal-generated power. Energy Paper 68, which was published at the end of 2000, deals with the projections by the Department of Trade and Industry on different energy prices in the years ahead. Importantly, those assumptions depend on the role that the Government envisage for different energy sectors. A critique emerges from the paper; the Government make fairly realistic assumptions about the price of coal, but they underprice oil and gas, which leads to projections of a steeper decline in coal than is likely. I asked my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy a written question in December, to which he replied that the oil price projections in Energy Paper 68 were above the range for 22 of the past 24 months. I therefore urge Ministers to look carefully at assumptions in the energy papers.
In addition, some of the papers come to frightening conclusions about the country's likely dependence on imported energy in future. According to those assumptions, by 2020, we will be 70 per cent. dependent on gas, 90 per cent. of which will be imported; similar projections were made by the European Commission. How robust that gas supply would be is open to question; only a few weeks ago, the Confederation of UK Coal Producers issued a report, commissioned by the respected risk analysts, the Control Risks Group, which pointed up possible terrorist threats to gas pipelines. However, terrorists do not pose the only possibility of blackmail; there is also a possibility of economic blackmail. If we go down the gas route, we will be in a similar position to the one that we were in the 1970s, but instead of the oil industry holding us to ransom, it will be gas. The head of the Russian gas monopoly, Gazprom, which will be one of our largest gas suppliers in that scenario, recently said:
"It is necessary to create a body which will group countries exporting natural gas, a body that would exercise real concrete regulation of prices."
He continued,
"Everybody should get together to pool their ideas and come up with … an agreement about the way we should behave on the market instead of each exporter doing his own thing."
272WH
That is the threat that we would face. It is worth recalling that at the moment, contrary to projections in Energy Paper 68, coal burn is increasing in coal-fired power stations and went up last year. PowerGen recently announced plans to reopen coal-fired power stations, so there is a role for coal.
Some people question whether that coal needs to be British, and ask whether some of it could be imported from the international market. There are early signs that that market is tightening; China, for example, is importing coal for the first time. Much Colombian coal, which flooded on to the market some years ago, is now tied up in contracts with the United States. We should never forget one advantage of coal, which has become all too apparent in the past few years in our energy markets; coal-generated power can follow the load in the electricity market. It is much easier to increase and decrease the volume of power according to market fluctuations with coal than with renewables or nuclear power. That advantage has become particularly apparent in the workings of the market in recent months.
I wish to examine in a little detail the subsidy arrangements to which I referred earlier. The treaty establishing the European coal and steel community, a feature of European policy since the 1950s, expires towards the end of July 2002. The treaty was designed to expand coal mines. In the aftermath of the war, mines were sunk in the 1950s in many parts of Europe. However, since the 1950s, the European coal and steel treaty has largely been a vehicle for subsidising an industry that has been in decline.
I have explored the issue to some extent with my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy in various exchanges in the House. In European Standing Committee C in November, he said:
"As I have said in the past, if a successor coal regime is introduced in the EU, we will not allow our industry to be put at a relative disadvantage, on principle. However, our stated position is our starting point in the discussions and if another state aid regime is agreed to, we will reluctantly subscribe to it and it will then be part of the scheme to which we have subscribed."—[Official Report, European Standing Committee C, 28 November 2001; c. 8.]
My plea to the Minister on that occasion and subsequently is based on many years of supporting Bradford City, mainly in the lower divisions. It is simply to get stuck in. To be fair, I believe that he has done that.
Although a coal subsidy scheme is subject to veto, all the signs from Europe point to discussing such a scheme in the Industry Council and the European Parliament by the spring. Parliamentary written answers since November suggest Government awareness of that. It is in our interests to shape the scheme because we shall probably have to live with it until 2010.
In the original proposal from the European Commission, there were three grounds for subsidies by member countries under the new regime: to safeguard resources; to cover reduction of activity, and to cover exceptional costs. It is not clear that, for example, subsidies for investment will be allowed under those criteria. My hon. Friends will go into detail about the Prince of Wales colliery, but investment has clearly been important in that crisis.
There has been much speculation about nuclear power and the need for a great deal of public investment if we were to go down that road. Surely there is a case

273WH
for subsidy arrangements for opening new coal faces or even new mines. We should try to include that in the European instruments that will be introduced later this year.
There is a more immediate problem. Any new treaty will not take effect until later in the year. National Governments will have to design their schemes; France, Germany and Spain have already said that they will do that. There will be a transitional period because the schemes will have to be approved by the European Commission and are unlikely to be in operation until next year. The transitional period will probably last for six months from July.
The other European coal producing nations have announced that they will apply to the European Commission to roll forward existing schemes for another six months. Given the Minister's remarks in the European Standing Committee about not wanting Britain to be at a disadvantage, I hope that the Government will seriously consider doing the same. If we do that, it would be logical to lift the cap of £75 million, which applies to payments to any coal producer because the figure relates to a specific subsidy scheme that ends in July.
It is worth comparing the scale of subsidy in other European countries with that in Britain. In 2000, the last year for which clear figures are available, approximately 6 billion ecu of aid was given in Germany. In France and Spain, the figure was roughly 1 billion ecu each. By contrast, the figure for the United Kingdom was approximately 142 million ecu. The scale of subsidy was much smaller in the United Kingdom.
There is a message in all that for UK Coal, the major coal producer. If we are to have further subsidy arrangements, it must specify what precisely it offers the coal industry. There is more than a suspicion that UK Coal plans to concentrate production in fewer pits with more intensive working—possibly 24-hour working—and to move miners from pits that it closes to those that it decides to work intensively. UK Coal is paying reasonable dividends at the moment, no doubt to ward off takeover. If it seeks a subsidy to maintain the coal industry and invest in it, it must specify what is on offer.
The 1997 Department of Trade and Industry review said that the pit at Selby could last until 2009. It is not clear that that will happen on UK Coal's current investment plans. However, without going into detail, there are possibilities of further investment in work in Selby and elsewhere. UK Coal should be more forthcoming about that.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I compliment my hon. Friend on obtaining such an important debate. Unfortunately, I do not have the constituency interest that I used to have in subsidies for coal mining. There is only a small mine in my constituency, in Moorside, that employs 29 people. However, small mines sometimes have difficulty getting into the subsidy regime. They have problems in organising their submissions and the rules of the schemes sometimes make it difficult to get on to them.
274WH
I hope that that is taken into account when new systems are developed in Europe. It is important for the people who depend on coal for their livelihoods.
Mr. Grogan: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point that reinforces the need for the British Government to be at the negotiating table at all stages to take care of the interests of small mines.
I want to consider clean coal technology. The latest figures that I have seen show that CO2 emissions have been stable since 1997. They are no longer in decline, and the Government and the coal industry must tackle that. I shall make one or two suggestions about that. Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions are close to being sorted out. One of the successes of the past few years is the expansion in the number of companies that are introducing new flue gas desulphurisation plants. Eggborough in my constituency is an example of that. Such technology was considered unlikely given the dynamics of the market three or four years ago, but it has happened.
We must deal with CO2 emissions. The clean coal technology review is most welcome. Ministers have generally supported clean coal technology. In July 1998, the then Minister with responsibility for energy stated:
"Clean-coal technologies have an important part to play … We are keen to support cleaner coal technologies."—[Official Report, 22 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 1081–2.]
In November 2000, the successor Minister said:
"Several hon. Members have raised the issue of cleaner-coal technology … We are conducting an analysis and will do so in even more detail as we proceed with examining the technology."—[Official Report, 22 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 405.]
Lord Sainsbury spoke in a debate on clean coal technology in the other place before Christmas. His words suggest the likely content of the clean coal technology review. I make a plea to Ministers not to neglect existing coal-fired power stations. Without going into detail about the technology, the super-critical boilers can be retrofitted to existing coal-fired power stations. That could save up to 20 per cent. of CO2 emissions. Such a step could be taken quickly, given that those power stations will be with us for many years, whatever the policy.
I shall paraphrase Lord Sainsbury's argument, which appeared to be that some clean coal technologies such as gasification and super-critical boilers are used overseas and that there is therefore little need for a demonstration plant. However, he said that other clean coal technologies such as carbon capture and pumping CO2 into oil fields to capture the CO2 and to improve the extraction of oil are in such an early stage that a demonstration plant would not be feasible. I cannot imagine anyone presenting such an argument about renewable plants, which clearly exist in many overseas countries. Much of the technology is speculative, but the Government have made a clear commitment in financial incentives to developing renewables. I hope that they will make a similar commitment in the review of clean coal technology.
Let us consider the scale of what happens in other countries. In America, the Department of Energy contributes $2 billion a year to clean coal. In Japan, the new Sunshine programme means $100 million for clean coal technology. That has to be the future of our

275WH
industry. I hope that the review that is coming out before the end of the month will demonstrate that now is the time for some action, after many years of supportive words and comments.
Whatever happens in terms of the energy review, it is inevitable that there will be coal mine closures in the next decade. Some pits will become exhausted. It is a challenge to the Government as to how they deal with that. The closures will obviously be on a much smaller scale than in the '50s or '60s, and, indeed, in the '80s, but this will nevertheless be a real challenge for the communities involved. I hope that it will be a mark of the Government that, where there are closures, they will be planned for and that the necessary investment will be made in skills retraining, and so on.
The official estimate in the Department of Trade and Industry review in 1997 for the closure date of the coalfield at Selby, in my constituency, was 2009. Who knows precisely when it will close? But it will close—I do not know whether it will be in my lifetime as the Selby MP, with a majority of 2,000—although I hope that it will go on for many years. On 22 February we are holding a conference on the future of the Selby economy—I shall provide the Minister with details—and I hope that the Government office will be represented there at a high level. One of our aims will be to work out ways of prolonging the life of the coalfield, but we shall also discuss planning for the inevitable day when it closes.
If the Government are to ease the closures, when they occur over the coming decades, they should look again at pensions. Managers and pit deputies who are made redundant get a pension at the age of 50 under the arrangements made following privatisation. Ordinary miners, however, do not. Those hon. Members, many of whom are present in the Chamber, who have worked in the coal industry, and those such as myself who have been down a mine, will know that miners have a very physical, back-breaking job. In Germany, the pension arrangements on early retirement are much more generous.
If miners in this country were given the same rights as their managers and pit deputies—the right to a pension at 50 if made redundant—it would cost about £99 million, according to the actuaries. The mining pension schemes have been in surplus, but this idea will never be promoted by the trustees of the scheme who are elected by the miners, because those miners are all retired. There are no working miners in the scheme. However, half the trustees are now representatives from the DTI, and it would be open to the DTI to explore the possibility of this change, through those trustees. Putting miners on the same footing as their managers would cushion the blow in communities in which there will be closures in the coming decades.
Coal mining is now a Modern, flexible industry. It is eager to make its contribution to Britain's energy requirements for many years to come, and all that it asks from the Government is fair play. The Government have given it that over the last four years, and it would be a pity—now that the industry faces heavy losses owing to the decline in prices following
276WH
11 September—if they did not build on the achievements of their first term of office to maintain a viable domestic British coal industry.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should call to mind that it is the convention at these sittings to commence the three Front Bench contributions 30 minutes before termination—in this case, at midday. I have five names on the paper, and an additional hon. Member trying to catch my eye, making six in total. I therefore ask hon. Members to bear in mind my admonishment and make their contributions concise, clear and pertinent, and to keep interventions to a minimum—I would prefer to see none at all.
11.24 am
Adam Price: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) for securing this vital debate, and for his knowledgeable and forceful exposition of the case for continued public support for the coal industry. This is a critical time for the coal industry and, unfortunately, we are all aware of rumours about pits that might be about to announce redundancies, and about other mines that might be moving over to a closure plan, thus foreshortening the life of the mine. This is a dreadful shame, particularly considering the social and economic conditions in many of the communities involved.
The Minister has taken a much more expansive, open-minded approach to this issue than has possibly hitherto been the case. This is certainly a Government success story, and I say that as, technically, an Opposition MP. The UK coal aid operating scheme is something of which the Government should rightly be proud. In my constituency, Betws New mine, where my father worked, has received significant support. It should have closed in 1988, and it is a tribute to the work force, the management and the support from the Government that it is still providing good quality jobs-150 faceworkers, earning about £25,000 a year—in one of the poorest communities in the UK. That illustrates the success of the subsidy regime, and shows why hon. Members are keen to see that success built on.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the coal industry is still a significant industry. It employs about 2,000 people in Wales, directly and indirectly. If we compare the level of subsidy in the UK to the 4.6 billion euros that the coal industry in Germany receives, our level of support is very small. Considering that, it is amazing that British coal production is very competitive compared to imports. It would take only a small change in the exchange rate or the global level of coal prices to close the gap.
The arguments for continued support have been well rehearsed. They relate to security of supply. Coal has to play a part in ensuring a diversity of supply in terms of energy needs. We are not just talking about energy needs, however. There are other markets for coal. In my constituency, there is an anthracite coalfield. The only suppliers of good quality anthracite to the UK from outside Europe are China and Vietnam, so there is clearly an issue of security of supply involved.

277WH
The point about the social cost to the community of mine closures has been very well made, and we certainly do not want to repeat the travesty of what happened to so many of our communities in the 1980s. If we consider the question in terms of the global net impact on Government revenue, it would be idiocy to close these mines, because the tax take from employment in many of them more than makes up for the cost of the level of support across the industry that we are talking about.
In the coal industry, more than in any other, we have to take a long-term view. I notice that Lord Sainsbury of Turville, speaking in another place yesterday, referred to the short-term factors that were the rationale for the introduction of the support scheme. There are always short-term factors involved in access to reserves in any mine. Hon. Members who have worked in the industry will know that. That is the problem with the coal industry: it has long-term reserves and needs a long-term perspective, but there are short-term costs involved in accessing those reserves. When problems of market failure occur, there is a legitimate role for the Government in helping the industry to overcome issues of short-term costs, to ensure that the coal industry can continue to access the available reserves, probably for the next 50 years.
I was also glad to hear the Minister's remarks about ensuring that we are not at a comparative disadvantage. The point has already been made, however, that we shall be at a comparative disadvantage unless we get at least a short-term extension of the scheme, so that we can have a full debate about designing a regime that is most appropriate for the UK industry's needs. The issue of the company cap has been raised, as has the question of aid, not just operating aid, but investment aid for access to new reserves, and why not? In a very long-term view of the industry's future, a report by international mining consultants, commissioned by the Government in 1998, referred to new mine construction.
The six-month extension to the scheme, which has already been announced in other EU member states, is vital to some of the mines that I know will be switching over to a closure plan. Those who have worked in the industry will be able to explain this better than me, but basically some mines will be looking in the next few weeks for an announcement about an extension from July to December, otherwise they will halt their development plans and start working to a short-term closure plan. I know of mines that have the potential to last another 10 years, but without an announcement their lives will be foreshortened to perhaps two or three years. The issue is critical, as I know the Minister is aware.
It is imperative that the Government show their faith in the coal industry and coal communities. They have a good record on this issue, and we do not want to repeat all the mistakes of the 1980s, do we? The industry has been badly served by successive Governments, and this is an opportunity to build for the future. The last thing that the Government want as their epitaph is that they closed down the coal industry. We must bear it in mind that there are by-elections on the horizon. Let us, together, develop a positive future for the industry in
278WH
Wales, where there is a lot for the Government to build on. I repeat: it is vital that we have an announcement on the extension in the next few weeks.
11.32 am
Mr. Kevin Hughes: May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on securing this important debate? He made an excellent speech and gave us a grand and detailed tour of the issues. I shall bear in mind your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and concentrate on one aspect of the issues.
My hon. Friend's constituency is just to the north of mine, but a boundary is not the only thing that we share. We both have a deep interest in, and commitment to, the coal mining industry, the people who work in it, directly or indirectly, and of course the communities in which they live. The way in which the last Tory Government ransacked the industry in the 1980s and 1990s was absolutely appalling. They abandoned the people and their communities, leaving a trail of destruction, with little hope of a decent future. However, I do not want to dwell on the past; I want to look to the future. I believe that coal and the people who work in the industry can and should have a prosperous future if we—and by that I mean this Labour Government—grasp hold of the new generation of clean coal technology that is now coming to the fore.
There are serious decisions to be made about our energy supply in the not-too-distant future. We are awaiting the outcome of the performance and innovation unit's energy review, and I understand that it has been submitted to Ministers for their consideration. Whatever that review says, the Government will need to decide what they will do to secure and maintain the supplies to meet our future energy needs. It will be good sense to maintain a broad mix of generation options.
The Government will have to deal with our rapidly depleting indigenous gas supply, the enormous cost of decommissioning the present nuclear capacity and the environmental threat from any new build. They will have to face up to the fact that renewable sources are not and will not for years to come be sufficiently advanced to generate enough power at a reasonable cost. May I warn the Minister that I believe there will be a huge outcry when the public see great swathes of our countryside and seascape blighted by obnoxious-looking, noisy wind farms?
The Government have to grasp the nettle of reducing our CO2 emissions. There are other forms of renewables which are not as environmentally unfriendly as wind farms, and the Government can embrace the new generation of clean coal technology, in which they may well find the answer to many of these questions. Moreover, they will tackle the issue of security of supply. Within the new CCT methods being developed, integrated gasification combined-cycle technology offers us a realistic way forward. Put very simply, and I mean very simply, IGCC plants convert coal to gas and steam, and then burn the gas and utilise the steam to generate electricity. They reduce CO2 emissions, are small enough to be built on colliery sites and produce an inert waste material that can be used in road foundations, among other things.
Let us look for a moment at what we can achieve by using the new CCT. First, the bulk of the coal produced at a mine need not even leave the site, cutting down on

279WH
road transport and, in turn, emissions from heavy goods vehicles. Secondly, it reduces CO2 emissions, which will help us to meet our Kyoto targets. Thirdly, unlike other CCTs such as flue gas desulphurisation, there is no need to dig great holes in our countryside to extract limestone. That cuts down on quarrying, which scars the landscape, and again reduces HGV emissions because there is no need to transport more limestone.
Fourthly, the by-product is useful in civil engineering, again cutting down the need to quarry in our beautiful countryside. Fifthly, by using our own coal supplies to greater advantage, we do not have to worry about the security of supply issue. Sixthly, as it develops, CCT may help us to deal with the issue of our depleting indigenous gas supply. If we burn more gas in IGCCs to generate electricity, there will be less need to burn our natural gas supply for that purpose, thereby resolving the vexed problem of our having, in the not-too-distant future, to import natural gas from eastern Europe. Finally, a new life for coal will be created if it is used in this way. It would create new employment opportunities in areas that have still not recovered from the devastation of the Tory pit closures programme of the 1980s and 1990s.
In the round, we start to get the picture that once again coal can play a significant role in our future energy needs. All we need is a bit of willpower and foresight, and together with the coal industry the Government can help to give coal a new life, help to save the environment on several fronts and regenerate communities that were ripped apart by the Tories. In conclusion, I urge the Minister to look closely at all these matters and to take a step into the future with a fuel that we know we can rely on.
11.38 am
Mr. Denis Murphy: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on securing this important debate.
The coal industry still plays an important role in my constituency. Ellington colliery, which borders Wansbeck, employs some 450 people, and with an unemployment rate that is still twice the national average, those jobs are vital to the local economy. Ellington, however, was not included in the UK coal operating aid package. It is producing today only because the other collieries in the group are receiving financial aid, thereby freeing much needed capital investment for new equipment, enabling the colliery to continue production.
Coal's contribution and value is recognised widely throughout the European Union. The Commission has allowed member states to subsidise coal for many years. The current scheme, as hon. Members have pointed out, ends this year. I understand that the Commission will soon be recommending a new scheme, which is intended to operate until 2010, to replace the current operating aid. I urge the Government, through my hon. Friend the Minister, to play a leading role in setting the rules of any new financial structures, because any new scheme should certainly encourage investment. If it can be proven that new equipment or even accessing new reserves will improve a colliery's efficiency, financial support should be given. That is exactly the investment required by Ellington to keep it viable for at least the next 10 years, to cover the short and medium terms.
280WH
The coal industry's long-term future can be guaranteed only by building a new generation of clean coal power stations, and the Government could assist either by direct grants or by introducing an obligation. Either way, it is important that the current balance of fuels for electricity generation be maintained. Coal, nuclear, gas and renewables all have a role to play, but it is imperative that the UK should not become dependent on gas.
I have nothing against the gas industry—gas is a wonderful fuel. Indeed, it is far too valuable to flare off in huge quantities in gas-fired power stations. In 1990, total UK gas reserves stood at 36 years. By 2000, that had fallen to 14 years, and we shall import 55 to 90 per cent. of our gas by 2020. It is reasonable to ask where that gas will come from: 70 per cent. of the world's natural gas reserves are concentrated in the middle east and the former Soviet Union—areas not noted for political stability—yet oil companies are pressing ahead with projects such as the $35 billion Yamal pipeline from Siberia. If we source our gas there, the UK will be at the end of a long pipeline and subject to high transport costs and possible supply interruptions. We still have a choice and that choice, if we are serious about security of energy supply, is simple: coal from the UK or gas from Siberia.
The thermal efficiency of gas power stations, which is nearly 50 per cent., may look attractive compared with that for coal-fired power stations, which is only about 38 per cent. That comparison pales, however, when the alternative uses for gas are examined closely. Modern domestic central heating boilers can achieve nearly 88 per cent. efficiency and compressed natural gas provides significant environmental benefits in transport. The European Union White Paper on transport policy for 2010 argues that natural gas is the most promising fuel in the medium to long term; so considered against more efficient uses, burning vast quantities of gas at power stations is incredibly wasteful. Coal, however, is abundant and ideally suited to power generation.
In an Adjournment debate that I secured in July 1998, I argued for building a clean energy centre in my constituency. It would be a world first in best practice and would incorporate research and development linked to the region's universities. Newcastle university is a world leader in photovoltaics—the science of converting light to power—and the only offshore wind farm in the UK sits half a mile off the constituency, adjacent to the seven wind turbines, which are also in the constituency, at Blyth harbour.
There is huge potential for offshore wind farms, yet the generating technology is sourced outside the UK. The centrepiece of the new clean energy centre should be a brand new, state of the art, clean coal power station incorporating combined heat and power, which should be set in green parkland. We can show that coal meets the challenges both of efficiency and of the environment.
I see that you have looked at your watch, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and several times at me, so I shall conclude. There is still a huge opportunity for coal. The industry's short term can be protected by lifting the cap on operating aid. The medium term can be secured by the UK's agreeing to implement a new EU scheme. The long-term future can be guaranteed by encouraging the building of a new generation of clean-burn power stations.

281WH
By implementing the measures that they have, the Government have shown the value that they put on the industry and the people who work in it. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to continue his excellent work and his support for Britain's coal industry.
11.45 am
Mr. Michael Clapham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan). This is an important debate and the number of MPs from coal mining and former coal mining communities who are here shows that. The coal industry is a strategic industry, because on current extraction rates, it could last 200 years, so we must ensure continuity for coal mining through investment and encouragement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) referred to the size of the coal mix in the UK's energy economy. Members are aware that, in 1993, the President of the Board of Trade referred his cuts to the Trade and Industry Committee, which reported in February and suggested that there was a market for 62 million tonnes of coal. Last year, we burned 59 million tonnes, which clearly shows that the Select Committee got it right, and 62 million tonnes would briefly have retained a mining industry of about 40 collieries.
There is a continuing need for a coal industry, particularly in respect of the dominance of gas, and I refer the Minister to the gas price increase. I suggest that it has been caused largely by UK gas suppliers pushing their gas through the interconnector to Europe and chasing the higher prices there. That pulled UK gas prices in its train, causing the increase. A price fall is unlikely because, in the next two to three years, we shall import gas from the Danish field to feed into our power stations.
Just three power stations are fitted with flue gas desulphurisation technology—another is under construction—but six need to be fitted with it. I hope that the Minister will encourage the owners of that set to fit FGD technology, because it is required. In moving towards new clean coal technology, we must deal with the existing plant and FGD offers one way of doing that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North referred to the new IGCC technology. I think, Minister, that we ought to aim high, and in aiming high we should invest in a demonstration plant. That could put in train a new generating set based on new technology, which would be good for British manufacturing and good for our ability to exchange the technology, particularly with economies such as India's and China's. That, too, would be good for British manufacturing. I hope that the Minister will consider such an investment.
The current coal aid system is restrictive. It operates under the European Coal and Steel Community treaty, which ends this April, but the new European Commission draft is just as restrictive. We need a flexible coal aid scheme and I hope that the Minister will take that up with the Commission. We have to bear in mind how we can aid further development at new and existing collieries and in health and safety technology. We must also ensure that that technology keeps pace with mining technology.
282WH
Finally, I urge the Minister to hold a major debate in the Chamber when the PIU report has passed through his office and entered the public domain.
11.49 am
Colin Burgon: I too congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on securing this debate on the future of the coal industry. He is a staunch supporter of both the industry and those who work in it. Even though he is a Bradford City supporter, his contribution was truly outstanding.
I shall make a short contribution to the debate—I see you nodding your head, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not cover general points but will raise one specific concern.
The Selby constituency now contains more working pits than any other constituency in Britain. Prior to the great miners' strike of 1984–85, my constituency had three pits and one workshop, and was headquarters of the National Coal Board's northern area, which meant that some 3,500 jobs were provided by the industry. All those jobs have now gone. It is estimated that, within the whole of the Leeds district, only some 200 men are left in mining. While I, like many others, am well aware of why that happened, I will never forgive the Conservative party for destroying the industry. It was a wanton piece of vandalism. We must now concentrate our minds on securing some kind of future for coal in Britain.
Rather than go into the general policies that will ensure a place for coal in helping to meet our current and future energy requirements, I shall concentrate on the need to keep open the last remaining pit in the whole of west Yorkshire, the Prince of Wales colliery at Pontefract.
On 3 December, UK Coal announced that work was to be halted on developing a new coal face in the colliery. That move jeopardises the 480 jobs at the colliery. If the pit closes, those, plus another 150 contract workers' jobs, will be at risk, with all the usual knock-on effects. Indeed, Wakefield council estimates a possible loss of some £50 million a year in wages and income, from supplying service industries in the area.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), has been energetic in the campaign to prevent closure and has called on UK Coal to keep the pit open. I fully agree with her stance on that. I also agree with the view of the Coalfield Communities Campaign when it called for a new mining plan to be drawn up ensuring the colliery another 20 years of life.
The Prince of Wales colliery has made more than £80 million profit since privatisation in 1995. Unfortunately, it has hit geological problems precisely when UK Coal can no longer call on the current subsidy scheme for assistance. I fully support the view that the current Government aid package should be extended to access new coal reserves. As the Yorkshire coal taskforce has argued, it should be seen as part of a European coal reserve, accessible at a far lower cost base than coal mined elsewhere in the European Union. That would help make the colliery an important asset in accessing reserves, as discussed in the European energy Green Paper.
I hope that the Government will listen to all who argue that they should amend the UK subsidy regime to allow the Prince of Wales colliery to remain open so that

283WH
it can contribute to the country's energy needs and the local economy. I know that the Government have done a great deal, as has already been said today. To be blunt, if we did not have a Labour Government, we would not be having this debate.
I am lucky to have friends who work at the Prince of Wales colliery, and I have discussed with them the threat that they face. There is a long history of miners being badly treated, and UK Coal seems determined to continue that tradition. Miners complain of an almost total lack of information. They do not know whether to leave the industry and are convinced that UK Coal is not vitally committed to keeping the pit open. They also suspect that UK Coal wanted to transfer a section of the work force to Kellingly colliery so that it could impose an unpopular four-shift system, so as to fulfil its main aim, the boosting of company profits. I look forward to UK Coal proving me wrong.
On Saturday, I read in the Yorkshire Post that six options are now being considered for the pit. Gary Foreman, the NACODS—National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers—branch secretary, said that there was a prospect of going into a new seam. I hope that that is the case and that the Government will support such a move. I also share the view of Tony Withington, the National Union of Mineworkers branch secretary, that UK Coal should not cut and run, but should show a full commitment to keeping the pit open.
Future generations will look back and judge the privatisation of the coal industry to have been a monumental piece of economic and political vandalism. They will judge the approach taken to a plentiful and reliable energy source to have been profligate and short sighted, and the treatment of those who work in the industry to have been cavalier and thoughtless. Let us hope, in relation to the Prince of Wales colliery, that those judgments will not be sustained.
11.54 am
David Hamilton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak. I may follow Gary Cooper at high noon in order to meet the 12 o'clock deadline, and I shall therefore make my remarks very quickly.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on raising the issue. I also congratulate all my longer established comrades, who have for a number of years been fighting the campaign to try to keep the coal industry in existence. I shall limit my remarks to one or two small points which I consider very important, because the detail has already been argued.
When I started work in the pits at the age of 15, and then went down the pits at 16, the one thing I knew was that at some point the pits would close. I therefore do not look at the coal industry with a great big heart and think that it must be kept at all costs. I was involved in the 1972 and 1974 disputes, which it should be remembered came about because of the price of oil. We were at the beck and call of the middle east.
What hon. Members have said today about expanding the coal industry is right, but I believe that the security of our future energy needs is key to this whole debate. We must go forward in that area. In the short time I have been a Member of this House, we have
284WH
had several meetings with the Minister on a host of matters, and his door is always open in order that progress can be made on those matters.
Renewables are a key area for the future. The Minister is well aware of Moncktonhall colliery, which is was one of the deepest pits in Europe and has now been closed. Midlothian council is looking into the possibility of some 4,000 houses being provided with the hot water that has been generated there. Thus an ongoing benefit to the coal industry is stored at the colliery. I invite the Minister to pay the council a visit to see that project for himself.
I wish to discuss two major issues. The first is the fact that the oil and gas industries are finite, although the coal industry has a much longer period before it. There will be major obstacles for nuclear power. Personally, I would oppose nuclear power all the way down the line, not because I am an ex-coal miner but because I think that it is the wrong way forward. Nevertheless, the two industries must compete with each other and also complement each other. If Europe is to survive in the near future, the German, Spanish, French and British coal industries should combine to secure their future. The former Soviet Union and the middle east have major problems—we have only to look at what is happening now. We cannot possibly leave our future in those hands.
With those few comments and with only two minutes to go until noon, I do not think that I have done too badly. Let me make one final comment on pensions. The Minister is to be congratulated on the work that has been done on pensions. Miners' pensions had been victimised, and I hope to see progress on that work very soon.
11.58 am
Rachel Squire: I have just one minute in which to speak. I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) for being late. I was due to be in a Select Committee, so I had not put this date in my diary. It was only when the title of the debate came up on the screen that I realised it was on.
I very much support what my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and my other hon. Friends have said. I thank all hon. Members present for their support in helping to keep Scotland's only deep coal mine, Longannet, open. Without the support that it has received from my hon. Friends, the Labour Government and particularly the present and previous Ministers for Industry and Energy, that pit would not be open. I very much hope that the Prince of Wales colliery can look forward to a secure future in the months ahead.
I urge the Minister to listen to comments about clean coal technology and how this country could lead the way and boost both the future of coal-fired energy production and manufacturing by exporting our expertise and knowledge to other countries. I hope that we shall be able to celebrate an announcement on, and some funding for, the development of super-critical boilers, for example, and that we will support a diverse energy market.
12 noon
Dr. Vincent Cable: I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on shepherding through all the speakers in the debate in good order. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on introducing the debate. He spoke effectively on the subject. I grew up on the outskirts of the west of York, a few miles from his pit, so I understand the strength of feeling about this issue and its relevance to the economy of the Vale of York.
Unfortunately, I shall begin by making a slightly discordant comment. Most hon. Members have pitched their remarks on the assumption that the key energy review is on Ministers' desks and is being considered at leisure. Unfortunately, it is already in the public domain. It was referred to in The Independent this morning, and I do not know in how many other newspapers. That is yet another example of the discourtesy shown to Parliament. I do not know whether an official or a Minister leaked the report.
The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Brian Wilson): If I knew how to prevent leaks of the PIU energy report, I would employ a hundred plumbers to do so. It certainly did not come from the Government, and it is deeply against our interests. It has been leaked by people who want to put a spin on it, and not to reflect the overall report.
Dr. Cable: I accept the Minister's comment. The report does not help the case of the hon. Member for Selby, because one of its key conclusions, according to that article, is that we need
"a radical agenda to enable the UK to put itself on the path to a low-carbon economy"
that is less reliant on oil and coal-fired power stations. That is a bold and brutal conclusion. The implication is that we must quickly debate this report in Parliament. Whoever was responsible for the leak, the issues are out, and the Minister should make a statement this week, so that the matter can be properly debated.
My first point is about the basic economics of coal. For those of us who do not represent coalfields, the issue is how much we are willing to pay as a society to keep open the option of a coal industry, and to keep the skills and technology to stop the coal faces from being destroyed. There is an argument for keeping that option open and for paying something for it as a community. I agree with the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) that the Government have got the balance right. The current modest subsidies, which are degressive over time, are probably the right approach.
A key uncertainty, which has not been mentioned but which is important to the debate, is the current United Kingdom exchange rate. One reason why the UK coal industry finds it extremely difficult to compete against imported coal, quite apart from other fuels, is the fact that the pound appreciated in real terms by 30 per cent. in 1995, and it has remained at about that level ever since. The British coal industry competes against not just western Europe, but Australia and South Africa. The Australian dollar and the rand have been heavily devalued. To have a proper discussion about how much the industry needs to be subsidised to maintain that
286WH
option, we need a clear picture of the exchange rate at which the industry can compete at its present level without a subsidy.
The Secretary of State clearly understands that problem, because she was on the radio this morning talking about the exchange rate in relation to the euro. I do not want to open that debate, but it is essential to the argument. It would be helpful to have an understanding of how much the exchange rate needs to come down to keep the coal industry in business. That is the issue.
My second point is about security of supply, on which I have a little less sympathy with hon. Members from the coal mining belt. When they talk about security of supply, I sense that they are clutching at straws. The brutal fact of the matter is that the British gas supply is much healthier than in the 14 years that the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) mentioned. There is constant exploration, new technology, west of Shetland development, and the industry is developing horizontal drilling, which enables it to get not just the oil but the associated gas and to develop new gas fields. The amount of the reserves continues to expand.
Overseas supplies are not as unreliable as has been suggested. According to the article in The Independent, the leaked reports says that there is
"'little risk' of an international shortage of gas supply".
Most of it comes from western Europe—Denmark and Norway—and the former Soviet Union. We tend to forget that the pipeline from the former Soviet Union was built in the days of the cold war, and was one of Mrs. Thatcher's initiatives. She rebelled against Reagan, and insisted that the pipeline be built, which was sensible. It has never been disrupted, and there are now new pipelines and new private sector suppliers. There are at least two pipelines from north Africa, liquified natural gas from the Gulf, Nigeria and Venezuela, and large numbers of diverse supplies.
To argue that those supplies will be disrupted politically is not plausible. The coal industry has a case, but it should not rest it on security of supply. Worse than that, it gives ammunition to the Germans, who are pushing through an unhelpful policy on coal subsidies, which are massively greater than ours, and it damages the case of the UK coal industry. The security of supply arguments are completely invalid and to our disadvantage.
Thirdly, the environmental argument about clean coal is important. I support the idea of investing in research and development for new coal technology. That is a much better use of money than endless operating subsidies. The basic point that must be addressed is about carbon. The hon. Member for Selby rightly said that many of the problems associated with sulphur and nox have been dealt with, so the problem is with carbon. In the past few years, Britain has met its carbon dioxide targets because of the replacement of coal by gas, so how should we address that issue?
I have heard people in the coal industry arguing that it can be dealt with through coal sequestration. Carbon can be pumped into deep reservoirs under the oceans. I do not know how far that technology has evolved, but there is a case for examining it seriously and investing some resources at least in research. I do not know

287WH
whether it has reached the prototype stage, but that seems to be the area on which clean coal research should be focused. I would be interested to hear the Minister's view of how that is progressing.
My fourth point relates to Europe. I have always been a strong supporter of British participation in the European Union, but the EU is a disaster in two areas: agriculture and energy. The Government must try hard—it is easy to say that, but there are 15 other member states—to get the energy policy right. At the moment, it works heavily to the disadvantage of UK energy producers, especially the coal mining industry. There is massive over-subsidisation in Germany, and we cannot get an agreement on the liberalisation of gas, which is the real security of supply problem. Ruhrgas can divert gas within Europe. This is an internal, European problem. Until there is an agreement on single market rules, the continental European producers will continue to distort the market against us.
The French continually block agreement on electricity. Electricité de France operates at a cost of capital of a normal nationalised industry, competing against British producers which operate in the market, so companies such as Scottish Power that use coal and are committed to coal have to compete on an unlevel playing field with European producers such as EDF. Until we get a proper, liberalised, fair European market in energy, many of these problems will remain. The Government must give that top priority.
My final comment, Mr. Winterton, is to say—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. I am pleased to tell the hon. Member that fortunately a motion went through at the end of last week, and I can now be addressed appropriately as Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Dr. Cable: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had not caught up with the news.
The clock is ticking on energy policy. The report of the energy review has got into the public domain, and I hope that the Minister will say when he intends to bring its conclusions to Parliament so that we can debate them properly.
12.8 pm
Mr. Robert Key: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall start by congratulating the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on initiating this important debate. Not only does he represent a quarter of the nation's coal industry in the Selby complex, but he plays a significant role as the honorary secretary of the all-party parliamentary coalfield communities group. I congratulate that group on the submission it made to the PIU review of UK energy policy, which was a good deal more concise than many reviews, and contained much more good sense.
Coal has a future: it is a Modern, rejuvenated industry, as hon. Members have said. The energy industry and the City are investing in coal: they want it to succeed and so do I. Any debate about the future of coal must assume a knowledge and understanding of the history of coal, coal mines and coal miners and the role that they have played in the industrial and social life of the United Kingdom. As a southern MP, I was brought up with stories of the coal mines. My father was brought
288WH
up in the Potteries, and his father was the rector of Hanley. There was a mine at the bottom of the garden, and he was regularly down the coal mines. He told me all about it.
This does matter. It is wrong to imagine that just because people live in southern England, they know nothing about coal mines. I do know about them. I first went down a mine in 1976, when I was fighting my first seat, Holborn and St. Pancras. The headquarters of the National Union of Mineworkers was in that constituency.
I also observed the importance of the miners to the whole trade union movement during the 1977 Grunwick dispute, with which I was intimately familiar when I was secretary of a large branch of what was then the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs. I will never forget the impact of the NUM's march to Grunwick through the summer mist with Arthur Scargill at its head, and the sight of him being snatched by police about three feet from where I was standing—much to his annoyance, as he had been pushed through the police picket line by members of the Socialist Workers party. But I must not digress.
From the agony of the 1980s has emerged a small, efficient industry—an industry with a future, if it can survive in the face of heavily subsidised foreign competition, which has already been mentioned. It was a pleasure to hear more from the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) about his campaign against wind farms, and also to hear from the hon. Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton), who spoke of the importance of price stability and pointed out that the industry had already been held to ransom in the past. I feel particularly strongly about that, as my first job was in Musselburgh, and I was very familiar with the mines of which he spoke.
One of our current problems is that the Government, like ducks, are paddling like mad under water and trying to look serene on the surface, while numerous leaks occur and, apparently, reports are delayed. Yesterday, in the other place, Lord Sainsbury of Turville pointed out that the Government had subsidised the industry to a significant extent—£140 million so far—under the coal operating aid scheme. He said
"We currently have no plans to extend it, or to introduce a new scheme beyond July 2002."
He mentioned the performance and innovation unit and the clean coal technology review, which we hoped would have been published by now. He said that there would be no more subsidies under the existing scheme, but added
"We are also working to ensure that the new EU regime gives us the flexibility to pay suitable types of aid if appropriate."—[Official Report. House of Lords, 22 January 2002; Vol. 630, c. 1382.]
We really do need to start coming clean. It is not fair to the coal industry for there to be so much uncertainty about not just the general approach to the energy review, but specific schemes.
Do leaks matter? They do, but perhaps not as much as some people think. I suspect that the leak mentioned by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and reported in today's Independent has a great deal more to

289WH
do with the feelgood factor among newspaper circulation managers than with the future of the coal industry.
The PIU report is not important merely as a subject that we will debate. It is crucial for the Government to make their policy clear thereafter. I suspect that when the report goes into the public domain, the Government will say "It is frightfully interesting: let us now talk about it for quite a long time". That is entirely right, but what will matter are the conclusions that they subsequently reach.
If there is anything to be said about the leaks in today's newspaper, it is this. The hon. Member for Twickenham said that reducing the cost of carbon emissions made things look bleak for coal, but, according to The Independent, the PIU proposes to put the United Kingdom
"on the path to a low carbon economy"
that would be
"less reliant on oil and coal fired power stations. But it"—
the PIU's leaked report, that is—
"says that the plan to switch to 'renewable' energy could push up domestic electricity bills by between 5 and 6 per cent."
There is another issue, however. Will this lead to the end of any hopes for clean coal technology? That would be a tragedy, and I hope that it will not happen.
There are some questions to which the industry needs answers. As we are seriously constrained by time, I will ask them now. I hope that the Government will address these questions, which have been raised by the industry.
Do the Government recognise the role of coal-fired generation in providing fuel diversity? I believe that they do—the Minister and I have discussed the issue before—but it is crucial for the Government to reassure the industry. A good deal of investment is needed. The industry is also keen to know whether the Government will facilitate the co-firing of biomass in coal-fired plants under the renewables obligation, as has happened in Denmark. Let me add that it is important for the policy review to be completed and then followed by a period of stability in energy, so that we can get down to working out investment strategies in the various sectors of the industry.
Perhaps the main point that should be answered—the Minister will say "Not me, guv"—is that the Government should not gold-plate the environmental controls agreed in Brussels under the revised large combustion plants directive. I know that that is technically a question for the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the health and safety regime, but there will be a hugely important impact on the coal industry if the directive is unhelpful to it.
The PIU review of the strategic issues surrounding energy policy is set in the broader context of meeting the challenge of global warming, and ensuring secure, diverse and reliable energy supplies at a competitive price. It is terribly important for people to realise that we do not have a true market in energy anywhere in the world. If we did, the rush to gas would continue and the price would fall to a point at which—as has happened in California—no one would invest in new plant, and the
290WH
lights would not come on when the switches were pushed. The Government must be careful to avoid that, and I am sure that they will.
The issues of security and diversity are extremely important. We should consider what is in the national interest, and what is in the strategic interests of all the industries involved. Then there are the environmental issues. I was astonished to learn that Greenpeace had made no submission to the PIU review, and that Friends of the Earth did not mention the word "coal" in its submission. It has not mentioned that word in any of its output since 1998, when it was pretty rude about it.
I think it tremendously important for us to allow the Government to support the industry sensibly, not least because it faces massive competition from other European interests. I urge the Minister to go in there and sort out subsidies in the European market and liberalisation of the energy market, particularly in France and Germany. If he can sort that out he will have our wholehearted support, because it is one of the great brakes on a liberalised energy market in this country.
We must encourage clean coal technology whenever we can. We do not yet know the costs involved, because the important paper that has been spoken of has not yet been produced. We look forward to its publication.
Whether we are talking about the treatment of emissions from pulverised fuel combustion or about other examples, such as the hybrid combined cycles which, I believe, have a bright future, we need to ensure that the coal industry is properly treated as part of the country's energy mix. Coal has a future in the energy mix, because it is abundant, capable of storage, can be turned on and off in minutes, is not dependent on unpredictable weather conditions, and can be easily transported by ship, rail or road. Quite minor investment will ensure that coal can continue to meet the UK's baseload energy requirements while new technologies are allowed to develop.
The flexibility of coal makes it an ideal complement to intermittent forms of generation such as wind and wave power. It has an important future, and it has our support.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) for his contribution. The Minister of State will reply.
12.19 pm
The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Brian Wilson): I join my colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on securing the debate and on his wider work in promoting the interests of the UK coal industry. It has been a useful debate, which has reflected the industry's importance in many parts of the country, and its importance to the nation's energy needs. I will certainly follow up on some of the comments that have been made.
I appreciate the comments about our performance on the coal industry. It is a very interesting and challenging part of my job as Minister for Industry and Energy. We do have a good record. We have managed, for example, to turn around the coal health compensation scheme, which is now working pretty well. There is always room for improvement but the money is getting through, which is what matters. I am pleased that I have been able

291WH
to do something about victimised miners and the low pensions issue, and to keep the subsidy scheme operating effectively, as hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have recognised.
I was particularly pleased to be able to do something about Hatfield when the opportunity arose. I look forward to going there next week for what I am sure will be a happy occasion, when we can also discuss Mr. Budge's ideas for an IGCC power plant, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) referred. I welcome the comments of all hon. Members about the effectiveness of what the Government have done for the industry, including the comments by the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price).
Coal has a major role. If any Labour Member deep in the south of England does not realise that, they should be sent a copy of the Hansard for this debate. After all, the industry provides over a third of the UK's electricity needs. If current trends continue, coal burn is expected to account for between 10 and 22 per cent. of electricity generation in 2010. Clearly, coal will continue to play a key role in the UK's energy mix for a long time to come.
We have a coal industry to be proud of. It is by far the most efficient in Europe, thanks to the great strides in recent years to improve efficiency and raise productivity. To give hon. Members some idea of that success, in the 1990s, output per head increased by an average of 33 per cent. each year—greater than in any other energy industry, and far greater than the 5 per cent. average for the industry as a whole.
At many of the remaining pits, the prospects are good. The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr mentioned Betws, which is a good example. Lots of reserves are being worked on a relatively small scale, producing highly valuable anthracite for niche markets. We could go through the card. The prospects for a good number of pits are sound.
On the other hand—everyone recognises it—the future is not entirely rosy. For geological reasons, some mines will close in the next few years. Realistically, that cannot be avoided. I return, however, to the positive. Latest statistics suggest that last year coal production in this country rose by over 4.5 per cent. Over 3.5 million tonnes more coal was burned at power stations in 2001 compared with 2000. Over a third of electricity is generated by coal.
Several hon. Members mentioned clean coal technology, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy). I emphasise the crucial significance of that. If we are to secure a truly long-term future for coal, it must be consistent with environmental obligations. CO2 emissions in particular will need to be addressed, given the concerns we all know about on global warming. That is one of the reasons why the Government announced in June that the case for supporting development of cleaner coal technology was being reviewed. A demonstration plant could play an important part in any future role for coal in the fuel mix. It would ensure security of supply while meeting environmental requirements.
In the course of the clean-coal technology review, the scope for capture and storage of CO2, and the need for Government support for that, have been given particular attention. There are potentially exciting
292WH
prospects, both for using CO2 to enhance oil recovery from North sea oil wells and to store CO2 permanently underground, a point to which the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) referred. I assure him and other hon. Members that the clean coal technology review will have a lot more to say about that.
The conclusions of the review into Government support for cleaner coal technology will be published later this month. The PIU energy review is expected to be published around the same time. Both reviews will inform a fresh look at how we can achieve our economic and environmental objectives.
A lot depends on those two reviews but I stress, as I always do in these discussions, that the PIU report will be a report to Government, rather than of Government. As the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), the Opposition spokesman, rightly said, the debate will begin rather than end with the publication of the PIU report.
Everyone knows why the PIU review was set up and has seen speculation about it but I reiterate the point that the leaking has been in order to secure particular interpretations of the review. Most of it comes from the obsessive anti-nukes. They started off trying to prove that the review was a great whitewash for the nuclear industry, that the devil incarnate was involved and that it was proof positive of that. Then they gave up on that and changed their line. Now they say that it is the death knell of the nuclear industry. Pay your money, take your choice, but my advice is to wait for the PIU review. I think that people will find a balanced report on that issue, as on others. Future policy on coal and energy more generally will be informed by the conclusions of the review.
Everyone has recognised that the UK subsidy scheme has been very successful in achieving what it set out to do. It was designed in 2000 to assist the coal industry through short-term market problems and to prevent a sudden and sharp decline in the coal industry. That has been achieved. Eligible pits have been helped significantly to survive the very difficult price and structural threats that they faced between 1999 and 2001. As a result of that approach, hundreds of jobs have been saved. I welcome the comments of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber about the success of that approach.
Any pit with a long-term viable future should now be able to survive without Government support. Indeed, the terms of the scheme, as approved by the European Commission, required recipients of aid to be able to demonstrate medium-term viability without aid from July 2002.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and others recognise, we are negotiating to put in place a framework for possible national subsidy schemes after July 2002. Our aim—I repeat what the hon. Member for Salisbury and significantly my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) said—is to secure an outcome that will give us the flexibility to put in place suitable schemes, should we wish to do so. The key word is "flexibility". Future policy will be informed by the PIU energy review, the Department of Trade and Industry business support review, the clean coal technology review—like London buses, they come in threes after a long wait—and the House of Lords

293WH
reports into security of supply. If the conclusions of those reviews suggest that a further coal subsidy scheme may be appropriate, we will of course consider the issue further. I look forward to discussions beyond this debate with colleagues.
A number of hon. Members have raised the issue of security of supply as an argument in favour of a new scheme. Clearly, that is an extremely important issue, and the overall aim of Government energy policy remains to ensure secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices.
Whether there may be security of supply benefits from maintaining a particular level of coal-fired generation is something that we will need to consider in the light of the PIU review and the House of Lords and Select Committee on Trade and Industry reports, but our current position is that, whatever the security of supply issues surrounding coal generation, there are not significant security of supply benefits from maintaining a particular level of UK coal production. As the EU security of supply Green Paper itself notes, the geopolitical diversity of coal sources is such that the risks of disruption to supply are minimal.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Sadly, time is up. I am grateful to the Minister of State for his reply.

Tanzania
12.30 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I welcome the opportunity to hold this debate, not least because it allows me to address you correctly for the first time, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Normally, I use Adjournment debates to deal with policy questions, and I regret in some ways having to raise a personal case today. However, the case is so extreme and frustrating, and has been going on for so long, that I feel that it can be addressed only in an Adjournment debate. It involves a dispute between one of my constituents, Mr. Patel, and the Tanzanian Government that has been going on for almost 20 years. It has involved Ministers in this Government, and their Conservative predecessors, for five years.
I shall recount the story in a few moments, but the essential point is that Mr. Patel supplied thread to a Tanzanian factory as part of a Government project in 1982. He was owed about £100,000 on the transaction. The Tanzanian authorities never disputed that the claim was entirely legitimate, but the money was never paid. To this day, my constituent has not received a penny for that deal.
Even before today, at least three Ministers have been involved. There have been innumerable diplomatic notes and meetings with Ministers, but we have found no way forward. I want to bring the matter to the slightly higher level offered by this Adjournment debate for three reasons.
First, we seemed 18 months ago to have reached the point where all the details had been agreed. The Tanzanian Government had at last accepted the principle that they should pay Mr. Patel some interest payments on his outstanding claim. Mr. Patel had accepted the terms, the cut-off period and the rate of interest. I have the correspondence, which went through the high commission in Dar es Salaam, setting out the details. All the preliminaries had been conducted and, 15 months ago, agreement was reached in principle to resolve the problem finally. However, nothing happened and the drift continues.
Secondly, the conditions of Mr. Patel's life have deteriorated over the years. No one has ever said as much in print, but I suspect that there is a feeling in Tanzania that a rich Asian business man is pursuing interest on loans that a poor developing country cannot pay. However, Mr. Patel is not a rich man. Twenty years ago, he used his house as collateral for a loan to finance the deal, and he has struggled for the past two decades. His wife has gone out to work and he has changed his job in order to meet the interest payments on the loans. Eighteen months ago, he finally had to give up. His wife was made redundant and his house was repossessed. He is now homeless and living with his daughter.
Thirdly, although Mr. Patel's fortunes have waned, those of Tanzania to a degree have waxed. The country has received debt relief, with the support of the International Monetary Fund and the other international institutions. Although still a very low-income country, it is now considered to have rather sounder economic conditions, and is committed to a liberalisation programme.

295WH
The British Government evidently felt that Tanzania was sufficiently solvent to enable them to promote the sale of air traffic control equipment to it. I do not want to reopen what was a major controversy but, if the press is to be believed, even the Prime Minister got involved in promoting the deal. My simple reaction is that if Tanzania can afford to meet its obligations to British Aerospace it can certainly afford to meet its obligations to Mr. Patel, who is no less British. Moreover, if Tanzania is moving into a new era in which it attracts foreign investment and deals on a proper commercial basis with investors and creditors, it must resolve its outstanding claims.
I realise that, for the Foreign Office, such matters can take a long time. I have no criticism of the Foreign Office, which I think has handled the matter very well. I am not out to bash the Foreign Office, as I realise that resolution of such matters can be protracted. In the 1970s, I was a first secretary in the Foreign Office, and I remember repeated visits from the Peruvian bond holders who had been expropriated in a nationalisation in Peru some 40 years earlier. They kept coming back to the Foreign Office, and we remained unable to get them any money. However, I hope that there will be a happier outcome in the case of Mr. Patel.
I have set the scene, so I shall now take the Minister through the sequence of events, as the file is rather fat and some of the details are important.
The problem originated in early 1980, when a shoe project was supported by the World bank. It was not some dodgy little project: it was high profile, with World bank sponsorship. Mr. Patel's company, Pillarcliffe, was commissioned—by the World bank and after proper tendering procedures—to supply thread to the Morogoro shoe factory.
The project went ahead, Mr. Patel supplied the necessary equipment, but the money was not paid. The initial reasons for that were complicated, and had a lot to do with inefficiency in the World bank. Mr. Patel was never properly reimbursed, and for three years was involved in an argument about whether the money should, or could, be paid. However, the matter was clarified finally in 1988, when the principal secretary in the Tanzanian Ministry of Finance and Economic Development accepted in writing that the business transaction was entirely legitimate and that Tanzania had an obligation to pay the money. I have the relevant letters here.
Nothing happened. Three or four years later, the Morogoro shoe factory folded, as did a lot of other publicly sponsored industries in Tanzania. That was the Ujamaa era of protected import substitution in the country. The industry became unviable and collapsed. The Tanzanian Government accepted that they had to take responsibility for what remained, and decided to settle relations with creditors, who included Mr. Patel. The Foreign Office is in possession of letters to that effect. The Tanzanian Government, effectively, nationalised their liabilities and undertook to pay them.
The letter confirming that undertaking dates back to 1994, but still nothing was paid. In the mid-1990s, Mr. Patel had not been paid the £100,000, and the accumulating interest on that sum, which he was owed. He estimated the interest owing to him at £375,000.
296WH
Lest anyone think that Mr. Patel was some sort of usurer, I must stress that he was paying interest on the UK loan with which he had financed the transaction. Those interest payments were a lot higher than the interest that he would extract, as a creditor, from Tanzania.
Mr. Patel became extremely frustrated. He went to his local MP, my predecessor, Toby Jessel. Jessel wrote a strong and effective letter to the Foreign Office, which then took up the matter with Baroness Chalker. She met Tanzanian Ministers, who wrote letters to the Tanzanian Government, and for a while it seemed that something was going to happen.
In 1996, however, a very strange but important episode took place. Although it represents a slight detour, it helps to explain how we have got to where we are. Thirteen years after the original deal, the Tanzanian Government finally agreed that they must pay Mr. Patel his £100,000. They duly paid the cheque—unfortunately, to the wrong Mr. Patel. My constituent is Mr. M. R. Patel, but the cheque was made out to Mr. Chantilal Patel, the chairman of a Tanzanian company called Globe Mercantile.
I generally subscribe to what might be called the cock-up theory of history, and people may say that the fact that there are so many people called Mr. Patel means that such a mistake is easily understood. However, this was no mistake: this was a case for which the conspiracy theory of history is valid.
When documents were produced, it emerged that an elaborate fraud had been perpetrated. A letter was unearthed from an address in Twickenham—a false address that was nothing to do with Mr. M. R. Patel—that purported to authorise the payment of money from the Tanzanian Government to the fraudulent company, Globe Mercantile, which was owned by Mr. Chantilal Patel. The cheque was paid fraudulently.
Fortunately, Mr. M. R. Patel realised what had happened. He alerted the British high commission, who informed the Tanzanian Ministry of Finance and Economic Development and suggested that the simple way of dealing with the matter was to freeze the account of Globe Mercantile, which was in a Tanzanian state bank. For very odd reasons, the Tanzanian Government never took action, which has led to the suspicion that rather more was involved than the fraudulent Mr. Patel. None the less, the money was never paid to my Mr. Patel. It remained in Tanzania and probably at some point disappeared into a bank account overseas.
The importance of that episode was that Mr. Patel effectively lost his claim on the principal because the Tanzanians, to this day, have never accepted that that money was diverted. Mr. Patel has more or less written off that money. He has been told that if he wants the money he must pursue a legal action in Tanzania against the phoney company. He lacks the resources to do so, so he has accepted that, effectively, he has lost the principal.
That was where I came in, as the new Member of Parliament in 1997. Mr. Patel had lost £100,000 as a result of a fraud, but he still had the possibility of obtaining some payment from the Tanzanian Government in respect of the accumulated interest. We continued to pursue that claim through the Minister's

297WH
two predecessors, who were very effective, but we ran into an impasse. Tanzania had serious debt problems and a lack of foreign exchange. It pleaded that it could not afford to pay, even though it realised that Mr. Patel was in distress.
The problem drifted on until 2000, when there was a flurry of correspondence, in which the Tanzanian authorities accepted for the first time that they would, in principle, pay interest. They said that they would settle part of the claim through the interest payments. Mr. Patel initially suggested a 10 per cent. interest rate. He was actually paying much more to his bank in the United Kingdom, but he would have accepted 10 per cent. The Tanzanians said that that was too much. He then said that he would accept 7.5 per cent. for most of the amount and 5 per cent. for the rest. The Tanzanians said that that was too much. Mr. Patel finally settled, agreeing that the whole claim should be settled on the basis of a specific cut-off date and a 5 per cent. interest charge. That was accepted in correspondence in the middle of 2000.
What has happened since then? Nothing. That is why I have called the debate. Here was a claim long since outstanding. It was very convoluted, but at least there was some transparency and some agreement on the principles of a settlement, which had never been made.
I am asking the Minister to help us point the way forward. There has been a vast amount of correspondence; the file that I have with me contains only a small part of it. I am sure that the Foreign Office has an even bigger file. I am not sure that much more can be achieved by endlessly sending letters backwards and forwards. I believe that, probably, senior officials in the Tanzanian Ministry of Finance and Economic Development are genuinely trying to come to a conclusion on the problem. They seem to be honourable people, and Mr. Patel certainly is an honourable person. I am looking to the Foreign Office to find a way through the mess.
It may be that the sensible answer is that, the next time that a senior Tanzanian official from the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs visits London, which I imagine that they do quite often, we should try to get round a table with them and agree a final payment solution, to resolve the problem finally. It does not reflect well on the Tanzanian authorities that the last 20 years of my constituent's life have been destroyed by this case. There is now a possibility of resolving it. I appeal publicly to the Minister to help us through the final stage of this very long and difficult case.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): For the second time this morning, I welcome the Minister to Westminster Hall.
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for proposing the subject for debate. I congratulate him on his interest in the case and on the hard work that he has done to represent his constituent. I also acknowledge the work put in by his predecessor, the former Member for Twickenham, Toby Jessel.
298WH
We sympathise greatly with Mr. Patel's situation. It is an extremely sad story, as you have just heard, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are aware of the financial difficulties that the delay in settling payment has caused the hon. Gentleman's constituent and the resulting anxiety for Mr. Patel and his family.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind words about the efforts that the Foreign Office has made to settle the case. Officials from the Foreign Office and the British high commission in Dar es Salaam have been involved in Mr. Patel's case since 1993. They have regularly written and spoken to the Tanzanian Ministry of Finance and Economic Development about Mr. Patel's claim. They have also forwarded correspondence from Mr. Patel to the Ministry. Since 1993, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been in regular contact with Mr. Patel by letter, telephone and meetings. We have also been in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman and his predecessor about the claim, and a succession of Ministers has raised Mr. Patel's case with the Tanzanian high commissioner in London, the Tanzanian Minister of Finance and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, in 1996 and 1997 the Tanzanian Government made two payments to settle the principal amount owed for the goods. However, as he said—he will forgive me if I cover some of the same ground, but I think it important to place on record the Government's view of events—the payments were made to a company in Dar es Salaam that had previously acted as Mr. Patel's agent. Mr. Patel still has not received any of that money.
In making those payments to a third party, the Tanzanian Government acted on what they believed to be instructions from Mr. Patel. However, Mr. Patel says that the letter of instruction was a forgery, and the hon. Gentleman has reinforced that statement. The Tanzanian Government consider that they acted in good faith and that they have paid off the principal debt. Since 1996, we have advised Mr. Patel to take legal action against his former local representative to recover that money.
As the hon. Gentleman says, Mr. Patel is now pursuing a claim for the interest due on the unpaid principal sum from April 1982 to 1996, the agreed cut-off point for the debt. Mr. Patel calculated that at a rate of 10 per cent. per annum, giving a total claim of £387,110. In April 2000, the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development wrote to Mr. Patel, stating that a 10 per cent. rate of interest was too high and requesting that they agree a rate of 5 per cent. instead. Mr. Patel responded in May 2000, suggesting a rate of 7.5 per cent. from 1982 to 1996, plus an additional four years-1996 to 2000—at a rate of 5 per cent.
The Ministry replied on 11 August 2000, reminding Mr. Patel of the agreed cut-off date. It did not refer to his suggested 7.5 per cent. rate for the pre cut-off period. Mr. Patel replied to the Ministry on 5 September, confirming that he would drop his claim for interest from 1996 to 2000. That left his claim for 1982 to 1996 at 7.5 per cent. per annum—a total of £277,374. Since then, there has been no response from the Ministry. It has not accepted Mr. Patel's calculations or agreed that it owes him that amount.

299WH
Regrettably, Mr. Patel's situation is not unique. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office receives many requests for help from people who have a claim against foreign Governments following a commercial transaction, property dispute or pension entitlement. As we have seen with Mr. Patel, such cases can drag on for many years. Often the delay is not the result of a deliberate attempt to obstruct the claim or deny the claimant's legal rights. It may simply be the result of a lack of capacity in the local administration to address the issues raised by a specific claim, or of an inadequate legal framework.
However much we sympathise with Mr. Patel's situation, I am afraid that there is now little more that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can undertake to do. The matter is essentially a private dispute between Mr. Patel and the Tanzanian authorities over a commercial debt. Her Majesty's Government have no formal standing to intervene in cases of that nature.
In addition, Tanzania is one of several poor countries that have been unable to repay their debt. The enhanced heavily indebted poor countries initiative—for which Tanzania qualified in April 2000—stipulates that all creditors, bilateral, multilateral and commercial, should provide debt relief on comparable terms. The United Kingdom Government strongly support that principle, which is essential if Tanzania is to exit the shadow of debt and fulfil its commitment to tackling the extreme poverty that exists in the country. Unfortunately, there is no reason why Mr. Patel's claim could be considered to fall outside the remit of the HIPC initiative.
Britain and Tanzania have an excellent and warm bilateral relationship. We share historic Commonwealth ties and have similar interests in the Great Lakes region and east Africa, such as their stability, security and economic growth. Tanzania is a major recipient of United Kingdom development assistance—about £65 million in this financial year.
It is regrettable that Mr. Patel has had to experience such a delay and so much anxiety in his efforts to secure payment from the Government of Tanzania. However, I hope that the hon. Member for Twickenham understands the United Kingdom Government's position. Achieving substantial debt relief for the poorest, most highly indebted countries is a key objective for the Government. Now that Tanzania has been granted debt relief under the HIPC initiative, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can no longer continue to push the Government of Tanzania to pay Mr. Patel. However, we always remain happy to pass on correspondence.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We thank the Minister for his reply. That brings this debate to an end. As the hon. Member and Minister involved in the next debate are not present, I suspend the sitting until 1 o'clock.
12.51 pm
Sitting suspended.

MOD Site Disposals
1 pm
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Before I call the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) to introduce his debate, I welcome the Secretary of State for Defence to the Chamber. He will respond to the debate and his presence is a recognition of the important role of Westminster Hall.
Mr. David Drew: We are part of an august Assembly, so we shall act responsibly. When I secured this Adjournment debate, I did not realise that I would be asking questions directly of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. However, I welcome him to the Chamber. I hope that some of my general comments will be useful for the future.
I intend to concentrate on two sites that are partly within my constituency and that draw many of their work force from it. Lessons can be learned from what happened in both cases. The two sites are RAF Quedgeley, which is on the outskirts of Gloucester, and MOD Aston Down, which is midway between Cirencester and Stroud.
The two cases illustrate the problems that have occurred when sites are closed and how the work forces are deleteriously affected by that. I hope that we can consider some recompense for them, but I particularly want to look to the future so that we can improve matters. I also hope to draw some general conclusions.
I realise that we are dealing with legal matters and that it is not entirely within the power of even the Secretary of State for Defence to deal with all the issues involved. However, these cases provide a useful example. I have been wrestling with the problems for a considerable time. In fact, after my election to the House, the action group from RAF Quedgeley was among the first groups to see me to complain about what had happened to its members.
I wish to consider four key elements. First, I shall provide some of the background, but I do not want to consider it in great detail, because the Ministry of Defence knows exactly what happened and will have its own views. Secondly, I shall consider the implications for the employees and, thirdly, what the MOD could and should do in the future. Finally, I shall pull the strands together by considering how we can move forward.
RAF Quedgeley was an equipment supply depot on the outskirts of Gloucester and, before 1984, the base was fully staffed by people employed directly by the MOD. As a result of changes to contracts, a contract was awarded in 1984 to SERCO, a private contractor, and it had responsibility for the site for some time.
The point of dispute is the basis on which the redeployment of the employees was engineered. I accept that the issue has been gone over with a fine-toothed comb by those who have considered the legal arguments. It has gone all the way to the House of Lords and a judgment was made not just on this case, but on the way in which the previous Government had, in a number of instances, misunderstood or deliberately got wrong the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the subsequent acquired rights directive.

301WH
In 1990, the site returned to the direct employment of the MOD, but contractual obligations meant that the work force were disadvantaged because they were not taken on as full-time employees of the MOD. They had a contractual arrangement and, when the closure of RAF Quedgeley was announced in the 1990s, they lost some of their rights. They have campaigned ever since to demand the restitution of those rights and to ask for an apology given that a legal statement makes it clear that what happened to them was wrong. There is no dispute about that.
I draw particularly on the evidence of Mr. Deryck Waterhouse who is one of the leading advocates in the RAF Quedgeley action group. The argument is that people were disadvantaged because it was not possible to right the wrongs that they had experienced. I am aware that the case went to the House of Lords and that the judgment was that nothing much could be done. My right hon. Friend is a lawyer, so he will know better than me that there have been precedents.
I became involved in the case and contacted the Treasury solicitor. She argued that, because the case fell outside the six-year rule, it was not possible to obtain recompense. She also argued that those involved had been compensated in any event so recompense would probably not have led to them being any better off. However, the difficulty is that we do not know what would have happened and, because people returned to work at the site as contractually employed employees, they were placed at a disadvantage when RAF Quedgeley closed. Although I cannot dispute the Treasury solicitor's legal opinion, I not sure whether in moral terms the employees are no worse off than they would have been.
The case at the MOD site at Aston Down is more recent and took place under this Government. I was placed in the unfortunate position of having been told that the strategic defence review meant that the site would be kept open. However, a year later I was told that it would close, and that left a rather bad taste in my mouth. I had met the unions—mainly representatives of the Transport and General Workers Union—on a number of occasions to assure them that the site was safe for the immediate future, but the decision to close it was then taken.
The site was largely used for the storage of munitions and spares, but the common feature that it has with RAF Quedgeley is that SERCO has been involved in its running. Supposedly, SERCO had made a bid for the work at the site only for that bid to be turned down. However, I, as an innocent bystander, believed that that site could continue to operate even if it were not owned by the MOD. That would have ensured the continuing employment of the work force. Once the site's closure was announced, despite the good work of the rapid response team in helping to re-employ those losing their jobs, many people did not find suitable employment. The 80 employees feel rather let down.
My right hon. Friend will know whether there have been similar cases elsewhere, but the closures of those two sites were not handled with the sensitivity that should have been shown. A moral issue relates to the way in which the employees were treated, and the
302WH
employment tribunal and the courts became involved. Although the courts have arrived at a judgment, the Government must be seen to be transparent and cleaner than clean in the way in which they treat the work force. People from both sites are disenchanted. Those from RAF Quedgeley, such as Deryck Waterhouse, are continuing to campaign. They realise that it is a moral case. They do not blame the Government for the decision, because they were not in power at the time, but they think that they could right a wrong.
In the case of Aston Down, I have drawn on the work of Alan Beale, who was employed there. It is thought that much more could have been done. The authorities should have been more honest and open with the work force by explaining the basis on which a deal with SERCO was possible, if at all. I have put parliamentary questions to that effect and asked Ministers in the Ministry of Defence about that. Indeed, I met the former Minister of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), to clarify the situation. I knew that it had been decided to close Aston Down, but I wanted to get the ground rules clear. If there was a way to get the site taken on by another organisation and to allow its employees to have continuous employment, I wanted to ensure that we sorted that out, but nothing much seemed to happen. The message was that that was not possible. Apparently, there was no reason to pursue that course of action because there was an argument over the value of the site and of the work. That left me in a difficult position.
Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consider the implications of the decisions? Can he reassure me about the way in which we handle such problems? Such matters will arise again and there is no point pretending otherwise. We have to rationalise what we have available and ensure that the right services are in the right place and that the right people are doing that work. In so doing, however, we have to handle the issues with great sensitivity. We must consider the legal implications and we must learn from the fact that the previous Government got it wrong in the case of RAF Quedgeley. If people are to be dismissed, we must ensure that they have the appropriate packages. That is not just a financial consideration. We need to retrain and give people the opportunity to find similar employment, which might be on other sites. Again, it was argued that the work force at both sites was weak and they were not able to access work within other Ministry of Defence establishments. That comment is much felt by the work force.
On a more general matter, has the MOD such a thing as a protocol on how it goes about closing a site and dealing with the work force? It might be that the work force is subcontracted, because that is the way of the world, but the process needs to be more transparent and open. The debate is opportune, not only with regard to the two sites that concern me. I am sure that the problem has arisen elsewhere, and we have to do more. I have highlighted the relationship with SERCO. I do not intend to go off at a tangent, but as it is such an important provider of services for the MOD, I hope that it is brought into the loop. It was involved in both cases and will probably be involved if such circumstances arise at other sites.
The issue is one of fairness and morality. It is also about putting good, practical considerations into place. The decisions could have been handled better and the

303WH
work force in both cases feel hurt. We can learn lessons from that and I hope that my right hon. Friend will address that, not just in the historical context, but in terms of today and the future.
1.14 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I begin by congratulating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues on your new positions.
I am pleased to be here to respond to the debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on securing it. He raises concerns about the Ministry of Defence's policy on site closures and disposals, and how those can affect civilian employees. I hope that my remarks will set out clearly the processes that the MOD now follows, and address the points that my hon. Friend makes. I shall also deal with Mr. Deryck Waterhouse, who was formerly employed at RAF Quedgeley. He has exchanged letters with the Ministry over a number of years and I am well acquainted with his claims.
The relevant facts are that until September 1984, the management of the storage activities carried out at Quedgeley was undertaken by Ministry of Defence civil servants. It was then contracted out to a private company, SERCO. At the time, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—known as TUPE—were thought not to apply. More than 200 MOD staff were made redundant and then re-engaged or subsequently recruited by SERCO to do largely the same work.
In 1990, the work was again put out to competition and was brought back in-house. Again, the TUPE provisions were not thought to apply. Thus the staff involved were made redundant by SERCO and re-employed by the MOD on fixed-term appointments. Subsequently, as a result of the "Options for Change" review, it was decided to rationalise the RAF's equipment supply depots, with the effect that RAF Quedgeley ceased operations as a depot on 31 March 1996. It finally closed on 31 March 1997.
Before dealing with the details of Mr. Waterhouse's case, I shall say something about the process by which MOD sites are closed and disposed of. It is, of course, a major decision to close or change the role of a site. It may have long-standing connections with a local community and provide employment for members of it. If it is decided that a site should be retained for use by another service or by a different part of the MOD, the Department would try to ensure that as many former members of staff were re-employed as possible. If the site is to be closed and disposed of, it is the Department's usual practice to undertake an extensive staff preference exercise to establish whether individuals would wish to transfer to a new location or be redeployed locally. I can assure my hon. Friend that every effort is made to find people alternative postings within the Department and to minimise the need for redundancies. I shall ensure that such a difficult issue is handled sensitively and sensibly.
Any individual who is made redundant is, of course, fully compensated in accordance with the terms of the civil service compensation scheme. Highly experienced consultants are made available to help individuals review and assess their skills, achievements, priorities
304WH
and ambitions for the future. Advice is also provided on self-employment options, planning for retirement and financial matters.
I should also like to make it clear that the MOD is fully committed to a policy of consultation with civilian personnel on all issues that are likely to affect them. It is routine to involve the recognised trades unions from the outset in any study, investigation or proposal that might lead to a change in a site's use, right through to the final implementation of the decision. There is a general principle to consult the recognised trade unions and staff associations in the following circumstances: first, when proposals are still at a formative stage; secondly, to provide adequate information at all times; thirdly, to give the trade unions sufficient time to respond; and, fourthly, to consider carefully and conscientiously all the points made before a final decision is reached. Once that final decision has been reached, consultation, especially on sensitive personnel questions, continues throughout the implementation process.
On the transfer of MOD staff to the private sector, the Department signed a groundbreaking agreement with the Confederation of British Industry, the Defence Manufacturers Association, the Business Services Association and the trades unions as long ago as 1998. That code aims to provide clarity on the application of the TUPE regulations; to maintain the integrity of the contractual process and equity of treatment between different bidders; to provide reassurance to MOD staff that issues concerning their transfer and future employment are fully addressed; and to enable the transfer of staff between the employer to be as smooth as possible.
It is important that we identify as early as possible whether TUPE is to be applied. Nowadays, it is generally assumed that TUPE will apply if there is a transfer of significant assets or of a major part of the work force. Non-TUPE bids are considered only if they are properly justified. Indeed, bidders are required to provide full information on their intentions for the work force. That might include, for instance, the way in which terms and conditions of employment, including pension arrangements, will be replicated and any proposals to amend civil service terms and conditions. Once again, the trade unions and individuals are fully consulted throughout the whole TUPE process. The code of practice has been a success and continues to enjoy the full support of industry and the trade unions. Had it been in place earlier, I am sure that the problems experienced by Mr. Waterhouse and his colleagues would not have occurred.
Turning to the problems faced by Mr. Waterhouse, it was initially—I emphasise initially—conceded at a preliminary hearing of an industrial tribunal that TUPE should have applied both in 1984 and in 1990. In January 1997, the tribunal found that the ex-employees, of whom Mr. Waterhouse is one, were entitled to compensation. However, on legal advice the MOD appealed to the employment appeals tribunal, which could not resolve the case immediately, as that, in turn, was dependent on a decision by the House of Lords. That decision was made in October 1998, when the House of Lords concluded that the fixed-term employments were valid.

305WH
Although I am conscious of Mr. Waterhouse's disappointment at that turn of affairs, because the decision by the House of Lords is the final word on the case, the Ministry has no proposals to provide further compensation. Indeed, because of the legal position, it would not be appropriate for it to offer further compensation. I am sorry that I can add nothing further to the details of the case.
My hon. Friend compared the process followed at Quedgeley with that followed at Aston Down. The contract for the operation of the defence storage and distribution centre at Aston Down was placed with SERCO. More recently, in April 2000, the MOD decided to close the depot in parallel with the formation of the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency. That approach will result in considerable efficiencies and savings. However, the contract with SERCO was allowed to run its course until 31 March 2001, when the unit ceased operations. Stores held at Aston Down were relocated to other sites within the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency, which owned Aston Down. SERCO is currently on site at Aston Down providing a site protection and security guarding service under a MOD contract sponsored by Defence Estates while the property is being marketed for disposal.
In conclusion, I shall say something about the reasons why the MOD disposes of surplus sites and the way in which it does so. Obviously, military requirements change as a result of changes in the security environment, technology and the nation's needs. Consequently, the estate occupied by the armed forces cannot, and must not, remain static, whether as barracks, storage depots, airfields and so on. The MOD does not aim to hold on to land that it does not need; it always intends to release it back on to the market so that it can be used productively by other sectors of the economy. In addition to making land available for redevelopment, the receipts which can come from disposal are of considerable benefit to the taxpayer, contributing to defraying the not inconsiderable costs of the armed forces.
When the MOD has surplus sites to dispose of, we work closely with the local planning authorities to achieve solutions which balance the needs of local communities with the taxpayers' interest in maximising
306WH
the return on the sale. We seek to take a joined-up approach to align the Department's need to extract best value with the interests of other Departments. I recognise that sometimes those processes and marketing can be slow, but about 70 per cent. of all surplus sites are sold within a year of being handed over to Defence Estates, although they may occasionally be empty for some time before that happens.
As part of the strategic defence review, the Department was set a target of £700 million in estate disposal receipts over the four years to March 2002. That target was particularly challenging, given that the value of the sites identified in the review fell short of that figure. To date, receipts generated through property disposals against the £700 million target amount to over £690 million. We are therefore confident that the Department will achieve its target of £700 million by April. The sites involved range from small plots of land to airfields and are dispersed across the whole country.
The public service agreement in 2000 set a further demanding target for the Department. Defence Estates expects, however, to achieve a further £485 million from the disposal of land and property in the three years between the financial years 2001–02 and 2003–04. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the disposals and the change that is required to meet the new challenges faced by the MOD are necessary; that process is extraordinarily beneficial for local communities, as it allows the land to be put to effective and productive use. It is obviously beneficial for the MOD as it releases financial assets that can then be used to support the rest of the Ministry's budget.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chamber thanks the Secretary of State for Defence for replying to the debate. Although the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell), who will initiate the next debate, is present, sadly the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), who will reply, is not, so, for the second time this morning, I must suspend the sitting in Westminster Hall until 1.30 pm.
1.25 pm
Sitting suspended.

Standard Spending Assessment (Havering)
1.30 pm
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak today.
I bring this subject before hon. Members because there is a great injustice at the end of the east London corridor. Havering, the London borough in which my constituency is located, is given a raw funding deal year upon year by central Government. The coming year is no exception. Havering has consistently attracted one of the lowest levels of standard spending assessment funding, and consequently of grant per head of population, in London. That has led to massive underfunding, leaving my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer), who is not present, feeling badly let down and disadvantaged compared with their neighbours in other outer-London boroughs.
That simply cannot go on. The people of Romford and Havering deserve to be treated the same as people in every other outer-London borough. There is no excuse for their care homes, libraries, schools, parks and leisure services being so badly underfunded. We must remember that that underfunding results only from arbitrary calculations based on what bureaucrats think the borough is like, which often relates to 10-year-old census information and bears no relation to the true situation.
To demonstrate those points, I should like to consider a few examples of how the continued underfunding has had such a detrimental effect on council services and infrastructure. In the past five years, spending on libraries has been 28 per cent. less than the outer-London average, peaking at 32 per cent. in the financial year 1996–97 and slowly falling to a low of 22 per cent. for the year 1999–2000. It is now creeping back up, and the figure last year was 23 per cent. Equally, spending on highways maintenance has averaged 17 per cent. less than the outer-London average over the past three years.
I could go on, but I think that those two examples demonstrate very clearly that lower central Government funding means that Havering is unable to deliver the same service levels as comparable boroughs, which leaves the council in a difficult position: it either has to allow spending to drop even further or to tax more. So, what did the Labour council opt to do? It decided on the high-tax option, forcing local people to pay a higher proportion of the cost of local services, yet we are now told that there are also to be cuts in services.
For Havering, it is a lose-lose situation. Indeed, because of those forced increases, council tax in Havering is now the third highest in London, and a 22 per cent. increase is in the pipeline for the coming year. I shall call that difference the Havering tax, as it is levied on Havering people only because their borough is not given a fair allocation of resources from central Government. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what criteria he uses to decide the grant for Havering, which seems so utterly unfair to my constituents and the people of my borough.
308WH
I do not blame all the increases on the lack of SSA funding. A proportion of the increases stems from the waste and inefficiency of the past 12 years, during which time the Labour party has dominated our town hall in Havering. Equally, there is little doubt that if Government funding had been fairer in all those years—and, indeed, during the years of Conservative government—the tax increases would not have been so rapid.
That is not where the story ends. Not only do my constituents have to pay significantly more council tax, but the budgeted net expenditure per head still manages to be the eighth lowest in London. Indeed, Havering's budget is £12 million more than the standard spending assessment for this year, but the spending level per head of population remains low, at 27 per cent. less than the average in neighbouring authorities. So, people in Havering are awarded less per head by central Government than people in comparable boroughs. They pay more council tax than their neighbours to compensate and yet the remaining shortfall is such that spending remains very poor.
This year's SSA has brought some small and welcome changes, but it does not even begin to remedy the situation. Even though the abolition of the council tax benefit limitation scheme will save Havering taxpayers £925,000 and revision of the formula for area cost adjustment will save the council £1.4 million, Havering's SSA per head of population is still 12 per cent. less than the average for outer London and 19 per cent. less than that in our neighbouring authorities of Barking and Dagenham, Newham and Redbridge. Worse still, our total external support for 2002–03 is a massive 38 per cent. less than that of our neighbours.
Furthermore, the new settlement has done nothing to relieve the pressure on, for example, Havering's social services budget, which has a projected overspend of £1.5 million. That reflects the increasing number of children who need looking after and, therefore, the need to increase staffing levels. Indeed, the joint review of Havering social services that was conducted last year reported to the council with an action plan that required immediate funding of £950 million. I urge the Minister to do all that he can to ensure that Havering has enough funds for this most urgent of needs.
To make matters worse, my constituents feel equally aggrieved about the fact that Havering has to pay its share to the Greater London Authority and other centralised services, but takes so little back in return. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how Havering has benefited from the creation of the Greater London Authority, bearing in mind the amount that we have to pay towards its costs. Hornchurch has lost a fire engine and a police station has been closed in Collier row in my constituency.
If that is not enough, let us consider the example of the London borough grant scheme. Havering pays roughly £1 million a year into the scheme, but receives only approximately £50,000 back in local grants. The truth is that people in Havering are subsidising the rest of London. That has gone on for years and is unacceptable to me, to my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster and to everyone in my borough. We want serious and urgent action to be taken to put matters right.

309WH
What can be done? The local government finance review provides the ideal opportunity for the Government to put right the funding inequality that has disadvantaged Havering for so long. The most striking method of redressing the imbalance is changing the way in which the allocation is calculated.
The main problem is that the current calculation is based on indicators and arbitrary factors. It would be better and fairer to base it solely on population, as some calculations that the London borough of Havering has made demonstrate. From the 2001–02 SSA, the average spend per head for Havering was £855, compared with £1,161 for the neighbouring borough of Barking and Dagenham, £1,472 for Newham, and £1,027 for Redbridge. That clearly shows the appalling extent to which the people of Havering are unfairly treated.
If Havering had received the same grant per head, based on our population, as the other-London boroughs, it would have meant an extra £39.813 million, based on the Redbridge grant; £70.757 million based on Barking and Dagenham's grant; and a stunning £139.578 million based on Newham's figure. Those figures are not insignificant. They would have gone a long way towards keeping open the care homes in Romford that have had to close. They would mean that Romford town could again have a swimming pool and leisure centre, which the council closed. They would also allow the run-down parks to be returned to their former safe and pleasant state.
I look to the Minister for some assurances. Will he ensure that any review of the formula tackles the needs of the London borough of Havering? Will he personally ensure that the years of underfunding in Havering, under Labour and Conservative Governments, are redressed? Will he also examine the case for population-based funding? Lastly, will he guarantee that Havering will never be the underdog of London again?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) has sought my permission and that of the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) and of the Minister to participate in the debate. I am happy to call her.
1.42 pm
Angela Watkinson: I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) on securing the debate, which gives us the opportunity to highlight the specific financial difficulties that the London borough of Havering experiences. Local residents are alarmed that, after an increase in council tax last year of 12.5 per cent., they now face another rise of up to 23 per cent., which is what the council would have to charge if it set a budget at current approvals plus inflation. It is going through the budget-setting procedure and considering a package of cuts to try to mitigate the increase.
The formula under which the SSA is currently calculated serves Havering badly. Unemployment and benefit take-up are low in Upminster, and we have few houses in multiple occupation. Such factors do not serve Havering well. I was under the impression that green belt affected the local government settlement. Havering
310WH
council believes that too, because it has said so in a succession of local meetings. I was surprised to be told by the Minister in answer to a written question
"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."—[Official Report, 22 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 714W.]
I should appreciate some clarification of that in the Minister's closing remarks.
The council has expressed its disappointment that there is no safety valve in the interim before the review of the formula in 2003. It stated:
"We would like to see the rate of Council Tax increase over a number of years as one of the criteria for eligibility of Safety Valve Grant. Havering's cumulative percentage increase in Council Tax has been 34 per cent. higher than the outer London average, despite an extensive savings programme and the use of reserves … Poverty and deprivation are the prime cost drivers for need to spend on additional educational needs."
I have a specific anxiety about special educational needs. Havering is well served by three special needs schools. Until last September, there was a special needs nursery unit at Mead primary school in Harold Hill. Since September, no children have been referred to the unit, despite the great need throughout the borough. I am gravely worried about its future.
The council also stated:
"Consideration should be given to splitting the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services block so that those services, which are driven by activity rather than deprivation, such as refuse collection, waste disposal, and Concessionary Fares, are fully reflected in the formula, thereby ensuring a fairer distribution of resources."
As my hon. Friend has pointed out, Havering fares badly when compared with neighbouring boroughs. I shall not repeat the statistics and services that my hon. Friend detailed, but I want to concentrate on education. Last week, I met a group of primary school heads in Upminster. The education budget is already running at £1.4 million below SSA, and they are worried that a further cut of £1.4 million is proposed. That means that the education budget will run at £2.8 million below SSA.
The education budget constitutes the lion's share of any council's expenditure. The lion's share of any school's expenditure is its staffing budget. The teachers whom I met told me that they are worried about losing non-teaching assistants and about the maintenance of their buildings. Given the Government's total inclusion policy whereby children with special needs are placed in mainstream schools, the need for non-teaching assistants is acute. Schools need more of them, not fewer.
Another problem is the army of carers for elderly people which the council will have to find in the wake of its phased closure of elderly persons' homes. That is another budgetary device. There is a serious delayed discharge problem in the local hospitals. Some elderly patients who are no longer clinically ill need to be discharged but are too frail to return to their homes. The absence of care beds in the public and private sector means that elderly people must be cared for in their homes, which will require a large increase in the number of carers. Havering has the lowest number of carers per head of population in London.

311WH
In a debate on the local government White Paper on 11 December 2001, I asked:
"What assistance can the Secretary of State offer … local authorities such as the London borough of Havering, which receive a perversely low settlement under the current system? What help can he offer the council tax payers who suffered the third highest increase in the country last year—12.5 per cent.—and who face a possible increase this year of more than 20 per cent.?
The reply was surprising. The Secretary of State said:
"As for Havering, on any judgment the settlement announced last week is obviously generous. The local council in Havering will have to explain why it is even considering a council tax increase at the suggested level. Given the funding that is being made available and, indeed, the additional funds that may be made available as a result of the abolition of the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme—which will benefit a number of local councils—the council needs to consider the level of council tax increase that it should be setting. There is no good reason for that proposed increase, as we have made clear."—[Official Report, 11 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 725–6.]
I would be grateful for an explanation of the difference of opinion between the local council and the Government.
1.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) on securing this Adjournment debate, which gives us an opportunity to debate the local government finance settlement for 2002–03. I hope that he will understand that I have a limited amount of time in which to deal with the points that he has raised today, but I shall attempt to address them in the time available.
The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) mentioned, in reading out an answer that she had received from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, that the overall settlement this year is another good one for local authorities. It demonstrates our commitment to investing in Modern local government, and we want all councils to have the funds to improve their services while keeping to reasonable tax increases. We shall certainly work closely with local government as we consider the spending plans for 2003–04 onwards in the context of the spending review.
The debate could be conducted in terms of overall settlements, and of what the Government want to happen in local government. The hon. Gentleman asked me for a number of specific assurances about Havering, which would detach Havering from the rest of the country, in terms of a fairer and more transparent settlement for local government as a whole.
Mr. Rosindell: I was suggesting that the grant be calculated per head of population. Surely that would be consistent across the country, so how would it detach Havering from the rest of Britain?
Dr. Whitehead: I had intended to cover that point in a moment. I would caution the hon. Gentleman to beware of his wishes, because they might come true. If
312WH
the formula of a simple settlement on a head of population basis were to be implemented, it would immediately strip away all the considerations that go into the SSA, which attempt to adjust the system according to a series of indicators over and above the population figure per local authority. Those considerations are currently used to adjust the amount of money that a local authority receives in grants, and affects the relation of that to its SSA.
The notion of the standard spending assessment—which was introduced by the Conservative Government at the end of the 1980s—was ferociously to equalise out the theory of what would come to local authorities in the form of grants for the provision of a standard basket of services, based on the collection of a large number of indicators for the SSA arrangement.
The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that all that should be removed, and that we should introduce a grant system calculated per head of population. If we were to do that—presumably across the whole country—he might find that Havering would lose out substantially. The formula would be adjusted nationally to take account of the shire counties and various other areas that do not have many indicators positively in their favour in terms of additional needs over and above head of population. Such areas would, therefore, get a substantially greater proportion of the overall cake in the settlement. Consequently, Havering—which has some positive indicators, but not as many as some other local authorities—could lose a substantial amount of money in that general redistribution. The hon. Gentleman would probably be rather upset about that, so I would caution him against going down that route for a local government settlement.
Mr. Rosindell: Perhaps we could see the figures.
Dr. Whitehead: It is not possible to provide exact figures; if we did, we would have to recast the entire country according to the hon. Gentleman's nostrums for the future of standard spending assessment, involving per capita distribution. Discussions that will be held over the coming year on what is a fair, just and transparent settlement will have to take account of a series of factors. If he could see the overall effect that a per head of population outcome would have nationally, I suspect that it would not be one that he would want.
The hon. Member for Upminster suggested, when referring to those formula inputs, that the existence of green belt in a borough made a difference. I can only re-emphasise what I said in my letter to her, which is that that is not a consideration when we calculate a local authority's overall SSA. There are a number of other factors, however, and the hon. Gentleman asked which ones were taken into account in Havering.
Havering does receive a lower grant increase than the London average of 1.2 per cent., because it has a steady population. It has a decrease in pupils aged five to 10 greater than the London average of 0.1 per cent. I am not saying that the settlement for Havering, or for a number of other local authorities, is absolutely perfect. I am suggesting that, as a result of a number of indicators, SSAs come out in particular ways.
The SSA system tends to have several other long-term outcomes. First, it institutionalises the effects of certain local authorities having had low budgets in the early

313WH
1990s when the SSA system was introduced. That tends to roll over as the system runs forward. Secondly, if the population of an authority stays static or decreases, it tends to cause problems for its funding because the money either does not come in or is taken away by the SSA system at a speed with which the authority may not be able to cope. For example, if there is one fewer child in a classroom—a decrease in pupils results in a decrease in grant—it is not easy to reduce the number of teachers by one twenty-ninth at the same time. Those problems are built into the SSA system.
I can confirm that the Government have announced their intention to pursue a root-and-branch review of the way in which the SSA system works, in order to introduce a new system of calculation of grants for local authorities based on a simplified, more transparent system. The new system will take into account to a greater extent an assessment of need, accurately based on what a local authority is doing. That system would come in for the next financial year.
The hon. Gentleman has already made a specific proposal, but if he or his local authority have any thoughts on aspects of the scheme, their views would be very welcome. This review is being conducted to ensure that the future system distributes the available money on a fairer, more transparent and more equitable basis. I would, however, caution hon. Members that, under such schemes, there will always be winners and losers.
One of the problems that has come my way is that a different form of SSA calculation—not related to the philosophy of how the SSA originally came about—
314WH
could well be appropriate for the future, but many hon. Members have particular views about how an extension of the SSA system, or a tweaking of the indicators, might solve the problem of a local authority. I suggest that we need a system for local government that is robust, that has the confidence of local government in terms of how it works and its transparency, and that produces a just and equitable distribution of the available money. The Government are committed to doing that over the next year.
I can assure the hon. Members for Romford and for Upminster that I will take into consideration the points that they have raised about the way in which the SSA system works, and about the particular pressures on social services budgets. It is recognised nationally that such pressures exist, particularly in relation to the importation into those budgets of very large packages that might result from a court order. That can distort a social services budget when a local authority is working within a fixed budget.
The Government believe that there is a good settlement overall for 2002–03, but there will be winners and losers. The consultation period on the settlement has now passed, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that what has been submitted in writing will be carefully considered when the final settlement is announced. Indeed, Havering submitted a substantial document, "Justice for Havering", a while ago. The hon. Gentleman's remarks today have also been very valuable.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  SchlumbergerSema
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the objectives in key areas which SchlumbergerSema must meet by May 2002 in order for the company to be granted a contract extension to 2005. [24401]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: The agreement with SchlumbergerSema contains performance and delivery conditions for a contract extension to August 2005. It emphasises the need for the company to meet and improve service standards and commits them to a programme of doctor recruitment. The amendment further requires the contractor to co-operate in the introduction of more fundamental changes in the gathering and presentation of evidence and reports together with the introduction of new processes to reduce the numbers of people who fail to turn up for examinations. It also requires them to agree and document actions to support processes around the intervention regime to be operated in Job Centre Plus as part of the Government's "Welfare to Work" agenda. The agreement to extend the contract must be confirmed or revoked before 31 May 2002.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he will allow the taking of annuities at any age up to 75 years for the purposes of assessing the proposed pension credit entitlement. [26018]

  Mr. McCartney
  A personal pension may be taken from age 50, but an annuity must be purchased by age 75.

  The income from an annuity purchased from a pension fund is treated in the same way as other second pensions within the minimum income guarantee.

  Currently, if a person over 60 has not taken an annuity he is treated as having the income he could obtain if he used his pension fund to buy an annuity.

  We intend to adopt a similar approach in pension credit.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what equipment has been stolen from his Department since 1 May 1997; and what the approximate value of each item was; [26822]

  (2) if he will list those items valued at more than £50 which have been stolen or lost from his Department in each of the last four years. [27994]
  852W
  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: Of a total of approximately 109,224 personal computers and laptops owned by the Department 179 have been stolen in the period in question—this represents 0.16 per cent. The total value of these items is estimated to be £217,300.

  Information on items of a lesser value are recorded in the table.

  Thefts in Department for Work and Pensions 1 May 1997 to end of year 2001

  Category

  Quantity

  Estimated total cost

  CPU

  64

  44,400

  Monitor

  27

  5,290

  Keyboard

  23

  260

  Memory Chip

  6

  3,600

  Tape Drive

  3

  525

  Cordless Telephone

  1

  70

  Modem

  9

  900

  Video Camera

  2

  2,250

  Mobile Telephone

  9

  1,800

  Print Sharer

  1

  100

  Digital Camera

  1

  1,000

  Disk Drive

  1

  200

  Multi-media projector

  1

  3,000

  DVD Player

  1

  281

  Server

  3

  7,500

  Card Reader

  2

  100

  Pager

  1

  50

  Mouse

  22

  511

  Printer

  72

  44,650

  Hard Drive

  10

  1,500

  Motherboard

  1

  150

  Fax

  3

  1,950

  Miscellaneous1

  1,445

  1 Includes such items as server cable, cassette recorders and telephones.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of East Riding of Yorkshire council. [30521]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) report was published today in respect of East Riding of Yorkshire council and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  BFI found the council was striving to provide an efficient, secure benefits service and to maintain effective counter fraud performance against a background of staffing difficulties and re-organisation.

  Overall, inspectors identified many good features in the council's performance and examples of effective work. There was a clear commitment to customer service and efforts had been made to raise levels of fraud awareness throughout the council. Additionally, the council has introduced inspectors powers and the "Do Not Redirect" scheme.

  Despite this, the report notes there were a number of areas where performance fell short of requirements. Inspectors consider a key constraint to the council's performance was the high rate of staff turnover and difficulty in maintaining a fully trained complement of staff.
  853W
  Inspectors found that the work backlogs resulting from the staffing difficulties were having an adverse effect on standards of service with some delays in processing claims, changes of circumstances and applications for reviews of determinations. Inspectors found the council was addressing shortfalls in performance through a fundamental review of its organisation which included the benefits service.

  The report notes that internal and external audit reports had been responded to promptly which inspectors considered was an indication of the council's commitment to maintaining secure systems.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and pensions when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Plymouth city council. [30522]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report was published today in respect of Plymouth city council and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  BFI inspectors report that the benefit service had been through a period of considerable change prior to the inspection, including a restructure, the introduction of a document image processing (DIP) system and a change in political control. In addition, during the BFI inspection, the council was implementing the Verification Framework and managing a backlog. Overall, inspectors consider the benefit service was having difficulty in an environment of major corporate change.

  Before the inspection the council had taken steps to secure the gateway to benefit with the introduction of the Verification Framework, a new claim form and a system of management checks. Although the council has service level agreements with the local BA and ES, inspectors found the management of these SLAs was limited.

  The report notes that the council works hard to keep payments right with a proactive approach to the follow up of renewal claims and reminders to claimants and landlords of their duty to report changes in circumstances. However BFI considers more could be done to target visiting and tailor benefit periods using risk assessment.

  In common with some authorities, the council's overall performance in the management and control of overpayments is poor. Inspectors report that prompt action to identify overpayments is negated by ineffective recovery processes.

  Although inspectors found fraud investigation work was poor, the report notes that the council had already recognised this and had introduced various policies, guidance and an extensive training programme aimed at improving the quality of the fraud investigations.

  The report concludes that the council has recently made major policy and procedural changes. These changes need to be further developed and implemented before tangible improvements will be realised.
  854W
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Asbestos Judgment
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the Appeal Court decision in the Fairchild case; and if he will introduce legislation to reinstate the principle of apportionment in mesothelioma cases. [25114]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are looking closely at the implications of the Appeal Court decision on the Fairchild case. It is too early to determine what action may be necessary.

PRIME MINISTER

  North Ayrshire
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to visit North Ayrshire. [27103]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans at present to do so.

  Arms Sales
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what discussions he had with the Indian Government on his recent visit concerning the BAE Systems bid to supply Hawk jets; and if he will make a statement. [28301]

  (2) what discussions he held with the Pakistani Government on his recent visit concerning United Kingdom arms sales; and if he will make a statement. [28294]

  The Prime Minister
  During my recent visits to India and Pakistan, I discussed a wide range of issues of mutual interest with the Governments of both countries. These covered a number of defence and security matters including defence export opportunities. The Government continue to support the proposals that BAE systems has made for the supply of Hawk jets to India.

  Nuclear Security
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made since 11 September 2001 of the security of nuclear plants and radioactive materials in transit against terrorist attack; and if he has discussed the security of nuclear facilities with(a) his European Union counterparts and (b) the United States President, since that date. [28646]

  The Prime Minister
  Security and safety precautions at nuclear sites are kept under regular review. The UK's civil nuclear sites apply stringent security measures regulated by the security regulator, the Office for Civil Nuclear Security.

  The security of nuclear material in transit is similarly kept under review. We are also reviewing the transportation of other radioactive materials.
  855W
  I have discussed the issue with the Irish Taoiseach. Officials have also discussed the matter with their overseas counterparts since 11 September.

  It is not Government policy to disclose details of security measures taken at civil nuclear sites, or of nuclear materials in transit.

  Lord Birt
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 297W, on Lord Birt, under which section of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information he withheld information on the projects worked upon by Lord Birt. [29653]

  The Prime Minister
  Information relating to internal discussion and advice is not disclosed under Exemption 2, Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 11 December 2001, concerning the UN-led conference at Bonn of the main Afghan factions on 27 November, for what reason the Northern Alliance has been allowed to keep troops in Kabul in breach of the Bonn agreement. [28021]

  The Prime Minister
  The Bonn agreement gave a basis for an Interim Administration to be formed in Afghanistan. That Administration is responsible for security within Afghanistan, and is using its police forces in Kabul to provide this with the support of the International Security Assistance Force. Under the terms of the Military Technical Agreement between the Interim Administration and the International Security Assistance Force (signed on 4 January), some military units have left Kabul. All other armed groups in the Kabul area are confined to designated barracks.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his written answer of 14 January 2002,Official Report, column 89W, on the International Criminal Court, if he will place in the Library copies of the written demarches sent to Secretary of State Powell on ratification of the statute of the International Criminal Court. [29654]

  The Prime Minister
  Further to my answer of 14 January, two demarches were sent to the US Department of State by the Belgian presidency. One was written, and I am happy to place a copy of that in the Library. The other, I now understand, was changed from a written to an oral demarche by the Belgian presidency.

WALES

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on Government support for manufacturing industry in Wales. [27064]
  856W
  Mr. Touhig
  Despite recent labour market statistics which reflect the fundamental strength of the Welsh economy, some parts of the economy, such as manufacturing, continue to face real and sustained difficulties.

  There are no simple solutions at hand to ease these problems, but the Government are helping British manufacturing to raise its game and to shift its focus from competing on the basis of cost alone towards high skill, high value-added products and processes.

  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about Government support for manufacturing industry in Wales. [27066]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Minister regularly to discuss a range of issues, including manufacturing in Wales.

  Despite recent labour market statistics which reflect the fundamental strength of the Welsh economy, some parts of the economy, such as manufacturing, continue to face real and sustained difficulties.

  There are no simple solutions at hand to ease these problems, but the Government are helping British manufacturing to raise its game and to shift its focus from competing on the basis of cost alone towards high skill, high value-added products and processes.

  Miners' Compensation
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the number of claims in Wales under the miners' compensation scheme for respiratory disease that have been settled in full. [27065]

  Mr. Touhig
  I regularly discuss coal health compensation issues with my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy and attend the UK Coal Health Monitoring Group that he chairs.

  As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales established the Welsh sub-group of the Coal Health Claims Monitoring Group specifically to address coal health issues in Wales and to report back to the GB-wide group. I am convinced the measures discussed, and the actions so far agreed, will further speed up the processing of coal health claims.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy attended the Welsh sub-group of the Coal Health Claims Monitoring Group in November to discuss the operation of the scheme in Wales.

  Special Advisers
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many special advisers he has working for him. [27068]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have two special advisers.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the number and cost of special advisers in the Wales Office. [27070]
  857W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  They are paid in accordance with the Cabinet Office pay scales for special advisers: these are currently under review.

  Rural Economy
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to discuss regeneration of the rural economy with National Assembly for Wales Secretaries. [27069]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the Welsh Assembly secretaries regularly to discuss a range of issues, including the Welsh rural economy.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what instructions are given to his offices in Wales on whether to answer the telephone in Welsh or English. [27071]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Cardiff office is served by the National Assembly for Wales switchboard, which answers with a bilingual greeting.

  Dairy Farming
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the Agriculture Secretary to discuss dairy farming in Wales. [27072]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My hon. Friend the Under-secretary has regular meetings with the Assembly Agriculture Secretary and discusses many aspects of Welsh agriculture.

  The recent FMD outbreak has exacerbated an already difficult situation for Welsh farmers. I therefore welcome the Assembly's strategy "Farming for the Future", which sets out a vision for the industry to achieve future sustainability, supported by the Assembly and key stakeholders. I would encourage farmers to work with the Assembly and its partners to face up to the changes necessary to create a viable agricultural future for Wales.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly about the progress of the Objective 1 programme in Wales. [27073]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Minister regularly to discuss a range of issues, including progress with the Objective 1 programme. At 9 January 2002, 421 Objective 1 projects had been approved, worth a total of £280 million in European grants. £64.3 million worth of Objective 1 grant has already been paid out by the Assembly.

  Proportional Representation
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the operation of the proportional representation system in National Assembly for Wales elections. [27074]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The electoral system is that outlined in the White Paper "A Voice for Wales" which was subsequently endorsed by the people of Wales in a858W
  referendum. The electoral system is a matter reserved to Parliament under the devolution settlement and the Government have no plans to bring forward legislation to change it.

  Crime
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the measures taken by the Government to tackle crime in Wales. [27075]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Communities in Wales are gaining the full benefits of our partnership approach to fighting crime. With funding running into millions of pounds, local partnerships are implementing projects targeted at crime hotspots, domestic violence and drug related crime. Much of this funding is being channelled specifically into the most deprived communities and is going a long way towards building safer and more inclusive communities.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales about the operation of regional selective assistance in Wales. [27076]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Minister regularly to discuss a range of issues. Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) is the most important grant available to businesses in Wales looking to invest to grow. 240 companies received RSA grants between January and December 2001, to the value of £130.5 million in grant funding and £553 million in total investment. This funding will result in the creation of 8,700 jobs and the safeguarding of another 4,700 jobs.

  New Deal
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the operation of the new deal in Wales. [27077]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The new deal has been a huge success story in Wales. There has been a 75 per cent, fall in the number of young people aged 18-24 claiming JSA in Wales since launch of new deal and a 50 per cent, fall in the number of long term JSA claimants over 25.

  Economy
  Albert Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales and Cabinet colleagues about the performance of the Welsh economy. [27078]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Minister and Cabinet colleagues regularly to discuss a range of issues, including the Welsh economy. I very much welcome last week's labour market statistics which show that unemployment in Wales fell by 7,000 over the last quarter.

  Heroin Addiction
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the latest figures for heroin addiction in Wales. [27079]
  859W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There is currently no statutory requirement in the UK to report drug users to any central database; therefore there are no comprehensive data for heroin addiction in Wales.

  There is a report from the Welsh Drug Misuse Database (WDMD) for the years 1999 and 2000, which offered an analysis of reports from reporting agencies to the WDMD relating to problem drug users who presented for help and treatment during 1999 and 2000. The increase shown in heroin as a main drug in treatment cases does not necessarily indicate a rise in the number of people dependent on the drug.

  In May 2000, an 8-year strategy was published by the National Assembly entitled: "Tackling Substance Misuse in Wales: A Partnership Approach". The strategy covers not only illegal drugs but also alcohol, over-the-counter and prescription drugs and volatile substances. The four aims of the strategy embrace those of the UK strategy Tackling Drugs to build a better Britain.

  The National Assembly made £2 million available through the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Fund (DATF) in 2001–02 to support drug and alcohol treatment services in Wales and to improve access to treatment, particularly for vulnerable young people. The fund is administered through Drug and Alcohol Action Teams (DAATs) and has supported many treatment services including those who provide services to people with a heroin dependency. This fund is in addition to expenditure from key agencies including health, the police and probation.

  Electoral System
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will bring forward proposals to change the system for election of Members of the National Assembly for Wales. [27080]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have no plans to do so.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has held with the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions regarding rail services in Wales since October 2001. [27081]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, which include rail services.

  I welcome the SRA's 10-year strategic plan, a forward looking plan which will deliver good results for rail passengers and freight users across Wales.

  The Assembly have developed a good working relationship with the SRA and the Wales and Borders Single Franchise is being taken forward as a priority in the strategic plan. This provides a real opportunity to increase the quality and frequency of services and the new franchise is expected to be operational next year.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters he received from hon. Members during July 2001; and if he will make a statement. [27082]
  860W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of the reply in the Library of the House.

  Countryside
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet representatives of the farming community to discuss the crisis in the countryside. [27083]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I am planning to meet representatives of the National Farmers Union shortly. During last year both my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and myself travelled extensively through Wales and met members of the farming community.

  I welcome the recent announcement by the National Assembly for Wales that they have spent almost £28 million to the end of December to help the rural economy recover from the effects of foot and mouth disease. In Wales, this is in addition to over £51 million paid out as compensation for culled animals and over £60 million paid out under the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme.

  Alcoholism
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales and others on the mechanisms for co-ordinating policy for reducing alcoholism in Wales. [27084]

  Mr. Touhig
  I have not recently discussed with Assembly colleagues the issue of alcoholism in Wales.

  However I am aware that the Assembly is tackling the problem of substance misuse, including alcohol abuse, through its 8-year substance misuse strategy "Tackling Substance Misuse in Wales: A Partnership Approach".

  Incineration Plant (Wrexham)
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will hold discussions with the First Minister and the Environment Secretary on the cross border impact of the proposals for an incineration plant at Wrexham. [27085]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I understand that the National Assembly has received a number of requests to call-in this planning application. It is for the Assembly to decide how to proceed. I will however draw the hon. Member's concerns to the attention of Assembly Ministers.

  Health Service
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Minister regarding the state of the national health service in Wales. [27086]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet regularly with the National Assembly First Minister and the Assembly Health and Social Services Minister to discuss a range of issues, including the NHS in Wales.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if it is his policy to limit funding for investment by Railtrack and its successors to the total in the regulatory settlement for Control Period 2. [26296]

  Mr. Spellar
  The funding available to Railtrack and its successor is the regulatory settlement for Control Period 2, as supplemented by the agreement between Railtrack and the Department in April 2001. If bidders for Railtrack consider that this is insufficient, they will need to include proposals for additional funding in their bids.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what minimum notice Railtrack gives to train operating companies for planned maintenance work. [26059]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Current timetabling arrangements require Railtrack to have notified the train operators of intended works 26 weeks before taking possession of the network.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if it is his policy for a not-for-profit company to replace Railtrack plc. [28738]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on 23 October 2001,Official Report, columns 195–97W.

  Rail Safety
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many rail track failures have been recorded by Railtrack in each of the last five years. [26073]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand from Railtrack that the number of broken rails in each of the last five financial years were:

  Number of broken rails

  1996–97

  709

  1997–98

  755

  1998–99

  952

  1999–2000

  918

  2000–01

  697

  Road Deaths
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many deaths there were in motor accidents during the period of the annual Christmas anti-drink campaign in each of the last five available years in which a contributory factor was(a) consumption of alcohol, (b) consumption of non-prescription drugs and (c) tiredness of the driver. [27379]

  Mr. Spellar
  Information is not available for the periods requested. National estimates of drink drive fatalities are only made based on the involvement of a862W
  driver who had consumed over the legal limit of alcohol. These estimates are not produced for time periods of less than one calendar month. No estimates are made of road deaths involving the use of non-prescription drugs or tiredness of a driver.

  London Underground
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many staff came in(a) one hour and (b) two hours late on each London Underground line and in total in (i) the last five years and (ii) each of the last 12 months; and what were the reasons given for the absence. [27710]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is an operational matter for London Underground Ltd., who have advised that the information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the drop out rates of persons applying for management positions on the London Underground(a) within one month, (b) one to two months and (c) two to six months after the application was received, within the last 12 months. [27708]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is an operational matter for London Underground Ltd., who have advised that within the last 12 months the number of applicants for management positions who withdrew applications, did not attend interviews or refused job offers is as follows:

  (a) within one month of receipt of application—20 applicants

  (b) one to two months afterwards—75 applicants

  (c) two to six months afterwards—37 applicants.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how long it took on average to recruit new management staff for London Underground from(a) previous internal positions and (b) external positions in the last 12 months. [27707]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is an operational matter for London Underground Ltd., who have advised that in the last 12 months it took, on average, 8.8 weeks to recruit management staff from previous internal positions, and 10.6 weeks from previous external positions.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the meetings he has had in the last 10 months with London Underground. [28481]

  Mr. Spellar
  My right hon. Friend and ministerial colleagues meet London Underground representatives on both a regular and ad hoc basis, to discuss a variety of relevant matters.

  Air Traffic Control Centre, Prestwick
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the National Air Traffic Service Prestwick Centre will be completed. [27730]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: The events of 11 September 2001 have led to a review of the phasing of the National Air Traffic Services (NATS)

  863W
  capital investment plan, which includes the New Scottish Centre (NSC). Work on the NSC building has been suspended, but continues on evaluating systems solutions.

  My officials continue to be in close discussion with NATS, who are keeping the position under review. NATS will commission further work at NSC as soon as traffic forecasts make it prudent to do so.

  Oil Tankers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make it his policy to refuse access to UK waters of single hull oil tankers; and if he will make a statement. [28045]

  Mr. Spellar
  The rights of innocent or transit passage, as provided in the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, benefit UK ships in foreign territorial waters and prevent the UK from refusing access through UK territorial waters to single hull oil tankers. However, it was recently agreed that after 2007 the oldest (unprotected) type of single hull tankers will not be allowed to operate anywhere; and the UK will not permit newer single hull tankers, fitted with partial protection, to enter its ports after 2015, exercising a new right which that agreement has given.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he intends to respond to the concerns raised by the Cally Rail Group in letters of 4 October 2001 to himself, and of 24 October and 17 December 2001 to his Department, in connection with the carrying out of Channel Tunnel Rail Link work on and around Caledonian Road, London N1. [28039]

  Mr. Byers
  My Department wrote to the Cally Rail Group on 17 October and 5 December 2001 and has subsequently provided a holding reply to their letter of 17 December. A further substantive reply has now been sent offering a meeting with representatives of the group.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether his Department's statements and the SRA plan have taken into account the delays in establishing the first special purpose vehicles in estimating completion dates for infrastructure investments. [28567]

  Mr. Spellar
  To avoid possible delays the Strategic Rail Authority has set aside funds within its strategic plan to help reduce commercial risk in projects before competitions to build them are held.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which new recommendations from multi-modal studies have been included in the SRA plan. [28565]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Strategic Rail Authority is working with my Department on the processes by which the study outcomes will be taken forward in the short, medium and long terms. The authority is currently undertaking further work on the access to hastings study.
  864W
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what impact the Strategic Rail Authority's new strategic plan will have on plans for the proposed Worcester Parkway station at Norton; and if he will make a statement. [28597]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan makes it clear that £430 million will be available over the next 10 years for the Rail Passenger Partnership Scheme which is designed to provide partnership funding for local schemes which support local and integrated transport objectives. The scheme was recently relaunched by the authority and the bidding criteria were not affected or altered by the strategic plan.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions by what mechanism the £7.5 billion public sector funding will be used to lever in the new commitments that will deliver the(a) short and (b) medium term priorities set out in the SRA strategic plan. [29232]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The private sector investment will be levered in through the franchising process, Special Purpose Vehicles and specific funding schemes such as the Rail Passenger Partnership fund.

  Central Trains
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason a two-year extension to the Central Trains franchise is expected to achieve an early increase in capacity. [28573]

  Mr. Spellar
  An extension to the existing Central Trains franchise will provide an opportunity to secure early new investment in, for example, new rolling stock and additional services.

  Rail Network
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the(a) capacity and (b) levels of usage of the rail network to carry individual services. [28548]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Strategic Rail Authority has carried out numerous studies to gauge rail use and travel patterns in order to help determine priorities for investment. It has also carried out specific capacity studies to determine where enhancement is required. The priorities for investment have been identified in the authority's strategic plan.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the changes to subsidy resulting from the implementation of cost plus agreements on the railways. [28561]

  Mr. Spellar
  Under 'cost plus' agreements, the franchisee does not commit to a subsidy/premium profile for several years at a time. Instead, the franchisee is paid an agreed margin on the costs it is expected to incur in running the franchise in the coming year.
  865W
  Prolonging these arrangements has led to a number of problems and the Strategic Rail Authority intends, as soon as possible, to replace those franchises on 'cost plus' terms with longer-term franchise contracts negotiated through competitive processes.

  Freight Facilities
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether additional funds are being made available to the relaunched Freight Facilities Grant scheme. [28558]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Freight Facilities Grant scheme now covers coastal and short sea shipping. Additional funding is accordingly being sought under SR2002.

  Fuel Taxes
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the impact of fuel taxes on road and rail passenger usage. [28571]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Department's latest assessment of the impact of changes in the cost of fuel, including taxes, on road use is given in Annex C of "Modelling using the National Road Traffic Forecasting framework for 'Tackling Congestion and Pollution' and 'Transport 2010: The 10-Year Plan'—Technical Report".

  In this assessment, the long run elasticity of car use with respect to fuel cost per car kilometre is 0.23. This means, for example, that an increase (decrease) in fuel cost per car kilometre of 10 per cent, would lead to a 2.3 per cent, decrease (increase) in car kilometres.

  As announced in the 10-Year Plan, the Department is developing its multi-modal modelling capability. This will enable estimates to be made of the impact on rail passenger usage of changes to fuel taxation.

  Rail-Air Links
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if it is his policy that rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports will not receive public funding for completion before 2010. [28569]

  (2) if it is his policy that Airtrack will not receive public funding for completion before 2010. [28568]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No. The SRA's strategic plan makes it clear that a number of major schemes, including Airtrack and direct rail links to Edinburgh and Glasgow airports, are being explored further in terms of feasibility and value for money. If increased funding becomes available, particularly through partnerships with other parts of the public sector, it may be possible to make earlier progress on some of them than intimated in the current strategic plan.

  East London Line
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how much of the proposed East London line will be complete by 2006; [28549]

  (2) whether he expects the East London line to be extended to Wimbledon by 2006. [28564]

  Mr. Spellar
  By 2006 the SRA expect to have completed and commissioned the new East London line infrastructure from New Cross Gate and Old Kent Road junction in the south to Dalston junction in the north. The new rolling stock is also expected to have been delivered by that date. The planned service to Wimbledon will be possible once the relevant South Central works by Go Via, and, if powers are granted, the relevant Thameslink 2000 works, have been completed.

  South West Trains
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) when work on extending South West Trains suburban platforms will be completed; [28555]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the timeframe for (a) establishing a special purpose vehicle and (b) completing work on the planned extension of South West Trains suburban platforms. [28542]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The establishment of a Special Purpose Vehicle and the timing of works on platform extensions are both the subject of negotiations between the Strategic Rail Authority, Stagecoach and Railtrack. The SRA are keen to progress the project, which will allow the operation of longer trains to help reduce overcrowding, as soon as possible.

  Tyne and Wear Metro
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the common usage by light and heavy rail services of the Tyne and Wear metro route. [28574]

  Mr. Spellar
  In December 1999 the Deputy Prime Minister, then Secretary of State for Transport, announced approval of funding for the extension of the Tyne and Wear metro system to Sunderland. The new line is due to open in March. In addition to building new tracks from the centre of Sunderland to South Hylton, this scheme has made use of excess capacity on existing heavy rail Railtrack lines. The promoters have worked closely with the HSE to ensure that the scheme complies with all the necessary safety requirements to enable common usage of heavy rail infrastructure.

  London Rail Termini
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the impact on capacity at London rail termini of the presence of more than one train operator. [28551]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority has identified opportunities for improvement in capacity at key London termini by bringing services under single operator control where possible.

  Waterloo
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether it is his policy to retain a single train operator at Waterloo. [28588]

  Mr. Spellar
  Eurostar, Wales and Borders and South West Trains currently operate from London Waterloo. The Strategic Rail Authority has stated that it proposes to simplify the train operator franchise structure by bringing services at key London termini under single control wherever possible.

  Thameslink 2000
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions by what date a special purpose vehicle will be established in respect of the financing of Thameslink 2000. [28589]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA is currently investigating options for the funding of the Thameslink 2000 project, if powers are granted. These options include the possibility of establishing a special purpose vehicle. It is not possible at this stage to predict when an SPV would be in place.

  Cotswold Line
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of impact on investment plans for the Cotswold line between Worcester and Oxford of a two-year extension of the Thames Trains franchise; and if he will make a statement. [28598]

  Mr. Spellar
  A two-year extension of the current Thames Trains franchise is one of the options which the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) is currently considering. Proposals for further investment in the Cotswold line and others included in the franchise are matters to be considered by the SRA in deciding whether to agree an extension.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what financial incentives are available to companies wishing to move freight from road to rail. [28382]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Strategic Rail Authority operates two grant schemes to help companies switch traffic from road to rail. The Freight Facilities Grant helps companies with the capital cost of providing rail facilities and the Track Access Grant helps rail freight operators to meet the charges paid to Railtrack for access to the network, which in turn allows operators to offer a more competitive price to companies.

  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the quantities were of freight carried on Britain's rail network in each of the last four years. [28383]

  Mr. Spellar
  Freight moved is measured in net tonne kilometres (NTKMs). This takes into account the net weight of the goods carried (excluding the weight of the 868W
  locomotive and wagons) and the distance carried. The total amount carried in each of the last four years is shown in the table:

  Billion NTKMs

  Freight moved

  1997–98

  16.9

  1998–99

  17.3

  1999–2000

  18.2

  2000–01

  18.1

  Growth in 2000–01 was not achieved because of the Hatfield derailment and subsequent network-wide problems.

  Trans-Pennine Franchise
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if, in advertising the Trans-Pennine franchise, the Strategic Rail Authority will ensure that the service continues to stop at Stalybridge station. [28508]

  Mr. Spellar
  There is currently an hourly Trans-Pennine service for Stalybridge station that is protected by the Passenger Service Requirement (PSR). Bidders for the new Trans-Pennine Express franchise have been instructed by the Strategic Rail Authority that services protected by the PSR must be maintained.

  Metropolitan Line
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many delays were caused by signal failures on the Metropolitan line in each of the last five years. [28482]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), to the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) on 18 July 2001,Official Report, column 197W. London Underground advise me that it is not possible to separate the data for signals and points.

  Postal Voting
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many votes were cast by post in the(a) 1997 and (b) 2001 general elections, broken down by constituency as (i) a percentage of total votes cast and (ii) a percentage of the electorate. [28475]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Figures of the number of votes cast by post, the total votes cast and the total electorate for the 1997 general election were published, by constituency, in Table 4 of "Election Expenses" (House of Commons Paper 260) in February 1999. Publication of the corresponding data for the 2001 general election was the responsibility of the Electoral Commission and is contained in the report entitled "Postal Votes, Proxy Votes and Spoilt Ballot Papers at the 2001 General Election" published on 17 January. Copies of both publications are in the Libraries of the House.

  Thames Trains
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many and what percentage of trains operated by Thames Trains departed late from West Drayton station in each month of(a) 2000 and (b) 2001. [28484]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Strategic Rail Authority do not keep performance figures disaggregated to station level. However, the following table shows a summary, by four weekly reporting period of the number of Thames Trains arriving at their destinations punctually:

  Industry period

  Percentage of Thames Trains arriving at destination punctually and reliably

  Period beginning 2 January 2000

  0010

  87.4

  0011

  92.4

  0012

  92.1

  0013

  92.8

  April 2000

  0101

  91.0

  0102

  90.8

  0103

  86.1

  0104

  87.2

  0105

  90.9

  0106

  88.7

  0107

  85.8

  0108

  65.9

  0109

  62.8

  0110

  76.1

  0111

  83.8

  0112

  84.5

  0113

  81.4

  April 2001

  0201

  82.8

  0202

  82.8

  0203

  81.6

  0204

  73.8

  0205

  79.1

  Year of publication/Title

  Main reason(s) for revision

  2000

  Regulation for Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, 1996 Edition (Revised), Safety Standards Series No. TS-R-1 (ST-1, Revised)

  Minor editorial amendments to 1996 Ed. Pressure test requirements aligned with International Standards

  1996

  Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, 1996 Edition, Safety Standards Series No. ST-1

  Major revision incorporating: additional air transport requirements (Type 'C' package); additional requirements for uranium hexafluoride; enhanced immersion test requirements; updated activity limits; modified, radionuclide-specific exemption values.

  1990

  Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, 1985 Edition (As Amended 1990). Safety Series No. 6

  Consolidation into a single volume of the original 1985 Edition, the two previous supplement documents and inclusion of further minor changes and changes of detail.

  1988

  Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material 1985 Edition Supplement 1988, Safety Series No. 6—Supplementary 1988

  Further amendments arising from a request to member states to identify problems applying the Regulations and proposals for change. Also incorporates amended texts to the supporting documents to the Regulations.

  1986

  Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material 1985 Edition Supplement 1986, Safety Series No. 6—Supplementary 1986

  Corrects minor errors and introduces changes of detail, unanimously agreed by the member states by direct replacement pages to the original text.

  870W

  Industry period

  Percentage of Thames Trains arriving at destination punctually and reliably

  0206

  78.8

  0207

  78.5

  0208

  76.7

  0209

  73.5

  Period ending 5 January 2002

  0210

  81.2

  Speed Cameras (Uxbridge)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many speed cameras are operating within the Uxbridge constituency. [28491]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is not held centrally.

  Nuclear Transportation
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray), on 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 601W, on nuclear transportation, if he will list (a) the dates and (b) the reasons for the last five occasions on which the International Atomic Energy Agency radioactive materials transport standards have been revised as a result of reviews. [28590]

  Mr. Spellar
  The IAEA's Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, originally published in 1961, are kept under continuous review and revised from time-to-time, as necessary, to ensure they remain effective in the light of up-to-date radiological protection standards, technological advances and operational experience. Revisions have been made in response to proposals for change and problems identified by experts from member states and concerned international transport organisations, most recently as follows:
  871W

  Year of publication/Title

  Main reason(s) for revision

  1985

  Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material 1985 Edition, Safety Series No. 6

  Fully revised edition carried out by expert panels beginning in 1979 and approved by the Board of Governors in 1984. International System (SI) of units introduced as primary units. Implements the new system of dose limitation of the 1982 Edition of the IAEA's Basic Safety Standards.

  Train Company Competition
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions by what means he intends to promote competition between train companies following the introduction of longer franchises and a single franchise serving each London terminus. [28737]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The main competition for rail operators is from road and other modes of transport, and this competitive pressure would not be reduced by the introduction of larger franchises or a policy of single franchises serving each London terminus. The aim would be to produce a more reliable, cohesive and attractive service for passengers.

  Railways
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what additional capacity is(a) planned and (b) under consideration for the railway lines between (i) London and Portsmouth, (ii) London, Southampton and Lymington and (iii) Bristol and Brighton, and for Island Line; when he expects each improvement to be complete; what the cost will be; and how much of the cost will be met from public funds; [28732]

  (2) what improvement is (a) planned and (b) under consideration for major stations on the railway lines between (i) London and Portsmouth, (ii) London, Southampton and Lymington and (iii) Bristol and Brighton, and for stations on Island Line; when he expects each improvement to be complete; what the cost will be; and how much of the cost will be met from public funds. [28733]

  Mr. Spellar
  Capacity on the Portsmouth and Southampton routes will be increased in stages over the early years of the replacement South West Trains franchise through rolling stock investment. It is proposed that capacity be increased to facilitate a half-hourly service on the Bristol to Portsmouth route. Longer term increases in capacity will depend on infrastructure investment to permit longer trains to operate. These projects, and their financial arrangements, are subject to the outcome of commercial negotiations for the new South West Trains and Wessex franchises. The Strategic Rail Authority are developing a franchise proposition for the replacement of the Island Line franchise, in consultation with the Island council. Further announcements will be made by the authority in due course.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions under the 10 year plan for rail, how much public money will be available in each of the next 10 years to support(a) infrastructure investment and (b) subsidies for operating costs to (i) the Railtrack successor body and (ii) the train operating companies. [29233]
  872W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The £33.5 billion of government support to the rail industry over the next 10 years, is projected to be profiled as in the table. A breakdown is provided between government capital investment and resource (revenue) expenditure.

  The level of future Government subsidy provided through existing franchise contracts is detailed in the 2001 SRA annual report. No other breakdown can be provided for individual companies over each of the next 10 years.

  £ billion
  1

  Resource

  Capital

  Total

  2001–02

  1.6

  0.6

  2.2

  2002–03

  1.4

  1.5

  2.8

  2003–04

  1.4

  2.5

  4.0

  2004–05

  1.5

  2.4

  3.9

  2005–06

  1.5

  2.9

  4.4

  2006–07

  1.5

  2.7

  4.2

  2007–08

  1.5

  2.2

  3.6

  2008–09

  1.6

  1.3

  2.9

  2009–10

  1.5

  1.2

  2.7

  2010–11

  1.5

  1.2

  2.7

  Total

  14.9

  18.6

  33.5

  1 Rounded

  Rail Services (Disabled Access)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage of(a) rail stations and (b) rolling stock are accessible for those who are mobility impaired; and what plans there are to increase the percentage. [28819]

  Ms Keeble
  This information is not currently held centrally. The answers will also depend on the definition of "mobility impairment" which is used—some stations and rolling stock may not be wheelchair accessible but can be accessed by other mobility impaired people. The Strategic Rail Authority will announce shortly a requirement for train operators to prepare new disabled people's protection policies. When available, these will allow national information to be provided.

  Rail Infrastructure Investment
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the level of investment in infrastructure has been in each year since 1997 on main railway lines in the UK. [28618]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 18 January 2002]: Information on rail infrastructure investment is available from Railtrack's annual report and accounts for each of the relevant years. These figures are not publicly available by individual route.

  Driving Test Examiners (West Yorkshire)
  Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many
  873W
  driving test examiners were employed in each test centre in West Yorkshire in (a) January 2002, (b) July 2001 and (c) January 2001; and how many in each category were (i) full-time and (ii) part-time. [28354]

  January 2002

  July 2001

  January 2001

  Permanent

  Other
  1

  Permanent

  Other
  1

  Permanent

  Other
  1

  Car

  Bradford (Eccleshill)

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Bradford (Heaton)

  3

  2

  3

  2

  3

  2

  Halifax

  3

  1

  3

  1

  4

  0

  Heckmondwike

  2

  1

  2

  2

  2

  1

  Huddersfield

  4

  2

  4

  2

  4

  2

  Keighley

  3

  0

  3

  0

  3

  0

  Leeds (Horsforth)

  4

  2

  4

  2

  4

  2

  Leeds (Harehills)

  8

  1

  8

  1

  8

  1

  Wakefield

  3

  1

  3

  1

  3

  1

  Total

  32

  12

  32

  13

  33

  11

  Motorcycle

  Bradford (Eccleshill)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Halifax

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leeds (Horsforth)

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Total

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1 Other=driving examiners not employed on a permanent, full-time basis: contract examiners (with work guaranteed for a minimum of 10 days per month) or fee-paid examiners (paid on a test-by-test basis to cover for short notice absence of permanent staff).

  In addition, other driving examiners were on occasions detached to test centres to cover for annual leave, sickness, and other duties, and to reduce waiting times:

  January 2002

  July 2001

  January 2001

  Permanent

  Other

  Permanent

  Other

  Permanent

  Other

  Car

  Bradford (Eccleshill)

  14

  4

  14

  4

  15

  3

  Bradford (Heaton)

  10

  4

  10

  5

  11

  3

  Halifax

  10

  8

  10

  9

  10

  7

  Heckmondwike

  12

  7

  12

  6

  13

  6

  Huddersfield

  10

  2

  10

  3

  11

  Keighley

  4

  1

  4

  1

  5

  0

  Leeds (Horsforth)

  14

  2

  14

  2

  16

  2

  Leeds (Harehills)

  8

  7

  8

  7

  9

  6

  Wakefield

  15

  4

  15

  4

  13

  4

  Total

  97

  39

  97

  41

  103

  32

  Motorcycle

  Bradford (Eccleshill)

  2

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  Halifax

  3

  0

  3

  0

  3

  0

  Leeds (Horsforth)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  5

  0

  5

  0

  5

  0

  Housing
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures his Department is taking to improve the quality of housing in areas of deprivation. [28769]

  Ms Keeble
  In July 2000 the Government set a target to bring all social housing up to set standards of decency by 2010, tackling one-third of the problem by March 2004 with most of the improvement taking place in deprived local authority areas.
  874W
  Mr. Spellar
  The following number of driving examiners were based at test centres in West Yorkshire:

  "The Way Forward for Housing", the Government's housing policy statement, set out a range of measures many of which would contribute towards achieving this target, including:
  a significant increase in investment—an additional £1.8 billion was provided in the last spending review on top of increases announced in 1998 and 2000—much of which will benefit deprived areas;
  a range of investment options for local authority housing including transfer of homes to registered social landlords and arms-length management arrangements; and
  the introduction of local housing strategies.

  A copy of the policy statement is in the Library.

  Congestion
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when targets for congestion will be agreed as part of the 10-year transport plan. [28906]

  Ms Keeble
  "Transport 2010: The 10-Year Plan", published in July 2000, contained a target"to reduce road congestion on the inter-urban network and in large urban areas in England below current levels by 2010 by promoting integrated transport solutions and investing in public transport and the road network".

  Fire Service SSA
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to reform the standard spending assessment allocation for fire services taking into account fire prevention work; and if he will make a statement. [28919]

  Dr. Whitehead
  In partnership with the Local Government Association and other local authority organisations we are reviewing the local government finance grant distribution formula. We have already made the commitment that, when the new formula is introduced for the 2003–04 Local Government Finance Settlement, the perverse incentive of the fire calls indicator (whereby fire authorities are effectively penalised for reducing the number of calls) will be removed. Other options that are being considered include increasing the share that is allocated for fire safety education.

  Fishing (Light Dues)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will calculate the amount paid in light dues by British registered fishing vessels in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what proposals he has to exempt British registered fishing vessels from the payment of light dues. [29086]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The amount of light dues invoiced to UK registered fishing vessels for the financial year 2001–02 (April to March) is £672,326. We have no current plans to exempt fishing vessels from the payment of light dues, but we intend to consult all users of the general lighthouse authorities' aids to navigation on the charging structure.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list those European Union member nations which levy light dues on their domestically registered fishing vessels; and what assessment he has made of the effect of light dues on the competitiveness of British registered vessels in comparison with vessels from fishing fleets of other European Union member nations. [29087]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The lighthouse authorities in the UK and Ireland are funded through the general lighthouse fund, which is administered by DTLR. The Irish Government make a contribution to the fund towards the costs of provision of aids to navigation in the Irish Republic, and do not require fishing vessels in the Irish Republic to pay light dues. We do not have information on arrangements for covering the costs of provision of aids to navigation in other member states.

  Road Maintenance Survey
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reasons the present form of the annual road maintenance survey is to be discontinued; how the replacement statistical series will differ; and if he will make a statement. [28907]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The National Road Maintenance Condition Survey (NRMCS) reports on the condition of roads, footways, kerbs and verges in England and Wales. It was introduced in 1977 as a visual survey of defects and subsequently extended to include surveys of structural condition and skidding resistance. Recent technical advances and organisational changes affecting the management of the national and local road networks have provided the opportunity to collect the information more efficiently.

  In future, the data for statistics of road maintenance conditions will be those which each authority now collects in order to manage its own network and to produce best value performance indicators. This has a number of advantages. Firstly, there will be cost savings to authorities as they will no longer be asked to collect separate data for NRMCS. This should also give rise to increased response rates. Secondly, the new methods of data collection use latest technology to monitor the whole of the road network, as opposed to a sample of 100 m road lengths as in the old NRMCS. As a result, we will be able to publish meaningful comparisons at authority and regional level for the first time which will also serve to improve the accuracy of the national results.

  The new survey will be more comprehensive than the old NRMCS. Coverage will include motorways (excluded from the old visual survey), and roads with a concrete running surface will come within the survey for the first time. In addition the condition of cycleways will be recorded.

  The new information will also enable the monitoring of two objectives in the 10-Year Plan for Transport—halting local road deterioration by 2004 and eliminating the backlogs in their maintenance by 2010–11. The new survey will continue to provide information on the condition of roads but should also enable the calculation of more precise estimates of the amount of outstanding maintenance than those currently derived from the visual survey.

  These new arrangements are being phased in over three years. Each part of the new survey will run in parallel with the corresponding part of the old survey for a period of one year to ensure consistency over time.

  Ministerial Meetings (Scottish Parliament)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he last met the Scottish Minister for Transport; and what issues were discussed. [29483]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State met Wendy Alexander, the Scottish Minister for Transport, on Wednesday 16 January. A number of issues were discussed including the SRA Strategic Plan, the ScotRail franchise, and the recent industrial action on the Scottish railways.

  Wind Power
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is relating to guidance to district councils concerning the grant of planning consent for siting smaller wind turbines(a) singularly and in pairs, (b) in the support of farmers seeking to diversify through earning revenue through wind power generation and (c) to local communities for local power generation for the benefit of the community. [29283]

  Ms Keeble
  Guidance on planning policy for renewable energy is set out in PPG 22. This provides local planning authorities with guidance on a range of issues that affect the siting of renewable energy projects, including the siting of one or two wind turbines.

  English Partnerships
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what consultations are taking place over the future of English Partnerships. [29388]

  Ms Keeble
  As part of stage one of the current review of English Partnerships, a range of EP's partners and stakeholders, including the regional development agencies, have been consulted. Consultations have also taken place with groups of staff from English Partnerships and with the management of the organisation.

  A dedicated e-mail address has also been set up to encourage comments from anyone interested in the review.

  Rail Delays
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the total weekly rail delays, in minutes, for each week from 1 May 1997 to 21 January 2002, broken down to show delays(a) attributable to Railtrack and (b) attributable to train operating companies; and if he will make a statement. [27054]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Government Expenditure Review
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the timetable for the review of local government expenditure. [29328]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We will implement reform of the local government grant distribution system in time for setting out the provisional 2003–04.

  Rail Industry (EU Guidelines)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance he has given to the Strategic Rail Authority on the implications of the European Council's Broad Guidelines of the Economic Policies of the Member States and the Community on the future structure of the rail industry. [29121]
  878W
  Mr. Byers
  The Government's policies, including those of the Strategic Rail Authority, are consistent with these Broad Guidelines.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Solicitor-General what equipment has been stolen from her Department since 1 May 1997; and what the approximate value of each item was. [26840]

  The Solicitor-General
  I am not aware of any departmental equipment being stolen from the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers since 1 May 1997.

  The details of other Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible are as follows:

  £

  Year

  Equipment

  Valued at

  Crown Prosecution Service

  1997–98

  —

  —

  1998–99

  1 computer

  2,000.00

  1 laptop computer

  800.00

  1999–2000

  2 computers

  4,000.00

  1 laptop computer

  2,842.00

  1 computer and printer

  2,700.00

  2000–01

  1 mobile telephone

  170.00

  2001–02

  1 mobile telephone

  150.00

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  1997

  1 date stamp and pad

  2.07

  1 calculator

  5.50

  Computer memory chips

  1,144.36

  1998

  1 mobile telephone

  95.00

  3 dictaphone machines

  196.00

  1999

  —

  —

  2000

  —

  —

  2001

  1 mobile telephone

  174.00

  1 laptop computer

  850.00

  Serious Fraud Office

  1997

  —

  —

  1998

  —

  —

  1999

  —

  —

  2000

  1 mobile telephone

  65.00

  2001

  2 mobile telephones

  130.00

  1 laptop computer

  1,600.00

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Solicitor-General what costs have been incurred by her Department in connection with the Saville inquiry; and what her estimate is of the final cost to her Department. [29066]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Departments for which the Attorney-General answers in Parliament are the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office and the Treasury Solicitor's Department, as well as his own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers.

  The Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office have not incurred any costs in connection with the Bloody Sunday inquiry and do not expect to do so.
  879W
  The Treasury Solicitor's Department carries out legal work for other Departments, such as the Ministry of Defence, on a full cost recovery basis. While substantial work has been done by the Treasury Solicitor's Department in relation to the inquiry, in so far as that work is directly connected with the inquiry, the cost will be recovered or has been recovered from the client Department or Departments represented. The Treasury Solicitor's Department has provided representation before the inquiry for two ex-members of staff. The cost of this representation, which has been borne by the Department, is approximately £15,500.

  The Attorney-General and lawyers in both the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers will, in the normal course of their duties, have been called upon to give advice on certain matters arising as a result of the Bloody Sunday inquiry. In so far as these costs can be assessed, an approximate figure would be £70,500. No assessment can be made of what the final cost may be as it will depend on whether further advice or assistance is sought or becomes necessary.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Wind Power Generators
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of the EU grant aid has been issued to farmers in Objective 1 areas for siting small scale wind power generators; and what steps her Department is taking to ease access to these funds. [29285]

  Alan Johnson
  No EU grant aid from the structural funds has been issued to farmers for siting small scale wind power generators in Objective 1 areas.

  The Department's website has information on the structural funds and potential sources of match funding. The website of each Government office in the regions gives details of the programmes for the region. These sites also contain advice on how applications can be made.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to review consumer protection laws in relation to internet purchasing of goods and services. [26076]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Existing consumer protection laws, such as the Distance Selling Regulations and the Sale of Goods legislation, apply equally to internet purchasing as when shopping on the high street. In November 2001 I launched a campaign with my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness to raise awareness of consumer rights when e-shopping and to demonstrate that internet shopping is safe as long as shoppers follow basic guidelines.

  Consumer protection laws will be reviewed to ensure, in compliance with the E-Commerce Directive, that they do not prevent contracts being concluded by electronic means. The E-Commerce Directive will also create some additional safeguards for those purchasing goods and services online.

  Radioactive Waste (North-East Atlantic)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the minimum length of time the isotopes deposited west of Land's End in the 1960s and 1970s will remain radioactive. [27190]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  Radioactive waste was deposited at several locations in the north-east Atlantic during the 1960s and 1970s. This waste contained many different radioactive isotopes with widely varying rates of decay. For example, plutonium-239 (Pu-239) has a half-life of around 24,000 years, whereas tritium (H-3) has a half-life of 12.3 years. In view of this, it is not possible to make a single estimate of the length of time that the material will remain radioactive. Details of the radionuclides which the material contained are included in the "Report of the Independent Review of Disposal of Radioactive Waste in the North East Atlantic" (HMSO, 1984), copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Places of Worship
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what estimate she has made of the cost to English Heritage of administering the VAT/grant recovery scheme for places of worship; and if she will make a statement; [28915]

  (2) for what reason the administration of the VAT/grant recovery scheme for places of worship is administered by English Heritage; and if she will make a statement. [28914]

  Dr. Howells
  CSL Group Ltd. are DCMS's appointed contractors for the Listed Places of Worship (LPW) Grant scheme. Initial estimates are that the LPW Scheme could be worth up to £30 million per year. There is no cap on the scheme; all listed places of worship that meet the criteria will receive a grant. This Department has been asked to make a small contribution to the costs of the scheme. We have asked English Heritage to help us meet this commitment, which they have chosen to do through the redirection of £2 million in grant-in-aid from the Joint Places of Worship (JPOW) scheme.

  Film Council
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the criteria employed by the Film Council to assess the suitability of applications to each of its funds. [29429]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The Film Council sets out its criteria for assessing the suitability of applications in the published application guidance for the relevant fund. Each guidance complies with the policy and financial directions issued to the Film Council under sections 26 (1), (3), (3A) and (4) of the National Lottery Etc. Act 1993 (as amended by the National Lottery Act 1998).

  In respect of its film financing funds—the development fund, the new cinema fund and the premiere fund—the eligibility and selection criteria are clearly linked back

  881W
  to attaining the objectives for the relevant fund. The guidance also states that applications for development or production finance will be assessed on the creative merits of the projects by the head of the relevant fund. Their creative judgment to fund a project is complemented by an assessment of financial and contractual matters all under the control of the Film Council's chief executive officer.

  In respect of the training fund the key criteria are that the application meets the various training specifications as set out and that the project meets the objectives of the fund.

  In respect of the regional investment fund for England, the Film Council is in the process of delegating decision-making on applications to new regional film agencies. These agencies will operate under a detailed framework agreement which sets out the parameters within which any decisions should be made.

  A similar framework agreement which includes parameters for creative, operational and financial criteria is in place with the council's delegate body responsible for "First Light"—a fund for film making by children and young people.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make an estimate of the value to the Film Council of(a) profit share schemes, (b) shares in copyright and (c) other property or rights received, as a result of grants made under each of the Film Council's funds since 1 April 2000. [29430]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The valuation of film rights is not made under the headings listed in the question. The valuation is made in accordance with the additional disclosure requirements of the accounts direction given by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for the Film Council's national lottery fund.

  The Film Council prepares a valuation of film rights at the end of each financial year. In respect of its lottery funds this valuation is disclosed in its report and lottery accounts. The accounts for 2000–01 were laid before Parliament on 12 December 2001. In 2000–01 the net value of film rights is reported as £12,490,930 against awards made totalling £24,864,352. A detailed breakdown is contained within schedule 1 to the accounts. The valuation for grants made since 1 April 2001 will be undertaken after the end of the financial year as part of preparation of the 2001–02 accounts.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list grants made by the Film Council since 1 April 2000 stating for each the(a) amount of the grant, (b) date of the grant, (c) purpose of the grant, (d) company, person or organisation to whom the grant was made, (e) name of the film or project for which the grant was to be used and (f) fund from which the grant was made. [29431]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: I am arranging for copies of the information requested by the hon. Member to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many applications to each fund of the Film Council since 1 April 2000 have been successful. [29428]
  882W
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: Between 1 April 2000 and 31 December 2001 the following applications to the Film Council have been successful:

  Lottery Film Franchises—55

  Premiere Fund—17 awards

  Development Fund—75 (including 12 successful slate applications)

  New Cinema Fund—33 (including 12 awards to run digital shorts programmes)

  Training Fund—79 (including bursary awards to 61 individuals)

  First Light—54.

  These figures exclude awards which have lapsed, been withdrawn or have not been taken up. Some projects have applied for and received separate allocations of funding against specific elements of the same project.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the work of the Film Council. [29411]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The Film Council started work in April 2000 with the long term objective of creating a sustainable UK film industry.

  It has done this by supporting a range of film productions, and most importantly for the long term, helping the development of films and film-makers. The Film Council is developing close relationships with European colleagues; it has for the first time brought together film interests in each of the English regions; introduced programmes for young people and training for the industry; and it is working up policies on exhibition and distribution and to give practical help for exports.

  The Film Council's annual report, which will be published shortly, will give more details of their achievements.

  Free Television Licence (Wealden)
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pensioners in Wealden receive the free television licence for people over 75 years of age. [29713]

  Dr. Howells
  TV Licensing, which administers for the BBC as licensing authority the free television licence scheme, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 9,000 people aged 75 or over in the Wealden constituency.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gurkhas (Commemoration)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will introduce plans to commemorate the military assistance given by Nepal to the United Kingdom in(a) the two World Wars and (b) other significant conflicts. [24748]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We rightly commemorate the immense contribution that the Nepalese, through the Gurkhas, have made to the United Kingdom in the world wars and in other conflicts. The Gurkhas, as an integral part of the British Army, are commemorated at Remembrance
  883W
  Day. The Nepalese Ambassador is the only non-Commonwealth foreign representative to attend the commemoration. The Gurkha Statue near the Ministry of Defence Main Building, unveiled by Her Majesty the Queen in December 1997, is another permanent reminder of the contribution of the Gurkhas, and the Gurkha Gardens in Winchester is no less important a memorial.

  The Gurkhas are also commemorated in a more practical way through the work of the Gurkha Welfare Trust, an independent registered charity, which provides financial, medical and community aid to alleviate hardship and distress among Gurkha ex-servicemen of the British Army and their dependants after they have returned to their homeland of Nepal. The MOD recognises the valuable work that this trust does and makes a substantial annual grant towards its administrative costs.

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [27303]

  Mr. Straw
  The information is as follows:

  Cost of fraud in Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  £

  FCO (fraud)

  Recovered

  Net loss

  May 1997 to March 1998

  114,385

  4,396

  109,989

  April 1998 to March 1999

  102,202

  6,705

  95,497

  April 1999 to March 2000

  11,183

  11,183

  0

  April 2000 to March 2001

  16,326

  15,553

  773

  April 2001 to December 2001

  38,125

  20,092

  18,033

  Total identified fraud for period 1 May 1997 to 31 December 2001= 282,221

  Total sums recovered to date = 57,929

  Net loss = 224,292

  Stolen/lost Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those items valued at more than £50 which have been stolen or lost from his Department in each of the last four years. [27988]

  Mr. MacShane
  The following equipment, valued at over £50.00, has been reported stolen or lost from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the UK in the last four years:

  Value (£)

  1998

  27 May

  Video player

  150

  3 July

  CD ROM player

  150

  4 August

  Canon Colour printer

  140

  1999

  6 January

  Socket mother board, Intel processor, hard disk, unclassified video card, internal modem card

  300

  13 May

  Laptop

  2,000

  3 September

  Laptop

  2,000

  4 October

  Answerphone

  100

  2000

  10 January

  Hard disks on 2 computer stations

  400

  884W

  Value (£)

  21 January

  Harddrives RAM and CPU processors on 2 computers

  900

  28 March

  Computer components

  500

  15 April

  Laptop

  2,000

  17 April

  RAM and processors

  300

  26 April

  RAM and processors

  300

  4 May

  RAM and processors

  300

  4 December

  Palm pilot computer

  500

  2001

  28 February

  Computer and hardware, digital camera CDRW Drives, Firecrest PC, external CD ROM for laptop

  1,200

  27 February

  Laptop Toshiba

  2,000

  Unknown

  Scanner

  300

  16 March

  Laptop

  2,000

  11 April

  Minidisc player

  200

  10 April

  Telephone

  80

  13 March

  Shortwave Radio

  200

  22 May

  Boxed PC, monitor/keyboard

  1,200

  17 August

  Flat screen monitor

  450

  29 October

  Laptop

  2,000

  2002

  10 January

  7 x 17" monitors

  1,400

  Afghanistan
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has sought, and what communications he has received, from the United States Administration in respect of the circumstances surrounding the uprising and battle at the prison fort outside Mazar-e-Sharif in Afghanistan; how many prisoners were killed; if United Kingdom citizens are known to have been killed or captured; and what role British military personnel played in the action. [28504]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We do not have details of the numbers killed or captured, and are not aware that any UK citizens were among those killed or captured.

  My hon. Friend will understand that, for reasons of operational security, I cannot go into specific details about the involvement of British troops in this incident. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that, following an uprising by Taliban fighters being held at the fort, who overpowered their captors and seized the armoury, British troops went to the aid of their US colleagues. Under heavy fire they attempted to recover two US personnel apparently captured by the Taliban fighters.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates of foreign visits he has made since 11 September; which countries he visited; whom he met; what was discussed; what the size of his entourage was; which other Ministers accompanied him; and what the total cost was of each visit. [28789]

  Mr. Straw
  Since 11 September I have made the following overseas visits and met the following leaders:

  12 September

  Special GAC Brussels.

  Belgium—Secretary General Solana, President Prodi, Vice-President Kinnock, Commissioner Lamy, Commissioner Patten.

  885W
  21 September

  Extraordinary European Council, Brussels.

  24-27 September

  Jordan—King Abdullah, Prime Minister al-Ragheb, Foreign Minister Khatib, President Arafat.

  Iran—President Khatemi, Foreign Minister Dr. Kharrazi.

  Israel—Prime Minister Sharon, Foreign Minister Peres.

  Egypt—President Mubarak.

  8 October

  GAC Luxembourg.

  17 October

  GAC Luxembourg.

  17–18 October

  Turkey—President Sezer, Prime Minister Ecevit, Foreign Minister Cem.

  23–25 October

  USA—Vice-President Cheney, Secretary of State General Powell, Secretary of State for Defence Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defence Wolfowitz.

  29 October

  GAC Luxembourg.

  30–l31 October

  Russia—Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov.

  Poland—Prime Minister Miller, Foreign Minister Cimoszewicz.

  9–14 November

  USA—UNGA.

  19 November

  GAC Brussels.

  19–20 November

  Spain—Foreign Minister Pique.

  21–23 November

  Iran—Foreign Minister Dr. Kharrazi, Abdullah Abdullah (now Foreign Minister of the Interim Administration in Afghanistan).

  Pakistan—President Musharraf, Foreign Minister Sattar.

  Bahrain—Foreign Minister Shaikh Mohammed bin Mubarak Al-Khalfia.

  6–7 December

  Belgium—NAC Meeting.

  10 December

  GAC Brussels.

  13–15 December

  Belgium—Laeken European Council.

  21–23 January

  Democratic Republic of Congo—President Kabila, Foreign Minister Ukitundu.

  Rwanda—President Kagame, Foreign Minister Bumaya.

  Burundi—President Buyoya, Vice-President Ndayizeye.

  Uganda—President Museveni, Foreign Minister Wapakhabulo.

  A range of issues was discussed during these visits, including the international coalition against terrorism, the middle east peace process, EU affairs, bilateral relations and regional issues.

  The Prime Minister attended the Extraordinary European Council in Brussels on 21 September and the Laeken European Council in Brussels, 13-15 December. The Chancellor of the Exchequer attended the Laeken
  886W
  European Council. The Minister for Europe attended the GACs on 29 October, 10 November and 19 November and the Laeken European Council.

  A detailed list of Cabinet Ministers' visits overseas and information on expenditure by all Ministers on overseas travel for the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 will be published as soon as possible after the end of this financial year.

  Colombia
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to ensure that the Colombian Government conducts a full investigation into human rights violations in Colombian cities; and if he will make a statement. [29227]

  Mr. MacShane
  We are very concerned about the deteriorating human rights situation in Colombia. I had comprehensive discussions with the Colombian Government about human rights, including allegations of human rights violations in the town of Barrancabermeja, during my visit to Colombia last October. Last year, HM ambassador to Colombia and other embassy staff visited Medellin, Cali and other major cities and towns where they met and expressed support for peace activists and human rights NGOs, and raised our concerns with the Colombian authorities. We strongly support the work of the Colombian human rights ombudsman, who I met last October, who regularly publishes reports into human rights violations.

  Visas
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for a visa to visit family members in the United Kingdom were refused in(a) November and (b) December 2001. [28787]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Provisional figures, based on monthly statistical returns from the largest 110 entry clearance posts handling 98 per cent, of all visa applications are:

  Refused November 2001: 3,8461

  Refused December 2001: 2,1642

  1 Figures from six posts still awaited.

  2 Figures from 29 posts still awaited.

  Terrorist Attacks (Middle East)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment he has made of the number of terrorist attacks carried out by members of the Fatah from within the Palestinian Authority in the last 12 months; [28831]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the organisations responsible for the terrorist attack on the Israeli town of Afula on 27 November 2001. [28832]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) on 9 January 2002,Official Report, column 919W.

  World Conference Against Racism
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has
  887W
  been made in negotiating and translating the final text for the Declaration and Programme of Action agreed at the UN World Conference Against Racism held in Durban from 31 August to 8 December 2001; what preparations he has made to publish and distribute English and other language versions of the final text in the UK; what preparations he has made to consult NGOs and minority ethnic organisations on the construction of a national plan of action based on these texts as required by the Durban agreement; and what his time scale is for consultation with (a) devolved Administrations and (b) dependent territories. [29246]

  Peter Hain
  The agreed Declaration and Programme of Action of the World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) were published by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on 2 January. English, French and Spanish versions are currently available on the website of the OHCHR www.ohchr.ch. The UN General Assembly Third Committee will reconvene in February to adopt the documents formally. Home Office officials will hold a preliminary consultation with NGOs and others involved in the preparations for WCAR on 4 February to discuss, inter alia, publication and further translation of the documents in the UK and the construction of a national plan of action. The devolved Administrations, who were also consulted before Durban, have been invited to the 4 February meeting. The Home Office will send copies of the documents to the dependent territories for consultation once they have been formally adopted by the UN.

  Poland (EU Accession)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role Britain is playing in helping Poland to join the EU. [28916]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and I have regular contact with our Polish counterparts. We are heavily involved in the Commission's Twinning programme: since 1998, we have won involvement in 23 Polish projects, covering such areas as organised crime and implementation of the CAP. Our action plan with Poland covers a range of further bilateral assistance to their accession preparations. We are doing all we can to assist Poland with her accession negotiations, as we want to see Poland ready by the end of this year to join the EU.

  Iraq
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has been given indicating whether the al-Qaeda network has a presence in Iraq. [28894]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have seen no evidence which demonstrates that an al-Qaeda network exists in Iraq.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the United States Administration on extension of the war on terrorism to Iraq. [28895]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We frequently discuss all aspects of Iraq policy with our US counterparts. We are not speculating about the prospects of military action beyond Afghanistan.
  888W
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on sanctions on Iraq; and what plans there are to end them. [28892]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  UN controls on Iraq, imposed after its invasion of Kuwait in 1990, have successfully contained Iraq's ability to attack its neighbours, use chemical weapons against the Iraqi people and develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD)—all of which are part of its quite recent history. UN resolution 1284, a UK initiative, continues to offer Iraq the route out of these controls, if it chooses to co-operate and meet its international obligations, particularly on the disposal of its WMD. All members of the Security Council believe that rigorous controls must however remain on the Iraqi regime while it refuses to co-operate. In the meantime, the UK continues to lead the way in refining these controls to improve the flow of goods to the Iraqi people, while maintaining control on the Iraqi regime's access to WMD/military-related items.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many officials from his Department have attended the environmental appraisal and integration into policy training course run by the Civil Service College. [29007]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: No FCO officials have attended the course at the Civil Service College. We have developed our own suite of training courses covering environment, with the help of the University of Surrey Centre for Environmental Strategy. The courses provide guidance on how to integrate environment into foreign policy and FCO operations.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the last occasion was on which he requested an environmental appraisal before making a policy decision. [29004]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: No such request has been made.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedures his Department has to ensure environmental appraisals are undertaken prior to(a) administrative and (b) policy decisions being made. [29005]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: Consultation with the relevant FCO department is required on all administrative and policy decisions with an environmental impact.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has to appraise the environmental implications of its Spending Review submission to the Treasury. [29006]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: The FCO will submit a Sustainable Development Report to the Treasury as part of its Spending Review submission. The environmental implications of the submission will be considered in this report.
  889W
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many environmental appraisals have been published by his Department since 1 January 2001; and if he will list the last four. [29003]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: No such appraisals have been published.

  International Terrorism
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to speak to the Indonesian authorities concerning al-Qaeda and the war on terrorism. [29292]

  Mr. Straw
  Regular discussions with the Indonesian authorities on a range of matters, including terrorism, continue.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the United States Government regarding the extension of the campaign against international terrorism; and if he will make a statement. [27678]

  Mr. Straw
  We regularly discuss all aspects of the campaign against terrorism with the US Government. We share the concern of all responsible governments at the existence of international terrorist networks.

  Ministerial Visit (Africa)
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries he will be visiting during his forthcoming visit to Africa; and if the Prime Minister will be accompanying him. [29289]

  Mr. Straw
  I am paying a joint visit with French Foreign Minister Vedrine on 21-23 January 2002 to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda. The Prime Minister will not be accompanying us.

  Money Laundering (African Governments)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent investigations he has undertaken to check that senior members of the Governments of(a) Kenya, (b) Zambia and (c) Zimbabwe and their respective families have not laundered money through (i) the City of London and (ii) Switzerland. [29118]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: The UK plays a leading role in international efforts to combat money laundering and corruption. The UK co-operates with a wide range of international partners to this end.

  I am withholding further information under Exemption 4 (b) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Turkey (EU Accession)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of Turkey's progress towards meeting the entry requirements for accession into the EU; and if he will make a statement. [27679]
  890W
  Mr. Straw
  We welcome Turkey's recent constitutional changes as progress towards meeting the Copenhagen criteria. As the Laeken European Council in December noted, Turkey's reforms have brought forward the prospect of the opening of EU accession negotiations for Turkey. Further reforms are needed before Turkey can start negotiations with the EU. We are therefore encouraging the Turkish Government to continue their programme of political and economic reform, in line with the Accession Partnership, notably with regard to human rights.

  China
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chinese authorities to ensure that there will be no human rights abuse in China during the preparations and hosting of the 2008 Olympics. [28716]

  Mr. MacShane
  We take every opportunity to press the Chinese authorities to improve their human rights record. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did so with the Chinese Foreign Minister, Mr. Tang Jiaxuan, on 17 January.

  Civil Defence Grant
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the level of civil defence grant will be for the next financial year. [30365]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government have now completed their consideration of what is necessary and affordable for emergency planning by local authorities having regard to the demands that have been placed on emergency planners in recent times. We have decided, subject to the Civil Defence (Grant) Bill completing its passage through Parliament, to maintain the total grant level at around this year's level, currently estimated at some £18.6 million. The next stage is to decide how the grant will be distributed between the eligible authorities. Consideration is currently being given to the use of a formula and we will consult local authority representatives before finalising the grant allocation mechanism.

  Special Advisers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average time is that the Head of his Department has recommended since May 1997 between a special adviser leaving his Department and taking up outside employment; and if he will make a statement. [28910]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided to him by the Prime Minister on 21 January 2002,Official Report, column 594W.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many civil servants work for each Government Department; [28068]

  (2) in each Government Department, what proportion of civil servants are (a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities. [28071]
  891W
  Mr. Leslie
  Figures for April 2001 were published on 8 November 2001 in a press notice, copies of which can be found in the Library of the House. This information can also be accessed on the world wide web at www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the salary is for each of the civil service grades. [28069]

  Mr. Leslie
  The latest information, broken down by salary and grade level, is published in "Civil Service Statistics 2000" and is based on 1 April 2000 data. Copies of the publication can be found in the Library of the House. Table H of that publication shows numbers of civil servants by salary band and responsibility level. Departments and agencies are responsible for their own grading structures, but these have been allocated to broad responsibility levels to give a common basis for tabulation

  For the senior civil service, new bands will be introduced from 1 April 2002. I refer my hon. Friend to the Prime Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) on 10 January 2002, Official Report, column 993W, and to the documents placed in the Library of the House.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her estimate is of the(a) annual cost and (b) total value of the empty properties owned by (i) her Department, (ii) her agencies and (iii) other public bodies for which she has had responsibility in each of the last four years. [30075]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development owns no empty properties. There are no agencies or other public bodies for which we are responsible.

  Afghanistan
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the frequency of the accidental triggering of land mines arising from the internal emigration of Afghans from the cities to the countryside following the start of the bombing of Afghan cities in October 2001. [28652]

  Hilary Benn
  Afghanistan has long been one of the countries most severely affected by land mine contamination, a problem which has existed for about 20 years.

  The provision of precise information on mine/UXO victims since September 2001 is very limited. Reporting to hospitals by land mine/UXO victims has been disrupted by hostilities and by the restrictions on freedom of movement. The limited information that has been reported to the Mine Action Programme for Afghanistan (MAPA) indicates that land mines continue to claim lives throughout the country as people move in areas that are
  892W
  at risk. Unfortunately the problem is expected to worsen with the increasing repatriation of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs).

  Mine action operations will continue to be focused on supporting humanitarian aid movements through the clearance of communication routes, airports and high priority areas near to civilian populations, thereby reducing the risk for returnees. Coalition forces are sharing information with the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS).

  As part of our overall commitment of £60 million to support the UN led humanitarian and recovery effort, we have allocated £3 million through UNMAS for future humanitarian mine action interventions in Afghanistan. This will cover mine clearance operations in Afghanistan as described above.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what(a) money and (b) logistical resources have been (i) donated to and (ii) committed to the reconstruction of the physical, environmental and institutional infrastructures of Afghanistan by the United Kingdom and other donor countries. [28521]

  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, I 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 with be 20 per cent.

  More than 50 countries and international organisations are currently represented at the Tokyo conference and a consolidated total of pledges will be announced when the conference concludes. This will be reported on the website www.reliefweb.int.

  Money Laundering (African Governments)
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what attempts she is making to monitor money sent overseas by President Mugabe; [28759]
  893W
  (2) what attempts she is making to monitor money sent overseas by President Daniel Arap Moi of Kenya; [28760]

  (3) what discussions she has had with the Swiss authorities in order to freeze President Mugabe's overseas accounts [28761]

  Peter Hain
  I have been asked to reply.
  894W
  The UK plays a leading role in international efforts to combat money laundering and corruption. The UK co-operates with a wide range of international partners to this end.

  I am withholding further information under Exemption 4(b) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Special Educational Needs
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will ensure that special schools continue to be part of the range of special needs provision. [27056]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government's policy on special schools is clear. We want to build on the wealth of expertise within the special school sector and ensure it is at the heart of inclusive education systems. Special schools have a continuing and vital role to play, and in future will need to be confident, outward looking centres of excellence working in partnership with mainstream

  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

  32.33

  736.787

  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 1990–2001 to 1998–99 inclusive are taken from RO1 returns; data for 1999–2000 taken from local authorities' S52 outturn statements.

  School Teachers' Review Body
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the report of the School Teachers' Review Body. [29889]

  Estelle Morris
  The 2002 report of the School Teachers' Review Body has been laid before Parliament and is available in the Vote Office. I am grateful to the Chair and members of the Review Body for sustaining their important work on the Modernisation of the pay system for the teaching profession.
  896W
  schools. It is for local education authorities to determine the pattern of their provision in order to meet pupils' needs and take account of parents' wishes.

  School Funding (London)
  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.

  In making their recommendations, the Review Body were required to have regard to:
  the principles of good school leadership, incentives for excellence, a strong culture of professional development and better support for teachers to focus on teaching;
  the Government's priorities for delivering a higher quality education service;
  local government funding levels, from which all service improvements and pay settlements must be funded;
  the Government's inflation target, which required responsibility in all pay settlements;

  897W
  the need for schools to recruit, retain and motivate sufficient teachers and members of the leadership group of the required quality to deal effectively with the challenges they face;
  any prospects there may be of making the pay structure simpler and more flexible; and
  the cost of registration with the General Teaching Councils for England and Wales.

  I have considered the report carefully against these considerations and am satisfied that they are met. Accordingly I have decided to accept the Review Body's main statutory recommendations subject to consultation. They are in line with the Government's prudent and disciplined approach to public spending and their commitment to deliver high quality public services and low inflation.

  My proposals, which will take effect from 1 September 2002 except where stated otherwise, are as follows:

  General pay increase
  With effect from 1 April 2002, the values of the pay spine and scale points and allowances for qualified and unqualified classroom teachers, members of the leadership group and advanced skills teachers should be increased by 3.5 per cent.; London allowances other than the inner London Supplement should be increased by 3.5 per cent.; and a sum of £33 should be added to all spine and scale points for qualified teachers in recognition of the cost of General Teaching Council fees.

  Main pay scale for classroom teachers
  The main pay scale for classroom teachers should be shortened from nine points to six, and the distinction between good honours graduates and others abolished so that all newly qualified entrants will be eligible to apply for the performance threshold after five years.

  Upper pay scale
  The Review Body have asked that sufficient resources be made available to ensure that teachers who meet the performance criteria for progression on the upper pay scale can in fact progress. This is not a statutory recommendation, because funding is not part of teachers' statutory conditions of employment. I do not propose to increase special grant funding. The special grant is no more than a contribution to funds already available in school budgets, to encourage headteachers and governing bodies to award points as appropriate.
  Upper pay scale points should remain an entitlement when teachers transfer between schools and also that there should not be scope for voluntary forfeiture.

  Leadership group pay
  Governing bodies should have the authority to change the headteacher's individual school ranges (ISR) at any time in order to attract or retain a headteacher. The existing provision for the governing body to set, in exceptional circumstances, an ISR to extend beyond the school group maximum should be available for retention as well as for recruitment purposes. The justification for such a decision should be required to be recorded in writing.
  Up to two performance points should be available to be awarded in any one year to members of the leadership group when the governing body considers such action to be justified.
  Where headteachers are given a temporary ISR in circumstances where they are seconded to turn around a failing school, and do not receive one or more performance points because they revert to their main posts, such points should be paid as a lump sum.
  Two extra points should be added on top of each school range, including the creation of extra spine points L42 and L43, to allow such an extension for group eight, in order to provide adequate scope for setting and reviewing ISRs.
  898W
  The performance threshold
  Monitoring should continue in order to ensure any patterns of disadvantage among applicants for the performance threshold are quickly detected and their causes remedied.
  External assessors should visit schools and local authority services/units with applicants on a selective rather than universal basis.
  Teachers reaching the top of the main pay scale in September 2002 should be eligible to apply for threshold assessment in autumn 2002 as well as teachers reaching the top of the pay scale in September 2001.
  The Department should monitor the impact of guidance on threshold standards during the third round of threshold assessment and hold further discussions with the parties on the wording of the standards themselves if significant concerns remain.
  The Department should consult the interested parties on the issue of recognition of sixth form college professional standards and make a decision accordingly.
  The Department, in consultation with the parties, should ensure that effective feedback arrangements are implemented and efforts continue to improve and simplify the application process.
  The Department should ensure that the review process operates more quickly in future.
  The above proposals should take effect as soon as appropriate.

  Advanced skills teachers (ASTs)
  The Department should pursue with the interested parties the issues it raised in evidence in relation to inreach and outreach duties, management roles and review of pay ranges. The requirement for new ASTs to have passed the performance threshold will be removed.

  Other issues
  The fifth management allowance for classroom teachers should be retained.
  The Department should work together with the interested parties to establish more coherent and consistent procedures for payment for in-service training, initial teacher training activities and out-of-school learning activities.
  The Department should resolve the issue of recognition of relevant teaching and non-teaching experience through the award of experience points in consultation with the interested parties.
  The Department should again produce a statement on the pay structure, for issue to teachers in 2002.
  The Department will consider further with the interested parties whether it should undertake a study into the pay and conditions of headteachers in early years education in 2002.

  899W
  The Department will consider further with the interested parties whether it should initiate a review of the pay and terms and conditions of unattached teachers.
  The Department will report in its evidence in September 2002, for the main 2003–04 pay review, on progress in response to the following requests by the Review Body for reviews of:

  the scope and nature of the evidence, information and statistics it collects and provides on teacher recruitment, retention and labour market issues;

  how it monitors the use of pay flexibilities and advises on their application. Better monitoring and advice might obviate the need for prescriptive guidance and further the Department's aim of simpler pay arrangements;

  the nature of its advice and direction on the application of pay policies to borderline and atypical groups; and

  the scope for greater co-ordination of the current support network of assessors, advisers, local recruitment co-ordinators etc.

  Finance
  I have considered pressures on local government funding. The cost of the headline increase and shortening the main scale is estimated to be £560 million in 2002–03. This will be affordable within the resources available to local authorities. Education Standard Spending (ESS) will increase by 5.7 per cent, after adjustments.

  Next steps
  I am grateful to the Review Body for recommending a general increase at a level which is fair and which can be implemented without staging. I will now initiate consultation with the employer organisations, the teacher associations and other interested parties as required under section 2(1) of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991, before I make provision by order for teachers' pay and conditions in 2002–03.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils were excluded in 2000–01 who had previously been excluded from maintained schools. [23419]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the Government's policy of excluding pupils from schools. [29259]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The Government's current policy on exclusion from schools is set out in sections 64–68 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, and in Circular 10/99, "Social Inclusions: Pupil Support". Head teachers, governors, LEAs and appeal panels should have regard to this guidance in discharging their functions in relation to pupil exclusion.

  The Department will be issuing a consultation paper on a draft revision of the guidance this week. The revised draft guidance consolidates the earlier amendments but at the same time represents a thorough revision of the whole text. It supports the right of a head teacher to govern their school as they see fit, ensuring their schools are safe places to learn and teach in. It also puts into place clear guidance to ensure that the sanction of exclusion is not used inappropriately. The existing guidance remains in force until responses to the revised draft guidance are considered and a new version published in the summer.
  900W
  Permanent exclusions fell to 8,300 in 1999–2000, a decrease of one fifth from 10,400 in 1998–99 and nearly a third less than the peak of 12,700 in 1996–97. The Government's target of an 8,400 reduction by 2002 has been met. The Government do not intend to set fresh targets for reducing permanent exclusions further. We can now move the agenda on to promoting the fundamentals of good behaviour, and focus on early intervention and the prevention of exclusion.

  Departmental Funding Resources and Initiatives
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list all(a) funding resources and (b) initiatives sponsored by her Department for (i) the private sector, (ii) the voluntary sector and (iii) local authorities. [26847]

  Estelle Morris
  Most of my Department's expenditure is delivered through schools and local education authorities (LEAs), and partner organisations, including non-departmental public bodies, which in turn pass funding to providers and institutions in the private, voluntary and other sectors.

  The bulk of funding for local authorities is made up of the Education Standard Spending Assessment, £22.5 billion in the current financial year, the Standards Fund, £2.5 billion, and credit approvals of £0.5 billion. The Department also makes some separate grants available to local authorities, for example for Education Maintenance Allowances.

  The Department has allocated £450 million in private finance initiative credits to local authorities in 2001–02 to support public-private partnerships in schools.

  Full details of the initiatives sponsored by my Department for the private sector, the voluntary sector and local authorities could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department is currently contributing a comprehensive Home Office-led exercise, which is mapping involvement and funding in the voluntary and community sector. I expect my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to place this information in the Library when the exercise is completed.

  School Funding
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list for each of the years(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 the average level of funding for (i) each secondary pupil in England and (ii) pupils attending specialist schools. [28963]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: The table provides the information requested at part (i):

  Average funding per secondary pupil in England

  £

  Year

  SSA

  Grants

  Total

  2000–01

  3,180

  230

  3,410

  2001–02

  3,310

  380

  3,690

  Notes:

  1. Figures reflect Education SSA (secondary sub-block) plus an estimate of all school related revenue grants in DfES's DEL relevant to secondary pupils (aged 11–15).

  2. Secondary school grant figures are estimated in cases where grants are allocated for more than one phase of education.

  901W

  3. Secondary schools grant figures include the specialist school element of the Standards Fund.

  4. Figures are in cash terms.

  5. 2001–02 figures are provisional as some grant allocations have still to be finalised.

  6. Figures rounded to nearest £10.

  In response to part (ii) of the question, specialist schools receive additional annual funding calculated from pupil numbers taken from the annual school census returns each year. In 2000–01 schools received £122 per pupil for all pupils up to 1,000 and over 1,200 pupils. In 2001–02 schools will receive £123 per pupil for all pupils up to 1,000 and over 1,200 pupils.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what advance notice is required by her Department for associated applications for specialist school status for the(a) March 2002 and (b) October 2002 bidding rounds; and if she will make a statement. [29195]

  Mr. Timms
  There is no specific notice requirement for associated applications for specialist school designation. However, as stated in the guidance documents setting out the assessment criteria for applicant schools, DfES is willing to consider outline proposals from schools interested in submitting associated applications in advance of the closing date of a specialist school competition. Associated application arrangements will typically involve a group of secondary schools as part of a strategic approach to specialist school provision in an area. In due course each application will be judged on its individual merits. To give schools interested in making associated applications an advance indication of the likely view to be taken on the proposals as a whole we would encourage them to show their outline proposals to DfES at least six months before the closing date in which the first associated application will be submitted.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate is of the value of sponsorship by the private sector for specialist schools to date which has been available(a) in cash and (b) in kind; and if she will make a statement. [29196]

  Mr. Timms
  The aggregate contribution of private sector sponsorship to specialist schools to date is at least £58 million. Most applications will have elements of cash sponsorship and sponsorship in kind though the split varies greatly from school to school. The breakdown of cash and in kind sponsorship for each specialist school is on each school's file and not collated centrally. It is therefore not possible to give estimates of the cash and kind amounts except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many applications for specialist school status have been rejected on the basis that the school in question has performance indicators which show a declining trend of performance; and if she will make a statement. [29202]

  Mr. Timms
  We do not maintain figures on the number of schools where a declining trend in performance has been a factor in a school's application being unsuccessful. GCSE performance is one of a range of factors taken into account as part of an applicant's specialist school 902W
  development plan but has never been the sole factor in deciding not to approve an application for specialist school designation.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate is of the level of investment in specialist schools for each year from May 1997 to 2005, broken down by(a) extra capital funding and (b) extra current expenditure; and if she will make a statement. [29204]

  Mr. Timms
  The level of investment in specialist schools broken down by(a) capital and (b) extra recurrent expenditure from 1996–97 to 2003–04 is provided in the table. Any future and additional funding will be considered as part of the 2002 Spending Review.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Capital

  Recurrent

  Total

  1996–97

  7.0

  16.0

  23.0

  1997–98

  7.7

  25.4

  33.1

  1998–99

  8.0

  32.8

  40.8

  1999–2000

  4.5

  42.9

  47.4

  2000–01

  13.2

  58.7

  71.9

  2001–02

  15.4

  78.6

  94.0

  2002–03

  16.6

  91.4

  108.0

  2003–04

  16.8

  110.2

  127.0

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many specialist schools have increased the curriculum hours devoted to their chosen specialism, following award of specialist status; and if she will make a statement. [29209]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the specialist schools in(a) Somerset and (b) Dorset, giving the specialism in each case.

  Mr. Timms
  A list of specialist schools by specialism in(a) Somerset and (b) Dorset is given below:

  Specialist schools in Somerset

  Bucklers Mead Community School—Technology

  Court Fields Community School—Technology

  Crispin School—Technology

  Heathfield Community School—Arts

  Kings of Wessex Community School (The)—Technology

  Kingsmead Community School—Language

  Ladymead Community School—Technology

  Whitstone Community School—Technology

  Specialist schools in Dorset

  Lytchett Minister School—Arts

  Highcliffe Comprehensive School—Language

  Sir John Colfox School—Language

  Shaftesbury School—Sports

  Beaminster School—Technology

  Budmouth Technology College—Technology

  Twynham School—Technology

  Westfield School—Technology.

  903W
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures of deprivation are considered when considering applications for specialist school status; and if she will make a statement. [29211]

  Mr. Timms
  In accordance with the guidance documents which set out the criteria for the consideration of specialist school applications, some preference may be given to applications from areas of social deprivation as measured by pupils' known eligibility for free school meals.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will publish the latest research showing the effects of specialist school status on school performance; and if she will make a statement. [29212]

  Mr. Timms
  The latest research commissioned by the Department was published in 2000. An analysis of the performance in 2001 of specialist schools operational from September 2000 or before will shortly be prepared by Professor David Jesson on behalf of the Technology Colleges Trust and I expect this analysis to be published in the spring.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the nature of the links which she requires between primary feeder schools and secondary schools which are successful in becoming specialist schools. [29214]

  Mr. Timms
  The requirements for specialist school community development plans are set out in the published guidance documents on each specialism. Applications for specialist school designation must include proposals to work with at least five named schools, which will typically include one or more of the applicant's feeder primary schools. Although there are no specific requirements covering the nature of work which specialist schools undertake with their primary partners we would normally expect such links to range from, for example, the provision of access to specialist resources and facilities to joint teaching and learning activities, including specialist subject INSET, or project work to help progression between Key Stages 2 and 3.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the criteria considered by her Department when assessing bids for specialist school status. [29215]

  Mr. Timms
  The criteria against which applications for specialist school designation are assessed are published in eight guidance documents each dealing with one of the eight categories of specialism. These set out the considerations taken into account when deciding to designate specialist schools and are based around the eligibility of sponsorship and the quality of the school and community development plans. Copies of guidance documents have been place in the Library.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the local education authorities which have 30 per cent, or more of their pupils in specialist schools; if she will make a statement on the reasons for which further schools in such LEAs will not be considered for specialist school bids; and if she will indicate for how long the ban on further bids in such areas will last. [29216]
  904W
  Mr. Timms
  The local authorities which have 30 per cent, of their secondary age pupils in specialist maintained secondary schools are listed in the table.

  As at January 2001

  LEA

  Pupils aged 11+ in specialist maintained secondary schools

  Pupils aged 11+ in all maintained secondary schools

  Percentage of pupils aged 11+ in specialist maintained secondary schools

  Wandsworth

  6,395

  9,944

  64.3

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  10,138

  16,318

  62.1

  West Berkshire

  7,033

  11,740

  59.9

  Gateshead

  7,025

  12,043

  58.3

  Hackney

  4,411

  7,921

  55.7

  York

  4,929

  9,972

  49.4

  Darlington

  2,953

  6,009

  49.1

  North Somerset

  5,891

  12,268

  48.0

  Cornwall

  13,685

  32,000

  42.8

  Bath and North East Somerset

  5,218

  12,270

  42.5

  Camden

  4,544

  10,868

  41.8

  Greenwich

  5,767

  13,834

  41.7

  Ealing

  6,163

  15,088

  40.8

  Durham

  13,116

  32,158

  40.8

  Stockton-on-Tees

  5,070

  12,792

  39.6

  Bournemouth

  3,800

  9,768

  38.9

  Newham

  6,667

  17,469

  38.2

  Milton Keynes

  4,465

  12,058

  37.0

  Wigan

  7,716

  20,854

  37.0

  Birmingham

  25,401

  69,037

  36.8

  Bradford

  12,539

  34,214

  36.6

  Hartlepool

  2,409

  6,679

  36.1

  Plymouth

  6,786

  18,823

  36.1

  Gloucestershire

  13,718

  38,146

  36.0

  Northumberland

  8,075

  22,855

  35.3

  Manchester

  8,227

  23,472

  35.1

  Rutland

  789

  2,254

  35.0

  Wiltshire

  9,570

  27,383

  34.9

  Cambridgeshire

  10,625

  30,916

  34.4

  St. Helens

  4,167

  12,159

  34.3

  Northamptonshire

  14,932

  44,161

  33.8

  Barking and Dagenham

  3,709

  11,079

  33.5

  Redbridge

  6,301

  18,868

  33.4

  Lambeth

  2,398

  7.208

  33.3

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  7,333

  22,627

  32.4

  Rochdale

  4,583

  14,153

  32.4

  Lincolnshire

  14,210

  44,166

  32.2

  Sheffield

  9,596

  29,861

  32.1

  Wakefield

  6,758

  21,279

  31.8

  Trafford

  5,000

  15,844

  31.6

  East Sussex

  8,686

  27,805

  31.2

  Knowlsey

  3,160

  10,240

  30.9

  Norfolk

  13,712

  44,896

  30.5

  Warrington

  4,192

  13,833

  30.3

  Leicester

  5,436

  18,031

  30.1

  Leicestershire

  13,014

  43,184

  30.1

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  The restriction which applied to the application process for October 2000 and March 2001 specialist school competitions on allowing further applications from schools in local education authorities where there was already 30 per cent, of secondary aged pupils in mainstream specialist schools was lifted in July 2001.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what targets she has set for the number of successful bidders for specialist school status in the(a) March 2002 and (b) October 2002 bidding rounds in terms of (i) overall numbers, (ii) breakdown by specialisms, (iii) geographical spread, (iv) deprivation characteristics of the catchment areas and (v) joint bids; and if she will make a statement. [29217]
  905W
  Mr. Timms
  We have not set targets for the number of specialist schools beyond those already published—at least 830 by September 2002, at least 1,000 by September 2003 and at least 1,500 by September 2005. Apart from a target of 200 sports colleges by September 2004 in connection with the school sport co-ordinator programme, we have not set targets for the number of successful applications in relation to specialisms, geographic spread, deprivation characteristics of catchment areas or joint applications.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research her Department has carried out into the difficulties faced by schools in deprived areas in raising the private sector funds needed to apply for specialist status; what plans she has to reduce the £50,000 threshold; and if she will make a statement. [29220]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department has not carried out research on the ability of schools to raise sponsorship but we do keep specialist school sponsorship requirements under regular review. We have no plans to abolish the requirement for schools to raise sponsorship to support a specialist school application or to reduce the level of sponsorship required.

  New Schools
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate is of the number of(a) beacon schools, (b) academy schools, (c) specialist schools and (d) new faith schools in each year from 1997 to 2007; and if she will make a statement. [29207]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Specialist schools

  Beacon schools

  September 1997

  258

  0

  September 1998

  330

  75

  September 1999

  403

  200

  September 2000

  536

  550

  September 2001

  685

  1,000

  Year

  Faith schools opened in each calender year

  1997

  5

  1998

  9

  1999

  6

  2000

  4

  2001

  5

  Targets for increasing the number of specialist schools and beacon schools are as of follows:

  Year

  Specialist schools

  Beacon schools

  2002

  At least 830

  1,150

  2003

  At least 1,000

  1,350

  2004

  —

  1,500

  2005

  At least 1,500

  —

  At present no city academies are open. The target is to expand the city academy programme year on year and for at least 20 academies to be open by 2005.

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate is of the number of secondary schools for the period 1997 to 2007. [29208]

  Mr. Timms
  The available information requested is shown in the table:

  Number of secondary schools1 as at January each year 1997 to 2001

  January

  Number of schools

  1997

  3,569

  1998

  3,567

  1999

  3,560

  2000

  3,550

  2001

  3,481

  1 Includes middle deemed schools

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census.

  The Department does not produce forecasts for the number of new schools. Planning the provision of new schools is the responsibility of local education authorities.

  Expenditure (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of her Department's budget has been spent in Scotland since the institution of her Department in its present form. [29518]

  Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: Most of the expenditure on education and skills in Scotland is devolved to the Scottish Executive.

  My Department does, however, incur some expenditure in Scotland on Career Development Loans and Investors in People (£1.5 million and £0.1 million respectively in 2001–02). Expenditure in Scotland on those programmes makes up less than 0.01 per cent, of my Department's budget for 2001–02.

  There is also some expenditure by the Student Loans Company (SLC) on student support for those studying in Scotland. Information on relevant student support is not held centrally but the SLC has agreed to write to the hon. Member further on this.

  Parental Choice
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in respect of each local education authority and for England, how many pupils did not obtain admission to the secondary school of their first choice in the most recent year for which information is available, in(a) absolute terms and (b) as a proportion of the total number of pupils transferring to secondary schools. [29659]

  Mr. Timms
  This information is not held centrally. However, research undertaken by the Office for National Statistics, on behalf of the Department for Education and Skills, looked at parents' experiences of the process of choosing a secondary school. Findings from this nationally representative survey of parents of children starting secondary school in September 1999 and September 2000 found that 92 per cent, of parents received an offer of a place in the school listed as their first preference.

  Sixth Form Funding
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which local education authorities she estimates to be entitled to education budget transitional support grant on the basis of the transfer of post-16 support to learning and skills councils in 2002–03; and if she will estimate the size of the grant in each case. [29714]

  Mr. Timms
  The transfer of sixth form funding to the LSC from April 2002 will be cost neutral at LEA level—the adjustments to individual SSAs to take account of the transfer will match the payments that LEAs get back from the LSC. But we propose to pay a special grant to a minority of LEAs where the changes being made to the funding methodology would not fully eliminate the impact of the funding changes in 2002–03.

  I expect details of the special grant to be released after consultation on the Local Government Finance Settlement has been completed at the end of the month.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the standard spending assessment per secondary pupil in each local education authority was for(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02; and if she will estimate this figure for each (i) local education authority and (ii) learning and skills council in 2003–04 in total and (a) for 11 to 16 and (b) post-16 years pupils. [29715]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested from 1999–2000 to 2001–02 is in the table. Allocations for 2003–04 have not yet been made so figures for that year are not available.

  We are currently working up a new funding system for introduction in 2003–04, and that will affect funding allocations from that year.

  SSA per secondary pupil (aged 11-15) expressed in real terms

  £

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  201 City of London

  10,010

  24,040

  13,730

  202 Camden

  4,200

  4,350

  4,430

  203 Greenwich

  4,100

  4,240

  4,320

  204 Hackney

  4,800

  4,920

  5,000

  205 Hammersmith and Fulham

  4,340

  4,450

  4,510

  206 Islington

  4,500

  4,650

  4,780

  207 Kensington and Chelsea

  4,200

  4,360

  4,450

  208 Lambeth

  4,970

  5,140

  5,210

  209 Lewisham

  4,350

  4,440

  4,520

  210 Southwark

  4,450

  4,570

  4,660

  211 Tower Hamlets

  4,700

  4,800

  4.910

  212 Wands worth

  4,020

  4,100

  4,150

  213 Westminster

  3,980

  4,100

  4,170

  301 Barking and Dagenham

  3,560

  3,660

  3,760

  302 Barnet

  3,280

  3,370

  3,470

  303 Bexley

  3,180

  3,260

  3,330

  304 Brent

  3,910

  3,980

  4,080

  305 Bromley

  3,120

  3,180

  3,260

  306 Croydon

  3,470

  3,560

  3,660

  307 Ealing

  3,680

  3,790

  3,900

  308 Enfield

  3,430

  3,510

  3,630

  309 Haringey

  4,050

  4,160

  4,270

  310 Harrow

  3,320

  3,410

  3,540

  311 Havering

  3,150

  3,220

  3,310

  312 Hillingdon

  3,290

  3,370

  3,460

  313 Hounslow

  3,470

  3,560

  3,680

  314 Kingston upon Thames

  3,120

  3,190

  3,290

  315 Merton

  3,370

  3,450

  3,560

  908W

  SSA per secondary pupil (aged 11-15) expressed in real terms

  £

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  316 Newham

  4,010

  4,110

  4,230

  317 Redbridge

  3,340

  3,430

  3,540

  318 Richmond upon Thames

  3,040

  3,120

  3,220

  319 Sutton

  3,150

  3,200

  3,280

  320 Waltham Forest

  3,710

  3,790

  3,900

  330 Birmingham

  3,300

  3,410

  3,460

  331 Coventry

  3,100

  3,190

  3,220

  332 Dudley

  2,830

  2,910

  2,950

  333 Sandwell

  3,130

  3,210

  3,270

  334 Solihull

  2,810

  2,870

  2,900

  335 Walsall

  2,990

  3,070

  3,100

  336 Wolverhampton

  3,160

  3,230

  3,280

  340 Knowsley

  3,520

  3,650

  3,670

  341 Liverpool

  3,370

  3,510

  3,550

  342 St. Helens

  2,990

  3,080

  3,130

  343 Sefton

  2,950

  3,060

  3,070

  344 Wirral

  3,080

  3,180

  3,220

  350 Bolton

  2,970

  3,050

  3,080

  351 Bury

  2,850

  2,940

  2,990

  352 Manchester

  3,550

  3,690

  3,720

  353 Oldham

  3,040

  3,140

  3,190

  354 Rochdale

  3,100

  3,200

  3,240

  355 Salford

  3,150

  3,240

  3,290

  356 Stockport

  2,830

  2,910

  2,950

  357 Tameside

  2,930

  3,030

  3,080

  358 Trafford

  2,910

  2,980

  3,010

  359 Wigan

  2,850

  2,930

  2,970

  370 Barnsley

  2,990

  3,080

  3,140

  371 Doncaster

  3,100

  3,180

  3,200

  372 Rotherham

  2,940

  3020

  3,060

  373 Sheffield

  3,020

  3,110

  3,150

  380 Bradford

  3,170

  3,270

  3,320

  381 Calderdale

  2,980

  3,070

  3,120

  382 Kirklees

  3,010

  3,100

  3,510

  383 Leeds

  2,970

  3,070

  3,110

  384 Wakefield

  2,890

  2,980

  3,030

  390 Gateshead

  3,030

  3,120

  3,170

  391 Newcastle upon Tyne

  3,180

  3,300

  3,340

  392 North Tyneside

  2,960

  3,050

  3,090

  393 South Tyneside

  3,080

  3,180

  3,230

  394 Sunderland

  3,040

  3,130

  3,180

  420 Isles of Scilly

  5,370

  5,590

  5,530

  800 Bath and North East Somerset

  2,760

  2,830

  2,860

  801 Bristol, City of

  3,080

  3,170

  3,210

  802 North Somerset

  2,850

  2,920

  2,950

  803 South Gloucestershire

  2,770

  2,840

  2,870

  805 Hartlepool

  3,040

  3,150

  3,200

  806 Middlesbrough

  3,240

  3,360

  3,430

  807 Redcar and Cleveland

  3,040

  3,120

  3,170

  808 Stockton-on-Tees

  3,000

  3,100

  3,140

  810 Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  3,150

  3,260

  3,310

  811 East Riding of Yorkshire

  2,850

  2,930

  2,980

  812 North East Lincolnshire

  3,030

  3,130

  3,190

  813 North Lincolnshire

  2,980

  3,070

  3,120

  815 North Yorkshire

  2,890

  2,980

  3,020

  816 York

  2,860

  2,940

  2,970

  820 Bedfordshire

  2,980

  3,080

  3,160

  821 Luton

  3,270

  3,360

  3,440

  825 Buckinghamshire

  2,990

  3,090

  3,170

  826 Milton Keynes

  3,110

  3,190

  3,270

  830 Derbyshire

  2,840

  2,920

  2,970

  831 Derby

  3,030

  3,140

  3,180

  835 Dorset

  2,850

  2,930

  2,960

  836 Poole

  2,810

  2,870

  2,920

  837 Bournemouth

  2,930

  3,010

  3,050

  840 Durham

  2,990

  3,090

  3,140

  841 Darlington

  2,970

  3,080

  3,110

  845 East Sussex

  3,060

  3,170

  3,250

  846 Brighton and Hove

  3,160

  3,260

  3,340

  850 Hampshire

  2,920

  3,010

  3,090

  851 Portsmouth

  3,140

  3,210

  3,280

  852 Southampton

  3,190

  3,300

  3,380

  855 Leicestershire

  2,770

  2,850

  2,890

  856 Leicester

  3,220

  3,330

  3,380

  857 Rutland

  2,750

  2,880

  2,830

  860 Staffordshire

  2,810

  2,880

  2,930

  909W

  SSA per secondary pupil (aged 11-15) expressed in real terms

  £

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  861 Stoke-on-Trent

  2,990

  3,100

  3,170

  865 Wiltshire

  2,900

  2,970

  3,000

  866 Swindon

  2,880

  2,960

  2,990

  867 Bracknell Forest

  3,070

  3,160

  3,240

  868 Windsor and Maindenhead

  3,010

  3,110

  3,190

  869 West Berkshire

  2,870

  2,960

  3,050

  870 Reading

  3,180

  3,270

  3,380

  871 Slough

  3,670

  3,760

  3,870

  872 Wokingham

  2,790

  2,870

  2,950

  873 Cambridgeshire

  2,890

  2,960

  3,000

  874 Peterborough

  3,070

  3,170

  3,220

  875 Cheshire

  2,820

  2,900

  2,930

  876 Halton

  3,120

  3,220

  3,280

  877 Warrington

  2,810

  2,890

  2,930

  878 Devon

  2,960

  3,040

  3,070

  879 Plymouth

  2,940

  3,040

  3,080

  880 Torbay

  2,980

  3,080

  3,110

  881 Essex

  3,050

  3,150

  3,230

  882 Southend-on-Sea

  3,100

  3,200

  3,280

  883 Thurrock

  3,250

  3,350

  3,420

  884 Herefordshire

  2,980

  3,060

  3,090

  885 Worcestershire

  2,820

  2,900

  2,940

  886 Kent

  3,050

  3,150

  3,230

  887 Medway

  3,020

  3,120

  3,200

  888 Lancashire

  2,950

  3,040

  3,090

  889 Blackburn with Darwen

  3,180

  3,280

  3,310

  890 Blackpool

  3,030

  3,130

  3,170

  891 Nottinghamshire

  2,870

  2,960

  3,000

  892 Nottingham

  3,320

  3,410

  3,460

  893 Shropshire

  2,890

  2,960

  3,010

  894 Telford and Wrekin

  2,990

  3,090

  3,130

  908 Cornwall

  2,990

  3,060

  3,110

  909 Cumbria

  2,940

  3,030

  3,080

  916 Gloucestershire

  2,870

  2,940

  2,970

  919 Hertfordshire

  3,080

  3,170

  3,250

  921 Isle of Wight

  3,130

  3,260

  3,360

  925 Lincolnshire

  2,960

  3,040

  3,080

  926 Norfolk

  2,960

  3,050

  3,100

  928 Northamptonshire

  2,900

  2,970

  3,010

  929 Northumberland

  2,930

  3,010

  3,060

  931 Oxfordshire

  2,970

  3,070

  3,160

  933 Somerset

  2,910

  2,980

  3,020

  935 Suffolk

  2,880

  2,960

  3,000

  936 Surrey

  3,040

  3,130

  3,220

  937 Warwickshire

  2,840

  2,920

  2,950

  938 West Sussex

  2,950

  3,040

  3,130

  Notes:

  1. Figures rounded to the nearest £10

  2. Figures in 2000–01 prices using GDP Deflators published by Treasury on 20 December 2001

TREASURY

  Children's Tax Credit
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the number and nature of representations received calling for an increase of the children's tax credit in order to meet the cost of nurseries and child minders. [28762]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We are not aware of any representations to increase the level of children's tax credit to help with the costs of nurseries and child minders.

  Euro Bank Accounts
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of euro accounts opened in the United Kingdom banks; and what percentage this is of the total. [29271]

  Ruth Kelly
  The latest quarterly review by the Association for Payment Clearing Systems (APACS) identified that there were about 135,000 euro bank accounts and approximately 6 per cent, of UK businesses have opened one.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue lost due to excise evasion on(a) hand-rolling tobacco and (b) cigarettes since the abolition of European fiscal frontiers; and how much of this revenue has been recovered. [24801]

  Mr. Boateng
  Relevant information concerning estimates of fraud can be found in the Customs and Excise technical paper "Measuring Indirect Tax Fraud", published on 27 November 2001, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Excise Movement and Control System
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress and expected time scale of measures to implement a computerised excise movement and control system throughout the EU. [26513]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: The Commission published a proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the European Council on computerising the movement and surveillance of excisable products on 19 November 2001. The proposal, if agreed, would establish the computerised system within five years.

  VAT (Cancer Charities)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the revenue that would be forgone if charities which pay irrecoverable VAT on the cost of building and refurbishing cancer treatment facilities were to be allowed to recover VAT or to have such work zero-rated. [26534]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: No estimate is available of the cost to the Exchequer of allowing charities to recover VAT on the cost of building and refurbishing cancer treatment facilities or the cost of having such work zero-rated.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the definition is of a hospice for the purposes of VAT; [26535]

  (2) what his policy is towards the liability of hospices for VAT; [26533]

  (3) if he will make a statement on how EU law affects his powers to determine the liability of charities for VAT on the construction and refurbishment of facilities for cancer treatment. [26531]
  911W
  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answers 16 January 2002]: EU VAT law provides no specific relief for charities constructing or refurbishing facilities for cancer treatment. Neither does it provide any definition of a hospice. In the UK, the construction of new residential hospices is zero-rated provided the organisation that commissioned the building work also occupies it. The construction of new non-residential treatment facilities and the repair or refurbishment of existing buildings is standard-rated. Long-standing agreements with our European partners allow us to retain our existing zero-rates but prevent us from introducing any new ones.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to allow Macmillan Cancer Relief to recover VAT on its building costs incurred in respect of buildings which are owned or managed by the national health service. [26532]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: The Government looked very carefully at the issue of irrecoverable VAT as part of the 1999 Review of Charity Taxation, concluding that to allow refund would be prohibitively expensive and would breach fundamental principles of VAT law.

  Customs are ready to provide help and advice to any charity experiencing VAT problems. They have recently written to the Chief Executive of Macmillan Cancer Relief and hope to meet the charity soon to discuss the VAT implications of their building programmes.

  Intra-community Trade
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the intra-Community trade declared despatch arrival values for January to February 2001 as a percentage of the corresponding values for January to February 2000. [24549]

  Mr. Boateng
  HM Customs and Excise collect statistics for intra-Community trade via the Intrastat system.

  The declared intra-Community trade for arrivals and despatches for January and February 2001, expressed as percentages of the corresponding values for the same months of 2000 are as follows:

  Arrivals

  January 2001

  Declarations as a percentage of value of January 2000 declarations—116 per cent.

  February 2001

  Declarations as a percentage of value of February 2000 declarations—106percent.

  Despatches

  January 2001

  Declarations as a percentage of value of January 2000 declarations—117 per cent.

  February 2001

  Declarations as a percentage of value of February 2000 declarations—109 per cent.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the compliance rate of traders in statistical submissions for intra-Community transactions in January and February; and what percentage was received by the due date. [24550]
  912W
  Mr. Boateng
  HM Customs and Excise collect statistics for intra-Community trade via the Intrastat Supplementary Declaration. Declarations can be submitted on paper or electronically.

  During 2001, paper declarations were to be submitted to Customs by the tenth day following the end of the reference period to which the declaration referred. Electronic declarations were to be submitted by the last day of the month following the end of the reference period to which the declaration referred.

  Partially compliant traders are those who submit some, but not all, of their declarations by due date

  The percentages of declarations for January and February 2001 received by the due date are as follows:

  Declarations received by respective due date

  Percentage

  Date

  Paper

  Electronic

  January 2001

  Arrivals

  Trade value received by due date

  44

  89

  Traders fully compliant by due date

  51

  70

  Traders partially compliant by due date

  4

  7

  Dispatches

  Trade value received by due date

  47

  89

  Traders fully compliant by due date

  56

  76

  Traders partially compliant by due date

  2

  4

  February 2001

  Arrivals

  Trade value received by due date

  41

  91

  Traders fully compliant by due date

  48

  73

  Traders partially compliant by due date

  3

  7

  Dispatches

  Trade value received by due date

  46

  89

  Traders fully compliant by due date

  51

  80

  Traders partially compliant by due date

  2

  2

  Single Market
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the changes in Customs and Excise duties arising from the operation of the European single market and cross-channel shopping; and what estimates were made before the single market came into force. [24803]

  Mr. Boateng
  No changes in Customs and Excise duties arose from the operation of the European single market and cross-channel shopping.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the changes in revenue to the Exchequer arising from the introduction of the European single market(a) through the increased allowances on importation of EC-produced cigarettes and tobacco products and (b) through increased smuggling of cigarettes and tobacco products. [24837]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs and Excise make no estimates about the effects of the European single market on the smuggling of cigarettes and tobacco products.

  VAT
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much on average each VAT inspector raised an additional VAT liability in the last financial year; and what is the average annual cost of employing a VAT inspector. [24380]

  Mr. Boateng
  In 2000–01 each VAT inspector raised, on average, £446,000 in net additional liability. The average cost of employing a VAT inspector is around £40,000.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if a person registered for VAT can reclaim from the Customs and Excise the costs of building(a) a mausoleum for himself and (b) a home for himself. [28308]

  Mr. Boateng
  Anyone building a home for themself, whether or not they are VAT registered, is able to claim the VAT paid on goods and materials under the DIY builders refund scheme, details of which are available from the Customs and Excise National Advice Service on 0845 010 9000. The scheme applies only to dwellings, not to mausoleums.

  Departmental Overspend
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Departments overspent their allocated budget in 2000–01; and by how much in each case. [27927]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  As set out in "Public Expenditure 2000–2001 Provisional Outturn" Cm 5243, one Department overspent its departmental expenditure limit in 2000–01—the Foreign and Commonwealth Office by £4,932,000.

  International Aid
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he estimates the Government will reach the UN target of 0.7 per cent, of GNI for international aid. [27863]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government remain fully committed to the UN 0.7 per cent. oda/GNP target. We have set out our plans for the next three years to 2003–04 and, as these show, development assistance as a proportion of GNP will rise to 0.33 per cent, in 2003–04, up from 0.26 per cent, in 1997. In his speech in New York and in his pre-Budget report speech, the Chancellor emphasised his commitment to ensuring further substantial increases in development assistance. The forthcoming Spending Review is an opportunity to consider plans for development spending beyond 2003–04, alongside other priorities and pressures.

  Aid effectiveness is also important as well as aid volumes. The Government are committed to redirecting their development assistance budget to the poorest countries, particularly those with effective Governments pursuing high growth and pro-poor economic and social policies. In addition the Government have untied all their aid as from 1 April last year.

  Enron
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will suspend Arthur Andersen accountants from Government contracts until the US Senate Committee investigation into Enron is completed. [28518]
  914W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I am aware of no evidence to suggest any involvement by UK members of Arthur Andersen and so there are no grounds to consider suspending the firm from Government contracts.

  Oil and Gas Industry (National Insurance)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans HM Treasury has to amend the liability for and collection method of NIC contributions from those individuals employed offshore in the UK continental shelf area by non-UK companies; and if he will make a statement. [29479]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We have no plans to amend the liability for or collection method of national insurance contributions from these individuals.

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of the aggregates levy on the Scottish economy in terms of(a) employment and (b) output. [29362]

  Mr. Boateng
  A Regulatory Impact Assessment for the aggregates levy was published at the time of the Budget 2000. It is available from the Customs and Excise website.

  Terrorism (Spending)
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown of the expected cost to Her Majesty's Government over the current financial year of the measures to combat terrorism announced by the Home Secretary on 15 October 2001,Official Report, columns 923–25. [10008]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 25 October 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  £8.5 million of additional funding has been allocated for a range of anti-terrorism measures in the current year. In addition to this, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Statement on the pre-Budget report, announced on 27 November that a further £30 million had been made available to the Metropolitan police and other police forces to fund the need for additional policing since 11 September, during the current financial year.

  National Minimum Wage (Wealden)
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in Wealden received the recent increase in the national minimum wage. [29712]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Charles Hendry, dated 23 January 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of people in Wealden who have received the increase in the national minimum wage (NMW). (29712)
  Estimates for Parliamentary Constituencies are not available.
  Estimates for the United Kingdom and Government Office Regions are posted on the National Statistics website at: www.statistics.gov.uk/nsbase/themes/labour_rnarket/nmw_lowpay_tables.asp

DEFENCE

  Gulf War Veterans
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the latest figures are for deaths to Gulf veterans; and what the figures are among the control group. [30323]

  Dr. Moonie
  Peer reviewed scientific data comparing the mortality rates of UK Gulf veterans to an era group of service personnel who did not deploy to the Gulf were published for the first time in the Lancet on 1 July 2000. Updates to these figures were provided by the Ministry of Defence to the House on 20 July 2000, 22 January 2001

  Deaths to UK Gulf veterans1 1 April 1991 to 31 December 2001 Causes (coded to ICD-9)
  2

  ICD Chapter

  Cause of death

  Gulf

  Era

  Mortality rate ratio
  3

  All deaths

  524

  520

  1.00

  All cause coded deaths

  514

  510

  1.00

  I-XVI

  Disease-related causes

  198

  240

  0.82

  I

  Infectious and parasitic diseases

  3

  2

  1.49

  II

  Cancers

  84

  94

  0.89

  III

  Endocrine and immune disorders

  1

  4

  0.25

  V

  Mental disorders

  11

  12

  0.91

  VI

  Diseases of the nervous system and sense organs

  7

  6

  1.16

  VII

  Diseases of the circulatory system

  68

  90

  0.75

  VII

  Diseases of the respiratory system

  10

  5

  1.99

  IX

  Diseases of the digestive system

  11

  16

  0.68

  IV, X-XVI

  All other disease-related causes

  3

  11

  0.27

  EXVII

  External causes of injury and poisoning

  316

  270

  1.17

  Railway accidents

  4

  1

  3.98

  Motor vehicle accidents

  110

  92

  1.19

  Water transport accidents

  4

  1

  3.98

  Air and space accidents

  25

  17

  1.46

  Other vehicles accidents

  0

  1

  0.00

  Accidental poisoning

  10

  14

  0.71

  Accidental falls

  8

  6

  1.33

  Accidents due to fire/flames

  0

  2

  0.00

  Accidents due to natural environmental factors

  2

  2

  1.00

  Accidents due to submersion/suffocation/foreign bodies

  17

  7

  2.42

  Other accidents

  31

  27

  1.14

  Late effects of accident/injury

  0

  2

  0.00

  Suicide and injury undetermined whether accidental

  97

  90

  1.07

  Homicide

  5

  4

  1.24

  Injury resulting from the operations of war

  3

  4

  0.75

  Other deaths for which coded cause data are not yet available

  7

  7

  —

  Overseas deaths for which cause data are not available

  3

  3

  —

  1 Service and ex-Service personnel only.

  2 World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases 9th revision 1997.

  3 Mortality rate ratios differ marginally from the crude deaths ratio owing to some small differences between the Gulf and Era cohorts.

  Computer Crime
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases of computer(a) hacking, (b) fraud and (c) theft his Department recorded in 2000 and 2001; and on how many occasions in 2000 and 2001 computer systems in his Department have been illegally accessed by computer hackers within and outside his Department. [10975]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of incidents affecting computer systems for the years 2000 and 2001 are summarised in the table:

  Incident type

  2000

  20011

  Computer hacking total

  9

  12

  of which there were:

  website defacements

  3

  2

  916W
  and 18 July 2001. The MOD has undertaken to continue to monitor the mortality of both Gulf veterans and the era group and will publish updated figures on a regular basis. The figures as at 31 December 2001 are shown in the table.

  Overall, in the period 1 April 1991 to 31 December 2001, the mortality of UK Gulf veterans was no different than that of the control group. Slightly fewer Gulf veterans have died from disease-related causes than have those in the control group, whereas the number of Gulf veterans dying of external causes is a little higher than for the control group. These differences are similar to those shown by the figures published in July 2001.

  Incident type

  2000

  20011

  internal incursions

  6

  10

  Computer fraud

  4

  4

  Computer theft2

  267

  312

  1 Reports thus far.

  2 Computer theft figures include desktops, laptops and items of computer peripheral equipment.

  None of the instances of hacking had any operational impact, and despite widespread and frequent probes of the Ministry of Defence firewalls connected to the internet, there is no evidence of any successful incursion from an external source to any departmental computer system. While website defacement may constitute an offence under The Computer Misuse Act 1990, none of the instances recorded provided clear grounds for prosecution.
  917W
  In the case of computer fraud, all instances are cases where MOD computers have been used in support of fraudulent activities, rather than specific fraud of a computer based system.

  Cadets
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much grant was given to fund(a) army cadet forces and (b) Harrow School cadet force in each of the last three years. [22163]

  Dr. Moonie
  The amount of grant given to fund army cadet forces and Harrow School cadet force in each of the last three years is set out in the table:

  £ million

  Financial year

  Army cadet forces

  Harrow school cadet force

  1998–99

  3.558

  0.008

  1999–2000

  3.606

  0.008

  2000–01

  3.402

  0.009

  Notes:

  1. Grants are allocated to cadet forces on a "per person" basis.

  2. Harrow School Cadet Force is a Combined Cadet Force with some 450 members.

  3. Grants are not the only funds provided to the Cadet Force; they are also allocated funds from the usual Ministry of Defence budgetary chain.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on the army cadet force per annum since 1997. [20978]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 December 2001]: The amount spent on the army cadet force per annum since 1997 is shown in the table:

  £ million

  Financial year

  Expenditure on the army cadet force

  1997–98

  27.1

  1998–99

  27.5

  1999–2000

  31.7

  2000–01

  32.0

  Note:

  This expenditure includes funding made available from the usual Ministry of Defence budgetary chain and Cadet Force grants.

  RAF Aircraft
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the difference in planned expenditure between the 25th(a) A400M aircraft for the RAF and (b) C130J aircraft over the lifetime of the programme; and what the in-service date would be of the last aircraft. [28366]

  Dr. Moonie
  Any cost comparisons between these two aircraft are misleading because they provide different capabilities and their in-service dates are 10 years apart. For example, we expect that the A400M will have a 50 per cent, greater payload capacity and provide the RAF with a new capability to carry outsize loads too. We estimate that the acquisition costs of the A400M are approximately £1.6 billion (40 per cent.) greater (on an outturn basis) than those of the C130J. However, the difference at current prices is approximately £0.5 billion (12 per cent.).
  918W
  The final C130J was accepted into service in June 2001 and we expect the 25th A400M to be delivered in 2014.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people were employed in his Department in each of the last four years. [23797]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Leslie) gave to the hon. Gentleman on 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 256W.

  Lost/Stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those items valued at more than £50 which have been stolen or lost from his Department in each of the last four years. [27992]

  Moonie
  Reported cases of stolen equipment are held centrally on a summary basis and relate only to suspected theft by Crown personnel and contractors of stores and equipment, usually recorded as multiples or combinations of small value items such as tools, items of clothing, foodstuffs etc. Full details of items of equipment valued at more than £50 which have been proven to have been stolen or recorded as lost could only be provided at disproportionate cost. However, a list of separately identified discrete items suspected of being stolen in each of the last four financial years and with an estimated individual or collective loss value of £1,000.00 or more is given as follows:

  Equipment

  £

  1997–98

  Laptop computers (18)

  38,010

  Night vision goggles

  1,600

  Camcorder

  1,200

  Dental gold

  12,015

  Propeller blades

  32,000

  Notebook computer

  1,000

  VHS recorders (2)

  1,000

  Engines (2)

  4,162

  Weapon sight

  1,389

  Outboard motor

  1,101

  Thinkpad computer

  2,000

  Land Rover tyres (15)

  1,537

  Weapon sight

  1,736

  Binoculars (3)

  1,190

  Land Rover and tools

  32,011

  1998–99

  Laptop computers (2)

  3,400

  Laptop computer/CD Rom/printer

  3,485

  Industrial cleaner

  1,551

  Spare wheels (10)

  6,419

  Land Rover FFR

  30,000

  Personal computer

  1,512

  Computer/mouse/keyboard

  1,000

  Night vision scope

  2,674

  Common weapon sight

  1,424

  Land Rover sqare wheels (10)

  1,049

  Litepro projector

  4,445

  Litepro projector and computer

  6,445

  Laptop computer and printer

  1,449

  LCD projector

  4,274

  919W

  Equipment

  £

  1999–2000

  Operational ration packs (4,000)

  2,755

  Night goggles (2)

  22,768

  2000–01

  Laptop computers (4)

  7,748

  Trailer

  3,698

  Computer/printer/fax/TV/VCR

  1,750

  Mobile phones (4)/laptop computer

  2,000

  Camouflage poles

  3,500

  Personal computer/printer/power unit

  3,000

  Diesel stove

  2,918

  Mobile phone 'top-up' cards (400)

  13,300

  Landrover

  23,800

  Vauxhall Astra

  1,206

  Motorcycle

  1,915

  Ministerial Transport
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [28087]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Secretary's travel arrangements are made in accordance with the guidance set out in Chapter 7 of the Ministerial Code and the accompanying guidance document Travel by Ministers. The most efficient and cost effective mode of transport is used, bearing in mind security considerations. Travel by rail is used when most appropriate.

  The Secretary of State for Defence last used a train on official duties on 5 September 2001, travelling to Luton Parkway station. He also regularly travels by rail between the Ministry of Defence and his constituency, most recently on 21 January.

  Afghanistan
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 January 2002,Official Report, column 392W, on Afghanistan, if he will place copies of his guidance on the handling of prisoners in Afghanistan in the Library; and under which paragraph of Exemption 1 he withheld details of the dates of issue. [29405]

  Mr. Hoon
  I am withholding copies in accordance with section(a) of Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. This section of Exemption 1 also applied to my hon. Friend's previous question on dates.

  Former WEU Agencies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the(a) European Union Satellite Centre and (b) European Union Institute for Security Studies are operational as agencies of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [29638]

  Mr. Hoon
  The former Western European Union bodies, the Satellite Centre and Institute for Security Studies, transferred to the European Union and began operation as agencies in support of the Common Foreign and Security Policy with effect from 1 January 2002.

  Departmental Staff
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate total annual staff costs for his Department and its agencies by nation and region of the UK; and if he will make a statement. [6829]

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

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what requests she has received from Northumberland county council for her Department to provide evidence to Professor Dower inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak; what response she has made; and if she will make a statement. [28187]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: Northumberland county council notified me of the inquiry they had established and their invitation for written comments. In reply we forwarded comments on a series of topics which were likely to be of interest to the inquiry. Subsequently we have received some specific questions from Professor Dower and the inquiry team and a reply has been sent to meet their deadline.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 164W, on the costs of the foot and mouth outbreak, what the present estimate is of the total cost to public funds of the foot and mouth outbreak. [28243]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: The latest estimate of the cost of the foot and mouth disease outbreak stands at £2,059 million.

  This includes a provisional forecast of £19 million for costs to MOD and other Government Departments. We are still awaiting costs from five other Government Departments but these amounts are expected to be very small.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what efforts she made to ensure value for money from contractors employed to assist with culling and farm clean-up work during the foot and mouth outbreak. [28184]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: We have made extensive use of professional project managers, quantity surveyors and forensic accountants to ensure value for money is attained on contracts placed during the foot and mouth crisis.

  These have been supported as necessary by legal and procurement experts.

  HFCs
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of plant and equipment installed in her Department's offices in the last 12 months contains HFCs. [15519]
  921W
  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: No central record is kept of plant and equipment installed in the Department. The Department is, though, well aware that in October 2000 regulations came into force which confirmed the total ban on the use of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and introduced a ban on HCFCs (hydrochlorofluorocarbons) in new equipment from 1 January 2001. Substitute refrigerants have therefore been introduced whose benefits include reduced ozone depletion potential, toxicity, flammability and global warming potential. These substitute refrigerants include approved HFCs. The Department therefore endorses the use of the Office of Government Commerce Buying Solutions since they supply HFC based equipment. Our facilities managers and design consults are well aware of the regulations and specify new equipment accordingly.

  BSE
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) on what date her Department became aware that meat from the offspring of a cow with BSE had entered the human food chain; [28688]

  (2) on what date her Department informed the Food Standards Agency that meat from the offspring of a cow with BSE had entered the human food chain. [28687]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 18 January 2002]: The Animal Health Office discovered that an offspring had been moved while under restrictions on 3 January. After further investigation, a detailed written report outlining the circumstances of the case was received in London on 8 January. The Food Standards Agency was informed on 10 January.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she made of using postal services to obtain the passports of the offspring of cattle with BSE during the foot and mouth epidemic. [28690]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 18 January 2002]: There was no practical alternative to using postal services in circumstances where it was desirable to minimise visits both on to and off farms.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many cases comprise the backlog in the seizure of animal passports in relation to BSE controls; and if she will make a statement; [28684]

  (2) what response she has made to the Food Standards Agency's request for her Department to clear the backlog in the seizure of animal passports in relation to BSE controls. [28685]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 18 January 2002]: Animal Health Offices have been asked to seize all outstanding passports for offspring animals under BSE restrictions and to report on progress early in the week beginning 21 January. Animal Health Offices have also been instructed to prioritise offspring cull work.
  922W
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by what means her Department became aware that meat from the offspring of a cow with BSE had entered the human food chain. [28686]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 18 January 2002]: The Animal Health Office contacted the offspring's owner in order to arrange for it to be slaughtered. The farmer informed the Animal Health Office that the animal had been moved. Further investigation revealed that the animal had been slaughtered for human consumption.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to confiscate animal passports of cattle which are the offspring of animals with BSE and are awaiting slaughter. [28185]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: There are no changes to our policy that the passports of all offspring born after 1 August 1996 to suspected BSE cases should be removed. Checks are being made to ensure that this has happened in all cases. This does not alter the owner's responsibility to comply with restriction notices served on them.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many offspring of BSE-infected cattle were awaiting slaughter in January 2001; and what is the present number. [28186]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: 134 offspring of BSE-infected cattle were awaiting slaughter in Great Britain on 14 January 2001. As at 14 January 2002, there were 478 offspring awaiting slaughter.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to extend the loan action scheme to England. [29375]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring to the loan action scheme to improve energy efficiency in small and medium enterprises run by the Energy Saving Trust in Scotland, or the similar scheme which the Trust operates in Northern Ireland. The introduction of a similar scheme in England would be a matter for consideration by the Energy Saving Trust and the recently formed Carbon Trust, in the preparation of their business plans.

  Flood Defences (Lewes)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the implications for flood defence provision in Lewes resulting from the decision on the contribution of East Sussex County Council to the flood levy for 2002–03. [27539]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: I understand that the Sussex Local Flood Defence Committee is meeting again on 25 January to discuss the 2002–03 levy and its implications for the Environment Agency's plans for flood management. I await the agency's assessment of any implications for flood defence provision in Lewes.

  Animal Experiments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to seek changes to EU legislation in respect of the mandatory testing of chemicals on animals. [28633]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: In line with Government policy on experiments on live animals, the policy of the Department is to seek reduction in such experimentation wherever possible, consistent with the protection of human health and the environment. We take the view that, while a complete ban is not yet achievable, much more should be done to reduce the numbers of animals used in determining the environmental fate and effects of chemicals.

  We are aware of the concern that has been raised that the EU Review of Chemicals legislation might lead to a large increase in the number of animals used in tests. We sympathise with these concerns, and have made it clear to the Commission of the European Communities and to other member states that a key objective of this review must be to keep the need for animal experimentation to an absolute minimum. This should include:

  requiring companies to share information about chemicals

  prioritising chemicals for testing

  finding and validating test methods which do not require the use of animals.

  Lost/Stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 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. [27998]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department records show that the following items have been stolen or lost in the last four years. Data from 8 June 2001 relate to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs while previous information covers Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  £

  Date

  Items lost

  Cost

  1998

  12 January

  2 PCs

  6,000

  26 January

  1 Special telephone handset

  80

  2 February

  1 Video recorder

  190

  10 June

  1 Answering machine

  80

  21 June

  1 Laptop

  2,500

  5 September

  1 Laptop

  3,110

  21 September

  2 Laptops

  6,000

  1999

  1 February

  1 Laptop plus zip plus mouse

  2,300

  23 February

  2 Central processing units

  2,250

  26 March

  2 PCs plus 8 copies of software plus 2 ethernet cards

  2,250

  14 April

  1 Laptop

  2,000

  19 April

  1 Psion Organiser

  350

  27 April

  4 power adapters with accessories

  400

  23 July

  1 Field equipment and mobile phone

  70

  18 August

  1 Laptop and accessories

  1,570

  6 September

  1 Mobile phone and accessories

  100

  20 September

  1 Laptop

  2,300

  27 September

  3 Software CDs

  400

  1 October

  Cash from purse

  100

  28 October

  1 PC plus printer

  2,000

  15 November

  1 Laptop

  1,950

  22 November

  1 Laptop

  1,580

  20 December

  1 Laptop

  1,320

  924W

  £

  Date

  Items lost

  Cost

  2000

  28 January

  1 Laptop

  1,000

  13 February

  1 PC plus printer

  3,192

  27 February

  1 Laptop plus floppy disk drive

  2,765

  21 March

  1 Psion Organiser

  380

  28 March

  1 Psion 5 MX

  383

  5 April

  1 Laptop plus mobile printer

  1,000

  26 April

  l Raincoat

  150

  16 May

  29 Processors plus 1 laptop

  5,478

  24 May 2000

  1 Laptop

  2,000

  26 May 2000

  1 Laptop, printer and accessories

  1,244

  10 June

  Cash

  100

  10 June

  1 Mobile phone

  120

  7 July

  2 PCs plus 1 Laptop

  5,000

  19 July

  4 Compaq processors

  4,000

  20 July

  1 Laptop plus Modem card

  1,100

  2 August

  1 Laptop plus 1 printer plus 1 printer lead

  1,820

  7 August

  3 PCs

  3,250

  17 August

  1 Processor

  500

  11 September

  1 Laptop, mouse and connections

  1,500

  12 October

  1 Modem

  100

  30 October

  1 Laptop

  2,585

  20 November

  1 Laptop plus 1 floppy disc and CD drive

  2,660

  29 November

  3 Processors

  675

  2001

  1 February

  1 Laptop

  2,998

  6 February

  2 Laptops

  3,500

  8 February

  1 Laptop

  2,000

  12 February

  2 Laptops

  4,000

  12 March

  1 PC plus printer

  2,500

  21 March

  1 Laptop

  1,500

  2 April

  1 Laptop

  2,000

  9 May

  2 DIM cards

  146

  20 May

  1 Keyboard

  96

  2 July

  1 PC

  700

  2 August

  1 Pentium

  1,000

  16 August

  1 Laptop plus 1 modem and carry case

  2,000

  14 September

  1 Laptop

  1,500

  28 September

  1 Laptop

  1,500

  1 October

  1 Laptop

  1,579

  5 October

  1 Laptop

  1,579

  21 November

  1 Laptop plus projector

  1,879

  19 December

  2 Printers

  300

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much funding has been made available by her Department to tackle air pollution in Buckinghamshire in each year since 1997. [27791]

  Mr. Meacher
  Resources to allow local authorities in Buckinghamshire and elsewhere to carry out their local air quality management duties have been provided every year since 1997 through the annual Local Government Finance Settlement. A total of a little over £2 million is included for these purposes in the annual settlement. Resources for individual local authority duties are not ring-fenced, however, and decisions on the allocation of resources are a matter for local authorities themselves. In addition to this, supplementary credit approvals are made available each year to local authorities to help with the purchase of air quality monitoring and modelling equipment. Since 1997, we have awarded a little over £420,000 (Table 1) to support local authority capital expenditure in Buckinghamshire on air quality equipment.
  925W

  Table 1. Value of supplementary credit approvals to local authorities in Buckinghamshire, 1997 to 2002

  Year

  Value (£)

  1997–98

  76,808

  1998–99

  36,000

  1999–2000

  175,000

  2000–01

  50,456

  2001–02

  82,000

  Refrigerators
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress is being made to help small businesses continue to sell secondhand refrigerators, previously collected from the large retail outlets. [29524]

  Mr. Meacher
  The majority of old refrigerators are now being collected by local authorities. We would encourage small businesses to work with local authorities to identify those units suitable for re-use. Such arrangements are likely to be welcomed by local authorities as a means of reducing their costs.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much of the money to help local authorities with the extra costs of storing refrigerators announced on 4 December 2001 has been made available to Blackpool borough council. [28824]

  Mr. Meacher
  £6 million has been added to the provisional local government finance settlement for 2002–03 for the costs of implementing the ozone depleting substances regulation relating to the period 1 January 2002 to 31 March 2002. This will be distributed to local authorities using Standard Spending Assessments (SSA). The extra money has been added to the upper tier sub-block of the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services SSA.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from local authorities with regard to the allocation of Government resources available in order to meet the cost of implementing the refrigerator disposal regulations. [29111]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has received a number of representations from local authorities concerning the allocation of funding for the implementation of EC Regulation 2037/2000. We have received representations through letters, e-mail and telephone calls. Officials are maintaining a close dialogue with local authority representatives with a view to obtaining a comprehensive understanding of the additional costs which local authorities face.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from the Environment Agency concerning the arrangements for the storage and disposal of refrigerators in advance of the development of purpose-built infrastructure in the UK. [29096]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has worked very closely with the Environment Agency on the development of guidance on the storage and disposal of fridges. There continues to be close co-operation on the finalisation of 926W
  technical standards and new fridges recycling facilities and, more generally on the implementation and enforcement of the European Ozone Depleting Substances Regulation.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 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. [28401]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, on 17 January 2002,Official Report, column 483W.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what equipment has been stolen from her Department since 1 May 1997; and what the approximate value of each item was. [26823]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The Department's records show that the following items have been stolen since 1 May 1997. Data from 8 June 2001 relate to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs while previous information covers Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Date

  Number

  Items stolen

  Cost (£)

  1997

  2 May

  1

  Laboratory equipment

  250

  3 May

  20

  PC

  39,500

  6 May

  1

  PC

  673

  9 June

  1

  Laptop

  4,000

  11 June

  1

  Calculator

  10

  17 July

  1

  Camcorder and accessories

  1,300

  1 August

  2

  PC

  4,700

  11 August

  1

  Laptop

  900

  9 September

  1

  Kitchen equipment

  475

  9 September

  1

  PC

  1,787

  24 September

  1

  Mobile phone charger

  10

  30 September

  1

  PC

  1,990

  2 October

  1

  Laptop

  2,000

  13 October

  1

  Mobile phone

  125

  1998

  12 January

  2

  Laptops

  6,000

  26 January

  1

  Special telephone handset

  80

  2 February

  1

  Video recorder

  190

  10 June

  1

  Answering machine

  80

  21 June

  1

  Laptop

  2,500

  5 September

  1

  Laptop

  3,110

  21 September

  2

  Laptops

  6,000

  16 November

  1

  Answering machine

  50

  Thefts in 1999

  1 February

  1

  Laptop plus zip plus mouse

  2,300

  16 February

  1

  Dictaphone

  50

  23 February

  2

  Central processing units

  2,250

  26 March

  2

  PC plus 8 copies of software plus ethernet cards

  2,250

  14 April

  1

  Laptop

  2,000

  19 April

  1

  Psion Organiser

  350

  27 April

  4

  Power adapters with accessories

  400

  23 July

  1

  Field equipment and mobile phone

  70

  18 August

  1

  Laptop

  1,570

  6 September

  1

  Mobile phone and accessories

  100

  20 September

  1

  Laptop

  2,300

  927W

  Date

  Number

  Items stolen

  Cost (£)

  27 September

  3

  Software CDs

  400

  28 October

  1

  PC plus printer

  2,000

  15 November

  1

  Laptop

  1,950

  22 November

  1

  Laptop

  1,580

  20 December

  1

  Laptop

  1,320

  2000

  28 January

  1

  Laptop

  1,000

  13 February

  1

  PC plus printer

  3,192

  27 February

  1

  Laptop plus floppy disk

  2,765

  21 March

  1

  Psion Organiser

  380

  28 March

  1

  Psion 5 MX

  383

  5 April

  1

  Laptop plus mobile printer

  1,000

  16 May

  29

  Processors plus I Toshiba laptop

  5,478

  24 May

  1

  Laptop

  2,000

  26 May

  1

  Laptop, printer and accessories

  1,244

  10 June

  1

  Mobile phone

  120

  7 July

  3

  2 PCs and 1 laptop

  5,000

  19 July

  4

  Compaq processors

  4,000

  20 July

  1

  PC plus modem card

  1,100

  2 August

  1

  Laptop plus 1 printer plus 1 printer lead

  1,820

  7 August

  3

  PCs

  3,250

  17 August

  1

  Processor

  500

  11 September

  1

  Laptop, mouse and connections

  1,500

  12 October

  1

  Modem card

  100

  30 October

  1

  Laptop

  2,585

  20 November

  1

  Laptop plus 1 floppy disc and CD drive

  2,660

  29 November

  3

  Compaq processors

  675

  2001

  1 February

  1

  Laptop

  2,998

  6 February

  2

  Laptops

  3,500

  8 February

  1

  Laptop

  2,000

  12 February

  2

  Laptops

  4,000

  12 March

  2

  PC plus printer

  2,500

  21 March

  1

  Laptop

  1,500

  2 April

  1

  Laptop

  2,000

  9 May

  2

  DIM chips

  146

  20 May

  1

  Keyboard

  96

  2 July

  1

  PC

  700

  2 August

  1

  Chips

  1,000

  16 August

  1

  Laptop plus 1 modem and carry case

  2,000

  14 September

  1

  Laptop

  1,500

  28 September

  1

  Laptop

  1,500

  1 October

  1

  Laptop

  1,579

  5 October

  1

  Laptop

  1,579

  21 November

  1

  Laptop plus one projector

  1,879

  19 December

  2

  Printers

  300

  2002

  8 January

  12

  PCs

  6,000

  Home Energy Conservation
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of local authorities(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in Scotland are on course to achieve a 30 per cent, improvement in home energy conservation by 2010. [25893]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: As domestic energy efficiency is a devolved matter, it is the responsibility of the respective Parliament and Assemblies to comment on the situation in their countries.

  Statutory guidance issued on the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 (HECA) in England makes it clear that local authorities are expected to identify measures that will lead to "substantial progress" towards 30 per cent, improvement in energy efficiency in all residential accommodation within 10 years of April 1996, but that some authorities may feel it more appropriate to develop a strategy which covers a different time scale.
  928W
  In the four years to 31 March 2000, authorities have reported that overall their HECA strategies have achieved energy efficiency improvements of 6 per cent. Of the 354 local authorities in England with HECA responsibilities, almost 50 per cent, are reporting 6 per cent, or more improvement. Details of percentage improvement to March 2001 are not yet available but we expect to publish these shortly.

  If we assume a similar rate of progress over the next six years, ECAs might on average be expected to achieve a 15 per cent, improvement in domestic energy efficiency. However, we would expect that schemes such as Warm Front and the Energy Efficiency Commitment 2002–05 (EEC) would lead to greater improvements.

  In order to help local authorities achieve greater energy savings in the future, we are looking at the working of HECA as part of our current review of local authority energy efficiency activity.

  The Home Energy Conservation Bill 2001 would require local authorities to implement their energy conservation reports, something missing from the current legislation.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), will reply to the letter of 18 November 2001, from Ms Anne Parker concerning the implementation of the recommendations of Task Force for the Hills; [28286]

  (2) when the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), will reply to the letter of 18 November 2001 from Ms Anne Parker concerning the implementation of the recommendations of Task Force for the Hills; [28284]

  (3) when the Under-Secretary, Lord Whitty, will reply to the letter of 18 November 2001 from Ms Anne Parker concerning the implementation of the recommendations of Task Force for the Hills. [28285]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: We have no record of having received the letters referred to by the hon. Member.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 15 January, 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; pursuant to his reply, 22 January 2001 column 779W]: the answer I gave the hon. Member on 22 January 2001, Official Report, column 779W, I said that a response to the hon. Member's constituent's letter of 12 June for West Chelmsford was sent on 18 January 2002. This was incorrect. The letter was sent out on 21 January 2002.

  Livestock Markets
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance she intends to issue to auctioneers concerning the reopening of livestock markets. [29180]

  Mr. Morley
  Detailed guidance for auctioneers covering biosecurity and other conditions relevant to the reopening of livestock markets is currently being drawn up. It will be disseminated shortly to the Livestock Auctioneers' Association and it will also be placed on the DEFRA website www.defra.gov.uk.

  Agricultural Shows
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance she intends to issue to agricultural societies concerning the resumption of local agricultural shows. [29179]

  Mr. Morley
  Detailed guidance for agricultural societies, covering biosecurity and other conditions relevant to the resumption of livestock shows, is currently being drawn up. It will be issued as soon as possible to the Association of Agricultural Shows and other interested organisations. It will also be placed on the DEFRA website www.defra.gov.uk.

  End of Life Products
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the likely cost implications of Directive 200/53/EC and Regulation 2037/2700 on(a) county councils, (b) London boroughs and (c) district councils. [28546]

  Mr. Meacher
  The End of Life Vehicles Directive 2000/53/EC has far reaching consequences for a number of different economic operators. However, it is not intended that local authorities will have any direct responsibility for implementing this directive.

  The directive requires producers to be responsible for all or a significant part of the costs of take back and treatment of end of life vehicles from 2007. These arrangements should help to ease the situation for local authorities in dealing with abandoned vehicles. It has not yet been decided how take back and treatment of end of life vehicles between 2002 and 2007 will be funded.

  A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on substances that deplete the ozone layer was undertaken in December 1998. The RIA did not estimate compliance costs for the extraction of ozone-depleting substances from the insulating foam in domestic refrigeration equipment as the draft proposal did not make it mandatory. It was not until June 2001 that the European Commission gave EU member states its final interpretation of EC Regulation 2037/2700 that it did require the recovery of controlled substances in the insulating foam of domestic fridges and freezers.

  The Department recently announced a payment of £6 million to English local authorities to cover their costs of handling fridges and freezers until March 2002. We are urgently assessing the impacts of the regulation, including the costs, and will determine what further action is required beyond that.

  Agricultural Waste
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to help farmers to dispose of(a) plastic and (b) redundant wire. [29470]

  Mr. Meacher
  We will be addressing the question of how to deal with farm plastics and other waste materials in the forthcoming consultation document on agricultural waste.

  Fox Hunts
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to reassess the case for independent regulation and inspections of fox hunts; and if she will make a statement. [29352]

  Alun Michael
  Consideration is being given to the best way of dealing with the issue of hunting.

  GMOs
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the terms of the agreement with SCIMAC setting up farm-scale evaluations of GMOs that(a) plants that have been harvested should be removed from the trial sites and (b) the sites should be subsequently ploughed, destroying any remaining roots, have been complied with. [15282]

  Mr. Meacher
  The agreement on the Farm Scale Evaluations requires that produce from the trials should not enter the food or feed chain. It does not specify how this requirement is to be met. The specific rules that apply on crop disposal and post-harvest management are those set out in the statutory release consent (in the case of the beet and oilseed rape) and the relevant part of the SCIMAC code of practice on GM herbicide-tolerant crops. These provisions have been complied with, although there is a case currently under review to determine whether a breach of consent has occurred.

  Egg Imports
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) egg products and (b) shell eggs were imported; and how many egg products were imported from the USA in each of the last three years. [28188]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: Overseas trade statistics show that the UK imports of (a) egg products and (b) shell eggs over the past three years were as follows:

  Thousand cases

  1998

  1999

  2000

  (a) Egg products1

  1,468.8

  1,601.8

  1,470.5

  (b) Shell eggs

  610.1

  707.9

  1,652.2

  1 Converted to shell egg equivalent

  Of the (a) egg products shown in the previous table, the following were imported from the USA during the same period.
  931W

  Thousand cases

  1998

  1999

  2000

  (a) Egg products from USA1

  36.3

  30.2

  63.7

  1 Converted to shell egg equivalent

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise

  Data prepared by Statistics (Commodities and Food) Accounts and

  Trade, ESD, DEFRA

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to help local authorities to control illegal meat imports at airports(a) in the UK and (b) at Heathrow airport. [28532]

  Mr. Morley
  Under the relevant UK legislation which implements European rules, local authorities are responsible for checks on imports of animal products. DEFRA already provides detailed guidance and advice to them on discharging their functions at Borders Inspection Posts. We have taken steps to improve co-ordination and ensure that enforcement authorities obtain information to help target resources effectively. We have also improved publicity to bring to the attention of travellers the rules on what can be legally imported. We are examining the enforcement powers available to local authorities to ensure that they are adequate.

  We maintain close liaison with local authorities, including at Heathrow, and will continue to keep all measures under review.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of changes in employment in the CHP sector in the UK in 2001. [22594]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have no reliable estimates of reductions of employment in the CHP sector in the UK in 2001.

  Social Exclusion
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she 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; [22413]

  (2) how many competitive grant schemes administered by her 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; [22437]

  (3) if she 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
  932W
  of pages in the application form and (e) if the grant can be used to fund the core costs of the applicant organisation; [22424]

  (4) if she will provide a list of the grants made under the competitive grant schemes administered by her 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; [22420]

  (5) what estimate has been made of the administrative cost to (a) the state, (b) unsuccessful applicants and (c) successful applicants of the competitive grant schemes, provided by her 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. [22380]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 12 December 2001]: The information is not available in the form requested, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, having regard in particular to the recent creation of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. However, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Undersecretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) on 19 December 2001, Official Report, column 482W. The website http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office. co.uk/cmhansrd/pa/cm200102/cm011219/text/11219w47. htm#11219w47.htm_spnew5 contains references to the available information on Government grants to voluntary organisations.

  North Sea Conference
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the dates are for the forthcoming second North Sea Conference; where the conference will be held; what intergovernmental preparatory meetings have been held; what nongovernmental organisations have been consulted in preparation; and if she will place in the Library copies of papers and documents that(a) will be submitted to the North Sea Ministerial Conference, and (b) constitute background material for the conference. [28494]

  Mr. Meacher
  The fifth conference of Ministers responsible for the protection of the environment of the North sea will be held in Bergen, Norway on 20 and 21 March. The Committee of North Sea Senior Officials has met a number of times to prepare for the conference, most recently in September 2001 and January 2002. A further meeting will be held next month. The meetings are attended by Government representatives, intergovernmental organisations and non-governmental organisations with observer status.

  22 NGOs have observer status: the Baltic and Maritime Council, Birdlife International, Committee of Agricultural Organisations in the EU, European Anglers Alliance, European Bureau of Conservation and Development, European Chemical Industries Council, European Community Sea Ports Organisation, European Waste Water Group, European Water Association, Europeche, Greenpeace International, High North Alliance, International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, International Chamber of Shipping, International Fishmeal and Oil Manufacturers Association, International Transport Workers' Federation, Local Authorities International

  933W
  Environmental Organisation, Nordic Fishermen's Council, Seas at Risk, Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe, World Nuclear Association, and World Wide Fund for Nature.

  The substantive background document which will be presented to the conference is a comprehensive progress report, reviewing action taken and progress achieved since the last conference. This is currently being finalised by the Secretariat in Oslo. I will place copies in the Library when it is published. The conference is likely to adopt a declaration, defining action for the future. I will place a copy in the Library.

  Organophosphate Pesticides
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of 27 April 1998,Official Report, column 30W, on organophosphate pesticides, what report has been received on the research study by CBD Porton Down into the dose effect profiles for OP sheep dips on brain electrical activity and sensitive behaviour indices in non-human primates; and if she will make a statement on her Department's response to that study. [29063]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: The project was delayed in starting and as a result the completion was rescheduled for late summer 2002.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of reduced Countryside Stewardship scheme payment levels on the take-up of the scheme by farmers and landowners; and(a) how many participants there are and (b) what are the payments made by her Department in each of the years in which the Countryside Stewardship Scheme has been in operation. [29083]

  Mr. Morley
  Changes to Countryside Stewardship scheme payment rates were last implemented in 2001. Following a payment review, only five payments were reduced while the remaining 134 were either maintained or slightly increased. Overall, the net effect was estimated to be an increase of about 2 per cent, in total payments.

  The continuing demand for the scheme, with nearly 3,000 applications last year, indicates that the current level of payment is generally acceptable.

  By the end of the 2001–02 scheme year, there will be around 14,000 Stewardship agreement holders and we are looking for a further 3,000 applications for the 2002–03 scheme year.

  The total payments made to farmers in each of years since 1991, when the scheme was introduced by the then Countryside Commission, are as follows:

  £ million

  Annual expenditure

  1992–93

  5.3

  1993–94

  8.5

  1994–95

  10.5

  1995–96

  11.6

  1996–97

  10.9

  934W

  £ million

  Annual expenditure

  1997–98

  15.7

  1998–99

  19.9

  1999–2000

  23.4

  2000–01

  28.9

  2001–02

  47.3

  Total expenditure 1992–2002

  182.0

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the operation of the Countryside Stewardship scheme; and whether it is her Department's policy to reduce Countryside Stewardship scheme payment levels directly in line with declining farm incomes. [29082]

  Mr. Morley
  Countryside Stewardship payment rates are reviewed regularly. In line with EU rules, the rates take account of any income lost in undertaking Stewardship options, together with any additional costs incurred, such as specialised management or extra capital works and, where necessary, a small incentive element of up to 20 percent.

  When we carried out our latest review of payment rates we found that, because of the severe decline in farm incomes since the previous review, a few of the current rates exceeded the actual loss of income involved in participating in the scheme. Although a small number of rates were adjusted downwards to reflect this, the great majority of payment rates were either maintained or increased and overall the net effect was estimated to be an increase of about 2 per cent, in total payments. This shows the efforts that we have made to protect payment rates from external economic circumstances.

  Nitrate Pollution
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on(a) the environmental harm caused by nitrate levels in the land phase of the hydrological cycle and (b) the source of the research upon which the theory is based. [29091]

  Mr. Meacher
  Nitrates in soil can leach into water. High nitrate levels in water contribute to eutrophication and reduce biodiversity. A risk assessment of such environmental harm is contained in a Regulatory Impact Assessment annexed to the Department's current consultation document "How should England implement the 1991 Nitrates Directive?" published on 20 December 2001.

  A report by WRc to DETR in 1999 entitled "Diffuse pollution: sources of N and P" explains the scientific processes and extent of environmental harm and contains an extensive reference list. Copies of this report are available from the Foundation for Water Research.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of research evidence showing that(a) the process of denitrification includes the addition of phosphate and (b) phosphate is the cause of eutrophication in saline water. [29085]
  935W
  Mr. Meacher
  The research evidence suggests phosphate is not a significant influence on denitrification, though there are circumstances where phosphate limited plant growth can influence the capacity for denitrification to occur or where the anaerobic conditions required for denitrification also lead to the mobilisation of phosphorus from sediments.

  The research evidence shows that for marine waters generally the growth of algae is limited by the amount of nitrogen available (rather than the amount of phosphorus), so eutrophication can result if there is an increase in nitrogen. The position in estuaries or transitional waters may be more complex, and in a few places the availability of phosphorus may be the limiting factor.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Lord Birt
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes to policy have resulted from Lord Bin's work on crime. [29192]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 17 January 2002, Official Report, column 469W.

  Private Prisons
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason private prisons are not required to submit(a) sickness and (b) minority ethnic staff data. [28637]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: Her Majesty's Prison Service collects data on sickness levels and ethnic identity on its own employees. These details are not collected in respect of staff employed at private sector prisons as a matter of course because personnel issues are the concern of the contractors and such information is therefore not contractually required. The information is however, made available on request.

  MI5 Records
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the request by the Advisory Council on Public Records to be allowed to consider the conditions under which MI5 records are released was refused; and if he will make a statement. [28630]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: In July 1998, my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary, invited the Advisory Council on Public records to review the criteria employed by the Security Service to select files for permanent preservation on grounds of historical interest. During the course of the review the chairman of the Council, Lord Justice Woolf, wrote to the Home Secretary to ask whether he wished to extend the terms of reference to encompass issues relating to access to Security Service records.

  The intelligence services and the Interception Commissioners and Investigatory Powers Tribunal have full access to all service records necessary for then-functions and therefore the Home Secretary replied that
  936W
  he was not contemplating changing the arrangements to widen access beyond this "need to know" approach. This was recognised in Lord Justice Woolf s report. However, the Home Secretary did agree that officials of the Public Records Office, with the necessary security clearance, should be invited by the Security Service to examine files earmarked for destruction after review by the service. This now happens.

  The Advisory Council reported in December 1998 and the report was placed in Library on 3 February 1999. At the same time the then Home Secretary announced that he was accepting in full the recommendations of the committee. All of these have now been implemented.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what costs have been incurred by his Department to date in connection with the Saville inquiry; and what his estimate is of the final cost to his Department. [29068]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The Home Office has responsibility for the protective security arrangements for public figures, for which some costs have been incurred in relation to this inquiry. It is not our policy to comment on the details of protection arrangements for individuals, as to do so could compromise their security.

  The Home Office has no other direct involvement in the Bloody Sunday inquiry and does not employ staff full-time on inquiry related work. Some small administrative costs have been incurred.

  Market and Opinion Research
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what record his Department keeps of the expenditure of his Department on(a) polling exercises and (b) focus groups. [29516]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The Department conducts or commissions market or opinion research only when it is justified by the specific needs of a particular policy or programme, and when this is the most economical, efficient and effective way to achieve the purpose.

  Detailed breakdowns of costs and analysis by types of research, such as polling exercises and focus groups, are not held centrally or captured by the Department's accounting systems. Data are recorded under broad expenditure headings, further disaggregation would be possible only at disproportionate cost.

  Magistrates Court
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made towards the provision of a witness service in every magistrates court by March. [29369]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The Magistrates Court Witness Service is being established and run by the organisation Victim Support, with funding from the Home Office. As at 14 January 2002, witness services had been established in 220 (58 per cent.) of the 382 magistrates courts in England

  937W
  and Wales. Victim Support advise that the process of recruiting staff and volunteers for the remaining 162 courts is in progress, and that they are hopeful of meeting the target of establishing witness support services in all magistrates courts by 31 March 2002.

  Victims of Crime
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the operation of the duty on the Probation Service to keep victims of serious violent and sexual crimes informed of the offender's release. [29367]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: Under the new statutory duty, local Probation Boards are required to consult and notify victims about release arrangements of offenders serving a sentence of 12 months or more for a sexual or violent offence. We expect approximately 3,500 more victims of serious crimes each year will be informed of an offender's release under these arrangements. There are currently no figures collected centrally on the actual numbers of victims notified of offenders' release arrangements since the legislation came into force on 1 April 2001.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what percentage of prosecutions the victim chose to make a personal statement to the court in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [29368]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: I understand from the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Court Service that information of this nature is not collated.

  Asylum Support
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers received advice or assistance from each of the reception assistance agencies in relation to their application to the National Asylum Support Service in(a) 2000–01 and (b) the current financial year to date. [28891]

  Angela Eagle
  Voluntary sector agencies are grant funded by the Home Office to assist asylum seekers who need to make an application for support. The number of asylum seekers assisted by reception assistants from individual agencies is as follows:

  3 April 2000 to 31 March 2001
  1

  1 April 2001 to 31 December 2001
  2

  Refugee Council

  17,373

  19,391

  Migrant Helpline

  12,894

  8,845

  Refugee Arrivals Project

  5,554

  4,337

  Refugee Action

  2,717

  2,456

  Scottish Refugee Council

  504

  425

  Welsh Refugee Council

  150

  164

  Total

  39,192

  35,618

  1 based on information provided by the voluntary sector agencies

  2 provisional

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of the amount of grant made to each of the reception assistance agencies by the National Asylum Support 938W
  Service under section 111 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in (a) 2000–01 and (b) the current financial year to date. [28780]

  Angela Eagle
  The level of grant paid by the Home Office to the voluntary sector organisations is as follows:

  £

  2000–01
  1,3

  2001–02
  2,3

  Refugee Council

  7,934,000

  10,038,000

  Refugee Action

  2,290,000

  3,246,000

  Migrant Helpline

  2,094,000

  2,587,000

  Refugee Arrivals Project

  1,913,000

  1,971,000

  Scottish Refugee Council

  595,000

  743,000

  Welsh Refugee Council

  343,000

  200,000

  1 Information based on outturn figure.

  2 Information based on estimate of outturn figure.

  3 Excludes payments for provision of emergency accommodation.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost was of providing(a) accommodation and (b) emergency accommodation under the National Asylum Support Service-run asylum support system in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) in the current financial year to date. [28781]

  Angela Eagle
  The total cost of(a) accommodation paid for directly under contract by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) for (i) 2000–01 was £54.1 million and for (ii) current year to 30 November £150.1 million, and (b) emergency accommodation for (i) 2000–01 was £27.5 million and for (ii) current year to 30 November £38.2 million.

  These figures reflect the increased activity undertaken by the NASS since it began operation on the 3 April 2000.

  Costs in 2000–01 are cash based and for current year resource based. All figures are rounded to nearest £0.1 million.

  Republic of Ireland
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) contacts and (b) exchanges have been organised with relevant authorities in the Republic of Ireland at which issues of (a) racism and racist attacks, (b) immigration and (c) asylum seekers have been discussed; and what agreement was reached on further co-operation. [29250]

  Angela Eagle
  On the issues of racism and racist attacks, the Government have frequent informal contacts with European Union (EU) representatives, including the Republic of Ireland, at international fora such as the recent World Conference Against Racism. Information on racist incidents is one of the issues discussed at the European Union Terrorism working Group, which normally meets six times a year.

  The Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate hold biennial bilateral meetings with the relevant authorities in the Republic of Ireland (Asylum, Immigration and Citizenship Division, Asylum Policy Division, Immigration Policy Division, Reception and Integration Agency) on issues of concern to both countries in relation to immigration and asylum. These are held for the purpose of exchanging experience and providing an update regarding recent and prospective developments.
  939W
  The United Kingdom immigration service holds regular operational meetings with the Republic of Ireland's Department of Justice and Garda Siochana (Irish police) in order to develop closer co-operation on asylum and immigration matters, including Common Travel area issues. The primary aims of the operational group are to enhance operational co-operations, improve the exchange of information on asylum seekers to prevent abuse, to deal more effectively with human smuggling and trafficking and to explore the scope for additional co-operation on the removal of failed asylum seekers to third countries via the United Kingdom.

  In addition, the Irish Government have appointed a Garda liaison officer to the Irish Embassy in London who is tasked with taking forward cross border and intelligence liaison between the two countries in order to counter immigration trafficking.

  Su Jin Park
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will investigate the handling by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate at Croydon of mail sent by recorded delivery on 26 November by Su Jin Park. [29266]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: Su Jin Park's application was posted to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) Public Enquiry Office in Birmingham. They forwarded it to IND in Croydon on 28 November 2001. Of late, it has been taking up to eight weeks to consider new applications. The reasons for this are (i) the exceptionally high number of applications received in 2001; and (ii) process changes that are being introduced. I regret that it was not possible to decide Miss Park's application before her planned departure from the United Kingdom but am pleased that she was able to travel as a result of obtaining an emergency travel document from the Korean Embassy. Her passport will now be returned to the Embassy.

  Sentenced Persons Transfer Convention
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the targets are for the efficient and effective operation of the Convention for the Transfer of Sentenced Persons; how these performance indicators were constructed; and how far the operation of procedures has matched these targets in each year since its coming into force. [29249]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons sets no targets for the consideration of applications for repatriation. Since January 2001, Her Majesty's Prison Service has set and applied the following targets to those parts of the process that lie within its control. These targets were constructed to take account of the need to obtain information from agencies outside the Prison Service in support of individual applications.Applications from foreign nationals imprisoned in England and Wales:

  (a) From receipt of the prisoner's application to referral to the receiving jurisdiction: 12 weeks.

  940W
  During this period the caseworker will obtain and collate the documentation necessary to consider the application, including court documentation, police or customs reports, information on previous convictions, and prison reports. Any translations needed for non-English speaking countries will be done at this stage.
  (b) From the receipt of the response from the receiving jurisdiction to the final determination of the request by the Prison Service: 12 weeks.
  During this period the information provided by the receiving jurisdiction is assessed, in particular on the enforcement of the sentence to determine if repatriation can proceed. If both jurisdictions are content to proceed the consent of the prisoner must be obtained to the terms and conditions of the transfer.
  Applications from British nationals imprisoned overseas:
  (c) Consideration of applications submitted by another jurisdiction: 12 weeks.
  During this period checks are made with the Metropolitan police to determine whether the prisoner has any outstanding charges in the United Kingdom; with the Home Office to check that the offence committed by the prisoner is an offence under UK law and that the sentence does not exceed the maximum available under British law for the same offence; and with the United Kingdom Passport Office to determine whether the prisoner concerned is a British national.
  Once this information has been received a response is prepared and sent to the sentencing jurisdiction. This includes detailed information about the administration of sentence following repatriation, and other information required by the convention.
  (d) Collection of the prisoner from overseas following receipt of written consent from the sentencing jurisdiction and the prisoner: four weeks.

  During the period 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001, the following targets were met: Applications from foreign nationals imprisoned in England and Wales, target (a) 58 per cent, and target (b) 91 per cent. Applications from British nationals imprisoned overseas, target (c) 67 per cent, and target (d) 100 per cent.

  At-risk Prisoners
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what special arrangements the Prison service makes over the Christmas and new year period to(a) prevent suicides, (b) prevent self-harm and (c) increase observation of at-risk prisoners. [29525]

  Beverley Hughes
  The last two weeks of any year is a difficult time for most prisoners and particularly harrowing for those with suicidal thoughts. Staff are reminded of the enhanced dangers and to ensure that anti-suicide policies and procedures are firmly adhered to. There were four self-inflicted deaths in late 2001 but the overall total for the year was reduced by 11 per cent. for the second year running and the rate per 100,000 of average daily population was the lowest since 1993.

  Prisons go to great lengths at Christmas and the new year to make establishments as pleasant and relaxed as possible in the prison environment. Specific arrangements will vary between prisons depending on local circumstances and available staffing levels, for example, allowing all prisoners one call on Christmas day to contact their family.

  Lost/stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those items valued at more than £50 which have been stolen or lost from his Department in each of the last four years. [27991]
  941W
  Angela Eagle
  A list of items stolen or lost from the Home Department in the last four years and approximate value of each item stolen is provided in the following tables.

  Analysis of the items of reported theft 1997–98

  Description

  Value (£)

  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 mother board

  150

  Fax modem

  130

  Mobile phone

  118

  Video camera

  1,500

  Video camera

  800

  Video

  300

  Tools

  300

  Tools

  131

  Field gates

  240

  Pressure washer

  3,317

  Armoured cable

  200

  Total value of 26 cases of theft

  37,797

  Analysis of cases of reported theft 1998–99

  Description

  Value (£)

  VCR taken from classroom—HMP

  98

  Missing video recorded and four blank videos HMP

  106

  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

  Theft of hired video recorder—HMP

  80

  Theft of Camcorder—HMP

  399

  Total value of 12 Cases of theft

  60,288

  Analysis of case of reported theft 1999–2000

  Description

  Value (£)

  Computer keyboard stolen from office in QAG

  80

  Theft of computer equipment from Grenadier House

  16,500

  Quest House—theft of 25 PCs, servers and equipment

  110,000

  Quest House—theft of components from Sun Server

  74,000

  Total value of four cases of theft

  200,580

  942W

  Analysis of 25 cases of reported theft 2000–01

  Description

  Value (£)

  Theft of seven laptops

  31,000

  Theft of IT equipment

  100

  Theft of two 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 unbeatable

  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 portable generator

  340

  HMFSI—Disappearance of four laptops from locked room

  9,000

  Total value of 24 cases of theft

  73,956

  Family Visitor Appeals
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the net income was from fees for family visitor appeals during the first year of operation of the charging policy. [27870]

  Angela Eagle
  The net income from fees for family visitor appeals in the first year of the scheme was £104,000.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of collecting and refunding fees for family visitor appeals was during the first year of operation of the charging policy. [27871]

  Angela Eagle
  Most of the costs of collecting and refunding the fees are staff costs. Many individuals are involved, including those at diplomatic posts overseas, but there are few who spend a significant proportion of their time on these tasks. Consequently, it is not possible to provide the information requested by the my hon. Friend except at disproportionate cost.

  Prisoners (Drugs)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female prison inmates have been charged with possession of illegal drugs in each of the last three years. [28078]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the number of prisoners charged is not collated centrally. Numbers of prisoners found guilty at adjudication of possessing a controlled drug are given in the table.

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Males

  2,551

  2,185

  1,781

  Females

  51

  106

  52

  Total

  2,602

  2,291

  1,833

  Child Asylum Seekers
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent measures have been taken to deal with unaccompanied children seeking asylum. [28511]

  Angela Eagle
  We are committed to offering protection and appropriate levels of care to unaccompanied minors who claim asylum in the United Kingdom. To achieve this we work closely with the Department of Health, local authorities and non-governmental organisations.

  With regard to recent measures I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend, the Member for Wigan, (Mr. Turner) on 8 November 2001, Official Report, column 386W.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unaccompanied children have sought asylum in each year since 1996. [28510]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested has been provided in the table.

  Unaccompanied1,2,3 children, aged 17 or under, applying for asylum to the United Kingdom, 1996 to 2000

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20004

  Total applications

  631

  1,102

  3,037

  3,349

  2,733

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

  2 May exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices between January 1999 and March 2000

  3 Figures exclude disputed age cases.

  4 Provisional figures.

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

  Terrorism-related Allegations
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with foreign Governments over the activities of Bachir Aouni; and if he will make a statement. [25179]

  Mr. Blunkett
  None. Mr. Aouni is held in custody pursuant to a request from Italy for his extradition.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will investigate the links between Alam Moussa (aka Louis Szondy) and Sakina Security Services; and if he will make a statement; [25182]

  (2) if he will investigate the links between Bachir Aouni, currently serving a prison sentence in respect of fraud, and a north London mosque; and if he will make a statement; [25183]

  (3) if he will investigate the links between Bachir Aouni and GIA; and if he will make a statement. [25181]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The police continue a range of investigations into terrorist-related allegations, and I discuss their action with them on a regular basis. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on individual cases, and anyone who has information they believe to be relevant should pass it on to the police.

  Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to implement the special measures for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses recommended in the "Speaking up for Justice" report. [30364]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The "Speaking up for Justice" report on vulnerable or intimidated witnesses in the criminal justice system published in 1998 proposed a range of special measures available for use at the trial including:

  video-recorded statements to replace the evidence-in-chief

  video-recorded pre-trial cross-examination

  live TV links

  screens around the witnesses box so that the witness does not need to face the defendant in court

  removal of wigs and gowns

  assistance with communication if necessary, including the use of an intermediary; and

  power for the judge to clear the public gallery in cases involving sexual offences or intimidation so the witness can give evidence in private.

  The measures requiring legislation were included in Part II of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

  Implementation of the special measures will be phased as we have an opportunity to see how they are working.

  The implementation in the Crown court will take place six months from today to allow a lead-in for the agencies to conduct training and preparation. All the special measures will be implemented for vulnerable witnesses, with the exception of intermediaries and pre-trial cross-examination which will be subject to pilot projects. The same measures, with the added exception of video-recorded statements, will be implemented at the same time for intimidated witnesses.

  All other measures will be introduced in 2003–04 for all qualifying witnesses.

  In magistrates courts implementation of special measures in July 2002 will be restricted to TV links and video recorded evidence for child witnesses in cases involving sexual offences, violence (including threats) and cruelty. This would provide protection for children in cases involving assaults, muggings and domestic violence. It would also bring the adult magistrates courts into line with the current provision in the Youth court.

  Most of the measures will be extended to magistrates courts by 2003–04 (after their evaluation in the Crown court) to bring them in line with the Crown court.

  A whole range of guidance and training materials for the criminal justice agencies are being published tomorrow including:
  Recognising Capability—a training programme for those in the criminal justice system working with vulnerable or intimidated witnesses

  945W
  Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance on vulnerable or intimidated witnesses including children
  Vulnerable Witnesses: A Police Service Guide Adult pre-trial therapy
  Early Special Measures Meeting between the Police and Crown Prosecution Service and Meetings between the Crown Prosecution Service and Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses: Practice.

  Copies of these publications will be placed in the Library.

  Over the next couple of years we will also be starting pilot projects on video-recorded pre-trial cross-examination and the use of intermediaries.

  Council Tax (Police Costs)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost per head of the police element of the council tax. [28666]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  In England, the average police authority council tax for 2001–02 is approximately £26 per head of population. This includes council tax that is met by council tax benefit. This excludes the City of London, for which the council tax for police services cannot be separately identified.

HEALTH

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many operations were postponed in each of the last five years by hospital authorities; and if he will make a statement; [11476]

  (2) if he will rank each hospital in England by the number of postponed operations as a proportion of total operations, giving the relevant number for each hospital. [11477]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are committed to achieving the NHS Plan targets for improving performance on cancelled operations.

  From April 2002, when a patient's operation is cancelled by the hospital on the day of surgery for non-clinical reasons, the hospital will have to offer

  Cancelled operations for non clinical reasons, health authorities in England, 2000–01

  Region

  Health authority

  Number of operations cancelled

  Number of elective FFCEs

  England

  77,818

  5,294,362

  South East

  Oxfordshire HA

  2,221

  46,605

  London

  Camden and Islington HA

  1,612

  34,281

  London

  Barking and Havering HA

  1,984

  45,169

  North West

  Manchester Health

  2,330

  53,983

  London

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  1,349

  33,477

  South East

  Buckinghamshire HA

  2,082

  53,557

  South East

  Isle of Wight health authority

  412

  10,940

  South West

  Avon Health

  3,544

  109,329

  London

  East London and The City HA

  1,787

  55,481

  South East

  West Surrey Health Commission

  1,705

  58,500

  North West

  Morecambe Bay HA

  803

  27,893

  West Midlands

  Coventry Health

  759

  27,051

  West Midlands

  Birmingham HA

  2,633

  95,257

  Northern and Yorks

  Newcastle and North Tyneside HA

  1,661

  62,256

  South East

  Berkshire HA

  1,840

  70,902

  946W
  another binding date within a maximum of the next 28 days or fund the patient's treatment at the time and hospital of the patient's choice.

  To ensure that this target is achieved, we have established a Theatre project, to develop good practice in operating theatres and ensure that this is spread throughout the national health service. This will improve the patient and carer experience; improve employee satisfaction and morale; optimise theatre utilisation, planning and scheduling; and reduce cancelled operations.

  In addition, as part of the Government's £100 million strategy to reduce long waits in accident and emergency a 100 million programme of investment was announced. This will contribute to a drive to reduce hospital bed occupancy rates by purchasing additional operations in the private sector. This, alongside continued growth in general and acute hospital beds, will free up capacity in the NHS for emergency patients, help to eliminate long trolley waits and dramatically reduce—by up to 75 per cent.—the number of planned operations cancelled at the last minute.

  The number of operations cancelled by hospitals, for non-clinical reasons in England, from 1996–97 to 2000–01 are given in the table.

  Year

  Number of cancelled operations in year

  1996–97

  52,047

  1997–98

  50,505

  1998–99

  56,150

  1999–2000

  60,242

  2000–01

  77,818

  Note:

  Information collected by the Department of Health are numbers of operations cancelled for non-clinical reasons on the day of admission, or on the day of the operation.

  Source:

  Department of Health Patients Charter returns

  The number and proportion of operations cancelled for non clinical reasons on the day of admission, or on the day of operation are given in the table.

  The data supplied are for the latest available full year at health authority level. Trust level data have only been collected on a shadow basis since Quarter 1, 2001–02 and it is unclear how robust this is at this level at present. Also, when measuring relative performance, it is better to measure over a whole year, rather than a single quarter.
  947W

  Cancelled operations for non clinical reasons, health authorities in England, 2000–01

  Region

  Health authority

  Number of operations cancelled

  Number of elective FFCEs

  London

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  1,466

  57,234

  London

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA

  1,038

  41,173

  Trent

  Sheffield Health

  1,398

  63,312

  Northern and Yorks

  Wakefield HA

  966

  44,929

  Northern and Yorks

  North Cumbria HA

  767

  36,658

  Eastern

  South Essex HA

  1,299

  62,700

  London

  Brent and Harrow HA

  924

  45,050

  Eastern

  Cambridgeshire HA

  1,467

  71,878

  South East

  Southampton and South West Hampshire HA

  1,154

  56,744

  West Midlands

  Herefordshire HA

  356

  17,874

  South East

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove HA

  1,426

  74,472

  North West

  St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  808

  42,287

  London

  Bromley Health

  615

  32,294

  London

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HA

  1,339

  72,930

  North West

  South Cheshire HA

  1,165

  65,410

  London

  Hillingdon HA

  390

  22,314

  Eastern

  North Essex HA

  1,246

  73,330

  South West

  South and West Devon HA

  1,199

  75,509

  North West

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  1,032

  65,140

  London

  Croydon HA

  430

  29;115

  London

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow HA

  953

  65,954

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire HA

  694

  48,050

  West Midlands

  North Staffordshire HA

  766

  53,096

  South West

  Wiltshire HA

  790

  56,159

  Northern and Yorks

  Tees HA

  998

  71,489

  North West

  Sefton HA

  479

  35,247

  Eastern

  Suffolk Health

  955

  70,600

  London

  Barnet HA

  380

  28,289

  London

  Enfield and Haringey HA

  592

  44,446

  North West

  North Cheshire

  464

  36,014

  North West

  Stockport HA

  404

  31,938

  South East

  East Kent HA

  785

  62,601

  South East

  West Kent HA

  1,027

  82,201

  South East

  East Surrey HA

  436

  36,748

  West Midlands

  Dudley HA

  360

  31,192

  North West

  South Lancashire HA

  426

  37,544

  North West

  West Pennine HA

  609

  54,518

  South East

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA

  599

  54,445

  Northern and Yorks

  Calderdale and Kirklees HA

  744

  68,558

  South West

  North and East Devon HA

  728

  68,201

  South East

  West Sussex HA

  111

  73,713

  South West

  Gloucestershire Health

  669

  63,844

  Trent

  Leicester HA

  987

  98,558

  North West

  Liverpool HA

  571

  57,304

  Eastern

  East and North Hertfordshire HA

  490

  50,395

  North West

  Salford and Trafford HA

  507

  52,744

  London

  Kingston and Richmond HA

  277

  29,046

  Northern and Yorks

  North Yorkshire HA

  791

  85,967

  Eastern

  Norfolk HA

  824

  91,868

  North West

  East Lancashire HA

  579

  64,553

  South East

  Northamptonshire HA

  489

  56,267

  Eastern

  West Hertfordshire HA

  425

  49,189

  North West

  North West Lancashire HA

  492

  56,948

  Trent

  North Nottinghamshire Health

  360

  42,899

  South West

  Somerset HA

  510

  61,908

  Trent

  North Derbyshire Health

  339

  41,266

  South West

  Dorset HA

  877

  107,048

  West Midlands

  South Staffordshire HA

  516

  63,007

  Trent

  Doncaster HA

  344

  42,050

  South East

  North and Mid Hampshire HA

  422

  51,813

  Northern and Yorks

  Leeds HA

  602

  76,594

  London

  Bexley and Greenwich HA

  320

  41,486

  Trent

  Nottingham HA

  501

  65,289

  South West

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly HA

  464

  66,340

  Trent

  Lincolnshire Health

  508

  73,846

  Trent

  South Humber

  292

  42,831

  West Midlands

  Worcestershire HA

  337

  51,010

  Northern and Yorks

  Bradford HA

  451

  68,547

  North West

  Wirral Health

  223

  33,958

  West Midlands

  Shropshire HA

  285

  44,946

  West Midlands

  Walsall HA

  149

  25,046

  Trent

  Rotherham HA

  159

  27,569

  948W 949W

  Cancelled operations for non clinical reasons, health authorities in England, 2000–01

  Region

  Health authority

  Number of operations cancelled

  Number of elective FFCEs

  Northern and Yorks

  Sunderland HA

  206

  35,723

  West Midlands

  Sandwell HA

  181

  34,708

  West Midlands

  Warwickshire HA

  278

  55,312

  Northern and Yorks

  East Riding HA

  323

  66,467

  Northern and Yorks

  Gateshead and South Tyneside HA

  200

  50,945

  Northern and Yorks

  County Durham HA

  265

  72,516

  West Midlands

  Wolverhampton HA

  83

  24,085

  Trent

  Southern Derbyshire Health

  231

  72,049

  Trent

  Barnsley HA

  37

  31,364

  Northern and Yorks

  Northumberland HA

  48

  53,177

  North West

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  31

  48,197

  West Midlands

  1 Solihull HA

  0

  19,676

  1 Solihull does not have any acute trusts.

  Notes:

  1. Information collected by the Department of Health are numbers of operations cancelled for non-clinical reasons on the day of admission, or on the day of the operation.

  2. Activity figures are elective first finished consultant episodes (FFCEs)

  3. Figures are trust level aggregated to host health authority.

  Sources:

  Department of Health Patients Charter returns

  Department of Health Hospital Episode Statistics

  Child Illnesses
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many school-age children suffered from(a) chronic illness, (b) asthma and (c) cancer in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [22490]

  Yvette Cooper
  Data on the number of chronically ill children are not collected, but it is estimated that approximately one in three of the population suffers from one or more of a wide range of chronic conditions including arthritis, diabetes, epilepsy and asthma.

  There are no comprehensive data on the number of people with asthma but it is estimated to affect 4 to 6 per cent, of children sufficiently severely to require medical supervision. The table shows hospital admissions for patients aged five to 14 years. The table does not show actual incidence of asthma—some patients may be admitted more than once and many sufferers may never need hospital admission.

  Admissions for patients aged five to 14 years in national health service hospitals, England—completed episodes with primary diagnosis asthma J45–J46 (ICD10)

  Year

  Number

  2000–01

  11,147

  1999–2000

  11,703

  1998–99

  11,896

  1997–98

  12,885

  1996–97

  12,471

  Notes:

  1. Ordinary admissions and day cases combined.

  2. Figures for 1996–97 to 1997–98 have been grossed for coverage and for unknown or invalid clinical data; figures for 1998–99 onwards have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics, Department of Health

  The table shows numbers of cancer cases registered by age and year of diagnosis.
  950W

  Cancer diagnosed in children aged five to 14 years in England, 1995–99

  Year

  Total

  1995

  717

  1996

  629

  1997

  648

  1998

  605

  1999

  621

  Source:

  National Registry of Childhood Tumours, University of Oxford Department of Paediatrics

  Baby Food
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend the protection of the EU directive on pesticide residue levels in baby food. [20570]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]: Legislation implementing the European Union directive and setting tough low maximum limits for pesticides in infant formula and processed baby foods comes into force in July 2002. Where food is made for babies in the home, pesticide residues in the ingredients are subject to rigorous controls on pesticide use which take into account the sensitivity of all age groups.

  NHS Spending
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the level of NHS spending as a share of gross domestic product for each year from 1990–91 to 2003–04; what comparable figures he has for the average of European Union countries; and if he will make a statement. [22272]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]: The United Kingdom gross cash national health service expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) is set out in the table. The figures for 2001–02 onwards are for planned expenditure.
  951W

  NHS Expenditure as a percentage of GDP

  UK

  1990–91

  5.2

  1991–92

  5.6

  1992–93

  5.9

  1993–94

  5.8

  1994–95

  5.9

  1995–96

  5.8

  1996–97

  5.7

  1997–98

  5.6

  1998–99

  5.6

  1999–2000

  5.8

  2000–01

  6.1

  2001–02

  6.3

  2002–03

  6.5

  2003–04

  6.6

  The only source of comparable data is published by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development. These data exist only for calendar years, and the latest complete set of data is for 1998. The average public expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product for all European Union countries is as follows:

  Public expenditure on health as a percentage of GDP

  EU average public expenditure

  1990

  15.8

  1991

  16.0

  1992

  16.1

  1993

  16.2

  1994

  16.1

  1995

  6.1

  1996

  6.1

  1997

  6.0

  1998

  5.9

  1 There are no data for Belgium in these years

  Source:

  OECD Health Data 2001

  Assuming private spending remains at its current level of around 1 per cent, of GDP, total United Kingdom health care expenditure will reach around 7.6 per cent, by 2003–04. This will be a significant step towards reaching the European Union average, which (again, including private spending—around 2 per cent, on average in the EU) has remained around 7.9 to 8 per cent, in recent years.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the percentage of the GNP of the UK that has been spent on the NHS in each of the last five years. [28079]

  Mr. Hutton
  The amount of health care expenditure by the national health service is calculated as a percentage of gross domestic product. The gross NHS expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product is given for financial years in the table.

  United kingdom NHS spend

  Percentage of gross domestic product

  1996–97

  5.7

  1997–98

  5.6

  1998–99

  5.6

  1999–2000

  5.8

  2000–01

  6.1

  Free Nursing Care (Battersea)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners and disabled people requiring long-term care in Battersea who will receive free nursing care next April. [22945]

  Jacqui Smith
  Just over 80 people in Battersea are receiving free nursing care from 1 October 2001 and a similar number will receive this from April 2002. This is the number of people assessed as eligible for free nursing care currently resident in nursing homes in Battersea. Many other local residents already receive assistance with the costs of their care by a registered nurse through the local authority or receive it free from the national health service in residential accommodation or at home.

  Autism (Wandsworth)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the help available for autistic children and adults and their families in Wandsworth. [22944]

  Jacqui Smith
  The learning disability White Paper "Valuing People—A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21 Century" issued in March 2001 sets out the Government's proposals for maximising opportunities for all disabled children and supporting young people's transition into adult life. It focuses in particular on the needs of learning disabled children and their families, but does so within a framework which applies equally to all disabled children, including those on the autistic spectrum.

  Children with autism will benefit from a range of initiatives we are taking to improve services for disabled children. As part of the Quality Protects programme we set new national objectives for children's services which for the first time set out clear outcomes for children, and in some instances give precise targets which local authorities are expected to achieve. These were updated in "Valuing People".

  Disabled children have been made a priority area in Quality Protects. The last spending review made substantial additional funding available for the Children's Services grant which now totals £180 million in 2001–02, £220 million in 2002–03 and £290 million in 2003–04. Of this, £60 million has been earmarked for services for disabled children and their families—£15 million in 2001–02 and 2002–03 and £30 million in 2003–04.

  We have also announced that services for disabled children will be a key area to be addressed by the national service framework for children. We want to make autism an exemplar under the children's national service framework, so that when the framework is concluded people will be able to see how services should be provided.

  The Special Educational Needs Code of Practice 2001 which came into effect from 1 January 2002 provides strengthened and more focused advice on identifying, assessing and providing for children's special educational needs. The Department for Education and Skills will also be publishing good practice guidance on aspects of provision for children with autism, mainly aimed at schools and local education authorities.
  953W
  The White Paper, "Valuing People", published in March 2001, covers all adults with autism who also have a learning disability. White Paper implementation guidance issued in August last year states that
  "Adults with Asperger's Syndrome or higher functioning autism are not precluded from using learning disability services, where appropriate, and may require an assessment of their social functioning and communication skills in order to establish their level of need."
  By bringing together health, social care and educational agencies, "Valuing People" gives us the scope to improve opportunities and services for people across the autistic spectrum.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): ambulance paramedics per 1,000 population by organisation in England as at 30 September each year

  1998

  1999

  2000

  1wte

  2hc

  1wte

  2hc

  1wte

  2hc

  All England

  0.13

  0.13

  0.13

  0.13

  0.13

  0.14

  Staffordshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.09

  0.09

  0.11

  0.12

  0.13

  0.13

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Ambulance and Paramedic NHS Trust

  0.19

  0.19

  0.16

  0.16

  0.17

  0.17

  Royal Berkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.18

  0.18

  0.17

  0.17

  0.16

  0.16

  Two Shires—Northampton and Bucks Ambulance NHS Trust

  0.07

  0.07

  0.08

  0.08

  0.07

  0.07

  Kent Ambulance NHS Trust

  0.13

  0.13

  0.12

  0.12

  0.11

  0.11

  Surrey Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.14

  0.15

  0.13

  0.13

  0.15

  0.15

  Sussex Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.14

  0.14

  0.15

  0.16

  0.15

  0.15

  Essex Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.17

  0.18

  0.15

  0.17

  0.15

  0.16

  Mersey Regional Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.13

  0.13

  0.13

  0.13

  0.13

  0.13

  East Anglian Ambulance NHS Trust

  0.14

  0.14

  0.16

  0.16

  0.18

  0.18

  Oxfordshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  0.12

  0.12

  0.12

  0.12

  0.12

  0.12

  East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.08

  0.08

  0.08

  0.08

  0.11

  0.11

  South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance and Paramedic NHS Trust

  0.06

  0.06

  0.07

  0.07

  0.07

  0.07

  Greater Manchester Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.12

  0.12

  0.12

  0.12

  0.11

  0.11

  Lancashire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.11

  0.11

  0.11

  0.11

  0.10

  0.10

  Hampshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.12

  0.12

  0.12

  0.12

  0.11

  0.11

  Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Trust

  0.30

  0.31

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Wiltshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.19

  0.19

  0.18

  0.19

  0.18

  0.18

  Avon Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.18

  0.18

  0.18

  0.18

  0.17

  0.18

  North East Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.11

  0.11

  0.15

  0.15

  0.14

  0.14

  Lincolnshire Ambulance and Health Transport Service NHS Trust

  0.18

  0.18

  0.20

  0.20

  0.20

  0.20

  Cumbria Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.54

  0.54

  0.54

  0.54

  0.61

  0.62

  Tees East and North Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.06

  0.06

  0.14

  0.14

  0.16

  0.16

  West Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.05

  0.06

  0.05

  0.06

  0.11

  0.11

  Westcountry Ambulance Services NHS Trust and South Devon Healthcare NHS Trust

  0.20

  0.20

  0.19

  0.19

  0.20

  0.20

  Gloucestershire Ambulance Services NHS Trust

  0.17

  0.17

  0.17

  0.17

  0.16

  0.17

  West Midlands Metropolitan Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.12

  0.12

  0.14

  0.14

  0.15

  0.15

  Warwickshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.10

  0.10

  0.08

  0.08

  0.09

  0.09

  Hereford and Worcester Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.14

  0.14

  0.14

  0.14

  0.14

  0.14

  Dorset Ambulance NHS Trust

  0.21

  0.21

  0.21

  0.21

  0.22

  0.22

  London Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.12

  0.12

  0.11

  0.11

  0.11

  0.11

  1 wte = whole-time equivalents

  2 hc = headcount

  3 = not available

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to two decimal places

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Office for National Statistics (ONS)

  General Practitioners
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to SIs No 3740 and 3742, if it is Government policy to provide for(a) the automatic removal of a general practitioner from a health authority's list after a sentence of imprisonment of more than six months and (b) the absence of any opportunity for the doctor to make a case against removal; and whether it is
  954W
  It is for local statutory bodies, Wandsworth in this instance, to determine the services they provide in the light of their knowledge of local needs and priorities.

  Ambulance Paramedics
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) ambulances and (b) paramedics there were per 1000 population in (i) Staffordshire, (ii) other similar authorities and (iii) England, in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [24074]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the number of ambulance vehicles in each ambulance service, health authority and nationally is not collected. Information on the number of paramedics per 1,000 per population is shown in the table.

  his intention to impose a ban on such a general practitioner's right to practise without regard to the reasons for that imprisonment. [23822]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 December 2001]: The regulations provide that the removal of a doctor from, or the refusal to admit a doctor to, a medical or supplementary list after a criminal conviction and a sentence of more than six months imprisonment will

  955W
  be automatic. These regulations were introduced after consultation with the British Medical Association.

  Our legal system provides that the most serious criminal offences are to be dealt with by a Crown court and those less serious offences by a magistrates court. The threshold laid down in these regulations reflects the respective responsibilities of these courts, in that only a Crown court may impose a custodial sentence of more than six months following a conviction. Given that a magistrates court may not impose such a sentence, our view is that anyone who receives such a sentence, in relation to obviously serious offences, is unsuitable to work in the national health service as a general medical practitioner.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason general practitioners who are on contracts do not receive a(a) full golden hello and (b) sum proportional to their contract or hours worked. [24599]

  Mr. Hutton
  Golden hello payments are intended to encourage doctors to become and remain national health service general practitioners. New GPs who work exclusively as locums, hold fixed term contracts of two years or less or who have a commitment of less than 25 per cent, do not therefore qualify for a payment until they take on a substantive post with at least 25 per cent, time commitment and a longer contract.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting time to see a GP in Greater London; and what the equivalent figure was in 1997. [24645]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: From September 2001 data are being collected quarterly on the lead time for the first available appointment with each general practitioner practice. From the September 2001 survey, results showed that within the London region, 72 per cent, of practices, with appointment systems in place, could offer a patient an appointment with a GP within two working days. 90 per cent, of practices had an appointment system in place to see a GP.

  NHS (Directors' Secondments)
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many executive directors of NHS trusts and health authorities were on secondment to other organisations as at 1 December 2001. [26597]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of executive directors of national health service trusts and health authorities on secondment to other organisations as at 1 December 2001 was as follows:

  Region

  Chief Executive

  Executives Directors

  Total

  West Midlands

  1

  7

  8

  Trent

  3

  7

  10

  South West

  2

  7

  9

  Northern and Yorks

  1

  5

  6

  South East

  6

  1

  7

  North West

  2

  10

  12

  Eastern

  4

  6

  10

  London

  2

  10

  12

  TOTAL

  21

  53

  74

  Flu Immunisation (Jarrow)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were immunised against flu in Jarrow during this year's immunisation campaign. [26041]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information regarding the numbers of children immunised against flu is not routinely collected. The Department collects information on influenza uptake only for people aged 65 and over. As at 31 December 2001, Gateshead and South Tyneside health authority have achieved an uptake of 69.9 per cent, in this age group.

  Dioxins
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he has made to the recommendations of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment on acceptable limits of dioxins in food. [26714]

  Yvette Cooper
  I am informed by the Food Standards Agency that the recommendation of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) is for a tolerable daily intake (TDI) for dioxins and dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) of two picogrammes TEQ/kilogramme bodyweight per day (pg TEQ/kg). This is a fifth of the level previously set. A TDI is the amount of a chemical that can be consumed every day without causing harm.

  The Food Standards Agency's extensive programme of research and surveys for these contaminants has shown that the average dietary exposure in the United Kingdom is already below the new TDI. However, in common with the United States of America and the European Union, about one-third of the UK population may exceed the TDI from their daily diet. Almost all of these will be below 3.5 pg TEQ/kg, which represents a small erosion of the safety margin that is inherent in the TDI.

  The most effective way to reduce exposure to these chemicals through the food supply is to continue to decrease emissions to the environment, from both industrial and non-industrial sources. Measures already taken have resulted in a 70 per cent, decrease in emissions over the last nine years and the agency will continue to work closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency to ensure that emissions are reduced still further.

  Respiratory and Circulatory Disease (Easington)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Easington Primary Care Group area suffer from respiratory and circulatory illnesses as a percentage of(a) the local population and (b) the population covered by the Durham health authority. [26770]

  Jacqui Smith
  Between 1 April 1999 and 31 March 2001, approximately 5,700 patients from Easington were admitted to hospital with respiratory or circulatory diseases, representing 5.8 per cent, of the local population and 0.9 per cent, of the population covered by County Durham and Darlington health authority.
  957W
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients suffer from diabetes in the Easington Primary Care Group area as a percentage of(a) the local population and (b) the population covered by the Durham health authority. [26771]

  Jacqui Smith
  Local registers indicate that 2,630 patients from Easington currently suffer from diabetes, representing 2.7 per cent, of the local population and 0.4 per cent, of the population covered by County Durham and Darlington health authority.

  Care Home Beds (Buckinghamshire)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were available in Buckinghamshire in the care home sector between 1997 and 2001. [27119]

  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 Buckinghamshire area between 1997 and 2001.

  Residential places1 and registered nursing beds in the Buckinghamshire area2 in 1997 and 2001

  Number

  At 31 March

  Places in residential care homes

  Registered nursing beds in nursing homes3,4

  1997

  2,438

  1,735

  1998

  3,253

  2,054

  1999

  3,383

  1,966

  2000

  3,399

  1,896

  2001

  3,426

  1,951

  1 Excludes places in children's homes

  2 Information is presented for the area represented by the county of Buckinghamshire prior to local government re-organisation on 1 April 1998. Figures for 31 March 1999 onwards relate to the unitary authority of Milton Keynes and the reduced shire county area of Buckinghamshire1.

  3 Registered beds in general and mental nursing homes, hospitals and clinics. Information is presented on nursing beds for the Buckinghamshire health authority (which equates to the former county of Buckinghamshire prior to local government re-organisation)

  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

  Migraine
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to include migraine in the new NHS framework for long-term neurological conditions. [26953]

  Jacqui Smith
  Detailed decisions about the scope and content of the national service framework for long-term conditions have not yet been made, other than outlining that it will draw out some of the common issues faced by people with a long-term condition, and also pay particular attention to specific neurological diseases.

  We held a scoping workshop on the 12 November 2001 attended by patients and service users, national health service professionals, NHS managers, social care professionals, and representatives from voluntary organisations and other Government Departments.

  Tees Health Authority
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were waiting(a) more than six months and (b) more than 12 months for in-patient treatment in the Tees health authority area in (i) December 1996 and (ii) December 2001. [26738]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information relating to in-patient waiting times in Tees health authority is shown in the table. Data relating to December 2001 are not yet available so the most recent published data has been given.

  Number of patients waiting:

  over 6 months

  over 12 months

  As at December 1996

  2,712

  10

  As at November 2001

  2,408

  66

  Mental Health (Children)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many school-age children from ethnic minority communities suffer from mental health problems; and if he will make a statement. [26737]

  Jacqui Smith
  A survey of the mental health of children and adolescents in Great Britain was carried out in 1999 by the Office for National Statistics on behalf of the Department of Health, the Scottish Health Executive and the National Assembly for Wales.

  Nearly 10 per cent, of white children and 12 per cent, of black children were assessed as having a mental health problem whereas the prevalence rates among Asian children were 8 per cent, of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi children and 4 per cent, of the Indian children.

  Despite the large number of interviews achieved in this survey, ethnic differences are difficult to interpret because of the small numbers in the sample who regarded themselves as belonging to particular ethnic groups. Nevertheless, Indian children, particularly girls, seem to have far lower rates of mental disorder than both white or black children.

  Mental health services for children will be part of the Children's National Service Framework. Part of the remit of the framework will be to tackle problems surrounding access and inequality, which can particularly affect people from ethnic minorities.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision exists for school-age children who suffer from mental health problems(a) in the UK and (b) in the Teesside area; and if he will make a statement. [26739]

  Jacqui Smith
  The responsibility for the provision of child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) in England lies with health authorities and local authorities. They are required to have joint development strategies which will ensure that a comprehensive range of services are available for children and young people.

  We have an ongoing commitment to the improvement of CAMHS and it will be an important part of the Children's National Service Framework. We shall be working closely with the Department for Education and Skills when developing the CAMHS module of the

  959W
  National Service Framework. This is a major development and will safeguard the quality of child mental health services.

  The Department for Education and Skills is developing a number of initiatives designed to help schools and teachers work with children with a range of emotional and behavioural needs. In June 2001 they issued their guidance "Promoting Children's Mental Health within Early Years and School Settings". This covers not only mental health problems faced by children but the approaches schools can take to promote children's mental health.

  The framework for comprehensive service provision contained in "Promoting Children's Mental Health within Early Years and School Settings" sets out four service levels. Tier 1: a primary level provided by non-specialists, tier 2: a level provided by uni-professional groups, tier 3: a specialist service for more severe, complex and persistent disorders, and tier 4: tertiary services such as day units and in-patient units for older children and adolescents who are severely mentally ill or at suicide risk.

  In Teesside, services for children with mental health problems requiring input at tiers 1 and 2 are provided through educational psychology service links with schools and school nurses. This ensures that the identified teachers link with locality CAMHS groups to ensure continuity.

  At tier 3 psychiatrists, Grade A and B clinical psychologists and community psychiatric nurses from Tees and North East Yorkshire national health service trust's Roseberry Centre at Middlesbrough provide out-patient outreach services along with primary care link workers.

  At tier 4, for children up to the age of 12 requiring in-patient care, the health authority utilises the Fleming Nuffield Unit at Newcastle. Children in the age group over 12 to 18 years have in-patient provision through the Roseberry Centre. If it is identified by clinicians that an adolescent requires a more secure environment because of behavioural presentation or offending behaviour, the adolescent forensic service at Newcastle is utilised.

  Hospital Doctors (Criminal Convictions)
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require hospital doctors registered as practitioners in England and Wales to disclose any criminal convictions they have in any jurisdiction. [26743]

  Mr. Hutton
  Department of Health circular Health Service Circular 2001–019 (Appointment Procedures for Hospital and Community Medical and Dental Staff) requires applicants for hospital and community medical and dental posts in the national health service in England to declare if they have ever been convicted of any criminal offence, bound over or cautioned in the United Kingdom or any other country. Employees already in post have a contractual duty to inform their employer if they are charged with a criminal offence.

  Practitioners in Wales are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  MRI Scanners
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) new and (b) replacement MRI scanners have been provided through exclusively central funding since January 2000. [27245]

  Yvette Cooper
  Since January 2000, 34 additional MRI scanners, 18 replacement MRI scanners and upgrades to two existing MRI scanners have been allocated from central funding. Of these, 13 additional and 10 replacement MRI scanners had been delivered by 14 January 2002.

  A further 50 additional MRI scanners will be provided from central funding by 2004, as outlined in the NHS plan and NHS cancer plan.

  Linear Accelerators
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) new and (b) replacement linear accelerators have been provided through exclusively central funding since January 2000. [27246]

  Yvette Cooper
  Since January 2000, 15 additional linear accelerators and 42 replacement linear accelerators have been allocated from central funding. Of these, eight additional and 22 replacement linear accelerators had been delivered by 14 January 2002.

  A further 25 additional and 20 replacement linear accelerators will be provided from central funding by 2004, as outlined in the NHS Plan and NHS Cancer Plan.

  CT Scanners
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) new and (b) replacement CT scanners have been provided through central funding since January 2000. [27247]

  Yvette Cooper
  Since January 2000, 21 additional CT scanners and 113 replacement CT scanners have been allocated from central funding. Of these, two additional and 60 replacement CT scanners had been delivered by 14 January 2002.

  A further 50 additional CT scanners will be provided from central funding by 2004, as outlined in the NHS Plan and NHS Cancer Plan.

  Tuberculosis
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of TB were reported between 1980 and 2000 in the UK. [27594]

  Yvette Cooper
  The number of reported tuberculosis cases in the United Kingdom from 1980 to 2000 are shown in the table.

  TB notifications

  Year

  England & Wales

  Scotland

  N. Ireland

  Total UK

  1980

  9,142

  1,138

  205

  10,485

  1981

  8,128

  972

  190

  9,290

  1982

  7,406

  902

  140

  8,448

  1983

  6,800

  829

  163

  7,792

  1984

  6,141

  741

  161

  7,043

  1985

  5,857

  707

  83

  6,647

  1986

  5,992

  756

  108

  6,856

  961W

  TB notifications

  Year

  England & Wales

  Scotland

  N. Ireland

  Total UK

  1987

  5,085

  560

  99

  5,744

  1988

  5,161

  534

  86

  5,781

  1989

  5,432

  533

  94

  6,059

  1990

  5,204

  563

  131

  5,898

  1991

  5,436

  546

  96

  6,078

  1992

  5,798

  559

  84

  6,441

  1993

  5,920

  554

  90

  6,564

  1994

  5,590

  546

  93

  6,229

  1995

  5,606

  478

  90

  6,174

  1996

  5,654

  509

  75

  6,238

  1997

  5,859

  433

  75

  6,367

  1998

  6,087

  464

  61

  6,612

  1999

  6,143

  497

  61

  6,701

  2000

  16,231

  1406

  58

  6,695

  1 provisional

  Healthy Living Centre Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications for funding from the healthy living centre initiative have been received from projects based in Buckinghamshire; and what the outcome was in each case. [27782]

  Ms Blears
  Six applications have been received. Five have been rejected and one is still under consideration.

  Two Shires Ambulance NHS Trust
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed by Two Shires Ambulance NHS trust in each year since 1997; and what the average sickness absence rate for staff was(a) in the UK and (b) in Two Shires Ambulance NHS trust in each year. [27784]

  Ms Blears
  The total number of (whole-time equivalent) staff employed at the Two Shires Ambulance national health service trust for the years 1997–2000 are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1997

  450

  1998

  510

  1999

  550

  2000

  580

  The collection of NHS trust sickness absence rates commenced in 1998 and the Two Shires Ambulance trust returned their first in 1999. The results of the sickness absence survey for 2000 are not yet finalised and the collection for 2001 has not yet taken place.

  In 1999 the sickness absence rate for the Two Shires Ambulance NHS trust was 5.5 per cent.

  Cancer Survival Rates
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government are taking to bring survival rates of British cancer patients into line with other European countries. [27826]

  Yvette Cooper
  The NHS Cancer Plan, which was published in September 2000, sets out a programme of action to tackle the disease. The strategy will speed up access to high quality services across the country to bring cancer services in line with the rest of Europe.

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [27979]

  Mr. Hutton
  The figures requested are in the table.

  Year

  £

  (a) Department

  1997–98

  61,415.25

  1998–99

  66,897.29

  1999–2000

  48,148.81

  2000–01

  56,831.99

  (b) Agencies

  1997–98

  1,461

  1998–99

  Nil

  1999–2000

  3,493

  2000–01

  Nil

  (c) Non-departmental public bodies

  1997–98

  10,458

  1998–99

  6,903

  1999–2000

  2,739

  2000–01

  6,582

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

  Doctors (Qualification Checks)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what checks are carried out by NHS trusts to verify the qualifications of doctors before they are offered employment; and if he will make a statement. [28040]

  Mr. Hutton
  All national health service employers have a duty to check that the doctors they employ are suitably qualified and experienced. This includes checks on General Medical Council registration, qualifications (original certificates), criminal records and health. Employers also take up personal and professional references for potential employees.

  In the case of general practitioners, the health authority will make such checks before allowing principals and non-principal general practitioners to be entered on their lists of approved practitioners.

  Where doctors are employed in a locum capacity employers will either make the checks themselves or require the supplying agency to do so. This principle is enshrined in the national contract for the supply of locum doctors and the locum code of practice.

  Primary Care Collaboratives
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend the primary care collaborative which was launched in 2000 by the National Primary Care Development Team; and if he will make a statement. [28223]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Primary Care Development Team of the Modernisation Agency has demonstrated that it is possible to balance demand with capacity to ensure patients are looked after by the clinician best placed to
  963W
  meet their needs and that staff are less likely to feel overwhelmed by demand. They are actively disseminating the "advanced access" model developed by the collaborative across the country, which covers nearly 1,000 practices who provide care for seven million patients.

  In December 2001, we announced the introduction of 11 new national primary care development centres across England. These new centres are being developed to roll out the benefits of the collaborative to every primary care organisation across the country.

  We have provided an earmarked increase of £83.5 million to the primary care trust primary care access fund in 2002–03 to help primary care trusts work with their practices to improve primary care access.

  Hampshire Ambulance Service
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is(a) Hampshire Ambulance NHS trust's target time for responding to emergency calls in (i) Ringwood, (ii) Fordingbridge and (iii) the Avon Valley and (b) the actual time taken in the last two years in good road conditions by the emergency ambulance provided at Totton; and if he will make a statement; [28222]

  (2) what proportion of emergency calls in the last two years from (a) Ringwood, (b) Fordingbridge and (c) the Avon Valley received a response from the ambulance service provision at Totton within the target time; and if he will make a statement. [28215]

  Ms Blears
  Our target response times require that ambulance services prioritise emergency calls. Immediate life threatening calls are classified as category A, and other emergency calls are classified as category B/C. Ambulance services are required to respond to 75 per cent, of category A calls within eight minutes and 95 per cent, of category B/C calls within 19 minutes.

  Information relating to response times in the geographical areas mentioned is not collected separately. The information available about responses to emergency calls is available only at ambulance trust level. Information about the number of emergency calls and the proportion of emergency calls resulting in an ambulance arriving at the scene of the reported incident within the Government's target response time for Hampshire Ambulance national health service trust and all other ambulance trusts in England are contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin "Ambulance Services, England 2000–01". A copy is in the Library and available on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0115.htm.

  Emergency Contraception
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice the Government received in March 2000 from the Committee on Safety of Medicines on the need for medical supervision of the supply of the morning-after pill to girls under 16; whether that advice has been superseded; and what action is taken to ensure that its supply complies with that advice; [28207]
  964W
  (2) what clinical trials were conducted on the morning-after pill's use by girls under 16; and what considerations underlay the decision to license it without age limit; [28205]

  (3) what steps are recommended to ensure that (a) the morning-after pill and (b) paracetamol, when supplied to girls under 16 (i) in family planning clinics, (ii) by general practitioners, (iii) by hospital accident and emergency departments, (iv) by school nurses and (v) direct by pharmacists, does not react with other medication. [28212]

  Yvette Cooper
  In March 2000, the advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) was sought on an application by Medimpex (in conjunction with Schering Health Care) to reclassify levonorgestrel (the morning after pill) 0.75 mg from prescription only to pharmacy availability for emergency hormonal contraception in women aged 16 and over. The CSM considered, on the evidence before it, that the criteria for prescription only status no longer applied to levonorgestrel 0.75 mg for this indication in this age group, and therefore advised that levonorgestrel 0.75 mg should only be supplied to those aged 16 and over without medical supervision. In giving its advice, CSM recognised that, although the efficacy and safety profile of levonorgestrel 0.75 mg for emergency hormonal contraception may not be expected to be different in the under 16s, provision to this age group posed special risk management issues. The CSM therefore advised that emergency contraception should only be supplied to those under 16 under medical supervision. That advice has not been superseded. The minutes of the CSM meeting of 23 March 2000 are available on their website www.mca.gov.uk/aboutagency/regframework/csm/csmhome.htm.

  Medical supervision includes the supply by other health professionals (such as nurses and pharmacists) working to a patient group direction. Supply of the prescription product complies with the usual requirements for prescription only medicines.

  The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain has set professional standards and developed comprehensive guidance for pharmacists on the retail supply of emergency hormonal contraception (EHC). The guidance says that
  "pharmacists should make every reasonable effort to satisfy themselves that clients are aged 16 or over. Pharmacists should ensure that, where they believe a client to be under 16, the request is dealt with sympathetically and the client is offered appropriate help and support to enable her to obtain EHC by another route."
  No clinical trials of levonorgestrel use specific to girls under 16 have been conducted in the United Kingdom. The marketing authorisation granted in 1999 for levonorgestrel 0.75 mg tablets as a prescription only medicine was supported by evidence from two large randomised controlled studies, one conducted by the World Health Organisation, and published data from uncontrolled studies. Most women in the clinical trials were aged between 16 and 48, but a few girls aged 14 and 15 were included. There were no data available for girls between ages 11 and 14 years. Age analysis of efficacy and safety in randomised studies did not identify any population that responded differently to treatment.

  General practitioners and other health professionals who supply levonorgestrel and paracetamol to girls under 16 are all professionally trained to provide advice and to

  965W
  follow procedures designed to ensure that these products are used safely. Health professionals operating under a patient group direction have to follow formal protocols which include measures to avoid unwanted interactions with other medicines. As an added safeguard, under European legislation, the patient information leaflet approved for all medicines must contain information about interactions with other medicines and measures that should be taken to avoid them.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions the morning-after pill was prescribed(a) in total and (b) to girls under 16 (i) in family planning clinics, (ii) by general practitioners, (iii) by hospital accident and emergency departments, (iv) by school nurses and (v) direct by pharmacists in each year since 1998; and what percentage (b) was of (a). [28206]

  Yvette Cooper
  Not all of the data requested are collected centrally. Information on emergency hormonal contraception supplied under a patient group direction, by school nurses and pharmacists is not available and only family planning clinics report data by age.

  The tables show prescriptions for emergency hormonal contraception dispensed in family planning clinics and prescriptions dispensed in the community by community pharmacists and dispensing doctors in England.

  Family planning clinics1

  Total post-child contraceptives prescribed

  000s

  Financial year

  All ages

  Under 16s

  Percentage of prescriptions to under 16s

  1998–99

  209.9

  21.5

  10.24

  1999–2000

  2330

  23.1

  9.91

  2000–01

  228.8

  25.2

  11.01

  1 Post-coital hormonal contraceptives which excludes IUDs

  Prescriptions dispensed in the community
  1

  000s

  Calendar year

  Number of prescription items

  1998

  559.8

  1999

  536.8

  2000

  554.8

  1 This includes community pharmacists, appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors. A breakdown of age is not separately identifiable.

  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the provision of the morning after pill for 13 to 16-year-old girls. [29462]

  Yvette Cooper
  According to recent research, around a quarter of young people have sex before their sixteenth birthday. Under 16s are also less likely than older women to use contraception consistently. Our teenage pregnancy strategy recognises the importance of helping young people resist peer pressure to have early sex while seeking to ensure that those who are sexually active have easy access to high quality contraceptive advice. Emergency contraception is a safe and effective method of preventing unplanned pregnancy. It also brings young people into contact with a health professional where they can discuss 966W
  their relationship, any on-going contraception needs and the importance of using condoms to protect against sexually transmitted infections.

  Emergency contraception is considered to have a similar safety profile for under 16s as for older women and is supplied to under 16s under medical supervision, within the legal framework established in 1986.

  Drug Safety (Roaccutane and Antidepressants
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessments she has made of the adequacy of the warning of the side effects of(a) roaccutane and (b) antidepressants; and what is his estimate of the effects of both. [28118]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: The safety of all medicines on the United Kingdom market is continuously monitored by the Medicines Control Agency and the independent advisory body, the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM). The product information includes the Summary of Product Characteristics for Prescribers and the Patient Information leaflet included in each pack of the medicine. These are also kept under continuous review to make sure that they provide the most up to date and relevant information to healthcare professionals and the public regarding the safe use of the medicine.

  Roaccutane (isotretinoin) is licensed only for the treatment of very severe and disfiguring forms of acne. Roaccutane is a prescription only medicine and the terms of the marketing authorisation specify that it must be prescribed by, or under the supervision of, a consultant dermatologist. In addition, the supply of Roaccutane is restricted to hospitals or specified retail pharmacies.

  The product information for Roaccutane was last updated in June 2001 with regard to warnings and possible side effects. One of the key previous amendments to the product information was the strengthening of the warning relating to depression and other psychiatric reactions including suicide, which was approved in March 1998.

  Two major classes of antidepressant are the Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) and the Tricyclic Antidepressants. The safety profiles of SSRIs and TCAs are well-established and are reflected in the product information for prescribers and patients. MCA/CSM carried out a major review of the safety profile of SSRIs, which was completed in 2000 and resulted in product information being updated and an article being published in the drug safety bulletin "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance".

  Respiratory Consultants
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the projected increase of 150 additional respiratory consultants by 2004 includes persons already in the process of specialising. [28809]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: Current supply projections show that there will be an increase of around 150 trained specialists in respiratory medicine available to take up consultant posts in the specialty by 2004. The projections include specialist registrars currently in training in the specialty of

  967W
  respiratory medicine and take account of the long term effect of measures to increase consultant recruitment and deliver the NHS Plan target of 7,500 more consultants by 2004.

  Worcestershire Community and Mental Health NHS Trust
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the deficit of the Worcestershire Community and Mental Health NHS trust; and what steps will be taken to address it. [28248]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: The Worcestershire Community and Mental Health national health service trust is projecting a £300,000 deficit against its turnover of £87 million (0.35 per cent.). I am advised that the underlying causes of the deficit are expenditure on bank and agency nursing staff, prescribed drugs and locum medical staff.

  The trust has taken action to contain expenditure across the organisation, including reducing spending on locum medical staff by securing appointments to a number of consultant post vacancies.

  Worcestershire health authority, Wyre Forest Primary Care Trust and prospective PCTs are currently in discussion with the trust in relation to the service and financial framework for 2002–03. I would expect the outcome of these discussions to secure a settlement which will fund the existing range of mental health services as well as developments in line with the NHS plan and National Service Framework for Mental Health and Older Adults.

  Complementary Medicine
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that student doctors and nurses familiarise themselves with complementary medicine. [29434]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: It is not for the Department to determine the content of education and training for health professionals.

  Individual medical schools determine their own undergraduate medical curriculum in the light of recommendations from the General Medical Council's Education Committee, which has the statutory responsibility to determine the extent of knowledge and skill required for the granting of primary medical qualifications in the United Kingdom. The Education Committee's recommendations on undergraduate medical education are currently under review.

  For nursing, midwifery and health visiting, the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting determines the standard, kind and content of education leading to registration.

  The Foundation for Integrated Medicine, with which the Department works closely, held a symposium on familiarisation in complementary and alternative medicine for medical undergraduates on 23 November 2001. This was aimed at curriculum co-ordinators and teachers of CAM in all medical schools and was well attended.

  Learning Disabilities
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health.

  (1) if he will meet representatives from Mencap to discuss care problems for children and adults with severe learning difficulties; and if he will make a statement; [29074]

  (2) what steps he is taking to improve domiciliary care support for families caring for children and adults with profound and multiple learning difficulties; [29073]

  (3) what steps he is taking to improve services for children and adults with profound and multiple learning difficulties following the publication of the White Paper, Valuing People. [29075]

  Jacqui Smith
  Our strategy for improving services for people with learning disability is set out in the White Paper, "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century", published in March 2001. It is the first White Paper on the subject for 30 years and takes a cradle to grave, cross-Government look at services. It is based on four key principles—rights, independence, choice, and inclusion. The proposals in "Valuing People" are for all children, young people, adults and older people with learning disabilities, and their families. They cover people with severe and profound learning disabilities through to people with mild or moderate learning disabilities and people with learning disabilities from across the autistic spectrum.

  Learning disability partnership boards in each local authority area are responsible for overseeing implementation of the "Valuing People" proposals at local level. Boards consist of representatives of a wide range of statutory and voluntary sector interests, including social services, health, education, employment, and housing, as well as people with learning disabilities and carers. We will be looking to boards to ensure that the strategies they develop adequately reflect the needs of all learning disabled adults in their area. We will be looking closely at the joint investment plan boards have to produce by the end of this month to ensure that this happens.

  Action to implement the proposals in "Valuing People" for improving the lives of children and young people with learning disabilities is being taken forward through the Quality Protects programme. Disabled children are now a priority area in this programme to transform children's social services. From 2001–02 to 2003–04 £60 million has been earmarked for services for disabled children and their families—£15 million this year and 2002–03 and £30 million in 2003–04.

  We are also improving support for profound and multiple learning disabled children as part of other programmes to improve service for all disabled children:
  The implementation of the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 from 1 April 2001 is allowing direct payments to be made to parents of disabled children, giving greater choice and flexibility in how they receive services.
  From June 2001, we have funded the charity Contact a Family by £500,000 per annum to run a new National Information Centre for families with disabled children. This includes a national telephone help and advice line.
  We have increased its funding to the Family Fund Trust which provides grants to help reduce the stress on families with severely disabled children. In 2000–01, the Government contributed

  969W
  funding of £25.4 million. This funding has increased by £1 million this year and will increase by £2 million in 2002–03 and £3 million in 2003–04.
  We have recently announced the development of a National Service Framework (NSF) for children. This will set out to tackle inequalities, raise standards, and reduce unacceptable variations in NHS and social services. Services for disabled children will be a key part of the NSF.

  Mencap contributed to the development of "Valuing People" through membership of two of the working groups which took forward the early work. It continues to be involved in the implementation of some of its proposals and its chief executive is a member of the Learning Disability Task Force which has been set up to oversee implementation at national level. Ministers and departmental officials regularly meet representatives of Mencap and discuss aspects of "Valuing People"; I hope to meet Mencap representatives again on 5 March.

  Patient Journey Times
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people live more than half an hour's journey from(a) a malignant haematology and bone marrow transplant, (b) a chemotherapy out-patient, (c) a specialist endocrinology, (d) a neurology, (e) a renal, (f) a plastic surgery, (g) a genetics, (h) a paediatric cardiology and (i) a paediatric surgery unit (i) in each health authority (ii) in England and (iii) on the Isle of Wight; and what proportion these figures are of the population of each. [29664]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available as information collected by the Department identifies the national health service trust concerned but not the exact site or unit locations at which different specific services are provided.

  Funeral Arrangements
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the number of NHS patients buried by NHS trusts in unmarked graves; [27353]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the provision of minimum funeral standards in NHS hospitals. [27352]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not collected centrally by the Department.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Appeals
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the average delay between hearing an asylum appeal and the appellant receiving a determination was in the last quarter for which figures are available. [28903]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  For asylum appeals heard between 1 October 2001 and 31 December 2001, the average time taken from hearing an asylum appeal to promulgation of the appeal is:

  3.60 weeks at Adjudicator tier.

  4.80 weeks at Tribunal tier.

  970W
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many appeal determinations have been passed on to the Home Office to deliver since 7 January. [28901]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Between 7 January and 21 January the IAA have passed the Home Office 494 determinations for delivery.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many appeals against refusal of asylum were completed between 1 April and 30 November 2001. [28902]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Between 1 April and 30 November 2001, 29,455 asylum appeals were completed at the Adjudicator stage; 9,435 leave to appeal to the Immigration Appellate Tribunal applications were dealt with; and 2,362 substantive hearings took place at the Tribunal.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of people have unsuccessfully appealed against refusal of asylum then sought to appeal against that decision in the last quarter for which figures are available. [28904]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Of asylum appeals received between 1 April 2001 and 30 June 2001, where the Adjudicator has made a decision: 80 per cent, were unsuccessful in their appeal against refusal of asylum. Of the 80 per cent, that were unsuccessful at Adjudicator appeal, 38 per cent, went on to appeal to the IAT.

  Immigration Appellate Authority
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the average time taken by the Immigration Appellate Authority is to process from receipt to determination(a) oral family visitor appeals, (b) paper-only family visitor appeals, (c) asylum appeals and (d) other immigration appeals. [28785]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  For cases promulgated by the IAA between 1 April 2001 and 31 December 2001, the current average time to process cases from receipt to determination is:

  6.95 weeks for oral family visitor appeals

  2.68 weeks for paper-only family visitor appeals

  19.80 weeks for asylum appeals

  17.96 weeks for other immigration appeals.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) oral and (b) paper-only family visitor appeals were received by the Immigration Appellate Authority in December 2001. [28786]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In December 2001, the Immigration Appellate Authority received 97 cases for oral hearing and 129 cases for paper-only hearing.

  Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the development of the information technology project for the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service; whether guidance in the
  971W
  report Successful IT-Modernising Government in Action has been followed in relation to the project; whether the IT project is subject to any oversight by an IT project board; whether the IT system is able to record details of children who are the subject of court reports; whether the system fulfils obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998; and what was the (a) start date, (b) original planned completion date, (c) latest expected completion date, (d) original planned cost and (e) latest expected cost of the project. [28526]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Establishment of CAFCASS as a new, unified service provides an opportunity for improved communication and case management across the service. CAFCASS's IT project has been taken forward in two phases: Phase 1 installation of a national (England and Wales) infrastructure to support the service from launch; Phase 2 development of an integrated system to replace and extend Phase 1 systems and provide improved management information and interfaces with other organisations. The guidance in the report "Successful IT—Modernising Government in Action" has been followed. A Project Board was constituted under Prince 2 project management methodology.

  In addition to the Phase 1 infrastructure, CAFCASS inherited systems holding case data from its predecessor services; almost all of which continue to provide operational service. This includes the recording of details of children who are the subject of court reports in the same way they did before CAFCASS's launch. CAFCASS is Data Protection Act registered. Future changes to systems will ensure CAFCASS's continued compliance.

  (a) A Support Infrastructure Project was established, under Prince 2 methodology, in June 2000 with the Project Initiation Document issued at end September 2000.

  (b) The planned completion date for Phase 1 was 1 April 2001. This was found to be unrealistic before rollout, and revised to 31 May 2001. The planned completion date for Phase 2 was 31 March 2002.

  (c) Phase 1 was completed on time in May 2001. A statement of requirements for Phase 2 was completed for April 2001. CAFCASS is currently reviewing its IT strategy to assess immediate and longer term needs in the light of the operating experience it now has. This will include a decision on whether Phase 2 is the best option for CAFCASS's future operation.

  (d) Phase 1 was planned at £5.2 million. Early estimates for Phase 2 were approximately £5-6 million. Firm costs have not been established as the project has not proceeded to procurement.

  (e) Phase 1 was completed at £5.9 million due to more fit out work being needed than had been expected at many sites. CAFCASS is reviewing the IT strategy on which the future cost of Phase 2 will depend.

  Market and Opinion Research
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what expenditure has been incurred by her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; and if she will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each. [27945]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor's Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies conduct a range of exercises to measure public satisfaction with services and future needs. Many of these 972W
  are carried out at a local level so that services can be provided to match the needs of local communities. The cost of collating and detailing all this activity would be disproportionate.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what his estimate is of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by his Department in each of the last four years. [27966]

  Mr. Wills
  The amount spent by the Lord Chancellor's Department on refurbishment of buildings in the last four financial years is shown in the table.

  £

  Financial year

  Cost of refurbishment

  1997–98

  23,517,936.20

  1998–99

  22,006,208.75

  1999–2000

  22,915,180.32

  2000–01

  26,497,353.26

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many publications were issued by her Department in each of the last four years. [11824]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information is presented in the table.

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  LCDHQ

  37

  38

  42

  41

  Court Service

  19

  35

  8

  2

  Land Registry

  0

  1

  6

  8

  Public Record Office

  8

  9

  13

  7

  Public Guardianship Office

  2

  2

  4

  14

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  3

  3

  7

  10

  Total

  69

  88

  80

  82

  Golden Jubilee
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) when an announcement will be made as to which applicant towns have been granted city status to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Her Majesty's Accession to the Throne; [28752]

  (2) if she will arrange for more than one English town to be granted city status to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Her Majesty's Accession to the Throne. [28753]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Decisions on the grant of city status are made by the Queen, under the Royal Prerogative, on the advice of Ministers. Her Majesty the Queen has not expressed a wish to grant city status to more than one town in England to mark Her Golden Jubilee, and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor expects to advise Her on that basis. He will announce the results of the competition as soon as possible.
  973W
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the applicants for the grant of a Lord Mayoralty or Lord Provostship to mark Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee. [10823]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [pursuant to the reply, 25 October 2001, c. 400W]: Applications for the grant of a Lord Mayoralty have been received from the following cities:

  Bath

  Cambridge

  Carlisle

  Chichester

  Derby

  Exeter

  Gloucester

  Lancaster

  Lincoln

  St. Albans

  St. David's

  Salford

  Southampton

  Sunderland

  Truro

  Wolverhampton

  Worcester

  All the applications for the grant of Lord Mayoralty and for the grants of city status in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for Her Majesty's Golden Jubilee are receiving consideration. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will announce the results as soon as possible.

  Terrorist Finance
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent discussions he has had with the Isle of Man Government over terrorist finance; and if he will make a statement. [28922]

  Mr. Wills
  I have not had personal discussions with the Isle of Man Government on this issue, but there have been a number of contacts between the United Kingdom and Isle of Man Governments at official level. The Isle of Man already has strong anti-money laundering legislation. The Isle of Man Government have committed themselves to implementing the Financial Action Task Force Special Recommendations on Terrorist Financing. The Isle of Man Government are moreover, introducing further anti-terrorism legislation, which includes new provisions to counteract terrorist financing. It will enable the United Nations Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism to be extended to the Isle of Man.

  Magistrates Courts (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of fines levied by magistrates courts in Worcestershire were collected in the latest 12 month period for which figures are available. [28900]
  974W
  Mr. Wills
  Magistrates Courts Committees have responsibility for the collection of a range of debts imposed through the courts, including not only fines but also fees, compensation, confiscation orders, legal aid contributions and some maintenance orders. It is not possible to separate out just the fines from the total.

  It is not possible to provide the information requested in respect of Worcestershire only, as magistrates courts in Worcestershire are administered by West Mercia Magistrates Court Committee, which also covers Herefordshire and Shropshire and the information from these areas cannot be identified separately.

  In addition to impositions by magistrates in West Mercia Magistrates Courts during the period October 2000 to September 2001, further amounts were imposed by other agencies, including the Crown court and magistrates in other areas. Some amounts imposed in West Mercia were transferred to other areas for collection.

  The total amount of money collected by the courts in West Mercia included some amounts imposed in earlier periods, such as those being paid by instalment, and some amounts imposed in other areas, and therefore does not relate directly to an amount imposed in West Mercia.

  The proportion of money collected by West Mercia Magistrates Courts Committee during the period October 2000 to September 2001 as a percentage of new impositions was 67 per cent.

  Jurors (Allowances)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent assessment he has made of the extent to which payments to jurors meet the financial consequences of their appointment. [28820]

  Mr. Wills
  No assessment is made of the extent to which payments to jurors meet the financial consequences of their appointment. However, a potential juror can apply to a Crown court judge for excusal if they feel that they will suffer any financial loss through completing jury service. The maximum allowances payable to jurors are reviewed each year and are, as a general rule, increased in line with inflation. Lord Justice Auld has recommended a full review of the allowances payable to jurors. The Government are considering this as part of the package of recommendations.

  Lay Magistrates
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) lay magistrates and (b) vacancies for lay magistrates there are, broken down by county. [29711]

  Mr. Wills
  The total number of lay magistrates in England and Wales is published in the "Judicial Appointments Annual Report". The table taken from the 2000–01 edition shows the total number of lay magistrates, broken down by commission area. Figures are not kept broken down by county.

  The numbers of magistrates required on each Bench is determined each year by the Lord Chancellor's local Advisory Committee. It is determined after consultation with the Bench chairman and magistrates courts committee with the aim of achieving average sittings for each magistrate within the range 35 to 45 half-days a year.
  975W
  The number depends on such factors as work load and the number of expected retirements and resignations, and the capacity of the Bench to cope with new appointments. Each Advisory Committee has a different recruitment cycle so the total number of vacancies is constantly

  Lay magistrates (excluding Duchy of Lancaster)—1 April 2001

  Age

  Gender

  Commission area

  Total

  Under 40

  40-49

  50-59

  60-69

  Male

  Female

  Avon and Somerset

  908

  37

  181

  413

  277

  448

  460

  Bedfordshire

  291

  12

  50

  139

  90

  148

  143

  Cambridgeshire

  345

  12

  73

  162

  98

  169

  176

  Cheshire

  495

  33

  98

  216

  148

  247

  248

  City of London

  120

  7

  33

  52

  28

  55

  65

  Cleveland

  428

  20

  93

  192

  123

  236

  192

  Cumbria

  306

  12

  45

  153

  96

  157

  149

  Derbyshire

  438

  16

  68

  212

  142

  230

  208

  Devon and Cornwall

  736

  24

  105

  355

  252

  374

  362

  Dorset

  352

  7

  64

  165

  116

  182

  170

  Durham

  308

  14

  63

  143

  88

  172

  136

  Dyfed

  240

  3

  49

  116

  72

  146

  94

  East Sussex

  405

  8

  66

  182

  149

  191

  214

  Essex

  647

  14

  116

  342

  175

  329

  318

  Gloucestershire

  294

  6

  47

  143

  98

  159

  135

  Gwent

  302

  12

  37

  145

  108

  159

  143

  Hampshire

  787

  46

  141

  379

  221

  393

  394

  Hereford and Worcester

  408

  8

  75

  193

  132

  218

  190

  Hertfordshire

  454

  28

  100

  185

  141

  213

  241

  Humberside

  450

  13

  81

  231

  125

  218

  232

  Inner London

  789

  33

  140

  342

  274

  323

  466

  Isle of Wight

  63

  1

  14

  26

  22

  35

  28

  Kent

  795

  21

  147

  389

  238

  430

  365

  Leicestershire

  522

  19

  98

  234

  171

  272

  250

  Lincolnshire

  397

  20

  66

  196

  115

  187

  210

  Middlesex

  950

  40

  172

  430

  308

  444

  506

  Norfolk

  441

  12

  64

  220

  145

  214

  227

  North East London

  546

  38

  117

  240

  151

  299

  247

  North Yorkshire

  375

  8

  77

  177

  113

  187

  188

  Northamptonshire

  339

  10

  55

  152

  122

  175

  164

  Northumberland

  189

  7

  34

  70

  78

  91

  98

  North Wales

  402

  5

  43

  202

  152

  231

  171

  Nottinghamshire

  681

  31

  114

  277

  259

  340

  341

  Powys

  86

  4

  16

  40

  26

  46

  40

  Shropshire

  271

  5

  52

  124

  90

  147

  124

  South East London

  409

  21

  94

  173

  121

  212

  197

  South Wales

  551

  18

  91

  256

  186

  287

  264

  South West London

  374

  13

  68

  180

  113

  173

  201

  South Yorkshire

  740

  46

  125

  320

  249

  394

  346

  Staffordshire

  572

  23

  122

  249

  178

  298

  274

  Suffolk

  352

  11

  56

  194

  91

  185

  167

  Surrey

  387

  16

  74

  165

  132

  179

  208

  Thames Valley

  937

  29

  145

  488

  275

  439

  498

  Tyne and Wear

  762

  34

  152

  351

  225

  413

  349

  Warwickshire

  204

  4

  34

  104

  62

  106

  98

  West Glamorgan

  275

  7

  32

  117

  119

  148

  127

  West Midlands

  1,684

  88

  345

  720

  531

  885

  799

  West Sussex

  349

  16

  65

  161

  107

  177

  172

  West Yorkshire

  1,329

  76

  283

  600

  370

  674

  655

  Wiltshire

  286

  7

  50

  145

  84

  140

  146

  Total

  24,771

  995

  4,530

  11,460

  7,786

  12,575

  12,196

  Percentage of total

  100

  4

  18.3

  46.3

  31.4

  50.8

  49.2

  Political affiliation

  Ethnic background

  Commission area

  Conservative

  Labour

  Liberal Democrat

  Plaid Cymru

  Other and uncommitted

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other

  Not known

  Avon and Somerset

  294

  191

  149

  0

  274

  840

  16

  9

  4

  39

  Bedfordshire

  111

  54

  39

  0

  87

  258

  4

  15

  5

  9

  Cambridgeshire

  132

  84

  40

  0

  89

  325

  1

  4

  0

  15

  Cheshire

  178

  137

  52

  1

  127

  484

  2

  5

  2

  2

  City of London

  42

  21

  14

  0

  43

  88

  12

  2

  3

  15

  Cleveland

  161

  137

  41

  0

  89

  372

  0

  8

  3

  45

  976W
  changing. However, in the year ending 31 March 2001 the Lord Chancellor appointed 1,366 new magistrates against 1,667 vacancies that Advisory Committees hoped to fill (81.9 per cent.) The target is that by 2003 at least 95 per cent, of vacancies are filled every year.
  977W

  Political affiliation

  Ethnic background

  Commission area

  Conservative

  Labour

  Liberal Democrat

  Plaid Cymru

  Other and uncommitted

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other

  Not known

  Cumbria

  107

  66

  21

  0

  112

  302

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Derbyshire

  169

  116

  56

  0

  97

  422

  4

  8

  1

  3

  Devon and Cornwall

  290

  111

  137

  0

  198

  700

  0

  2

  5

  29

  Dorset

  155

  42

  73

  0

  82

  334

  2

  3

  0

  13

  Durham

  68

  118

  19

  0

  103

  301

  2

  4

  0

  1

  Dyfed

  59

  60

  36

  35

  50

  232

  0

  0

  0

  8

  East Sussex

  159

  79

  49

  0

  118

  381

  1

  5

  3

  15

  Essex

  262

  125

  105

  0

  155

  597

  6

  2

  1

  41

  Gloucestershire

  145

  39

  48

  0

  62

  244

  4

  5

  1

  40

  Gwent

  75

  87

  21

  4

  115

  285

  1

  5

  0

  11

  Hampshire

  270

  147

  130

  0

  240

  747

  4

  9

  11

  16

  Hereford and Worcester

  195

  95

  54

  0

  64

  366

  1

  4

  3

  34

  Hertfordshire

  154

  118

  64

  0

  118

  413

  7

  7

  2

  25

  Humberside

  188

  121

  49

  0

  92

  443

  0

  5

  2

  0

  Inner London

  313

  252

  96

  0

  128

  596

  75

  15

  16

  87

  Isle of Wight

  25

  8

  10

  0

  20

  58

  2

  0

  0

  3

  Kent

  334

  150

  131

  0

  180

  664

  7

  18

  7

  99

  Leicestershire

  187

  121

  69

  0

  145

  476

  13

  22

  7

  4

  Lincolnshire

  172

  70

  58

  2

  95

  351

  0

  5

  2

  39

  Middlesex

  357

  292

  94

  0

  207

  729

  71

  71

  23

  56

  Norfolk

  162

  102

  69

  0

  108

  384

  1

  3

  4

  49

  North East London

  182

  194

  64

  0

  106

  394

  42

  33

  10

  67

  North Yorkshire

  151

  69

  58

  0

  97

  353

  0

  2

  4

  16

  Northamptonshire

  173

  78

  54

  0

  34

  321

  7

  11

  0

  0

  Northumberland

  66

  40

  26

  1

  56

  189

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Wales

  139

  103

  74

  50

  36

  393

  1

  2

  1

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  252

  189

  78

  0

  162

  632

  17

  15

  5

  12

  Powys

  25

  10

  20

  3

  28

  84

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Shropshire

  105

  64

  58

  0

  44

  262

  1

  2

  2

  4

  South East London

  147

  95

  65

  1

  101

  345

  19

  14

  9

  22

  South Wales

  134

  163

  76

  16

  162

  519

  4

  8

  6

  14

  South West London

  168

  73

  78

  0

  55

  237

  10

  5

  6

  116

  South Yorkshire

  214

  258

  103

  0

  165

  700

  10

  17

  6

  7

  Staffordshire

  210

  181

  53

  0

  128

  546

  1

  18

  1

  6

  Suffolk

  107

  68

  52

  1

  124

  344

  1

  3

  4

  0

  Surrey

  162

  62

  43

  0

  120

  370

  1

  3

  6

  7

  Thames Valley

  359

  175

  137

  0

  266

  859

  23

  22

  8

  25

  Tyne and Wear

  214

  264

  102

  0

  182

  697

  4

  9

  7

  45

  Warwickshire

  79

  50

  42

  0

  33

  191

  2

  9

  1

  1

  West Glamorgan

  83

  106

  37

  10

  39

  271

  0

  3

  1

  0

  West Midlands

  584

  558

  195

  0

  347

  1,434

  72

  103

  12

  63

  West Sussex

  126

  75

  74

  0

  94

  334

  3

  4

  2

  6

  West Yorkshire

  411

  440

  173

  0

  305

  1,089

  33

  74

  10

  123

  Wiltshire

  119

  48

  47

  0

  72

  272

  3

  4

  0

  7

  Total

  8,974

  6,306

  3,413

  124

  5,954

  22,228

  490

  598

  207

  1,248

  Percentage of total

  36.2

  25.5

  13.8

  0.5

  24

  89.7

  2

  2.4

  0.8

  5

  Lay magistrates (Duchy of Lancaster)—1 April 2001

  Age

  Gender

  Commission area

  Total

  Under 40

  40-49

  50-59

  60-69

  Male

  Female

  Greater Manchester

  1,931

  78

  368

  898

  587

  901

  940

  Lancashire

  1,041

  21

  164

  499

  357

  560

  481

  Merseyside

  992

  43

  179

  424

  346

  513

  479

  Political affiliation

  Ethnic background

  Commission area

  Conservative

  Labour

  Liberal Democrat

  Plaid Cymru

  Other and uncommitted

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other

  known

  Greater Manchester

  577

  624

  237

  0

  493

  1,789

  41

  80

  18

  3

  Lancashire

  283

  246

  69

  0

  443

  995

  3

  34

  9

  0

  Merseyside

  278

  249

  161

  0

  304

  964

  8

  14

  6

  0

  978W

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.

The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich
John Hubert Richard, Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Bradford and the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

The Family
2.40 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the context of their initiatives concerned with the family, how they define the word "family".
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, families come in all shapes and sizes. However, support for children and parents is at the heart of the Government's initiatives to strengthen family life. Our primary aim is to ensure a good start in life for the next generation. That means ensuring stability for children and support for those who raise them.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that reply and most heartened by the way in which the Government put children at the very centre of their family policy. Does he agree, however, that using such a wide definition of the family risks eroding the network of responsibilities that parents owe to their children? I know that the Government take the view that they should not tell adults how to live their lives, but, in fact, the Government do, of course, tell adults how to live their lives when the matter reflects upon the welfare of children.
Should not the Government be prepared to ensure that all parents and prospective parents know about the findings of recent research concerning the dangers of certain practices of parents? I have in mind, for example, excessive alcohol consumption during pregnancy, domestic violence or the abandonment of a child by one or both parents. Should not the Government be prepared to ensure that all parents know about the risks to their children?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. Over the past few years, the Government have announced an enormous range of initiatives on family policy. Sometimes, they are directed at parents, but they also concern the role of grandparents in caring for children and the issue of financial support. Families are
1458
private affairs, but it is true that the Government will sometimes have responsibilities to parents. Sometimes, the concentration will be on mothers, sometimes it is on fathers, even if it is less up-front. We must not forget the role of fathers. We have projects for fathers around the country.
I have read the extensive briefing provided for such a wide Question. In 1999–2000, following the introduction of the family support grant, there was a concentration on initiatives for fathers. The projects included Fathers Direct, Families need Fathers, Investing in Fathers and Making Fathers Matter. There is a Dads and Lads project and a Superdads project. I could go into greater detail; the definition of Superdads may not be what noble Lords might think. It is an extremely worthwhile project. We have tried to concentrate on various areas right across the family that may have been somewhat neglected.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in a city such as Bradford, which has people of many faiths, cultures and races, the word "family" means various things. For some, it can be a casual, almost temporary arrangement; for most people of religious faith, it implies permanence, commitment and dedication. Would it not be helpful for people in cities such as ours to know precisely what the Government mean when they use the word "family"? Will the Minister give us that definition today, or, if he cannot, will he tell us when lie will?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the reason why I answered the Question on behalf of the Home Office in the first place is that the Home Secretary chairs the Ministerial Sub-Committee on Active Communities and Family Issues. I am carrying around enormous definitions of families. Families, as I said in my Answer, come in all shapes and sizes, by and large.
I have got some definitions of parents, who are one part of the family. They may not necessarily be the parents of the child; they could be people with parental responsibility. There are also definitions of parents for the purposes of education law in the Education Act 1996. Those definitions are different.
We all want to see happy, tranquil, peaceful and private families, wherever they live and whatever their faith.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, the inroads that the Government are making into child poverty are welcome. Can the Minister say how the Government balance measures to encourage lone parents into work with allowing lone parents with children under the age of two to choose to stay at home and give the children their undivided attention, if they wish to?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is absolutely right for parents of children at that age. However, the Government have always taken the view that the best way out of poverty for any family is work. It is the role of government and society to facilitate work opportunities at a place and a time that is suitable to parents with caring responsibilities.

1459
That has been a problem in the past. People have decided that work was not available and that they were stuck on benefits. They wanted to work, not to be on benefits, but the hours and the location were wrong, and there was no help to look after a child—may be the parent had no family or the neighbours were not that supportive. It is our job, through the host of projects that we have announced throughout the country in the past four years, to meet that desire. We are not forcing parents into work; it is simply that work is the best way out of poverty.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that any definition of family to be used by the Government must reflect the reality in our society? The Civil Partnerships Bill, which will be brought forward by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill on Friday, would help with that.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Government have not taken a view on the Bill. Naturally, we will do so in due course. It is a formidable Bill and has obviously been drafted with considerable expertise and care on a very important area. There is a similar Bill in the other place. The Government announced in, I think, October or November that a unit in the Cabinet Office was considering the issue of civil partnerships. This country has probably been a little behind others in that regard.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, as a father of four, I should declare an interest. I do not know whether that makes me a dad or a superdad. Is the Minister aware that children are best nurtured in a family with a father and a mother? That being the case, what are the Government doing to ensure that children will, in the future, be brought up in traditional families with fathers and mothers?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I detailed some of the projects that concentrate on fathers. That was a somewhat neglected area. It is clear that, in the main, children are best in a family. However, how that family is constructed and how it lives together are, essentially, matters for that family. We are concerned about the children, and children are best with two parents. However, sometimes, that may not be the case, for various reasons. Parenting skills must be developed as they have been long-forgotten by some. The safety of the child is of paramount importance—hence the range of projects—but we do not prejudge individual private circumstances.

Asylum Seekers: Illegal Entrants
2.50 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is now their policy on refugees seeking asylum in the United Kingdom who have arrived illegally in this country or are attempting to do so.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Government are committed to their international obligations under the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees. All asylum applications are considered on their individual merits within the terms of the convention, regardless of whether the asylum applicant has entered or has attempted to enter the United Kingdom illegally.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Many refugees, once having arrived in France, try to enter the United Kingdom, as illustrated by the very large number who stormed the Channel Tunnel on Christmas Day. Is that because our system seldom ejects someone who has arrived on British soil? Furthermore, what progress is being made with regard to closing the camp at Sangatte?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is simply not true to say that we do not remove people. At the ports, some 40,000 people per year are turned back as they arrive. If someone claims asylum, then we look at the claim on its individual merits. Those who fail in an asylum claim are being removed at the present time at a rate of approximately 800 to 900 per month. We have a policy in place, training is being undertaken and resources are being allocated to raise that removal rate to some 2,500 per month, including dependants. So it is simply not true to say that we do not remove.
With regard to Sangatte, discussions take place on a regular basis between Home Office Ministers—in particular the Home Secretary—and their French counterparts. Indeed, discussions were held only over the past few days which initially were quite badly reported in the media. Nevertheless, this is an issue, although the fact is that fewer people are coming through by clandestine means, hidden in lorries or ferries, or through the Channel Tunnel. That is now causing a problem for the French because the population of Sangatte is rising. Essentially that is a problem for the French Government and is one which they are actively seeking to address. However, as I have said before from this Dispatch Box, France is a safe country, a place that is perfectly safe in which people may claim asylum when they are fleeing persecution.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, while I appreciate what the Government are doing to address this difficult issue—for example, in the change of status for Her Majesty's Haslar detention centre—does the Minister agree that the original Question covering the articulation of a proper policy on immigration has to be addressed in the first instance?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, yes. That is to be done in an extensive and lengthy White Paper to be published in early February.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the Minister referred to our international obligations. Of course that is correct, but is it sufficient? Do the Government appreciate that,

1461
over the past 13 months, no fewer than eight illegal entrants have been electrocuted inside the Channel Tunnel? In view of that, would it not be wise to consider joint screening in France to determine in which country applications for asylum should best be made?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have to say to the noble Lord that my response is no. All that would achieve would be to turn the Sangatte centre into a reception centre or clearing house for claims to enter the United Kingdom. That is the reality of what would happen. The suggestion is seductive, but it is a fact that tragedies are taking place both in the Channel Tunnel and elsewhere. Such acts are extremely dangerous. We have taken what steps we can to inform people staying in Sangatte of the dangers, even using a video produced last year to illustrate how dangerous is the practice of trying to jump on to moving trains, as well as making clear the other dangers implicit in what is taking place. I understand that such behaviour shows the degree of desperation felt, but using Sangatte as a clearing house would not solve the problem.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, at an all-party meeting held last night, my noble friend said that 600,000 people came into this country illegally last year. Why can they not be turned back when they come into the country? My noble friend said that they can be turned back at the ports, but could they also be turned back at the mouth of the Channel Tunnel and thus sent straight back to the safe country of France?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I should put it on the record that 600,000 people enter Europe illegally each year. The approximate rate of entry of asylum seekers to this country per year is 5,000 to 6,000 per month, a figure which has remained fairly static for a while. However, as I have said, it has been estimated that around 600,000 people enter the European Union illegally each year.
I return to a point I made in response to an earlier question. I must stress that we return some people immediately, at the port and sometimes on the same aircraft that brought a person into the country. The rate at which such removals takes place is running at 30,000 to 40,000 per year. Not all those entering this country by such means go on to claim asylum, but if such entrants do claim asylum, we then fulfil our international obligations by judging each claim on its own merits. That means that it is impossible to remove someone immediately.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when the 1951 convention was agreed between many civilised countries, there were relatively few people who were considered likely to be refugees? However, since then, large numbers of refugees in various parts of the world are now being forced to leave their own countries for racial, political or religious reasons. Would it not be wise now to suggest that the convention should be renegotiated and revised?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a good case. The situation today is not the same as it was 50 years ago when the convention was drawn up. We now have the phenomenon of internationally organised trafficking in human beings for economic purposes. Sometimes there is also a hint—it is only a hint—of mass exoduses from some countries being encouraged for political purposes; that is, in order to put pressure on other countries. International discussions are under way, but I have to tell the noble Lord that until the convention is changed we shall fulfil our international obligations under it. I say that because there are people who cannot claim protection under the 1951 convention, which relates to some of the issues raised in regard to the anti-terrorism Bill passed last year, so it is not a completely open door. That point should be put on the record.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, can the Minister explain whether there are any legal means by which an individual can enter this country and claim asylum?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I think that the short answer to the noble Lord's question is no.

Census Internet Site
2.57 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
When it will be possible to access the site www.census.pro.gov.uk to allow public access to the 1901 census details.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the 1901 census Internet site went live on 2nd January. It was additional to the normal free microfiche service which was also released across the country. From 7th January, due to unprecedented demand, Internet access to the website was limited to users at the Family Record Centre and the Public Record Office, as well as at 150 libraries and service centres across the country. Qinetiq is now enhancing the website and the general Internet service will be restored incrementally on completion of the work.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, while I congratulate the PRO on its decision to make the 1901 census available online, and on the enhancements now being made to the website which will enable a larger number of users to access it, can the noble Baroness explain why the PRO did not accept the advice of the FRC consultative committee which, on 10th October last year, found that the PRO was underestimating demand for the website? Why did the PRO not take advice from the Mormons, who had a similar experience when their website went live in May 1999? Furthermore, can the noble Baroness tell the House how many users per day and how many hits per day will the website be able to cope with when finally it does go live?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the PRO did take advice along the lines indicated by the noble Lord. We were aware of the experience of the Mormons. But noble Lords will know that, following its launch, the Mormon website, "FamilySearch", now experiences 7.4 million hits per day, which equates to 89,000 visitors or users per day. We scoped for 1 million users per day, rising to a peak of 1.2 million, which is the settled rate. That is a huge number of users. We did fully take into account the possible interest that might be generated by the website.
The website should be able to deal with a user rate of 1.2 million per day. Noble Lords should also know that, when the website came online, the hit rate ran at 1.2 million per hour. No scoping exercise could have reasonably anticipated such a vast interest.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, my noble friend on the Front Bench mentioned that, during the period while the website is not up and running, various venues across the country have been made available so that people can gain access to it. Can she detail where those venues are located? Furthermore, can my noble friend tell the House a little about how the website has been constructed? I had understood that the website was designed to be socially inclusive, rather than simply to address those known organisations and individuals with an interest in genealogy.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my noble friend is right, the 1901 census site was intended to be socially inclusive—and it is. One of the delights of the site is that ordinary men and women—not only the historians and genealogists who normally use the site—have been able to have access. There is a growing fascination among all of us about our history. The people of this country and the diaspora—particularly our American cousins—are exploring the site with great energy. We celebrate that and are grateful for it. But we have had to manage it—and we are trying now to manage that interest. There is a free microfiche or microfilm service available across the country at local record sites and at the PRO office at Kew.
As I said, the site has been scoped to deal with up to 1.2 million users and access is available at 150 sites across the country in libraries and service centres. We have them in Norfolk, Liverpool, Lincolnshire, Essex and Newcastle. There will be positions in Exeter, Dorset and Wiltshire. Our Welsh colleagues need not worry that we have forgotten them because Powys is coming soon.
Lord McNally: My Lords, given the interest in this subject, are there any plans to put earlier censuses on the site? There is an interest in genealogy and we might find that we have more blue blood in the House than is known.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, some people may be surprised by what they have in this House. There is a real interest in this subject. One of the joys of being able to do this is that we know that we have tapped into something which connects with ordinary
1464
people in the street. We carried out a scoping study in relation to an earlier census and it is likely, if we get sufficient money, that we will look at further and other matters for which we can provide a similar service. For instance, we know that there is a huge interest in relation to the First and Second World War records. I can assure the House that this is just the beginning.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, has the irony struck the Minister that, despite the Prime Minister's views on conservatism, the nation appears to have a considerable interest in its past?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the House will know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has a considerable interest in this country's past. His government have evidenced that interest by the energetic and wonderful work that the Public Records Office is now undertaking and will continue to undertake. I can reassure the noble Lord that the Government love this country's history as much as any who sit in the House.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, are there access sites to the website in Scotland?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there are sites, but they are not run by the PRO. Your Lordships will know that the Public Records Office deals with matters in England and Wales. But I am sure that our Scottish cousins are as hungry for information as those south of the Border.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, can the Minister say when enhancement will be completed? Will there be an additional cost to the original tender for the enhancement?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the technological and commercial risks involved are held by Qinetiq, the firm which is undertaking the enhancement. We hope that it will be completed as soon as reasonably practicable. Your Lordships will know that I hesitate to give a date because of the consequences the last time a date was mooted. It will come quickly—but I know it will not come quickly enough for some.

A-Levels: A* Grade
3.4 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to introduce an A* grade for A-levels.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no such proposals at present.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and for the reassurance it

1465
gives that the DfES is running education policy and not No. 10. Nevertheless, does not the Minister feel that at present—with AS-levels still, to put it mildly, suffering from teething troubles and the proposed advanced extension award coming on stream next September—this area is already suffering from too many initiatives? Does the Minister agree that, with the proposals for the 14 to 19 agenda due at any moment, it is important to look forward to a school-leaving examination that comprehends both academic and vocational awards?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that it is, indeed, the DfES which is running education. I can state categorically that there is no truth whatever in a claim of any rift between No. 10 and the department. Far from that being the case, there has been a very constructive dialogue on our proposals for the future of A-levels.
I agree that the 14 to 19 strategy will be an important part of how we develop the future for our young people. It may be useful if I spell out what will be covered in the consultation paper on the grounds of giving as much information as possible to Parliament. We shall be looking for the recognition of achievement in both academic and vocational subjects and considering an overarching award. We wish to create space in the curriculum to allow students to pursue their talents and aspirations. We wish to make high quality vocational options available to all students, to provide systematic, high quality advice and guidance and to remove existing barriers to collaboration. The reasons behind the proposals will be both social and economic.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, given the difficulties that we are now having with examinations, does not my noble friend feel that the time has come to scrap completely the British A-level and go over to the international baccalaureate?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I said, within the 14 to 19 strategy there will be many opportunities to look at the best way forward. Most noble Lords will feel that this will be of enormous value. I am happy to discuss in your Lordships' House problems within the education system in terms of examinations.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, why does the English state have to have three examinations between 16 and 18 whereas in the whole of continental Europe they have examinations such as the Abitur and the baccalaureate at 18, and the system seems to work? Why is it that we have to examine our children so extensively?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I said, within the 14 to 19 strategy—which I look forward to discussing in your Lordships' House—there will be opportunities to look at these issues in detail. However, we know that the universities are finding the AS-level—which has settled down considerably—of value. Indeed, I understand that some universities in
1466
the Russell Group are starting to make unconditional offers to students on the basis of AS results. We also know that it is an opportunity for students who may not complete a course to attain some qualification. Inevitably there are pros and cons.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the view expressed by Mr David Dunn, the head teacher at Yarm School who first blew the whistle on Edexcel and the lamentable performance of that company, that the real problem is that we have become the most over-examined country in Europe?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I said, part of the purpose behind the 14 to 19 strategy is to examine these issues. The noble Lord raised the issue of Edexcel. As noble Lords will be aware, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has asked the QCA to look at the issues surrounding Edexcel.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, does not the introduction of the advanced extension award and the possible future introduction of an A*grade at A-level demonstrate that, at long last, the Government are admitting that the gold standard. A-level has deteriorated and no longer has academic rigour?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, Professor Eva Baker, the chair of the independent panel which was set up by the QCA—who, as noble Lords may be aware, is the co-director of the US National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing—said that students are performing better. This examination process is among the best in the world.

National Lottery (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to allow the National Lotteries Charities Board to make grants to endowment trusts as part of the endowment of such charitable organisations. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Walpole.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Howe of Aberavon and the Baroness Knight of Collingtree set down for today shall each be limited to two-and-a-half hours.(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Constitution Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Viscount Cranborne.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Union Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Baroness Maddock be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Wallace of Saltaire.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tax Simplification
3.11 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon Lord Howe of Aberavon rose to call attention to the case for simplifying the tax system; and to move for Papers.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the House will recognise that in raising the subject of taxation one is dealing with an anxiety as old as taxation itself, and one which is world-wide. As long ago as 1977, I had the honour of speaking about this problem to the Addington Society—a society devoted, curiously, to taxation. I described our tax system, even in those remote days, as,
"incomprehensible, unrespected, unenforceable—and spinning like a top".
Looking around the world, one discovers that we are by no means alone. Perhaps I may quote a comment from the United States, extracted from the San Diego Law Review:
"If taxes had existed in the Garden of Eden, the Serpent wouldn't have needed an apple; the promise of a simpler tax system alone would have seduced Eve".
1468
One is indebted for that quotation to Professor Alice Abreu.
The last thing I want to do in raising this topic is to be unfair to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Chancellors—if not a breed in danger of extinction—have to be treated with some care. However, he certainly cannot be said to have improved matters during his tenure of office.
Perhaps I may quote from two newspaper cuttings. One is from the Financial Times published on 26th October 2000. The director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, Mr Chris Humphries, said:
"The Chancellor has failed to heed warnings from business that too much tinkering with the tax system can distort behaviour and raise compliance costs".
On 6th December last year, under the headline,
"Tax system's credibility continues to decline",
Mr Robert Bruce, the well-respected former accountancy correspondent of The Times, wrote:
"Anyone with an interest in tax simplification might just as well fold up their tents and melt away"—
a curiously mixed metaphor. He attributed to the chairman of the Inland Revenue the following sentiment:
"The Chancellor has made it clear that in this administration the priority is social change rather than simplification".
So we can certainly invite the Chancellor to think again about some aspects of the matter.
Perhaps I may summarise the problems as I see them. The first relates to the substance of the tax system, its quality, its simplicity, and the intelligibility of its structure. I refer not merely to the language or the law, but to policy, and not merely to existing tax policy and tax legislation but to newly emerging tax policy and legislation.
Alongside that, I am anxious—as I am sure others are—about the sheer volume of tax legislation, both of existing material and that which continues to emerge, and particularly about the volume and frequency of change in the system. Hence one has to be concerned also with the process of preparing, consulting on, and enacting tax legislation and tax policy, existing and new. That is a matter for both Houses of Parliament, for government, and for people outside.
First, the volume of tax legislation that comes forward and the way in which it is handled is not unrelated to the need that we have imposed on ourselves to enact such legislation through a very truncated parliamentary process, a limited window of time. That is for two reasons. First, the Parliament Act decrees in effect that there can be no consideration of fiscal legislation by this House; and consideration by the other place is very limited in quality, if not always in time. There is a growing volume of people saying that the performance of the financial Standing Committee in the other place has become, to quote Andrew Tyrie MP, "a pointless ritual", which achieves very little.
The second inhibition on our timetable is the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1913. In the past, I have attributed responsibility for that to my

1469
countryman, the late David Lloyd George. That turns out to be a mistake. It was in fact due to the litigious activities of Mr Thomas Gibson Bowles against the Bank of England. I make that correction simply for the sake of history.
The practical effect of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act is that a finance Bill—all of it. however long it may be—which is normally published in April, must be on the statute book, complete and as it was then, by 5th August. So there is a very narrow window of time. We have allowed ourselves to operate under a "self-imposed and automatic guillotine". The extent to which finance Bills have grown in length, as Andrew Tyrie has said, has turned them into an "unstoppable juggernaut". This huge legislative vehicle churns through the other place in a very narrow time-scale, effectively without our even having a chance to salute it.
The result has been an almost endless explosion in the volume of legislation passed. The present Chancellor, Gordon Brown—who is anything but a sloth—in five Budgets, has put on the statute book 1,796 pages—five Finance Acts. His peak achievement was 613 pages in the year 2000.
I have to confess that during my own tenure at the Treasury I was not, by the then standards, particularly idle. I added some 766 pages to the statute book, with a peak achievement of 256. But I make a plea in mitigation. Mine were printed on Royal Octavo pages, which are much smaller than the A4 pages used by the Chancellor. There is a dispute about what it ought to be, but the conversion factor seems to be about 1.3. So the Chancellor's 1,796 pages turn out at 2,334 of mine. Comparing like with like, he has an annual average output of 467 pages, compared with my much more modest achievement of 153.
I acknowledged one reason for that in my Hardman Lecture, which is published in the British Tax Review 2001; namely:
"inspirational input from Chancellors who retain the misguided (and conceited) belief that tax changes can dramatically transform human behaviour".
I have certainly learnt that that does not always happen. Some noble Lords will remember the business start-up scheme announced in one of my Budgets, and the business expansion scheme announced in the following year. They are now regarded as ineffective for their purpose and as rather unattractive beasts. Without being unduly critical of the Chancellor, I make the point that he has succumbed to this inspirational virus five times more frequently than I managed to do. This is a serious point. I cannot repeat too often the proposition that the sheer quantity of fiscal legislation is at least as important as the need For higher quality.
What shall we do about it? Many people with whom I have been fortunate to have the privilege of working over some years have been—and still are—thinkinghard about it. I pay tribute to all those involved in two particular fields. First, I pay tribute to those from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, in which I confess an interest as president of its Tax Law Review
1470
Committee. It has now established a working party, under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Budd, the successor as chief economic adviser to the Treasury of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. The membership of that working party includes my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth—I am sad that he is not here today—and the noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Tomlinson.
Secondly, I also pay tribute to those at the Inland Revenue—yes indeed, they are entitled to be praised—and at the Parliamentary Counsel Office, as well as all those from the private sector involved in the Tax Law Rewrite Project, the steering committee which I have the honour and burden of chairing. I also pay tribute to my colleagues on that committee and to all those on the consultative committee.
I shall say no more about that now except that our progress, our plans and our method are well described in our annual reports. The fifth was produced in May last year and the next is due out later this spring. The first monument to our work is the Capital Allowances Act 2001. It will be the first of many.
I have some lessons to draw from our experience. My central conclusion is that there is no chance of a knock-out success against tax complexity. There can be no big bang approach. Instead, we need to identify, define and establish not an event, but a process—a comprehensive mechanism through which the problems can be addressed and managed tenaciously over the years. It is a long-haul business. The continuing insistence of the process on simplicity must be as irremovable and as constantly present as the voice of the tax-raising departments and as the politically restless, impatient input of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer.
My second proposition is that the Tax Law. Rewrite Project is and must remain an important part of that process and a possible pointer to the future. It is worth noting three features of the project. First, although our work is proceeding more slowly than foreseen, it is widely regarded as successful and worth while. The distinguished vice-chairman of the consultative committee said:
"the Capital Allowances Bill represents a revolution in accessibility. It has a logical structure and for the first time in my experience it has actually been designed to help the user".
More importantly, perhaps, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has written more than one letter commending our work. His support for the project has been a huge encouragement, particularly as the project was launched by my learned—if I may so call him in this House—friend, Kenneth Clarke, during his time as Chancellor. It is great to be able to build on the foundations that he laid with the concurrence of all parties.
I emphasise the narrow scope of the Tax Law Rewrite Project. Its remit is limited to improving the structure, intelligibility and user-friendliness of the existing law and to reproducing the existing code with only minor policy change. It does not consider further improvements. However, it is identifying and highlighting important areas in which a review of policy beyond our power seems necessary. We have

1471
identified three dozen topics in four of our response documents, some of which have already been taken up, such as the need to rewrite the PAYE regulations, which are wildly unintelligible. That is now taking place.
My central proposal is that we should go beyond the Tax Law Rewrite Project and seek to establish alongside it a tax structure review programme based on the following features of the rewrite. We need to ensure that the neglected constituency of stability, as well as simplicity, is effectively represented at every level and every stage of the tax-making system. The Tax Law Rewrite Project is a purpose-built process, established with all-party support and committed to the completion of a clearly defined task. Its basic work is carried out not by a free-standing commission, detached from current policy developments, but by a dedicated team serviced by the Inland Revenue and thus, most usefully, plugged into the system. That team includes a changing cast of professionals from outside the Revenue. There is a comprehensive process of consultation drawn together through a widely representative consultative committee. The whole is overseen by the steering committee, which I chair and which includes senior figures from the judiciary, the tax professions, the business community and the other place.
I close with three questions. First, is there broad support—as I very much hope—for something along the lines of the tax structure review project that I have described? Secondly, if there is—this is unexplored territory to a large extent—how should both Houses of Parliament be engaged at each stage of that process? Thirdly—a question for this House in particular to consider—do we see a role in that process for Members of this House, remembering that we already play a part in the enactment of tax law rewrite measures in a Joint Committee of both Houses and that, I venture to suggest, there is a body of expertise in this House, at least as it is at present constituted, whose talent is not drawn on for the scrutiny of tax legislation? The other place will be sensitive about that, but in an age when we are thinking the unthinkable it is worth thinking about that as well.
I look forward in particular to the conclusions of the Budd working party and, of course, to the observations and advice that colleagues will offer this afternoon. I beg to move for Papers.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, not only on securing this debate and on his excellent speech, but on taking an interest in the detail of taxation and finance Bills. That is very rare in Chancellors, before, during or after they hold that post. I am bound to congratulate him again on that, because I know how much work he is doing on trying to simplify the tax system.
I have read the noble and learned Lord's Hardman Memorial Lecture before and I looked it up again in preparation for the debate. His words are worth
1472
repeating. It is unclear whether he was referring to an American tax law professor or himself—although it does not matter, because his sentiments are the same—when he said:
"Tax simplification is a hugely seductive subject. And headline-seductive as well".
He could then have added that, having said that, nobody takes the blindest bit of notice. He went on:
"Those words, from your latest Tax Manifesto, closely echo an earlier verdict: 'Incomprehensible, unrespected, unenforceable—
He continued later:
"we are facing a problem not just of complexity but of volume too—of legislative overkill: too much law, too much change, and all too quickly".
The noble and learned Lord referred to some aspects of that.
The noble and learned Lord also spoke in that lecture not just of simplicity, but of simplicity and stability. I am not sure how both can be achieved. However, having quoted that particular tax lawyer, I am bound to say that the noble and learned Lord went on to ask whose fault it was that we have all this terrible stuff. He gave two reasons. First, he said, "I wasn't there, Guv!". Those were the words that he used. Secondly, he said that there were huge forces and powerful institutions all stacked against reform. He quoted the interesting comment, made in another context, by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd:
"Inertia can develop its own momentum".
That certainly applies to taxation.
What now? The noble and learned Lord has referred to what he has done. He has already done so much on the Tax Law Rewrite Project and the Tax Law Reform Committee. I know that he is doing a very good job on that. I suppose that I should declare an interest as a member of a special working group chaired by Sir Alan Budd, as the noble and learned Lord told us. That group is composed of a lot of very good people—not including myself, I hasten to add.
I suppose that I should also declare an interest in the field of taxation—which I did not do initially—as an accountant. However, as my noble friend Lord Peston always tells us that he is an emeritus professor of economics, knowing that that means that he is retired, perhaps I can say that I am an emeritus accountant.
What will happen now? I am sure that there will be some excellent reports from the committees that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and Sir Alan Budd chair. The pressure for action has been tremendous. In his lecture, the noble and learned Lord referred to comments on our national culture made by the then Maurice Saatchi, the now noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. The noble Lord said that that culture,
"stops political leaders taking the required action".
Moreover, we cannot,
"achieve true simplification with the political process as it stands; put bleakly, it carries no votes".
From my experience some time ago of knocking on doors, I am sure that that is true. I do not recall anyone saying that what we desperately need and what will win votes is a reduction and simplification of tax law so

1473
that it is easier to understand. That is not what people were talking about at all. Nevertheless, it is important to understand from where the pressure for action, or inaction, is coming. Does it come from the government? As I said, most Chancellors are not madly concerned about simplicity—they are more concerned with raising taxation in myriad ways. However, I am sure that, even in those days, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, would have addressed the issue very differently. I see him nodding.
Does the pressure come from taxpayers? It is important to recall that only one-third of taxpayers fill in a tax return; the money is just taken from them. So those taxpayers are not very interested in the subject. As for those who do fill in forms, they use accountants and tax lawyers. I have already declared an interest on that subject. I should make it clear that, apart from the special members of the group set up by the noble and learned Lord, a majority of accountants and lawyers can and do understand the current laws, as complex as they are, sufficiently for them to simplify it in terms of the total tax that their clients pay. I am not sure that they are madly in a hurry to change the tax system too much, or to simplify it as we are discussing now. Nevertheless, it is important for us to understand that existing tax law creates a heavy compliance cost and a burden on the economy. That is undoubtedly true.
So what then is the solution? Most major solutions are very party political in a whole variety of ways. A very simple way of simplifying the tax system would be to abolish income tax entirely, as has been suggested, and to use all indirect taxes. Most of us would disagree—certainly I would—with such a proposition as being grossly unfair. Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has suggested a flat tax. Equally, however, a flat tax is grossly unfair. That is certainly my view, although others—perhaps including the noble—Lord will disagree. However, as I have privately told the noble Lord, the political and party political approach to simplification is disastrous and will achieve nothing whatever. The only way in which we shall achieve simplification of the tax system is if all sides can agree on the proposition. That is what the reform committees established by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, are seeking to do in a non-party political way.
Ultimately, the only way in which there will be serious change is through Parliament itself. A man called Robert Maas has said that "Parliament is the key", and I am sure that that is true. However, if we are to have objective good sense in a parliamentary committee, whether it be a Select Committee or a Standing Committee, I hope that it will take advantage of the very great value that is available to it in the form of Members of your Lordships' House. In my experience on Select Committees, Members of this House tend to be much more objective in their examination of the issues—in a non-party political manner—than ever occurs in another place. One has only to look at the Select Committees that come out of another place to see their party political nature. That is inevitable as it is a party political House.
1474
If we are to have a true opportunity to amend and simplify the tax system, this House should be able to provide an input to some form of pre-legislative committee, without giving this House powers—which are not available to it now, and I am not suggesting that it should have them—to change the level of taxation. We are not talking about that, I hope, but discussing simplification of the system.
Sadly, the party political problems to which I have referred affect all governments, not only the current one. All governments have had the same problem. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, mentioned the size of Finance Bills. I have pleaded guilty in your Lordships' House before to having been responsible for putting many hundreds of pages of Finance Bills on the statute book. Regrettably, they were never properly scrutinised. When I was Chief Secretary, I had for a time a quite important Opposition Chief Secretary who is now the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. She and I never had debates on the detail of the Finance Bill; we discussed the major party political points. That happens all the time. The vast majority of Finance Bills are passed almost entirely unscrutinised.
Consequently, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, has referred to the size of Finance Bills. One of the reasons why Finance Bills are so big is that everyone is amending the previous Finance Bill and the Finance Bills before that. That is why they are so large. In his lecture, the noble and learned Lord claimed credit for something that he and the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, had done to remove some of the taxes that I helped to put on the statute hook. He also said, however, that the number of pages removed from the statute book barely made a dent in it. He is quite right; that is what happens.
Moreover, as the noble and learned Lord said, there are always Chancellors who want an opportunity to "play God", as he put it, by helping all kinds of individuals or businesses. He said that, in 1982, he put the business expansion scheme on to the statute book. He also said that he did so against advice, and that he has subsequently regretted it very much indeed. I can understand that, although certainly the desire was right and acceptance was good. He was trying to do something to help. In yesterday's Financial Times, someone suggested that we must have further help and tax concessions for childcare. Although we could all think of any number of possible tax concessions, very few of them will help to simplify the tax system.
We can choose to help in many other ways. However, what are the prospects for the Tax Law Review Committee and the tax law rewrite committee to which the noble and learned Lord has referred and which he has done so much to establish? I have no doubt whatever that they will produce excellent reports. However, even if Parliament, as I hope—under our current leadership in your Lordships' House and in another place—changes some of the methods by which we consider Finance Bills, the fact remains that only modest changes will be made to future Finance Bills.

1475
I return to the comment made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, on simplicity and stability. As I said, I strongly support what he is trying to achieve. I am bound to say, however, that I remain sadly pessimistic that politics and the momentum of inertia, to paraphrase the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, will combine to prevent substantial improvement in simplifying our tax system.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate. I am a member of the Joint Select Committee on Tax Simplification, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. It is an excellent Select Committee, particularly because it only meets at intervals of around two years when we have a new re-write Bill to consider. I am also a member of the Tax Law Review Committee, set up by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, to which the noble and learned Lord referred. That committee originally proposed the tax re-write project of which the noble and learned Lord is president.
The re-write project resulted in the major re-write of legislation on capital allowances. The Capital Allowances Act 2001 improved drafting and put provisions into a more logical order. I look forward to the next stages of the re-write project. However, it is unrealistic to expect that we will ever get tax laws which are easily comprehensible to ordinary people. Our present laws are only comprehensible to the most highly specialised professionals and, frankly, not always to them. We need laws that can be understood at least by the smaller law and accountancy firms who do not charge their clients the kind of prices charged by City accountancy firms and specialised tax lawyers.
The problem with tax is not just that it is expressed in complicated language, but also that it is often too complicated in concept. It is also complicated because it is too often used for purposes which are sometimes misguided or trivial, or which can be better achieved by other means. An example is the continuing effort to encourage enterprise by means of tax relief. The noble and learned Lord referred to the Business Expansion Scheme (BES. which I sometimes get muddled about and think of as the BSE scheme). He accepted some blame for that.
The trouble with the scheme was that, within a couple of years, we ended up either with people throwing money at unviable schemes for the sake of the tax benefits they hoped to obtain, or they were using the scheme as a tax loophole by investing in things like property companies where no real element of risk was involved. Another example of something which became a tax loophole within a short period of time was the profit-related pay scheme.
BES and profit-related pay have gone, and we have a change of government. But the present Government are still trying to create enterprise incentives through tax reliefs. Some tax reliefs, of course, are justified. But any proposal for tax relief needs to be looked at extremely cautiously. Tax reliefs complicate the tax
1476
system; they can often be abused; and they can redirect resources from more economically desirable purposes. That is something which has all too frequently happened. The aim overall should be a broad tax base and low rates of tax rather than high rates of tax alleviated by reliefs, which narrow the tax base.
The present Government have made the complication of tax law, frankly, much worse. I should like to expand a little on what the noble and learned Lord said about the record of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government. The present Government have produced five Finance Acts which have achieved very little at enormous length. During this period there have been no changes of fundamental importance; for example, there has been nothing comparable to corporation tax and capital gains tax introduced by the Finance Act 1965; nothing comparable to the introduction of capital transfer tax in the Finance Act 1975; and nothing comparable to the introduction of self-assessment in the Finance Act 1994.
I have been through the Finance Acts since 1997. We start with the Finance (No. 2) Act 1997, which was introduced shortly after the 1997 general election. Not surprisingly there is relatively little in it—a mere 53 sections, eight schedules and 109 pages in the Queen's printer's copy. By contrast, the 1998 Finance Act was a giant. It contained 166 sections, 27 schedules and 430 pages. Changes to enterprise investment schemes and venture capital trusts took up five sections and 34 pages of schedules.
The 1998 Act also converted capital gains tax from a relatively simple and comprehensible concept—that of treating capital gains as income—into a completely incomprehensible and illogical system. In the Finance Act 1999 the Chancellor of the Exchequer paused to draw breath. That merely contained 140 sections, 20 schedules and 204 pages. We had only five sections and two brief schedules on enterprise incentives.
Having drawn breath, in 2000 the Chancellor introduced an absolute monster containing 157 sections, 40 schedules and 613 pages. Enterprise incentives took up six sections and 94 pages of schedules. Among other things, that Act gave us the tonnage tax, something I had never come across before, which was introduced by a 50-page schedule.
The Finance Act 2001 was still massive. It contained 111 sections, 33 schedules and 331 pages. Changes to rules on enterprise incentives, including some rules which had been introduced only the previous year, took up three sections and 30 pages of schedules. The aggregates levy, a new tax, took up 34 sections and seven schedules.
There have been no fundamental changes of tax law during this period and, frankly, many changes were for the worse—for example, the revision of capital gains tax and, though this is less clear, the abolition of advanced corporation tax with the consequences that that had for pension funds.
Also, of course, to some extent tax law expands because of anti-avoidance measures. Each loophole, under our normal scheme of tax law, is blocked up by

1477
subsequent specific anti-avoidance legislation. The result is tax legislation which is completely meaningless unless one understands the schemes which the provisions were intended to stop. I should like to see general anti-avoidance provisions incorporated into our tax law. I was unable to persuade the Tax Law Review Committee to recommend such a provision. The opposition mainly came from the accountants on the committee, the reason being (an understandable reason) that accountants and tax lawyers like to be able to give a definite answer when asked by their clients what the tax consequences are of any transaction or group of transactions which the clients wish to undertake. A general anti-avoidance provision creates a penumbra of uncertainty because it is bound to be in broad and general terms. I am all in favour of a degree of creative uncertainty when one is entering into arrangements to reduce tax.
The Ramsey decision in the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House in 1981—I will not go into what that decision meant but I can see a number of noble and learned Lords present who will be familiar with it—killed off the market for artificial avoidance schemes by creating a significant degree of uncertainty as to whether or not they would work. However, to some extent the Ramsey decision acts like an antibiotic. To start with it kills off almost all avoidance schemes; but a resistance develops. The Ramsey principle has been restricted by some subsequent decisions of the Appellate Committee with which I disagree. I have seen a powerful article written by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, attacking the way in which the Ramsey principle was weakened by subsequent decisions. It is now time for a new antibiotic, either in the form of a revival of the original Ramsey principles or, perhaps more realistically, by general anti-avoidance provisions.
The law can and should be simplified. It needs to be simplified by drafting in plain language; by simplification of the concepts; by being very cautious about introducing tax reliefs; and by introducing general anti-avoidance provisions rather than blocking specific schemes with specific legislation. Unless we take steps to simplify our tax system, we will not end up with the status quo, but with tax law which gets ever more complex and much worse than it is now.
3.49 p.m.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, I am delighted to speak briefly in the debate and to support most warmly all that my noble and learned friend Lord Howe said. I congratulate him on all that he is doing in this area. I also support all the comments bar two that have been made by the preceding speakers.
Like two other noble Lords speaking in the debate I am a former Minister in the Treasury responsible for taking Finance Bills through the other place. I sat on the opposite side of the House to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. We had many sometimes fruitful but certainly interesting exchanges as members of the Standing Committees on Finance Bills over many years.
1478
I do not want to repeat everything that has been said as I agree with so much of it. However, I slightly differ on two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. First, he was somewhat cynical about the possibilities of progress in this area. He may he being realistic, but I hope that that is not the case. I believe that all of us who feel strongly about the matter at least continue with our efforts in that regard. Secondly, he said that in his experience as a Member of the other place when he knocked on doors his constituents were not much concerned about the matter we are discussing. However, my experience as a Member of Parliament was rather different. Many of my constituents complained about the complexity of the tax system and about the burdens of tax. In the business world that was often one of the main topics of conversation when people realised that one was involved in these matters in the House of Commons. There is an important point here; namely, that the complexity of our present tax system constitutes a huge cost to the country and, I believe, to business.
Of course, I well recognise that lawyers, both solicitors and barristers, and accountants are well remunerated as a result of the complexity of the system and the work they undertake advising clients on it. I sometimes used to think during debates in another place on these matters that it was somewhat ironic that we were involved in trying to make modest changes in the tax laws—the changes we recommended having gone through a long process and perhaps even through the courts at vast cost to everyone concerned—yet we were not so well remunerated for trying to make those changes.
However, there is no doubt that there is a huge cost to business, and it is getting much worse. Like the preceding speakers, I am aware from my own experience of many of the reasons why that has come about. The two I single out in particular have already been mentioned. First, most Chancellors—here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett—certainly on the Conservative side, have had the intention of simplifying the tax system and have perhaps started along those lines. However, the temptation to introduce new schemes to respond to particular pressures from pressure groups and to get an accolade for having tackled a particular political issue through the tax system is so great that inevitably they end up complicating the tax system further and probably doing more in that direction than in the direction of the simplification upon which they embarked in the first place. Secondly, all of us who have been involved in these matters know that even the tiniest tax recommendation has attached to it a huge bundle of papers from the Inland Revenue which analyse just about every aspect of the proposal: the cost, who will benefit and who will not, hut, above all, the anti-avoidance measures. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, I have no doubt that that is one of the main reasons why the tax system is so complicated
I pick up one of the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart; namely, the aggregates levy in the Finance Bill 2000. When it was originally discussed, that seemed a fairly simple proposal put

1479
forward on environmental grounds and backed up by a number of lobbies. However, I was astonished to discover that that simple tax proposal occupied 74 pages of the Finance Bill 2000. That is an indication of the complexity of even a small proposal.
I turn to the three main points I wish to make. First, I refer to the tax law rewrite and the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification. My noble and learned friend referred to that as fairly narrow in scope, but I believe that it is vitally important. He quoted the words of a tax specialist. Indeed, the Paymaster General on the Second Reading of the Capital Allowances Bill quoted at rather greater length the words of one of the leading figures in the tax world. I refer to the sentence the Paymaster General quoted, which my noble and learned friend did not, when she said:
"I need to be able to find the legislation that is applicable, understand how it operates and advise my clients accordingly".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/01; col. 103.]
Given the complexity the business world is now faced with on a wide range of issues, I believe that the work that was done on the Capital Allowances Bill, and which will be done on future Bills, is extremely important in that regard. When that Bill was debated in the other place—the setting up of the Joint Committee was debated on the same day—criticisms and concerns were raised and, indeed, some Members of Parliament voted against the measure on two grounds. First, they were concerned that it would be used as a method to introduce major changes in the tax system, for example, major changes in capital allowances. I believe that sufficient assurances were given at that time and were also built into the process to prevent that happening. Secondly, they were concerned that the measure looked like the first chink in breaking down the sole prerogative of the Commons as regards the tax system. On that point, I very much agree with my noble and learned friend. All of us who have experienced over the years the increasing pressures on Members of Parliament know well that there are few who can now take part in Finance Bill processes, partly because they do not have the expertise and partly simply because they do not have the time. Therefore, many of the vast clauses in Finance Bills do not receive the expert scrutiny that they should.
Therefore, I believe that Members of this House have a role to play in these matters. Of course, we debated the roles and functions of this House only the other week when we debated the White Paper on House of Lords reform. As I say, I believe that those in this House with the relevant expertise have a role to play in these matters. Sometimes noble Lords can devote more time than MPs to the work of the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification and to the Bills I have mentioned.
That brings me to my procedural point. I entirely agree with everything that my noble and learned friend Lord Howe said about the defects of the process of considering potential tax legislation. For the reason I have just given in relation to consolidation tax Bills, I believe that Members of this House should play a part
1480
in pre-legislative scrutiny. I believe that that would result in improved, better drafted legislation that is more user friendly, if I may put it that way. That is simply not the case at the moment with regard to the processes that we use for Finance Bills. I do not see how that would undermine the fundamental prerogative of the other place on tax measures as the actual policy would be voted upon and decided there.
I take up the theme mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Of course we must find ways to simplify existing tax legislation. That, for me, was always one of the attractions of tapering the capital gains tax system as that constituted a simple system that was easy to understand and operate. Of course, the Inland Revenue had many objections to that and we now have extremely complex, double banked capital gains tax legislation. The attempt to simplify it if anything, made it worse. There always ought to be an imperative to simplify.
Perhaps the most important point is the one that both my noble and learned friend Lord Howe and the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, mentioned: that is, to avoid, wherever possible—this is where the political difficulty arises—the imposition of new taxes. I believe that schemes such as the working families' tax credit and the pension tax credit will hugely complicate the tax system and possibly not result in any great benefit. I do not want to make any party political point about that; I simply refer to the increasing complexity of the system.
Many of the changes introduced by the present Chancellor, which appear small in themselves, have hugely added to the complexity of the tax system. Therefore, if we are to have a tax system that is simpler and more easily operated and understood, we must avoid—I know how difficult that is for political parties—the temptation constantly to tinker with the tax system in response to particular pressures. That brings me to the matter of self-assessment, which I have always strongly supported as a principle. I considered that as I supported it as a principle I ought to do my own self-assessment rather than use tax advisers. In any case there is a financial benefit in doing that, but it also enables me to understand the process. It strikes me that the self-assessment process has become much more complicated. It is rather like a crossword puzzle. I am not a crossword puzzle fiend myself but I understand that if one knows who has compiled the crossword, one arrives quicker at the correct answers. If one understands at the outset what the person drafting the tax guides is about, one begins to understand that the arrangements are not quite as complicated as they look. However, one has to know what the complexity of the tax was in the first place to understand why one went through a maze of different processes to get to the final page.
This year—I give credit to the Inland Revenue for this—the straightforward tax calculation guide is much simpler and easier. However, the comprehensive tax calculation guide, in relation to which complexities arise, is just as complex as ever. The problem is that the more that one adds new changes to the tax system, the

1481
more complicated it becomes to operate the self-assessment system. Every little change seems to add another three pages to the calculation that one has to go through.
Unless governments exercise self-restraint, I fear that the noble and learned Lord will be right and his cynicism will be realistic. However, I hope that, somehow or other, some of the processes that we are discussing today will help us to avoid that.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will recognise how difficult it is for me, as a complete amateur in this subject, to follow a Chancellor—my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, who I greatly respect—two Chief Secretaries to the Treasury and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who managed to confuse me even more with his references to confusing legislation.
In my view, taxation is the most distorted instrument that man could have invented. Its original purpose, I understand, was to pay for wars. The Napoleonic Wars had a lot to do with it. The emotive words that are associated with taxation—subterfuge, camouflage and sabotage—were compounded by the word "confusion". I shall try to speak as a simpleton in a simplistic manner, by taking the matter back to the taxpayer, who needs some respect.
For a period we felt that we were an overtaxed nation. As Professor Laffer used to point out, a nation that is totally taxed has no productivity and one with zero taxation suffers a breakdown in law and order. Somewhere between those two posts is the right amount of tax: the correct amount and the perceived amount.
For whatever reason and however it was arrived at, we are, as a nation, fairly taxed. The problem is that we do not know how much we are taxed. Maybe people would be prepared to pay more tax. I begin by asking: what is the purpose of taxation? I understand that we are now in a service industry economy and that the Government are rapidly becoming a service industry that provides services to people, for which they pay by tax—if they pay tax.
I wish to ask the Minister a few simple questions. There was a move by previous governments to create a friendly image for the inspector of taxes. He was depicted wearing a bowler hat and as a round, chubby character—he was probably derived from many of my former colleagues in Midland Bank. Now he—or she—has changed to a hermaphrodite green leprechaun figure who exhorts you in a strange voice to do things that you cannot understand. Many of us want to know whether the figure on television is played by an actor or an actress. It is, I gather, one of the most admired and hated advertisements of our time.
The sort of question that people ask is, "Why do I have to pay income tax? Why can't I be paid a net amount?". For many years on the Continent of Europe, people would be able to tell you what their take-home pay was; that was their salary. They knew that tax was deducted. However, because we felt that
1482
we needed to be promoted a little more, we talked about our gross income, as if that, compared with our net income, made us far more important. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, referred to the fact that one-third of people do not have to worry about completing tax forms because their tax is deducted at source. The more tax that can be deducted at source—the more that people can be given a net income—the better.
There are three areas about which people wish to know. What proportion of their income tax goes on services? Those services can be counted on one hand, and the first is the health of the nation. Could the Minister give me some idea of what proportion of the cost of the health service will in future he met through tax and what proportion will be met through what one might call a strange form of off-balance-sheet funding, such as PFI, PPP or private-sector money? I ask the same question in relation to transport and possibly also education. We accept that law and order is a matter for government, as are foreign affairs and defence.
I turn to the distortions to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred, including that which involves giving money back and taking it away and giving it back again. When I was a full-time banker, we determined one day that two-thirds of all expenditure in the world was spent by governments and that we should therefore specialise in trying to get money back from governments. Governments were extremely willing in that regard because when things did not happen, they used to suggest throwing money back—they would create enterprise zones, give tax allowances and establish tax-based leasing operations for aircraft. Those highly complicated issues had the objective of stimulating the economy. Other countries did not do that to the same extent because it is "distortive" and causes problems in the medium to long term. I shall give noble Lords one or two examples involving relocation.
If one gives people tax allowances and grants for relocating to a poor area, for a brief period there is regeneration and profitability but after that the distance from centres fails to enable one to attract the right labour force. Gradually, the area returns to being uncompetitive and there is decline.
One of the worst things in this context occurs when governments introduce a new tax in good faith but fail adequately to collect the revenue. I come to our favourite subject these days—the European Union, the euro and the harmonisation of tax. We live in a common market in which there is the most extraordinarily uncommon method of taxation. There is an incredible amount of smuggling and arbitrage across frontiers as price differentials grow hour by hour and day by day.
I turn to transport. As we know, we have the worst transport system in the EU and the most expensive cost per mile, and we are still loading on more taxes. The French suddenly decided not to have any more road tax—there is no road tax on vehicles. They worked out that whereas there was a differential tax—the higher the cubic capacity of an engine, the higher

1483
the consumption—they got as much money from petroleum tax as from car tax, which therefore disappeared.
On the purchase of motor cars, it is impossible to understand why an Italian car could be cheaper in Spain or a Spanish car could be cheaper in France, or why all those instruments of transport are so differentially priced. Some people explain that by referring to taxation but others do so by referring to irresponsible profit.
The most exciting tax of all, which created such emotion in earlier Budgets, was the penny on the price of the pint. The figures are amazing: 1 million pints every day cross the Channel into England from the Continent. That is equivalent to the total consumption of 6,000 rural pubs or £11,500 a year for every pub in the country. In 2000, the loss on alcohol tax was approximately £254 million through smuggling and £370 million through genuine purchases. It seems idiotic that the cost of a pack of beer in Calais is exactly the same as the alcohol tax and VAT applied in England. That form of trade will therefore continue.
I shall not discuss cigarettes. In view of the other matters with which Customs and Excise has to deal, there is no revenue for government in grants, but there is much genuine revenue from alcohol. However, with binge drinking, the Government are caught between a rock and a hard place.
On taxes that cause confusion, I turn to those involving VAT. I now have great admiration for VAT inspectors—they have been helpful and friendly but the difficulty is to contact them. As I have previously said in your Lordships' House, when one rings them, one has to press a number of buttons once one has got through. I was kindly told that they were in Newry and that if one does not press a button, one gets to speak to someone. Once one is able to speak to a person in the Inland Revenue or anywhere else—accountants advise that one never should—then one receives tremendous help and support. The information available from them is considerable.
Let us turn to the attempts by government to generate new house construction and matters of that kind. A listed building in London in zero-rated. A new build—so long as two walls have been knocked down—is also zero-rated. However, if one puts one building together with another, the new building immediately becomes a listed building. Then, if one wishes to extend one's own house, one finds that the VAT rate is only 5 per cent. That causes tremendous complications. The application of the differential rates of VAT costs an enormous amount of money through seeking professional advice, and so on, and people ignore them. That same level of complication leads to many among our skilled labour force deciding that they no longer wish to run a business; they simply want their wages at the end of each week because the complications of administration start to bite and they lose business and opportunities.
We could go on and on about all the differentials. With regard to certain taxes, if we were to ask the question, "What would happen if they went?", I
1484
believe that the answer would be most intriguing. If capital gains were to go, I do not believe that there would be any material loss. If stamp duty were to go, I do not believe that there would be any material loss in the long term. Perhaps the application of VAT should be standardised across Europe.
In relation to the revenue of taxes applied to imports, in general we used to say that only 5 per cent of British imports were taxed. But it seems strange that we should have all these differentials. They are impossible to determine and one needs more and more advice on them.
Speaking as a simple person, it would be so nice if there were a simple tax. In my view, the only way to achieve that is probably by tearing up all the pieces of paper that my noble friends and others have been talking about and, with a clean sheet of paper, asking, "What tax would you apply?". We would then debate it. The people of this nation are confused. They are willing to pay tax but they wish to know what they pay tax for. I believe that in general they feel that the overall level of tax in this country, if they could understand it, is fair.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I shall concentrate on the subject of income tax, although I say at the outset that, if I had my way, I would remove the VAT anomalies which exempt food, hooks, periodicals and children's clothes from tax. They are classic examples of political expediency taking precedence over rational policy-making. But they also remind us why sensible change in the tax field is so difficult and why we may well be wasting our time today. However, I echo the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor: the fact that we may well be wasting our time certainly will not stop us all carrying on in this field. I have spent my whole life advocating policies to no good effect whatever, but I still believe naively that one day something sensible that I suggest will happen.
All Chancellors, and, a fortiori, shadow Chancellors, advocate tax reform and tax simplification. But inevitably they plead pressure of work and end up doing little or nothing. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that nearly 20 years ago President Reagan introduced tax proposals in which the word "simplification" appeared in the title of the legislation. He enacted that legislation and it ended up as law. However, from all the studies that have been carried out since his efforts, it appears that the outcome is that the American tax system has not become any simpler or easier to understand. The most that one can say—although there is little evidence of it—is that without President Reagan's intervention the system might have become more complicated still. But even that is virtually impossible to substantiate.
What are the criteria that we should use in looking at the tax system? In my judgment, the first and most obvious is equity. We need vertical equity; namely, it should be the case—I say with some regret that it no longer seems to be so strong in this country—that the richer one is, the more tax one should pay, and, in my

1485
view, disproportionately more tax. Equally—this is even more upsetting—we should have horizontal equity; namely, similar families with similar incomes should pay the same tax. In my judgment, nothing is more damaging both to the tax system and to our democracy than to read about immensely rich people who end up, one way or another, paying no tax whatever while the rest of us seem to pay maximum tax at all times.
There is also the efficiency question, which has two parts. One is that we should not, unless we are forced to, use the tax system to distort the price mechanism. Occasionally there are good reasons why we should intervene, but those reasons must be set out. However, in my experience, most of them are unconvincing. The second aspect of the efficiency question is that we should go for taxes that are cheap to collect.
That leads us to the simplicity question—what the Americans call "compliance costs". Those should be as low as possible and should certainly be weighed in the balance by Chancellors who seek to introduce new taxes. The first and obvious point has already been made. With regard to personal taxation, as few people as possible should have to fill out tax forms, and the Inland Revenue should calculate people's tax liability on the basis of reported information that it receives.
Secondly, the compliance costs of those of us who do fill out the forms—I am one—should be as low as possible. Thirdly, I raise a point simply in order to echo what others have said. Everyone should be able to understand why his or her tax bill is what it is. With regard to business taxation, again, compliance costs should be low. Even though small businesses may have to use accountants on occasion, those accountants should not represent a significant part of their costs.
With regard to compliance costs, I have seen figures indicating that 5 to 10 per cent of tax revenue relates to the cost of collecting the tax. That includes all the time and effort of individual taxpayers who have to fill out the forms. I have heard it said that compliance costs for businesses account for twice that amount. If true, that is an enormous sum.
Of course, many of the compliance costs incurred by businesses arise because those businesses try to make use of all the tax avoidance measures introduced by well-meaning Chancellors. Those compliance costs could be avoided if Chancellors did not introduce such measures in the first place, even though, as noble Lords have pointed out, they were introduced for very good reasons. However, perhaps I may reiterate: are there not weighed in the balance the questions of complication arising from compliance and lack of simplicity? The fact that people are anxious to avoid paying more tax than they should leads, in many cases, to the question of whether far too many accountants are employed in this area. That is a subject to which I shall return.
I believe that for the ordinary taxpayer the self-assessment form is, for the most part, not too difficult. Here, again, I believe that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor. It is certainly not too difficult if a person has only one source of income. However, I am
1486
not sure—I have been trying to find out—what level of intelligence is required in order to fill out the form and whether that corresponds to average intelligence; that is, people with an IQ of 100, which seems to be the correct criterion.
Wearing another of my hats—namely, my interest in education—I should certainly include the self-assessment form in the national curriculum I believe that that would be far more valuable than many of the other things that go on in the national curriculum. It would be a test of both literacy and numeracy. However, less cynically, it brings out the point that, given what we know about the scale of illiteracy and innumeracy in our country, many of our fellow citizens could not conceivably fill out the form. It is worth reflecting on that matter.
The main point is that if one has several sources of income or if one is entering the self-employment business, the form becomes more and more complicated, as the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, pointed out. Perhaps I may give a personal example. My method of completing my tax form is always to keep the previous year's form. Nothing much changes in my life, and in the current year I simply fill out the form in exactly the same way as I did in the previous year. The only difference is that the numbers change, but all the boxes are filled in.
However, this year I had the most horrifying experience. I received a letter from the tax man saying that my form had been rejected. That came as close to giving me a heart attack as any experience I have ever had in my life. I telephoned the department and asked, "What is going on here? Am I in serious trouble?". "No", they said, "there are several boxes you've left empty where you should have put in your net taxable income". I replied, "I have never put it in in previous years. Just the one box was enough". They said, "Things have changed. We now like it to be included in five other boxes". I said, "Don't you think that at least you might have told me?".
That leads me to say that I consider the Inland Revenue to be outstanding in its willingness to help when one telephones its staff. But, of course, one has to telephone them; they do not reach out to you and say, "Can we tell you that nowadays the form has to be filled out slightly differently from how it was done before". It does not bother me because I can cope with these strains, but I imagine that for many of our citizens that would not be the case on receiving a letter from the Inland Revenue saying that their tax form was not acceptable.
I revert to something I have just said. My main test of the tax system is precisely that it should not be a job creation mechanism for accountants. Given the Enron debacle, my view is—following the leader in the Financial Times and the very interesting article in today's Evening Standard—that accountants ought to concentrate on actual serious accounting. They ought to put their house in order. otherwise I believe that the days of self-regulation for them are over. Of course, that is not central to our debate today.

1487
I turn finally to the role of Parliament. It is naïve to assume or expect that the Finance Bill is or could be properly scrutinised by the other place. It lacks the will, the time and certainly the expertise. At best, I find it very worrying from a democratic point of view that the contribution of Members on the Finance Bill relies heavily on inputs from a variety of interested parties and pressure groups. That is not the way to run the financial system of our country.
In my judgment, as other noble Lords have said, your Lordships could do the job of scrutiny without in any way infringing the Parliament Act. But we are still not allowed to do so. If we are ever to have serious reform of your Lordships' House, certainly with a large number of elected or even 100 per cent elected Peers, our powers would have to be increased. All those who believe that one can achieve reform along those lines and not strengthen this House simply do not know what they are talking about. Indeed, I do not see the point of reform unless we give this House more power.
Central to those powers is the right to scrutinise the Finance Bill and to ask for a rethink on certain parts which do not make sense and which are completely incomprehensible. That is not the same as saying that we would overturn the other place; quite the contrary. I regard it as fundamental that it should have the last say. But the fact that we do not have any practical say at all is both an inefficient and an absurd state of affairs.
Therefore, to revert to my opening remarks and my own naivety, I hope that one day we shall have a bigger role to play ourselves and that we could and would use that role to achieve simplification.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am put to shame by my noble friend Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market and now by the noble Lord, Peston, in having to confess that I am a bear of very little brain who requires professional assistance in filling out my tax return.
I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon for providing the opportunity to discuss the case for simplifying the tax system. One of the images that has lived in my mind over the past 20 years or so was the comment made by the Economist on my noble and learned friend's first budget in 1979. It described it as the opening stage of the ascent of a sheer cliff face. It likened itself, its readers and the nation at large, to skiers resting in the sunshine outside a restaurant in the Alps, drinking glühwein or hot chocolate and said that occasionally one of us would raise our binoculars to the summit high above us, wait for the clouds to clear, and then for a moment espy the lonely and tiny figure of my noble and learned friend inching himself with awesome slowness up the sheer cliff face. On a day when in the Abbey we commemorate Lord Hailsham, himself an enthusiastic mountaineer, it is particularly good that long after darkness fell upon us in the
1488
Economist's imagined valley, my noble and learned friend, in the latest instance of his steadfast ascent, should still be clawing himself upwards on behalf of all of us and not least through the tax rewrite project.
For 16 years, during which I spent more than three years abroad in the United States and Belgium before I entered the Commons in 1977, I was continuously responsible in my firm for meeting both payroll and profit targets. For two years between the by-election in the Two Cities when my noble friend Lord Tugendhat went to Brussels, I was both a Back-Bencher in the Commons and remained a part-time chairman and chief executive of my old firm, which by then operated in a dozen countries in Europe, the United States, Latin America and in the Pacific.
During this latter phase, I well remember arguing, as a smallish businessman on the Commons Finance Bill committee in 1987, that we had to get away from a business climate where too many decisions were made for tax reasons to one where they were made predominantly for business and economic reasons. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett—it was a pleasure to listen to him today—and the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, on behalf of the then government, will recall listening to such speeches long into summer nights that summer.
I am genuinely proud of what, in the ensuing decade between 1979 and 1989 under my noble and learned friend Lord Howe and my noble friend Lord Lawson, we were able, despite occasional hiccups, to achieve in that regard. It must say something for our discharge of the Treasury in that decade that, besides my two noble friends the Chancellors, five of their Chief Secretaries and at least half-a-dozen of their junior Ministers, of whom I was lucky to be one, are now serving in this place. My only qualification, as I implied in my maiden speech, for serving in the Treasury was that among my seven Treasury colleagues overall, I was the only one who had never worked in the City. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, whom I served during those years, contributed the speech that he did during the course of this debate.
When my noble and learned friend Lord Howe was Chancellor, our noble friend Lord Cockfield made an excellent start in these matters on our behalf. There is a passage in a book about the teaching of classical languages where the author says—it echoes the Economist's metaphor—that the approach roads to the foothills of Parnassus are clogged up with the impedimenta of the Grammarian's Funeral. But my noble friend Lord Lawson was able to quicken the pace in the second half of the decade and that was in no small way due to the clearance by my noble friend Lord Cockfield of the impedimenta during the first half and the outcome was a significantly simplified system.
I was away in Northern Ireland between 1989 and 1992 and I acknowledge that the landslide—to continue the language of the hills—back into tax complication did begin in those years and after when public expenditure pressures exercised themselves on successive and successor Chancellors and Chief

1489
Secretaries. I acknowledge, too, that however well the economy was doing in 1997, the public expenditure pressures had not yet fully eased. The new and present Chancellor had some alibi for having to follow his predecessors into raising taxes wherever he could. But urgent priorities of this sort, unless sensibly planned, have the hazard of "re-complicating" any tax regime because it is potentially and essentially haphazard.
I suppose that the present Chancellor might defend his raid on ACT as a tax simplification, although I must remark on the wry irony that it continues to be defended as a way of discouraging dividends and encouraging investment, while the Government have not hesitated to continue to take notional dividends out of Consignia when the latter is crying out for investment. Much less defensible, however, is the plethora of penny packet incentive schemes in the great sweep of Treasury figures which the Chancellor tends to, under the equivalent of horticultural cloches. Knowing the Treasury, I am sure that it conducts audits of these schemes for their effectiveness. but they are classic examples of returning to the bad old days when businessmen took decisions first and foremost for tax reasons and they had the effect of overburdening the fiscal Christmas tree with excessive decoration.
We know, of course, of the business experience of the former Paymaster General, Geoffrey Robinson MP, but the absence of others with business experience in the Treasury ministerial team since 1997 brings home another irony, that a Chancellor who, to his credit, is obsessive about the nation's productivity, himself erects road blocks to increased productivity both among businessmen and the professions by the multiplicity of schemes which also involve the Treasury in considerable micro-management. Ironically, this may even erode productivity within the Treasury itself. In the case of tax credits there is the further fear of what medical sources would call adverse side-effects in behaviour.
In 12 minutes one cannot do justice to the totality of the subject. I acknowledge that the world is a complicated place and that in consequence taxation cannot avoid being complicated. Also the world is infinitely more global than when I gave up running my former firm in 1979. Indeed, now my old firm is a great deal more global than it was then.
I further acknowledge that both globally and domestically the shadow of avoidance can stand over any tax system and oblige defensive counter-attack. But the benefits of tax rewrite can also be read across into examining basic concepts underlying large and familiar fiscal landmarks and territories. One of the few virtues of the appalling events of 11th September is to cause us to re-examine where we are. I may be being fanciful in calling in evidence and in aid Mr Kissinger's book on the Congress of Vienna, which was written while he was still an academic. In it he explains how Napoleon tore up the 18th century rulebook of Europe's ancien régime in diplomacy, in warfare and in statecraft, and then how, after Napoleon had been defeated, the Congress of Vienna, under Metternich as the strategic planner and Castlereagh as the political executant, gave stability hack to Europe for almost the
1490
next 100 years. Incidentally, I commend the alliance between the strategist and the executant which might also be extended to an alliance between the two Houses of this Parliament.
The analogy of Vienna may belong more to 11th September than to the tax system, but not the least virtue of this debate, stimulated and led by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, has been to raise the question of whether a return to re-examining basic fiscal concepts is profoundly desirable in this increasingly global world. However, I agree that that is a larger subject than a two-and-a-half hour debate can resolve.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords who have congratulated my noble and learned friend Lord Howe for initiating a debate on this important issue. My noble friend has given us an expert filleting of the strategic problem and some prescriptions for improvement. I do not propose to follow him down that route; it is territory that should be trodden only by former Chancellors of the Exchequer and former Treasury Ministers.
I want to concentrate on the impact the tax system has on the practical, coalface end of our country and to consider the complexities, distortions and the administrative nightmare that the tax collection system now represents. I have gathered examples from my professional life around the country to give a worm's-eye view.
On complexities, I am told that there are now 27 different rates at which income tax can be assessed. I cannot believe that the fiscal stability of the nation requires that many.
On the PAYE system and the regulations referred to by my noble friend Lord Howe, each year employers have to purchase increasingly expensive software to administer their payrolls. In effect, as they point out, that is so that they can carry out the work of the Inland Revenue for the Inland Revenue. The burden falls heavily on small and medium-sized companies. The working families' tax credit, the children's tax credit and the student loan repayment programme are no doubt all worthy objectives in themselves but they are extremely complicated to administer.
On my next point I follow my noble friend Lord MacGregor. Where the tax system interfaces—I use the word "interfaces" advisedly as the tax system is not integrated but interfaced—with the social security system, the complexities are compounded. I invite those noble Lords who fear that I may be exaggerating to join me tomorrow afternoon for the Committee stage of the State Pension Credit Bill Your Lordships will find it an exhilarating and an exciting occasion, but I would advise them to bring a cold towel.
On the transfer of companies, there is a further difficulty. For a number of months after the transfer of an undertaking, incorrect amounts are deducted or paid by the new employer because of delays in acquiring the appropriate reference numbers. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said that that was not an

1491
issue that much affected people in the street. When people find that wrong deductions are made, they become pretty excited. Those are some of the complexities.
On distortions, on capital taxes we have already heard reference to the effects of taper relief. But the result has been to ensure that enormously wealthy people pay capital gains tax at the rate of 10 per cent, while ordinary individuals who have scrimped and saved during their working lives and who have built up a modest portfolio of direct investments in, say, Marks & Spencer, Unilever or GlaxoSmithKline have to pay capital gains tax at 40 per cent. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, pointed out, where is the equity in that?
Another point on structure is that the continued imposition of stamp duty on the purchase and sale of shares has caused the emergence of a whole new industry within the City, that of "contracts for difference", the operation of which avoids the payment of stamp duty. Now it accounts for about 20 per cent of the exchange of shares in the United Kingdom and is accounting for a rapidly rising proportion. If, in reply to the debate, the Minister says that such a tax is important and that the yield of £3 million to £4 million cannot be put aside, perhaps he will reassure the House that he has checked with his officials that there is not a falling yield as "contracts for difference" begin to have a more important impact. During this period, while the City struggles to maintain its supremacy and take the leadership of the European common financial market, that tax creates a severe competitive disadvantage.
Lastly, I refer to the administrative problems of self-assessment. It has become extremely complicated. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that ordinary people could not hope to understand the tax law. If we are to have self-assessment, people must be able to understand it. Otherwise, why have self-assessment?
I supported the original ambitions for the self-assessment scheme which were a bargain—a bargain between the Government and the taxpayers that there should be a simple system that would save hours of time for taxpayers and for the Inland Revenue and that would improve the Government's cashflow by setting deadlines for tax payments. However, the Government have progressively reneged on their side of the bargain by allowing or encouraging creeping complexity. Interestingly, the Inland Revenue website says that most of the forms are not suitable for download—I shall let that pass. The personal tax return is eight pages of closely-packed type, which is probably fair enough as a personal tax return. But the tax calculation guide has 15 pages, with 134 boxes that have to be filled in. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to that form. I invite him to consider page 15 in the student loan repayment section; it is very complicated indeed. At the front of the form one sees that if one has any of the following kinds of income,
"scrip dividends … gains on UK life policies … share schemes … partnership, foreign, trusts … capital gains",
that form is not good enough and one has to fill in another form.
1492
In the past noble Lords opposite have tried to explain that away by saying that self-assessment was the idea of a Conservative government. I am prepared to own up to that. It is a splendid idea. It is the implementation that is faulty, not the original principle. It is also argued that the Inland Revenue will fill in the form if it is sent in by 30th September. Some people cannot send in their forms by that date, particularly if they have foreign income. But why do we have a self-assessment system if it is so complicated that one has to send in the forms to the Inland Revenue to be filled in? On both those grounds, I believe that we need to find a new way of dealing with this section of the tax code.
As the Inland Revenue would say, the result is that each year self-assessment forms are being sent in later and later as individual taxpayers, for perfectly obvious reasons, face the hassle of filling them in.
I believe that everyone in the country—voter, humble taxpayer, or complex taxpayer—would agree that the time has come to call a halt. The tax system is arbitrary, inequitable and unfair. It is complex beyond the comprehension of the layman. As the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, pointed out, it is a huge waste of public and private resource. In my view, it is corrosive of public trust and confidence. My noble and learned friend has performed a great service by arranging today's debate. I hope that the Government will at last take notice and act on his proposals.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to say just a few words during the gap. The case for simplifying the tax system is not new. In the course of researches, which I recently made in another area, I came across a pearl that I felt might be appropriate to the present occasion. The year was 1928; the case was Sutcliffe v Commissioners of Inland Revenue; and the judge was Mr Justice Rowlatt who, when referring to the Finance Act 1927, said:
"Section 21 … is made perfectly unintelligible to any layman or any lawyer who has not made a prolonged study with all his law books at his elbow … it is a crying scandal that legislation by which the subject is taxed should appear in the Statute Book in that utterly unintelligible form. I am told, and rightly told, by the Attorney-General—he understands it as much as anybody—that it is only in this form that legislation can be carried through at all. Then all I have to say is that the price of getting this legislation through is that the people of this country are taxed by laws which they cannot possibly understand".
4.42 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, for introducing this debate. I believe that there is a considerable degree of agreement among all those who have spoken today. Among other things, everyone agrees that the tax system is increasingly complex and everyone agrees that tax legislation is extremely voluminous.
Most people seem to agree that there has been too much change, but why is this the case? A number of arguments have been put forward to explain why this happens both in this country and elsewhere. One

1493
explanation that has strength in my view is simply the annual Finance Bill conveyor belt. Every year, this juggernaut—if you can have a conveyor belt that is a juggernaut—within the Revenue departments and the Treasury starts the minute that the Finance Bill of the previous year passes into law.
I cannot claim to have had the same effect on the tax system as either the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, or the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who I see is now in his place. However, in the summer of 1980 when working as a junior tax official in Customs and Excise, we were asked to put forward what were known as "minor starters" for the Finance Bill of the following year. In order to prove that I had not gone to sleep, I suggested that, by extending car tax to motorbikes, it would be possible at one and the same time to increase revenue marginally and hit a product that was almost exclusively imported, thereby benefiting the balance of payments. Such was the strength and energy that I put into the proposal that it was in fact incorporated into the following year's Finance Bill. It was a minor addition and complexity to the tax system; and, like many of the other broader additions and complexities to the tax system that have been discussed this afternoon, I suspect that it brought forward no benefit.
A second argument and reason for the tax system becoming more complicated was the one referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe; namely, the way in which Chancellors of the Exchequer, especially this Chancellor, have seen taxation as the means of social change. I do not mean the old-fashioned use of taxation as a way of social change by redistributing tax in a relatively simplistic way by having income tax as one of the main sources of tax, but a whole raft of extremely complicated, theoretically targeted measures that affect small groups of society—or sometimes large groups—and which, if effected, would bring about some degree of social change. However, there is a problem with that approach. As a number of noble Lords have said, when one makes that kind of change it does not often have the desired effect.
When dealing with the business side, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, referred to the Business Expansion Scheme and the fact that it did not achieve the desired aim. Even if it had been successful in that respect, it would still have been unsuccessful in that it generated a whole new industry of tax avoidance. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and my noble friend Lord Goodhart also referred to the complexities of the tax system, which have either been counter-productive or have imposed unnecessary and unacceptable burdens on people. Moreover, not only do many of these tax changes not work, they also impose major costs. As taxes are being collected at present, there is no measure as to what the cost is likely to be compared to the benefit gained.
Should we despair of ever making any significant inroad into the tax system and its complexity? The most important comment here beyond that made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, in describing his work, was made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. He outlined how the noble Lords, Lord Cockfield and
1494
Lord Lawson, were able to make substantial inroads into the complexity of the tax system by having the political will and determination to do so. Therefore, I am inclined to believe that we should go forward on the basis that change can be made—simplification can take place—but that, equally, as a number of speakers have said, it is a process not a big bang.
I should like to devote the rest of my speech to two of the questions raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe. First, how should both Houses of Parliament be involved? Secondly, what, in particular, should be the role of this House? There are two issues that we must consider. To begin with, we should seek to stop further unnecessary complication of the tax system, and then we should consider how we might simplify what already exists. Complication occurs almost effortlessly because there is no proper scrutiny by Parliament of the detail of many tax changes. Therefore, we must look to see how Parliament can stop that from occurring, and do so to a greater extent than is the case at present.
There are a number of ways that we might consider, many of which would require the involvement of this House in some measure. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston. If we do move to the next stage of reform of this House, many of the arguments of another place about whether it is legitimate for people here even to look at tax legislation will diminish. As long as people accept that there is no fundamental challenge to the Commons in terms of tax rates and structures, there can be no argument in principle as to why this place cannot play a bigger role in such matters. But how should this House do so?
First, pre-legislative scrutiny of new taxation proposals is an extremely good way of beginning to tease out the problems that might occur. Let us take, for example, the Business Expansion Scheme. If that had been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, the problems that have been flagged up by Inland Revenue officials would have become clearer at an earlier stage and that might have persuaded even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, to think again; or, indeed, to bring it forward in a different way. Secondly, I strongly believe that we should split the Finance Bill into a "proper" Finance Bill, as it were, and a lax management Bill. The tax management Bill should be considered as every other Bill is—by this House as well as by the Commons.
There are a number of arguments as to why that may not be a good idea. But, having looked at them, they can be answered. The principal one, which is a kind of clerks' and officials' argument, is that it simply cannot be done and that every tax measure—every clause in every Finance Bill—affects the rate of taxation and its incidence in some way or other.
However, having looked at this year's Finance Bill, and in particular at the aggregate tax which has been referred to by a number of noble Lords, I believe that in many cases it would be possible to split—particularly with new taxes—those clauses which relate to the level and incidence from those which relate to the way that the tax provisions will work. For

1495
example, on the aggregate tax, there are 34 sections in the Act, only two of which relate to the level and to the incidence of tax. The rest is all detailed stuff. That could go into a Taxes Management Bill. This House could look at it, and, in doing so, we would improve the quality of the new tax legislation coming forward.
I also think that with every new tax there should be a compliance cost report, so that at least someone will look at the likely cost of enforcing it. It does not mean that that will rule out the tax change, but at least it would force everyone to accept that if a tax brings in £X million, and it costs a tenth of X to collect it, perhaps we should look again at the matter. So, in terms of new taxes, a number of relatively straightforward measures can he taken.
In relation to simplifying the existing system, the Tax Law Rewrite Project does one job extremely well; it takes this whole—I was going to say "amorphous", but it is not that—impenetrable mass and simplifies it to the extent of making it understandable. It does not simplify the content in any substantial way. That is not its role. It has a hugely important job, but by itself it will not lead to simpler taxation.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, referred to the tax structure review programme being, as it were, almost an extension of the remit of the Tax Law Rewrite Project to take in more of the substance as well as the form of taxation. That has attractions but it will go only so far. For example, I do not believe that the tax structure review programme will be able to do very much about the business expansion scheme, except to make suggestions at the margin if the view is that the scheme has in some sense failed or has produced a counterproductive effect. What will be required is a strong political will by the Chancellor to remove it and so simplify the tax system. I have some questions in my mind about how far the tax structure review process will be able to do substantial simplification work.
Taken all in all, I am a qualified optimist. I believe that it is possible to simplify the tax system. I do not believe, however, that we will go as far as we could without some changes in the way that taxation is considered by Parliament. I have described some changes that might be made. They will undoubtedly need cross-party support. Today's debate has demonstrated that a considerable degree of cross-party support already exists. We should now work hard, not least with and on our colleagues in another place, to bring about these changes.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble and learned friend Lord Howe on his impeccable timing in bringing forward this debate to coincide exactly with the return of our self-assessment forms. No one could have asked for a simpler explanation of the need for tax simplification than the one we received in his characteristically crisp and clear opening speech.
I echo the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Brooke and many other noble Lords who have paid tribute to my noble and learned friend and to the
1496
Inland Revenue's tax law rewrite team in improving the intelligibility of tax legislation, and for the light that they try to shine on notoriously opaque aspects of tax law. I look forward particularly, as I am sure your Lordships do, to the re-written Bills on income tax which we can expect later this year.
The undoubted hero of the entire simplification project is indeed my noble and learned friend Lord Howe. He began a lifelong campaign for tax simplification in his maiden speech in 1964. Why is it that—as he and many of your Lordships have said—his lifelong effort to simplify taxation has proved such a struggle? It is worth remembering what my noble friend said about simplification having two meanings. The re-write process seeks to re-write the law in a way that makes it easier to understand. That is one aspect. The second, which perhaps my noble and learned friend's tax structure review committee will address—this is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was looking for—is to simplify the actual mechanics and administration of taxation. It is on that second aspect that I want to concentrate my remarks.
The noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Newby, pointed to the tendency—my noble and learned friend said that it was a "virus"—to use the tax system for social change, or, as my noble and learned friend said, to "alter human behaviour"; in other words, to discourage an activity by taxing it or to encourage something by giving it a relief. After that one has to decide which class of person or entity should qualify for the tax or relief and in what amount. It is that which has created the present tax structure.
Today, most people believe that the tax system takes around 39 per cent of GDP. But that is just the end result of the merry-go-round system which my noble friends Lord Selsdon and Lord Hodgson described. In fact, the total system collects a staggering 53 per cent of GDP. The citizen is then obliged to claim back 14 per cent of GDP—£143 billion—by navigating a mass of over 250 complex tax allowances, reliefs, exemptions, credits, tapers, indexations, disregards and so on.
What this tangled web amounts to, as the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Newby, said, is that the cost of collection increases. So today almost half of the increase in the Government's entire administration costs is allocated to the collection of tax or the distribution of benefits. It is an extra £1.8 billion in the Red Book. Yet—perhaps the most serious difficulty of all—billions of pounds a year of benefits and tax credits go unclaimed by millions of citizens who cannot fathom out how to claim them. For example, this year, following the introduction of the children's tax credit and the pensions credit, it is estimated that £2.6 billion of budgeted expenditure in the Red Book will go unclaimed.
Perchance that brings us to the heart of the matter. I hope noble Lords will not think me too cynical. This is not supposed to be a party point. Possibly the result of all this complexity is lack of transparency, and perhaps that is the whole point of it. The charm of such a complicated tax system from the Government's

1497
point of view is the scope that it allows for hidden tax increases via reduced allowances. Under our structure the Chancellor can increase the tax burden without ever announcing a tax rise. People just wake up one day and find that they are in a higher tax bracket.
No citizen, however intelligent, can match the massed ranks of No. 10, No. 11, the Treasury and Millbank—one man against the legions of Rome. So someone has to hold a torch for simplicity in the tax system and for my noble and learned friend's crusade. He certainly cannot do it on his own, however powerful a figure he is. It should, as many noble Lords have said, be Parliament. "Parliament is the key", said the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. I am afraid that the Institute of Chartered Accountants recently warned us that the tax system was now so complicated that it had,
"spun out of democratic control".
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, followed the views of the Treasury Select Committee in another place when he objected that the passage of Finance Bills through Parliament afforded insufficient opportunities for scrutiny of complex measures. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, himself told the Commons committee that the way in which Finance Bills are examined by Parliament is totally inadequate. He told us the same today. The Institute of Chartered Accountants agrees with him. It states of our parliamentary procedure on Finance Bills:
"Many of the provisions become law without either a thorough review or the time for second thoughts or worthwhile amendments".
I shall offer your Lordships two suggestions that may help. I hope that they conform with the wish of the noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Newby for a fully cross-party approach to the problem. First, I suggest that a new, simple measure of the ways in which governments raise tax revenue is needed to focus public attention on the true level of tax that people pay.
At one time the public could look to the standard rate of income tax as the yardstick of whether their taxes were going up or down. But that was before the Treasury perfected its skill in cutting visible taxes on voters while raising invisible taxes elsewhere. That has rendered obsolete the old-fashioned measure of taxation. That is why the public are not this minute falling at the Government's feet in gratitude—this is my only political point, I promise—over their pledge not to increase income tax or VAT. The public know that that still leaves the Government with 248 other ways to raise tax.
In response to all that, the Government's preferred replacement for the standard rate of income tax as the measure is what they like to call the "official tax burden" by which they like to define net taxes and social security contributions as a percentage of GDP. That is incomprehensible to most people. It is also, as my noble friend Lord McGregor said, distorted by the introduction of tax credits. So a different measure is required to assess the real level of taxation in the modern age. I hope that your Lordships' House can consider that in future.
1498
Secondly, it is now high time to end the antiquated and irrelevant ban on your Lordships' consideration of Finance Bills by a 100 year-old Act, the Parliament Act 1911. I am deeply cheered today to hear such distinguished voices as those of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, my noble friend Lord MacGregor and the noble Lords, Lord Barnett, Lord Peston, and Lord Newby, raise that issue again. There is no doubt from reading the Hansard of the time that that iconic Act came into being to disqualify the then hereditary House of Lords from discussing money matters. That House of Lords no longer exists. We are about to be joined by elected peers. The grounds for the exclusion of your Lordships' House have disappeared.
As my right honourable friend, Iain Duncan Smith, along with so many of your Lordships today has said, the new, reformed House of Lords should be able to assist another place in scrutiny of the financial affairs of the nation. We hope that a Joint Committee on reform of your Lordships' House, which we are confident that the Government will want to consult, will consider that recommendation positively.
I hope that the Minister is not about to give us the same dusty answer as did the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, who, sincere radical though he is, still clings to the 1911 Act to maintain the status quo. The noble and learned Lord says that no matter what the change in the composition of your Lordships' House, the primary legislative powers of the House as circumscribed by the Parliament Acts should remain unchanged, because,
"Essentially nothing has changed that requires any modification of the Parliament Acts".—[Official Report, 24/01/01; col. 299.]
He is saying that, whatever changes are made to your Lordships' House, money Bills should continue to be X-rated material for your Lordships. We can look but we cannot touch.
The Government's bad luck is that their immobilist approach on the matter has been struck what I think they like to call a double whammy. First, the elected House of Lords will inevitably have more legitimacy, which will inevitably lead to more powers, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said. Secondly, in the meantime—as many speakers said during our debate on reform last week—the scrutinising reputation of another place is beginning to wear thin.
We can make a House of Parliament more legitimate and give it more power, or we can make a House less legitimate and give it less power. But what we surely cannot do is make a House more legitimate and simultaneously reduce its power, which is what the Government propose.
In those two ways, first, by a simpler definition of the overall tax burden that people can actually understand, and, secondly, by the greater contribution of the experts in your Lordships' House, so many of whom are here today, governments would he more obliged to display greater transparency in their tax policies. Full disclosure would mean that governments could not hide from the political consequences of their tax actions. The scope for invisible tax could he

1499
reduced. The hidden effects of fiscal drag could be neutralised. I am hopeful, as is the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that the system can be revitalised and restructured for everyone's benefit.
5.5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when I first ventured into politics as a junior member of a London borough council nearly 40 years ago, I joined the roads committee, the works committee, or whatever it was called, and I learnt a lesson that has still not left me. I had always thought that when people complained about the noise of vehicles on road surfaces, they had a legitimate complaint that could be dealt with by making the road surfaces smoother. I had always thought that when people complained about road surfaces being slippery and dangerous, they had a legitimate complaint that could be dealt with—presumably by making them less smooth.
I had never put the two together. It was not until I put the two together that I realised that there was such a thing that I knew in business and economics as trade-off. In other words, there is no good answer to many such problems. We must make a judgment; we must consider the competing priorities. I am afraid that that is still true of tax simplification.
I yield to no one in my admiration for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and the work that he has been doing not just in the tax law rewrite project but throughout his life in politics. As has been said, his maiden speech was on this subject. He recognises that there is no single objective of tax simplification that does not entail costs in its achievement. His excellent Hardman lecture, which I had the opportunity to re-read, was entitled not "Simplification" but "Simplification and Stability". Of course, stability must be taken into account. I give sincere and profound praise to the work of the Tax Law Rewrite Project and to the lifelong commitment of the noble and learned Lord to that cause.
I am less confident about the timing of this debate. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, who told us that its timing was good because there are eight days left in which to hand in self-assessment forms. I must disabuse him: self-assessment forms had to be in by 30th September for the Revenue to do the calculation; any form must be in by 31st January and the assessment must be done by the taxpayer. Perhaps this is an opportunity to encourage that.
The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, made an interesting contrast between Hector, the old inspector with the bowler hat, and Mrs Doyle, whom he described as a leprechaun. He described that advertising figure as hated and admired. I hope that as a professional, the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, will agree that that is rather a good thing for an advertising concept. At least the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, remembered it, so perhaps it is doing some good.
Of course we maintain our commitment to tax simplification. I shall describe how we are seeking to further that commitment, but I must say that
1500
simplification alone is not what most people want. I think that that is generally recognised. Of course, simplification is not itself a simple subject. However, it will be generally recognised that simplification alone is not what most people want. It is not itself a simple subject. What most people want is a tax system that is simple but is also certain and efficient. As my noble friend Lord Peston said, being cheap to collect is one of the considerations. It must also be competitive and, above all, fair. My noble friend Lord Peston and the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, made that point with reference to horizontal equity. To be fair, I must say that the more considered comments on the tax system, including those made this afternoon, recognise that the tax system must achieve a balance of all those things.
Where specific changes are proposed, the Inland Revenue, the Treasury and Customs and Excise take account of them. Suggestions have been made this afternoon that will be fed into the decision-making process. However, those who argue for simplification usually find it easier to argue for improvements in the process of tax legislation, rather than arguing about specifics. They do not tell us what reliefs they would repeal, what avoidance they would allow to go unchecked, where they would replace specific legislation with something more broad-brush and how they would ensure that the revenue needed for public services will not be lost. Instead—this has been true of this afternoon's debate—there is plenty of emphasis on procedures, additional committees or review programmes.
I read with great care what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, said in the Hardman lecture about the tax structure review programme. It is certainly an attractive proposition, but, as I understand it, one of the elements in it was that, first, the programme should make proposals for tax reform. There is a plethora of bodies making proposals for tax reform, not just your Lordships. Apart from anything else, what is the Better Regulation Task Force for? Secondly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, acknowledged that the word "guaranteed" was his and was not in the original Adam Broke formulation. He spoke of a guaranteed ability to get Ministers to promote changes. There are few people in public life who think that they could provide that guarantee.
I recognise the passion behind the noble and learned Lord's condemnation of some of the existing procedures. I recognise the complaints about the time taken and the lack of time available for the Finance Bill. That is, to some extent, in conflict with his criticism of the PCTA, the objective of which has to be not just the continuation of taxes imposed annually—the part that he would retain—but the implementation of changes. Those changes can be reductions or increases. If they are reductions in either direction and if they are to be delayed because of the limitations on the PCTA, those in a position to take advantage of the delay will gain from it, and those who are not will not. That seems to help the rich—or those with better advice and more resources—at the expense of other people.

1501
We must ask why taxation is so complicated. Simplification is about transparency and clarity, and that is what the Tax Law Rewrite Project is working on and achieving. I look forward to the two income tax Bills that will appear this year and next year. Our approach—I had hoped that it would achieve some recognition in this afternoon's debate—was the code for fiscal stability, which is very much a Howe objective. It recognises that the conduct of fiscal policy has a critical influence on economic stability. The code has improved the conduct of fiscal policy by specifying the principles that guide the formulation and implementation of fiscal policy. Those principles are transparency, stability, responsibility, fairness and efficiency.
It is not just a matter of having a code. What have we done? The most important thing that we have done in line with the code is the Pre-Budget Report. It is consultative in nature and includes, as far as is reasonably practicable, proposals for significant changes under consideration for introduction in the Budget. The noble Lord, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, referred to that. It is exactly the kind of thing for which he should argue and which he should recognise as being provided in practice by the Pre-Budget Report, which includes draft clauses, all of which are available for scrutiny.
When we debated the Private Member's Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, last March, I resisted—and continue to resist—the proposals in that Bill. However, I said that the Government could see no reason why there should not be a Select Committee of' the House to consider the Pre-Budget Report proposals—and any others—in advance of the Budget and contribute to the process by providing a report. I still hold that view. That is more practical than the challenge to the Parliament Act 1911 and the House of Commons resolutions of 1671 and 1678 to which the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, appears still to be devoted.
In the Pre-Budget Report and in the consultation process that follows, we provide greater transparency and clarity to help ensure a stable economic environment. I say particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Newby—although others made the point—that we have extended the amount of draft legislation in this area. There has been legislation on welfare reform, limited liability partnerships and, above all, financial services and markets, which, difficult though it was in practice, would have been unachievable without the pre-legislative scrutiny and the Joint Committee.
Why is there so much complexity? It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, recognised, the complexity of the modern world. That complexity is reflected in the fact that several lawyers and accountants have spoken this afternoon. Many lawyers and accountants are better paid than those available to the Government. They seek to find ways round the tax system, and we must keep up. We must keep up with the way in which commerce and industry are conducted. If that means detail, it would be unfair if we were to abandon certainty to rely on court
1502
judgments on what we meant that might take years of waiting for. The search for simplicity should not be carried out at the expense of certainty.
Complexity arises because we need to target tax measures on where help is needed. No one has argued that a rough and ready tax system is a price worth paying for a simpler system. Such an argument would not be tenable. Of course, we must report the cost of changes in our tax system. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to that matter. We do so—rightly—in the Budget documentation.
I referred to the need to counter abuse, avoidance and evasion. That need will not go away. I also referred to the issue of consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. Most recently, the research and development tax credit for large companies and the new regime for intellectual property have been the subject of considerable scrutiny.
I have here a much scribbled-over page about specific taxes to which noble Lords referred and which they criticised. Capital gains tax was criticised by the noble Lords, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market and Lord Selsdon. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, spoke about penny-packet incentive schemes. The noble Lord, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, referred to the complexity of the aggregates levy; in fact, that is an environmental measure. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to the tonnage tax, although that tax was widely welcomed, and the wording of it is modelled on that in the Capital Allowances Act.
Therefore, I do not think that it is open to me in the time that I have available to answer all the points about specific taxes, except in so far as they affect the simplification issue that is before us today.
However, I would like to give one example of how complexity enters taxation because we are trying to do the right thing. I refer to the special 100 per cent first year capital allowances to encourage small businesses to invest in information technology to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred. I believe that others did as well.
The legislation introduced in the Finance Act 2000 has to define specifically which businesses can qualify, which assets can qualify and which expenditure can qualify. If that is not done it would not be comprehensible and there would be incessant law suits on the subject.
The incentive has been welcomed by business. It represents a departure from the business accounts and from the general scheme of capital allowances for plant and machinery. It has been welcomed, in particular, by those who commented on a recent Inland Revenue technical note that looked at the case for more closely aligning profits for tax with the profits shown in a company's accounts.
Another example that I constantly give when the issue arises is business assets. I was one who did not benefit from special treatment for business assets when I sold my business more than 10 years ago. Now that is available. The capital gains tax relief for entrepreneurs

1503
who sell majority shareholdings, or in some cases minority shareholdings, of their business, at any age, is available.
The complexity of tax legislation is increased, but the relief is there because it is called for and because the need to encourage entrepreneurial activity is, frankly, more important than the number of pages in a Finance Act.
Taxation is not to keep the Inland Revenue and the Customs and Excise amused and occupied. There are objectives that are set for our tax system—the objectives of ensuring economic stability; of raising productivity; of increasing employment opportunities and work incentives for everybody; of promoting savings and long-term investment; of tackling child poverty; and of ensuring a fair tax system that benefits the many and not the few.
Therefore, we have to look at what we are doing in that sense. A number of noble Lords have rightly referred to the interaction of the tax and benefits system. One cannot look at the achievement of those objectives without bringing into account not just the tax system, but also the benefits system.
The working families' tax credit helps over 1 million working families with children. Furthermore, 2.5 million children in this country benefit from working families' tax credit—an average of £35 per week per household better off. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said that it was not succeeding. I call it a profound and important success.
The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, makes the point regarding under-claiming and I do not deny that there is under-claiming of many of these benefits. However, we have to look at the net effect on child poverty and family poverty in this country to make a judgment about whether we are doing the right thing.
Even in this regard simplification comes in because from April 2003 working families' tax credit, disabled persons' tax credit and children's credit will be replaced with two credits—a working tax credit and a child tax credit—which will continue to refine the integration of the tax and benefits systems. I know that some people object to those credits being paid through the wage packet but that has proved to be the most direct, available and improved way of tackling poverty—in other words, by making work pay.
I now have a short time to turn to the ways in which we do seek to help taxpayers. I want to emphasise that for the vast majority of individuals who pay PAYE and do not submit tax returns, the simplification of the tax system is not a problem. It happens without their noticing. They do, indeed, think of their income as being their take-home income rather than their gross income. And why not? It is a perfectly reasonable way to run a family budget.
For most people this is not actually an issue, but for those for whom it is an issue I was grateful to hear the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, say that the system is easier. As I said earlier, for those who make their
1504
returns before 30th September—and I really cannot see that there can be more than a few thousand who cannot—the calculation will be done for them.
I believe that the self-assessment programme has been a substantial success and if anything arises when I read the debate on the subject I will certainly respond to it. However, I do not believe that there has been any effective criticism of the way in which it has been progressing.
Of course, business compliance costs are of enormous importance. Without admitting that compliance costs have gone up, I invite noble Lords who make that allegation to contrast it with lower corporation tax levels, the abolition of advance corporation tax, changes made to simplify the national insurance system, help with information technology and the review of payroll services by Patrick Carter.
It is certainly true that change has been and will be needed. The business environment and the economy as a whole are changing rapidly. E-commerce brings challenges, not least the speed at which decisions can be taken and the location of companies. It is important that new developments do not bypass tax systems.
Tax systems should not seek to frustrate, undermine or shackle that dynamism and development. I am sure that it is right, as has been said, that a business decision should be taken for business reasons rather than for tax reasons.
We will continue to consult on change. All legislation has been, and will continue to be, subject to the scrutiny of agreement of Parliament. We will continue to be accountable to Parliament and to the electorate for our proposals. We will continue to inform people of their rights and obligations, to help those who want to comply and to tackle those who do not want to comply.
Tax simplification is a worthy cause but it is not the only criterion for government, for Parliament, or for the citizens of this country.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, in closing the debate I should like to thank all those colleagues who have been kind enough to pay tribute to me. Perhaps I may say a special word of thanks to my noble friend Lord Brooke, because he is a rather remarkable creature in more than one respect.
Both his parents were life Peers and Members of this House. His father was the first Chief Secretary, an office which my noble friend also held. So he deserves to be acknowledged and congratulated as the first hereditary life Peer and the first hereditary Chief Secretary. I particularly appreciate his kindness.
I believe that the debate has provided strong support for the case for simplification, rather than dealing with how it should be achieved. By the end, I was encouraged at the extent to which the understandable scepticism of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was being matched by contributions from my noble friend Lord Saatchi and the noble Lord, Lord Newby.

1505
I am slightly dismayed by the less than encouraging note struck at some points by the ever competent, ubiquitous, alibi witness for the Government, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. However, I am encouraged by his commendation and blessing of the tax rewrite scheme and his promise to do better in the future.
Therefore, I thank your Lordships and beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

National Institute for Clinical Excellence
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree Baroness Knight of Collingtree rose to call attention to the remit of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the benefit of hindsight, there are probably those in government who rather regret the name chosen for the body set up to review the clinical and cost effectiveness of NHS drugs and treatments. To look at drug effectiveness was fine, although I should have thought that the Medicines Commission could have done that. To look at value for money was perfectly reasonable, although to confine the search for savings to drugs and treatments, instead of searching more widely for other areas which could be run more cost-effectively—indeed, there are many such areas—was not very sensible.
And the name—the name "NICE" damned it from the start. Whether those responsible shuffled initials around and purposely used the word "excellence" so that such a cosy name with such glittering promise emerged, I cannot say. But it was tempting fate to set this body on its way with a name that promised far, far more than it could possibly deliver.
I do not blame the members of NICE. They were given an impossible task: first, to advise on what drugs and treatments are the most effective and whether they are cost-effective; and, secondly, to eliminate inequalities and postcode prescribing. But the two are incompatible. When you judge on evidence that a drug is good and effective—excellent, in fact—and then go on to say, "But it is very expensive and should be made available only to some sufferers", that is not very excellent for those who do not get it. It certainly does not eliminate inequalities of treatment. So far as I can see, NICE has no duty to say, "What is to happen to the unlucky ones for whom treatment is denied?".
The debate gives us an opportunity to ask the Minister for clarification on a number of points. According to one set of papers I read, health authorities must obey the diktats of NICE. If NICE says that a certain drug or treatment should be made available, then it must be. Is that right? I tend to feel that doubt is creeping in because another source of evidence states that if health authorities cannot afford the drugs arid treatments advocated by NICE, then they will not make them available. Which of those is correct? It must be one or the other; it really cannot be
1506
both. Do the Government have a statutory obligation, as was welcomed in an Early Day Motion put down in another place as recently as 13th December last,
"to fund all treatments recommended by Nice"?
If that is so, why was there strong criticism only a week ago today that the drug approved by NICE for Alzheimer's was only very sparsely prescribed because of lack of funds? I thought that the position was clear when I read a speech made in July last year by Yvette Cooper, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health in the other place, who stated:
"All health authorities must adhere to [NICE's] guidance".
Later on in the same speech she said that:
"Health authorities need to fund the drugs and treatment recommended by NICE".—[Official Report, Commons, 417/01; col. 88W.]
Right, so we know where we are. But oh, no, we do not. That is because many health authorities are refusing to fund new drugs—for instance, for lung cancer—despite NICE's backing for those drugs. Cancer Bacup states that under 15 per cent of authorities have set aside the necessary money for the purpose.
So much doubt has been cast on this—perhaps because of a number of warnings that such expenditure will lead to cuts in treatments for other patients; there are plenty of examples—that one Member of Parliament serving on the Health Select Committee, which noble Lords will he well aware is currently studying the work of NICE, said that he was "completely confused" about the matter. Expert witnesses were available in plenty, but they simply could not help him because they simply did not know. I wonder whether perhaps the Minister knows and whether he might help. It would he so good it-be could do so.
Points also need to be made about the formula used by NICE to decide who shall have drugs and treatments and who shall not. It is called QALY. Noble Lords may ask what is that; it is the initials by which the standard is known, representing the words: "quality adjusted life year". I really hate this. The notion of a group of people in an office, looking not at patients but at statistics. not at individuals but at calculated norms, not at family or circumstances, or achievements, or capabilities. but at pounds arid pence, is anathema to me.
Of course it is a huge and always increasing problem for the Exchequer. I certainly recognise that Modern drugs and treatments are unbelievably expensive. I made a few inquiries into this. Beta interferon, for example, costs around £10,000 per patient per year. Some treatments can cost even more. Incidentally, can the Minister say why this drug costs so much in Britain, but is available at half the price in America and southern Europe? Can he look into this? If that is the case, perhaps we could reach an arrangement with those two areas so that we are provided with cheaper drugs than we are using at the moment.
But my main point is that by adopting the principle that some patients should be left to suffer because they are judged not to be worth the cost of their treatment is simply not acceptable in a humane or Christian

1507
country. Once that principle is accepted, as it is by NICE and, apparently, by the Government, then it is only a short step—having decided that the patient really is not worth the cost of treatment—to wonder whether there is much point in keeping them alive at all.
Of course I am well aware that for many years doctors and midwives have had to reach decisions in their own practices with regard to their own patients on whether, say, the baby being born will have a normal life. They have done whatever they thought was right at the time. I am not happy about that situation, but I really do not think that it should be government policy to set out guidelines on which patients shall be treated and which shall not.
QALY may not be the only yardstick used to decide who should receive treatment, as is claimed by the chairman of NICE. But that it exists at all should give us cause for the gravest concern. There really are other ways in which money could be saved or spent better in the NHS. I should he more than happy to suggest a few, but tonight's debate gives neither the time nor the scope for that. I hope that perhaps we shall have a debate soon which would allow us such interesting opportunities.
But I must get back to QALY. I wonder whether age is a factor considered by NICE when it looks at and constructs this particular yardstick. I do not know—I wonder whether any noble Lords know—the precise details of this rather mysterious ruling. Only a short time ago the Government stated categorically that they would not touch ageism with a barge-pole and that age should not be a bar to receiving the drugs that patients need. I do not know whether that statement is accurate, but again that is something for the Minister to confirm.
The chairman of NICE said that patients' views are also considered when QALY is decided. Are they? The Macmillan Cancer Relief charity has said not. Only last week, at the Select Committee, it called upon NICE to review its procedures and to bring in patients' views more firmly. It said that NICE accords low priority to patients' inputs and is failing to listen to patients' views.
Was Macmillan Cancer Relief the only charity to claim that? No, it was not. The Consumers' Association made it clear that it held the same view, as did the National Cancer Alliance. There was also concern among these organisations that NICE was not open and worked too much in secrecy. The Multiple Sclerosis Society complained to the Select Committee that it never knew whether or not its input was worth while. It also said that the long delays in reaching decisions is tied up with this. I understand that with so much evidence to study delays are, to some extent, unavoidable, but sometimes there seem to be delays which are not excusable, many of which are on record.
The MS Society gave written information on its appraisal system for beta interferon and was told by NICE that there were gaps in its submission. The society asked what and where were the gaps and
1508
pledged to deal with them at a meeting to be held some three months later. NICE took until two days before that time to say what were the gaps. But surely it must have known what were the gaps before it complained. NICE not only gave too little time for planned discussion but, apparently, the facts of the alleged gaps were, according to the society, "very sketchy".
I feel that I should add my own comment about secrecy: there has never been a public debate on the adoption of QALY. Accountants may approve, but bishops will not. Well, I am not sure about that because, these days, I do not know what bishops will or will not agree. I am only certain that they will not all say one thing or the other. However, my point is that the subject should have been discussed.
I turn now to another important issue. We all understand that when NICE was set up its purpose was to take away from government the decision-making process of what drugs should be supplied and paid for by the NHS; that it should be an independent organisation scientifically to evaluate new drugs and advise independently whether or not drugs and treatments were effective. Now we have a situation which implies that this is not so. NICE has not so far reached its decision on beta interferon, but the Government are jumping in and having their own trials on it. It seems extraordinary that before NICE has said what it thinks, the Government, by their action, indicate that never mind what NICE decides, they will have their own look at that particular drug. Is the original understanding correct? If so, why are the Government stepping in?
In its submission to the Select Committee, the Consumers' Association identified serious shortcomings in NICE's appraisals of health technologies. The drugs and therapeutics bulletin reviewed all nine NICE guidance documents and found serious flaws in every single one of them. Is this the kind of thing which has led the Government to start their own investigations or what? No one denies for a moment that NICE has a complicated remit, but on the present evidence we must acknowledge that there is a worrying number of grave concerns about the way in which NICE works—concerns about whether its judgments are right, about secrecy, about undue delays, about the yardsticks used and about NICE's role versus the Government's role. I invite the Minister to think about all this and, at the end of the debate, to have a shot at clearing up all these problems. I beg to move for Papers.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I have discovered—unusually for someone who is speaking only second in a debate—that the noble Baroness has covered many of the points which led me to get involved in this debate.
I first paid attention to NICE as a result of the great beta interferon and multiple sclerosis initiative, primarily because my main concern—disability—was drawn into it. Here was a drug treatment which may well prevent an illness which could cause someone to be permanently disabled. It seemed to me absurd that this treatment could be refused.

1509
As to costing—and it has been said that this does happen—I have spent a considerable amount of time searching the NICE website and looking here, there and everywhere, but I could not find the costing formula for this. Presumably there is costing in every other area; presumably a formula is used. I shall not repeat every single acronym involved in this process, but there must be something going on here. How much in terms of disability living allowance and other benefits could be offset against the cost of these drugs? How much should the average wage be brought into the equation? Where is the equation given? In what areas does it work?
I believe that another debilitating condition—rheumatism—will be covered later in the debate by another noble Lord.
With any luck, drug treatments will get better—but this situation will arise again in all fields. It is to be hoped that all degenerative illnesses will one day have some kind of treatment which, even if it does not totally reverse them or stop them, will at least make life bearable, but, if this situation is on-going, we should surely have something built into the system which could kick in straightaway and dictate what we should do.
Unless we bring in a system to deal with it, the beta interferon situation will arise again and again and we will create a situation guaranteed to let people down every time. We are not bringing in a system to deal with it. We must build and structure into the situation a system which takes account of matters across the board.
Later today I shall be taking part in the Second Reading of the Disability Discrimination (Amendment) Bill. How far does the NICE situation spill over into another area where we are denying people their rights? I do not say that there are any limits to what is going on—I can ramble on for 15 minutes or I can stop very quickly—but it would seem that we have drawn our circle very tightly in dealing with the situation. All the internal talk is ultimately about the health service. Clearly, we are not looking wide enough.
I know that the Minister's job is to defend the current system, but please can he take on board and take back to the Government that we need to know whether consideration is being given to the problem. That is the least that we have a right to expect.
All the charities and organisations which are in the vanguard of these current struggles, and which will be in the vanguard of the struggles that will go on in the future, feel that the system is far too bureaucratic and that it is not user friendly. That theme ran through the evidence about which the noble Baroness has spoken. The organisations are not sure what is going on and feel that the system is not open enough. They feel that the lay person has no real chance of getting a handle on the issue.
We all know that the campaigning carried out in this area in this country is driven by the lay community associated with these causes. We have all dealt with such bodies, which provide us with briefings on a
1510
regular basis. Ultimately, unless we can open up the system, no matter what we do—even if the noble Lord takes my advice and does his calculations—we shall not know about it properly. We shall not understand it and we shall keep coming back to it. If the noble Lord can address these points, he will deal with many of the concerns that people have.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Knight for initiating the debate. She is a great campaigner and I thank her for giving me the opportunity to say a few words about the relationship between NICE and dental surgery. With that in mind, I declare an interest in that I am a practising dental surgeon.
The latest press release that I have received from NICE, dated 6th November 2001, informs me that, last year, it issued guidance that had the potential to affect the care of over 10 million users of the NHS and their families, and that it now expects to issue over 100 guidelines each year. It states that contact has been established with multi-professional partnerships to set up national collaborating centres to help with its authoritative guidance on healthcare for healthcare professionals and users of the service. NICE will create a new partnership between the Government, the National Health Service and clinical professionals. By establishing NICE the Government will take responsibility for helping to clarify, both for patients and for professionals, which treatments work best for which patients and those which do not.
This is a massive responsibility and commitment. I am sure that it is no coincidence that, on 23d November, the Health Select Committee announced that it would be holding an inquiry into NICE. I understand that the inquiry is ongoing and that the committee has been taking evidence today.
Until recently, the professional organisations were reluctant to give guidance on clinical techniques. However, we now have many different authorities telling professionals what they can and cannot do, and what materials they can and cannot use. I have debated this with the Minister on many occasions, largely in connection with the administration of general anaesthetics in the dental surgery, where the General Dental Council, which will soon have many more members who are not dentists, issues new guidelines on this particular clinical practice on a regular basis—seeming to many of us to be out of touch with the real world. To give a further example, the Department of Trade and Industry—for some reason that is not understood by the dental profession—has taken responsibility for the materials that can and cannot be used in bleaching techniques.
It is important that the healthcare professions understand who ultimately controls guidance for clinical techniques. The stakeholder organisations—of which the British Dental Association is one—must be concerned about the potential for a lack of independence in NICE's activities. This can be allayed only by close partnership between NICE and the

1511
stakeholders. The NICE key principles for NHS guidelines, together with recognition of the importance of taking account of existing guidelines and the best available evidence, are crucial.
The dental profession does not believe that NICE can, or should, aim to provide a single national focus for guideline setting. I know that the British Dental Association has expressed its concern about the need to avoid duplication and to ensure that all organisations involved in guideline setting are consulted and given the opportunity to participate in relevant activities. To this extent, the development of its commissioning process and the stakeholder involvement mechanisms that have been introduced have been welcomed. Guidelines must be credible and robust; and, if they are to be implemented as such, they must be developed by individuals with relevant practical experience and by organisations that have the confidence of the profession.
The first NICE guidelines for dentistry were on the removal—or not—of wisdom teeth, which were set out in its Technology Appraisal Guidance No. 1. This was generally welcomed by the profession, but was noted to be a re-hash of the existing guidelines from the Royal College of Surgeons, which were already followed in the NHS but did not take account of the most recent research.
It is rumoured that we are about to be advised on the relevance of the six-monthly check-up and the need for treatments for gums. I can assure the Minister that those in the dental profession advise their patients individually on the ideal intervals between check-ups and gum treatments. Some may need to be seen every three months, some annually and some every two or three years. It varies according to the individual's ability to look after himself or herself. It should also be remembered that the check-ups include an examination for oral cancers and are a vital link in the prevention of this debilitating disease.
Dental care has a high ratio of private provision. About half of the money spent in a year on dentistry outside hospital is paid by patients. NHS guidelines which concern cost-effectiveness must make very clear the context in which they are issued, and must recognise that NICE is unable to make recommendations concerning cost-effectiveness in private care. Once again, I thank my noble friend Lady Knight for introducing the debate.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I, too, compliment my noble friend on securing this debate.
In this House NICE is not the most popular body, judging by questions that have been asked and by what has been said so far in the debate, and we all know why. NICE is regarded, rightly or wrongly, as the body which prevents certain types of patients from obtaining the drugs and treatments that they desperately need, and which would be prescribed for them by their doctors if those doctors were not
1512
convinced that their clinical judgment would be thwarted one way or another if NICE did not approve. That is the case in the beta interferon/MS saga.
So there is some truth behind this harsh popular perception of NICE. However, it is not the whole truth, as I am sure the Minister will tell us in replying to the debate. The health service circular which set out NICE's initial work programme makes it clear that NHS bodies should,
"continue with local arrangements for the managed introduction of new technologies … where NICE's guidance is not available at the time the technology first becomes available".
In theory, therefore, there is no let or hindrance to NHS bodies allowing the prescription of drugs and the giving of treatments referred to NICE for appraisal, or if the appraisal process is incomplete. One would have thought that in such circumstances local clinical judgment would prevail, but that has not always been the case—far from it: other factors such as the availability of funds and resources, and local priorities, have come into play.
I have a particular interest in the availability of anti-TNF alpha drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. For those noble Lords who are interested in definitions, I turn to the definition of TNF in a paper prepared by a team some time ago, led by Bryan D Williams, professor of rheumatology at the University of Wales College of Medicine, of which I have the honour to be president. The paper states:
"Tumour Necrosis factor has emerged as a key molecular target for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Two effective new therapies infliximab (Remicade) & etanercept (Enbrel), the first of their kind as biological response modifiers and disease controlling anti-rheumatic therapies, have become available … for the treatment of severe resistant rheumatoid arthritis".
My interest in the subject began as a personal matter. My youngest son suffers from the disease and. initially, he could not obtain the appropriate drug. But I soon realised that there were many others in the same position. So it has become a matter of national interest. There are some 600,000 people who suffer from rheumatoid arthritis in the United Kingdom. There is no doubt that many of them—but by no means all—could have their suffering relieved by the used of these anti-inflammatory drugs, which are currently being appraised by NICE.
I am in touch with the leading medical authorities on rheumatoid arthritis throughout the UK and last year I helped form the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society to raise the profile of the disease and its alleviation. There is no doubt about the efficacy of the drugs in appropriate cases. The Minister has acknowledged it in a letter to me dated 9th November last year. He said:
"There appears to be clinical evidence that these anti-TNF drugs can help a proportion of patients to achieve better control of their arthritis, with reduced pain and disability. when treatment with existing drugs has failed. Unless there are appeals, NICE expects to issue its guidance in March 2002".
Last year, the British League Against Rheumatism and the British Society for Rheumatology carried out a survey of 185 of the UK's 215 NHS trusts. Their preliminary findings showed that postcode prescribing of the treatment was rife, with wide variations across

1513
regions, within health authorities and even within trusts. Rheumatologists in nearly one third of trusts are unable to prescribe the drugs. Nearly half of the remaining trusts' rheumatologists were able to prescribe the drugs to only a handful of people—fewer than 10. Only in around one sixth of the trusts covered in the survey did rheumatologists have adequate funding to meet the need.
Those findings, which are not yet verified, but which are borne out by experience, should send shivers down our spines. Postcode prescribing is a dreadful form of inequality and discrimination. It means that whether a patient suffers depends on where in the United Kingdom he happens to live. That is grossly unfair. I must make it clear that I want to end postcode prescribing not by prohibiting the use of such drugs when they are available, but by making the drugs generally available to all who need them and qualify for them. Of course they are expensive. They cost about £8,000 per annum per patient.
One must also consider the position of the rheumatologists under those findings. They are unable to prescribe according to their best clinical judgment because of a shortage of funds. The rheumatologists are in an intolerable position. I am not sure that they are not offending in some way against their Hippocratic oath. There are also implications for the United Kingdom as a whole. The drugs are available in the United States, where they are even given to children who are showing signs of rheumatoid arthritis. They are also available in a number of European countries. Where does that leave the NHS? It leaves us looking very backward and retarded compared with other countries.
I am sure that there are also implications for the future of the pharmaceutical industry, which contributes so much to medical research in the United Kingdom. It cannot be much encouraged by the fact that the market for the drugs is so weak that it cannot bear the cost.
Many of us are concerned, because we get the impression that NICE is being used as a delaying tactic, a rationing agency and a cover by the Government for a lack of adequate funding for the NHS. How can that be true when the Government say that they are pouring more money than ever before into the NHS? The latest news is that the NHS is only just about breaking even and some regions, such as the South East of England, are heading for a deficit.
Would not the use of funds to make those drugs available assist the Government to achieve their targets for the NHS? The current Secretary of State certainly believed so in 1998, when he told the other place:
"If drugs mean easier, better and quicker treatment for the patient instead of going to hospital, that is a good thing and if it means growth in the NHS drugs bill, we should welcome it.… we want a more rigorous assessment of what is cost effective and clinically effective, particularly when drugs come on to the market".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/7/98; col. 158.]
I am not sure that those words are reflected in the Government's current policy. Things have changed since those words were uttered in 1998.
1514
I am also greatly worried about whether NICE takes account of the cost of a disease in its appraisal. It is estimated that rheumatoid arthritis costs the country £1.2 billion a year in benefits, income tax lost because of inability to work and so on. I have been assured by the Minister that it can take such matters into account. In a Written Answer to me, he referred to the framework document for NICE, which states that,
"its task is to assess the evidence of all clinical and other health-related benefits of an intervention—taking this in a wide sense, to include impact on quality of life, relief of pain, or disability etc as well as any impact on likely length of life—to estimate the associated costs, and to reach a judgment on whether on balance this intervention can be recommended as a cost-effective use of NHS and PSS resources".—[Official Report, 11/12/01; col. WA 193.]
I am grateful for that assurance, but I am not sure that it works in practice and that NICE takes the full costs of a disease such as rheumatoid arthritis into account.
I have concentrated on rheumatoid arthritis because I know something about it. There is also the saga of beta interferon and MS. The Government should take a firm grip on the whole area. So much suffering could be relieved and so much saving could be effected by the use of the most modern treatments available. NICE would be well advised to cultivate a more positive reputation than it has at present.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Knight on bringing before the House the important subject of NICE. She is a great and very successful campaigner, as my noble friend Lord Colwyn said.
Last week, the Government announced that NICE, the Commission for Health Improvement, the National Clinical Assessment Authority and the National Patient Safety Agency should work more closely together to establish a more coherent approach to standard setting, regulation, monitoring and inspection of healthcare. The Government also made a commitment to establish a new council for quality healthcare, encompassing the bodies I have mentioned, to facilitate co-operative working on the functions they jointly pursue.
We on these Benches are concerned about whether the new council, or anyone therein, will be given the very important and necessary role of overseeing quality and standards in public health services. The recent failure in public health is a very great concern. On 10th January, the Chief Medical Officer announced a new committee—the National Infection Control and Health Protection Agency—which will assess the threat of new and emerging infections and disease and implement vaccination. That is necessary simply because of the Government's lamentable failure in public health. We have decreasing immunisation rates and an increasing incidence of infectious diseases and sexually transmitted diseases. There is need for a body that can take concerted action across departments.
As I understand it, the council for quality health care will have overarching supervision of NICE, CHI, the NCAA and the NPSA . It will also ensure that,

1515
together, those constituent organisations work more closely with the Social Services Inspectorate, the National Care Standards Commission and the Audit Commission.
During a debate in the other place on the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, which we shall very shortly be considering in this House, my honourable friend Oliver Heald suggested the urgent need for more management, co-ordination and provision of quality public health services in the NHS. He suggested that the role be given to a unified body. The newly announced council will unify NICE, CHI and the other bodies vested with ensuring quality in the health service. I wonder whether that body, with its collective role—NICE providing clinical guidance and perhaps taking on a new screening role, and CHI with its inspectorate responsibilities—might be an appropriate organisation to house within it a much needed public health role.
The BMA has expressed concern that the Bill's new arrangements may lead to some areas having no public health doctor advising either the primary care trust or the strategic health authority. Statistics on public health make gloomy reading. The number of BCG vaccinations decreased from 518,000 in 1997, to only 137,000 last year—a decrease of almost 400,000—yet the number of TB cases reached a 15-year high. According to the British Thoracic Society, the number of adults and children with the respiratory disease TB was at record levels. London is the TB capital of the western world.
In addition to the considerable risk of a TB outbreak, we are also at risk of a measles epidemic, as the levels for MMR have fallen to as low as 72 per cent in London, compared with a "safe" uptake level of 95 per cent. The most important task we have is to protect our children. To do that, we must have sufficient immunisation levels to prevent any possible epidemic. We have seen the tragic effects of failure to immunise in Ireland and the Netherlands, where children have died as a result of the disease.
I believe the evidence that suggests that MMR is safe, and I am not convinced that there is any link between MMR and autism. However, many of the public and some in the medical and nursing professions believe otherwise. That is resulting in considerable public health risk. It is a huge failure of the Government's public health policy neither to reassure the public effectively nor to provide an alternative. We simply cannot sit by and watch immunisation rates fall to levels that will virtually guarantee a measles epidemic.
The increase in sexually transmitted diseases also has been remarkable. Between 1999 and 2000, the incidence of syphilis increased by 5.1 per cent, gonorrhoea by 25 per cent and chlamydia by 12 per cent. We have seen similar pictures with other diseases.
The Government have a duty to protect the public's health, but currently they are failing. In his wind-up speech, can the Minister tell the House how the Government intend to ensure higher quality standards of public health provision?
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the gap; I had some problems getting to the House today. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, for introducing this debate. I shall concentrate on NICE itself.
In establishing the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the Government have given all clinicians the opportunity to adhere to informed, sensible and, I believe, strictly scientific advice. NICE is here to ensure that patients receive better care, and the indicators are that it is already having that effect. To date, NICE has made significant progress in identifying effective medicines and treatments and spreading their use quickly throughout the NHS. We should be aware of that fact.
In less than three years, NICE has become established as an integral part of our National Health Service. Its work reaches into all aspects of the NHS, from wider judgments on whether a new treatment is clinically effective and cost effective to assessment of what care is best for the individual patient.
The NHS can no longer tolerate postcode prescribing whereby decisions on what care is best for a patient are made on the basis of widely varying funding policies. We need the institute so that, as we go forth towards the end of this century and new medicines become available, we have one body that establishes and helps us to decide what is best for the people of this country.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, who has raised some very important issues in an extremely trenchant and thought-provoking way.
On a number of occasions, Ministers—including the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—have promised a full review of the work of NICE. That review should have started half way through last year. Very regrettably, rather than establishing a full review, Ministers seem to be content to respond to the recommendations affecting NICE made by the Kennedy report on children's surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary. A full review would have been preferable. Evidence should have been taken, and a far wider range of recommendation should have been considered.
The Government's response to the Kennedy report was published last week. The original report made clear recommendations on a more independent role for NICE. The Government's response was half-hearted, to say the least. The dissemination of NICE guidance, we are told, will no longer need the approval of a Secretary of State for Health. What a big step! On the truly crucial issue—the selection of topics for appraisal—we are fobbed off with the promise of a consultation document. When will that he forthcoming? Should not NICE, subject to consultation with its stakeholders, be able of its own volition to choose its own topics for appraisal? Would it not raise the level of public and professional trust in

1517
NICE if it were seen as more than a creature of government? What real impact will yet another body that the Government propose to establish—the council for quality health care—make? It seems to be another body to co-ordinate a whole series of other bodies. I am afraid I do not share the presumed optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, in that respect.
In the absence of a government review, the other mechanism for change, apart from the Kennedy report, is the current Health Select Committee inquiry into NICE, referred to by a number of noble Lords. I welcome the Select Committee's initiative. It has given rise to a number of very interesting contributions, most of them dealing with issues of common concern not dealt with in the Government's response to Kennedy.
NICE's evidence is also of great interest. Although sorry to see that it did not support the Kennedy report's recommendation that it should become a non-departmental public body, I welcomed its suggestion that its work programme be constructed in a more open and inclusive manner and that there should be an annual report to Parliament. Many of the areas of concern have been aired in debates in this House, not least in our debate last April.
The original remit of NICE included the important role of looking at the cost-effectiveness of treatments. It also had its remit extended at the last moment to look at the affordability of treatments in its appraisals. However, I have been assured that that latter role is only activated at the request of Ministers and that it has not been so activated to date. It is therefore, contrary to expectation, NICE's role and methodology in assessing cost-effectiveness which have given rise to many of the problems to date. It is that which has fed the belief that NICE is engaged in a rationing exercise and taking quasi-political decisions.
As I pointed out last April, one of the key problems is the scientific basis of the appraisals, highlighted in the Beta interferon and the glatiramer acetate appraisal. That was referred to not only by the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, but also by my noble friend Lord Addington. That appraisal raises fundamental questions about how NICE will accommodate access to drugs for rare diseases and the appropriateness of cost-economic evaluation—the QALY—in the treatment of low prevalence diseases. The superimposition of standard cost-effectiveness criteria on to the assessment of a drug for a rare disease is not always appropriate. How can existing treatments be compared when the orphan designation implies that there are no satisfactory methods of prevention or treatment of the condition?
As I pointed out, conventional health economics techniques are based on the availability of a wide range of comprehensive data needed for the appraisal. But in the case of rare disorders, often for practical, ethical and scientific reasons, it is impossible to provide equivalent comprehensive data. Innovative products which treat diseases are often by their nature unique
1518
and cannot therefore be assessed by the use of traditional cost-effective assessment methods—I am sorry that that is rather technical language.
Since that debate I have not heard or seen anything which persuades me that NICE has properly grasped this issue. Quite the contrary. Clearly we need changes to the system so there is proper recognition of the issues which surround rare diseases and orphan drugs. Like the EU, we need recognition of the specific nature of rare diseases and a different appraisal system for orphan drugs such as beta interferon and glatiramer acetate. The cost of the illness and the burden of the disease—a point made by my noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts—must be properly taken into account in relation to those orphan drugs.
A further cause for concern remains the lack of transparency of NICE—mentioned by a number of noble Lords. As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, in December last year the Consumers' Association published a report on NICE. It concluded that it needs to become much more open as to how it arrives at decisions. In its evidence to the Select Committee, the Consumers' Association goes further and claims that there were serious flaws in the nine NICE guidance documents it examined in detail. It compared Scotland favourably with England in that respect. It says it is difficult to see what impact evidence from voluntary organisations has. Is NICE relying too heavily on clinical trials data and overlooking quality of life information? Is it applying a crude, cost-effectiveness threshold, as many claim, of £30,000 per QALY? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us.
Current processes and methodology concern patient organisations in particular. I declare an interest as a trustee of Cancer BACUP, the cancer information organisation. It has been heavily involved in submitting evidence to NICE appraisals for a range of cancer treatments since NICE started its work. In is evidence to the Select Committee it expressed concern about delays. It takes a year, on average, to carry out an appraisal, excluding appeals. Clearly, the process should be faster.
What is holding appraisals up? Is it a lack of resource? The Minister has consistently assured us that NICE does not lack adequate resources for its work. Can he repeat that assurance? NICE's evidence to the Select Committee seems to imply that that is not the case. With delay there comes the phenomenon known as "NICE blight". Physicians hold back from prescribing a treatment pending the outcome of the appraisal. In those circumstances, health authorities hold back from funding.
Cancer BACUP also expresses concern about the absence of adequate data on quality of life issues. It believes that issues relating to patient priorities and quality of life should be subject to separate research.
Now we come on to the even more difficult subject of implementation. That of course is not strictly within the remit of NICE. But there is little point in NICE appraisals unless they are implemented. The Minister

1519
assured us that the money is there. In fact the Secretary of State has now promised that there will be a statutory duty on health authorities from this month to fund NICE appraisals. That is welcome, with caveats, if indeed it is correct.
My honourable friend Sandra Gidley MP carried out a survey in May last year which demonstrated considerable divergence by health authorities in their funding of appraised treatments. One in five health authorities are not funding one or more approved drugs. There are clearly major geographical variations. In a recent Cancer BACUP survey—referred to in NICE's evidence to the Select Committee, so it must be respectable!—it was found that taxanes as treatment for breast and ovarian cancer were almost universally funded, but that only 15 per cent of respondents said that specific funds are available to implement NICE guidance on lung cancer treatment.
The postcode lottery is still with us. Yet in the NHS cancer plan launched in September 2000 there is a clear government pledge to ensure that NICE recommendations are fully funded. That is belied as we speak by the experience of many hospitals. Clearly, allocations are not being spent on what they were allocated for.
But it goes further than that. The systems for monitoring are not there. In the Cancer BACUP survey, it was found that fewer than half of all health authorities in England and Wales had a policy for monitoring local compliance with NICE guidance, although 80 per cent had a written policy for assessing the implications of NICE guidance. Do current performance assessment procedures contain any requirements in that respect? Perhaps the Minister can answer that question.
What assurance can the Minister give for the future? Will extra, identifiable and adequate funding be made available to implement past and present NICE guidance? Will monitoring systems be installed in each health authority or strategic health authority to ensure that a check on statutory implementation is kept? How will the statutory duty be enforced? Will the patient have a right to enforce the duty? Without that we shall simply be robbing Peter to pay Paul with the raiding of other budgets and distortion of clinical priorities. Some, such as Professor Alan Maynard, already believe that that is the case.
In conclusion, I recognise that NICE is to a high degree caught between the competing forces of government, patients and pharmaceutical companies. On balance, its impact has probably been positive. Although there are criticisms, we should recognise that it is performing a vital role and few of us would want to turn back to pre-NICE days. In this House we are all subject to entreaty about the outcome of NICE appraisals, not least in this House tonight. I believe a strong, independent but responsive NICE is of great importance.
It was always known that that would be a difficult role. But NICE seems to have been slow to respond to experience or criticism, and the quality of its
1520
communications has sometimes been enormously lacking. As a result there is already some clear sign of government embarrassment. The Government have already had to contemplate ways round their expected decisions on beta interferon and glateramer acetate, as with its risk-sharing discussions with the industry. The Minister protested when I raised that recently in a Starred Question and said that it does not demonstrate a lack of confidence in NICE. Time will tell.
It should be clear beyond peradventure that the Government have the responsibility of making political decisions about resources available to the NHS, not NICE. The sooner it steps out of that particular arena, the better. Yet that could be done at the same time as giving greater independence to NICE, along with more resources and a greater remit.
I am not yet convinced that NICE has demonstrated the transparency or sureness of touch that are necessary for its role, or indeed the flexibility of methodology needed. I hope that it will heed some of the points made today—and that Ministers will do likewise—and in evidence to the Select Committee and make the changes that are almost universally asked of it.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lady Knight for bringing this important topic to our notice today and for speaking to it, if I may respectfully say so, in such a clear, concise and persuasive manner.
Nearly three years into its life, NICE and its work and way of working are ripe for review. That, coincidentally, is the view held by the Select Committee in another place which is currently in the midst of taking evidence. I hope, too, that it is the view of Ministers. I shall come back to that last point in a moment, but in the meantime I trust that the Minister will regard this as a good opportunity to listen to the observations of those of us who have followed the progress of NICE from its beginnings and who, despite perhaps understandable misgivings about it, wish it well.
For there can be no doubt that the rationale for N ICE, as originally presented by the Government, was a thoroughly worthy one. There was certainly a need to address and put right the grosser examples of so-called "postcode prescribing". There was much to be said for a body whose job it would be to evaluate treatments in a dispassionate, impartial way and to provide advice and recommendations on them to the health service. We all acknowledge the imperative to ensure rapid access for patients to new and innovative treatments. That was the good side of the rationale. But did it end there?
There were those of us three or four years ago who believed that the Government had darker motives. We believed that, despite the overtly respectable reasons for setting up NICE, the hidden agenda at the Department of Health was to put a brake on expensive treatments and thus save money for the health service. I am partially repentant of that suspicion, but only

1521
partially. If the Department of Health was at one time secretly hopeful that NICE would reach negative verdicts on expensive treatments, by and large those hopes have been confounded. Nevertheless, NICE has been an instrument for rationing, albeit a form of rationing that is indirect, and what I mean by that will become clear in a moment.
What surprised and disillusioned many of us shortly after NICE began its work was the augmentation of NICE's remit. When it first began, the task of NICE was to evaluate new and existing treatments for clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness and to base its advice about best practice on those two bench-marks. In August 1999, safely into the summer Recess when most of us were by the sea, an order was laid which directed NICE to take a further factor into account; namely, the effective use of available resources. The reason that was a surprise was that up to that time the Government had insisted that decisions on the affordability of treatments, which is a question quite distinct from their cost effectiveness, would be a matter for Ministers. Those decisions require an "above the parapet" political judgment to be made—the kind of judgment that, to give him credit, Frank Dobson made on the contentious issue of Viagra. But the addition to NICE's remit suggested to many of us that questions of affordability were henceforth to be a matter for NICE itself and not for Ministers. Ministers would be able conveniently to shelter behind decisions of NICE, a supposedly independent body, and thus avoid being directly implicated in unpopular decisions where absolute cost played an important part.
I have had no reason whatever to change my opinion on that matter. If proof were needed, I refer the House to the Minister's answer to me in a Starred Question on 5th December last year when I asked him about the bench-mark to which we now understand NICE operates when reaching its determinations; namely, a cost of £30,000 per quality adjusted life year or QALY. I asked him who set the bench-mark. The Minister said that he could not respond specifically to me because,
"such matters are for NICE to consider in order to develop its own methodology".—[Official Report, 5/12/01; col. 830.]
If NICE itself fixed the bench-mark of £30,000 per QALY, then that is indeed NICE making judgments on affordability. We do not know how that figure was arrived at. Ministers say that it has nothing to do with them. I find that disturbing.
Related questions arise from the Government's recent response to the Kennedy report. Paragraph 4.8 of the response announces the Government's intention to remove the requirement that the Secretary of State and the National Assembly should approve NICE guidance before it is disseminated. I am all for NICE being and appearing independent from Ministers in the way that it reaches its conclusions, but if NICE guidance is not to be approved by the Secretary of State, who will take ultimate responsibility for the decision about affordability? Who will be accountable to Parliament for such decisions? It is not clear.
1522
That concern chimes in with another criticism of NICE which is its lack of transparency—a point that has been made by a number of noble Lords this evening. We do not know how topics for referral to NICE are selected. The Technologies Advisory Group makes recommendations to Ministers, but on what basis does it do so? We do not even know who the members of TAG are or how they are chosen. NICE itself is criticised by every pharmaceutical company that I have spoken to for its modus operandi Unlike its counterpart in Scotland (the HTBS), or the Medicines Control Agency, NICE is neither open nor consultative. The result of that is that it has failed to win hearts and minds. I have heard it said that because of its reluctance to consult and communicate, NICE tends to reach its conclusions in a fog of uncertainty, with little real understanding of the subject matter and hence a wide scope for error. One example of that was glatiramer acetate, or Copaxone, a treatment for MS. When Teva, the manufacturer, took the Copaxone decision to appeal, it was only at that late stage that it learned how NICE had interpreted the manufacturer's data and carried out the resultant economic modelling. Why could not Teva have been consulted on that process? What was to be lost?
It is that failure to win hearts and minds that worries me. If NICE has a role to play—and I believe it does—then it is essential that it carries credibility. But how can it be properly credible when other publicly funded bodies such as the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin directly contradict what it says? That has happened more than once. How can it be properly credible when in the case of MS treatments it chose to rely on short-term data and to ignore extensive data collected from real patients over eight years of usage in the United States? What happened was that the short-term data were extrapolated by NICE and then subjected to economic modelling over 15 to 25 years—at best a highly uncertain procedure, but particularly so for a disease such as MS that develops over a long period of time.
In assessing a treatment for its cost effectiveness, there are worries that NICE takes too narrow a view of what constitutes cost effectiveness. Many, if not most, analyses are related purely to the costs and benefits within the National Health Service. As the Wanless report has shown, no attempt is made to demonstrate wider benefits to the Exchequer and society at large. This absence of what many would regard as a common-sense approach to evaluating cost-effectiveness undermines the merits of NICE's work.
There is another respect too in which NICE has lost credibility and is in danger of losing even more. Some of the technologies it has appraised have been well established ones, others have been less so. Unless there is a body of real life data available to NICE relating to the treatment it is considering, it is very hard to see how questions of clinical and cost effectiveness can be settled with any degree of confidence. It is certainly not enough for NICE to rely purely on data derived from clinical trials. There needs to be mature evidence. The suggestion that NICE should concentrate on assessing

1523
products at or shortly after launch is in my opinion misconceived. Its conclusions will be based on assumptions rather than evidence and, as such, will either be tentative or carry a high risk of being wrong.
If one wants a perfect example of that point, there are few better than erythropoietin, or EPO, which is a treatment for patients with kidney failure. At the time of EPO's launch in 1990, the estimated cost per QALY was £103,000. That would have put it right out of court on the basis of NICE's current methodology. In the intervening period, the way in which EPO has been used to treat kidney failure has changed and much has been learnt from that. The cost per QALY for EPO is now estimated at between £3,000 and £9,000. If EPO had been rejected at launch, many kidney patients would have been denied a clinically effective and cost-effective treatment.
The probability that NICE guidance will be wrong under such circumstances is dangerous when one considers the Government's proposal that such guidance should in future be binding on health authorities and PCTs. In some ways I am sympathetic to that idea. One of the troubles with NICE guidance hitherto is that it has not been taken up across the NHS. The main reason that it has not been taken up is lack of money.
In the case of treatment for pancreatic cancer, only 34 per cent of health authorities indicated to Cancer BACUP that they had adequate funds to comply with NICE guidance. Many do not even know whether the patients in their area are being offered the approved treatment. The Government have allocated £250 million to health authorities and PCTs to support the implementation of NICE guidance. However, the way in which that money is spent is still a matter of discretion for those health service bodies. It is part of their unified allocation. In theory they can spend it in any way they like. As evidence of that, only a minority of health authorities actually have a written policy for monitoring implementation of NICE guidance, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned. Without additional specific and earmarked funding, there can, I am afraid, be only one result from a binding direction from the Secretary of State on NICE guidance; that is, a distortion of local clinical priorities. I ask the Minister to respond particularly to that point when he replies.
After a reasonable period of time, it makes sense to look back at the purposes for which NICE was created and to measure its subsequent performance against those original aims. Has NICE eliminated postcode prescribing in the treatments it has examined? For the reasons that I have given, it is clear that it has not. In fact, with taxanes for breast and ovarian cancer, there are now wider variations in prescribing than there were before the NICE appraisal.
Has NICE's advice commanded a high degree of confidence in the NHS and among medical practitioners? I fear that the answer to that is, "Not high enough". Has NICE given patients faster access to proven treatments? If anything, it has hindered access. The determination process on MS treatments
1524
took more than two years and it is still not finished. The determination on the pancreatic cancer drug. Gemzar, took a year. A decision on atypical antipsychotics will have taken more than a year. In each case, by the end of the process, there will be patients who are beyond help from the treatment but who could have been helped if NICE had not intervened. Of course, in theory, doctors can prescribe licensed medicines while a NICE appraisal is going on. In practice, however—and all too often—health authorities call a halt to further prescribing, pending a NICE decision. That phenomenon is known as "NICE blight". I could quote a number of very disturbing examples of that. NICE blight is costing patients their lives.
The NICE process, looked at in that light, gives rise to rationing, albeit of an indirect kind. Something really has to be done to ensure that the fact of a NICE appraisal does not of itself inhibit speedy access for patients to effective new treatments. As it is, both the PICTF report and the Wanless report show that the UK compares unfavourably with other countries in providing fast access to medicines. Wanless states that the UK rate is only half that of Germany and one-third that of France.
Those are by any measure serious shortcomings in a body that in other respects performs valuable work and whose staff are, I have no doubt, committed and conscientious. I hope that the Government will have the courage to confront those issues fully. I hope that there will be an arm's length review of NICE that is both open and transparent. Reviews of that kind should be undertaken at regular intervals. Failure to do that will jeopardise the credibility that NICE must have if it is indeed to be the single authoritative voice for clinical best practice.
6.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I, too, join noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness on securing a debate on an interesting topic that is vital to the future health of our National Health Service.
In responding to the many points that have been made in the debate, it is important to start by putting the matter in context and in relation to our overall reforms of the NHS. In listening to the criticisms that have been made of NICE's performance, we should take ourselves back to 1997 and our inheritance. Our inheritance was of an NHS with an absence of national standards. There was no process for developing national guidance on the use of new treatments—I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the importance of getting effective medicines introduced as quickly as possible—and no independent inspection of local services. Alongside the Government's determined effort to increase resources in the NHS, we have moved to put that right, to develop new standards, to introduce a new duty of quality, to have a system of clinical governance to drive up the quality of care and to have an independent inspectorate—the Commission for Health Improvement. Central to our

1525
modernisation programme is the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which we established to give clear national guidance on the use of drugs and other treatments, as my noble friend Lady Howells aptly pointed out.
In less than three years, NICE has done its work well and with credibility and it has been established as an integral part of our modern National Health Service. Its work undoubtedly reaches into all aspects of the NHS, from the wider judgments on whether a new treatment is clinically effective and cost effective, through to the assessment of what care is best for an individual patient.
In listening to the criticisms that were made of NICE, it appears that some noble Lords were slow to recognise the situation in which the NHS existed before the institute was set up. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that few would wish to go back to pre-NICE days, and I certainly agree. The situation before NICE involved unfairness—one health authority could have a policy to fund a new treatment but a neighbouring health authority would not fund it. We had postcode prescribing—decisions about what care was best for a patient would be made on the basis of widely varying funding policies rather than on the basis of clinical need. We had a situation in which new drugs with clear evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness were not being given to patients because it took so long for them to filter through into local prescribing policies.
NICE exists to deal with those issues. It has made significant progress in identifying effective medicines and treatments and spreading their use quickly throughout the NHS. I was interested in the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, who suggested that one of NICE's purposes was to make savings. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, postulated that NICE involved a delaying tactic. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, spoke about his original thoughts of a hidden agenda, although he said that he had partially repented of that.
I want to make it absolutely clear that NICE's purpose never was, and never has been, to reduce the funding of treatments in the National Health Service. It was to speed up the introduction of clinically effective and cost-effective treatments and drugs. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, from the figures that we have produced, we estimate that this year more than £250 million will be spent on treatments recommended by NICE. For example, NICE's appraisal of drugs to treat breast and ovarian cancer should benefit approximately 9,000 women at a cost to the NHS of £30 million. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talked about cancer drugs. The recommendations on drugs to treat cancer of the pancreas, lungs and brain and leukaemia should benefit around 10,000 people this year at a cost to the NHS of £10 million; and so on.
It is all very well for NICE to issue guidance, but I fully recognise that the whole thing will fall apart if we cannot ensure that the National Health Service will implement that guidance. I have always understood that point, and I understand that it lies at the very heart of the credibility of what we seek to achieve.
1526
At the annual conference of NICE last month, I announced that health authorities and primary care trusts have three months from the date of the issue of technology appraisal guidance to arrange for the funding of healthcare interventions recommended by the institute for patients for whom they are clinically recommended. I believe that that makes it absolutely clear that the Government expect the NHS to fund NICE guidance. I shall return to the issue of earmarking a little later. It is our belief that the extra resources put into the National Health Service both over the past few years and in the future are sufficient to ensure that locally the NHS has the funds to implement those decisions.
I listened with great interest to some of the concerns raised by noble Lords in relation to bureaucracy. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that user groups had reported finding the NICE processes to be somewhat unfriendly to user and patient groups. Of course, I am anxious to listen to the comments made and to discuss them with the national institute.
Perhaps I may make it clear that I expect NICE to have a central role in providing accessible information for patients. I believe that it has shown itself able to work with patients and their organisations: it consults patient groups at every stage; it involves patient representatives in its committees; and it actively seeks out the views of patients when developing its guidance. Of course, I am sure that it can always do better arid I certainly urge it to do so. But I could not respond to this debate without saying that I believe that NICE is exercised about ensuring that patient and user groups understand the processes and have full involvement in them.
I turn to the question of independence and openness. From its outset, I believe that NICE has enjoyed a large measure of independence from governments and, indeed, from other interests. That is why it is so important that NICE decides on its own processes for developing guidance. It is why the Department of Health has the same status as any other consultee within those processes. We contribute to the consultation process but our comments are either limited to detailed technical or clinical issues or they seek to clarify aspects of the draft guidance. It is because of its independence in making judgments that, very often, I cannot answer direct questions posed by noble Lords in this House while a NICE examination is taking place into, for example, a particular drug. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has raised the issue of drugs on a number of occasions in this House.
In our recently published response to the Kennedy report, we announced that we wish to build on the independence that NICE already has. We propose to remove the requirement for approval to be given by the Secretary of State for Health and the National Assembly for Wales for disseminating NICE guidance. We also intend to lay before Parliament changes to NICE's regulations in order to enable NICE to determine its own appraisal committee structure and to appoint members to that committee structure without reference to the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales.

1527
We also accept, and will be making clearer and more explicit, the ways in which NICE, other NHS professional and patient bodies, and individual professionals can contribute to developing NICE's agenda. I can assure noble Lords that we shall shortly issue a consultation paper suggesting a number of changes to the existing arrangements and seeking further comments.
One or two comments were made in relation to beta interferon. That drug is still the subject of a process within NICE. But the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, asked me about the discussion that the Department of Health has had, and is having, with manufacturers of the drug and other interested parties to see whether any of the four medicines can be secured for the NHS in a manner which could be considered cost-effective. That is not an attempt by the department to second-guess NICE or to interfere in the process. I refer to the view given by NICE in its provisional appraisal that those drugs did not represent a cost-effective use of NHS resources. At the same time, NICE recommended that discussions take place between the department and the manufacturers in order to secure supplies for the NHS on terms that could be regarded as cost-effective. That is why we are engaged in those discussions.
A number of very interesting points were made about the methodology of NICE. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised the issue of rare diseases and orphan drugs. In general, NICE has made it clear—this is its responsibility—that it is not tied to any particular methodology but will consider the special features of each appraisal on their merits. Obviously it must make complex judgments based on a number of different factors and then take into account all the available evidence.
We then moved on to the question of quality adjusted life years, or QALYs. I am disappointed that the right reverend Prelate is not here to respond to the noble Baroness and her criticisms, if I may say so, of a lack of consistency on the part of doctrine in the Church of England. I believe that when it comes to methodology in terms of judgments, it is clear that NICE will use different methodologies and seek always to find the best evidence available. QALYs are a method of taking a measure of health status which combines judgments about increased life expectancy and improved quality of life. The purpose of the QALY measure is to allow the health gain from different interventions to be compared. With information on the cost of interventions their value for money performance can then be compared using a common yardstick.
I do not seek to deny that there are criticisms of QALYs and that they are contentious. Indeed, I take on board the point which the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, has made about older people and the question whether QALYs might put older people at a disadvantage. I accept that there is a great deal of debate about QALYs and their use and that it is a methodology which is still under development. But it is a way in which to compare the health effects of
1528
different interventions which change life expectancy and the quality of life. It can be a useful mechanism to be used by NICE alongside other judgments.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the issue of whether it is right for NICE to have to take into account issues of cost effectiveness as well as clinical effectiveness. I believe it is right that it makes technical judgments on the clinical and cost effectiveness of drugs and treatments. I believe that from its perspective it is able to make those kinds of judgments. But I also believe that it is important that NICE guidance is issued direct to the NHS without being filtered or changed in any way.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Can he tell us whether NICE, in assessing the cost effectiveness of drugs and treatments, can take into account factors outside the NHS such as employment, the loss of it, benefit costs and so on?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in broad terms it can. I was going to respond to the noble Lord later on that point. The point I am trying to make here, in answering the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is that I believe it is right that NICE makes judgments about cost effectiveness alongside clinical effectiveness, but Ministers are ultimately responsible for the affordability of NICE guidance. It is our responsibility to ensure that the National Health Service has the resources for that guidance. I believe that we are providing the level of resources to enable that to happen. I do not agree with the noble Earl that we should earmark those resources. In fact, I am always influenced by the noble Earl's strictures about too much central direction. In this case it is within the general allocations.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, since this is such a crucial question and there are different interpretations of NICE'S remit, can the Minister absolutely and categorically say that no NICE appraisal has taken into account affordability?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the issue for NICE is judgments on cost and clinical effectiveness. The issue for Ministers is affordability. I believe that I have made it abundantly clear that there are respective responsibilities and it is quite clear as to who is responsible for what.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about criticisms of individual judgments and errors. I believe that it is unrealistic to believe that all expert opinions will always agree with NICE guidance because, at the end of the day, NICE will often have to make a fine judgment weighing up a range of evidence and opinions. But I believe that the experience so far has been that overall its judgments are robust because it seeks out all the available evidence and draws on the top experts in the field as well as on patient and carer evidence.

1529
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about the considerations that NICE can take into account. The appraisals that it carries out are done in accordance with its framework document. That document states that its task is to assess the evidence of all the clinical and health-related benefits of an intervention, taking this in a wide sense, to include impact on quality of life, relief of pain or disability as well as any impact on likely length of life; to estimate the associated costs and to reach a judgment on whether on balance this intervention can be recommended as a cost effective use of NHS and personal social service resources. I hope that answers the question and makes clear that NICE can take into account those wider considerations.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the only real point in raising the matter is that we hear about joined-up government and we have heard today about how the health department is borrowing from one part of it to meet a deficit in another. I was merely suggesting that we expand the suggestion so that another department helps in the National Health Service because such drug treatment may help people to stay in employment and keep off benefits.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am always anxious to grab more resources from other government departments. I am unlikely to get much support for that across Whitehall. Of course I understand the point that the noble Lord raises. I believe that at the moment we have a sensible balance, which essentially allows NICE to take into account the wider considerations. But the balance on cost effectiveness is based on the use of NHS and PSS resources.
Obviously, these matters will continue to be debated. That brings me to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about a review of NICE. We consider that the effect of our response to the Kennedy report, the publication shortly of a consultation document which will cover the detail of the process of topic selection, and our consideration of the inquiry by the Health Select Committee into NICE will provide a very helpful and comprehensive look at many of the current issues that face the national institute.
Indeed, considering our response to the Kennedy report brings me to another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, who always has many interesting insights into dentistry. He knows of my own keenness to ensure that the dental profession further develops its excellent quality and expands its services to the public.
He raised a concern that in a sense NICE might be given a monopoly for setting all national clinical standards. It was the recommendation of the Kennedy inquiry that NICE should be responsible for co-ordinating all action relating to the setting, issuing and keeping under review of national clinical standards. We rejected that view because while we believe that NICE is the foremost body to provide authoritative clinical guidelines and appraisals, there are many other
1530
bodies which are best placed to set standards in their fields. We would not wish to inhibit their excellent role in doing so.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, asked a number of questions and in particular about the establishment of a council for quality. Its role would he to facilitate co-operative working between constituent organisations including NICE, CHI, the Clinical Assessment Agency and the National Patients Safety Agency. It would also help those bodies to work closely together with the Social Services Inspectorate, the Audit Commission and others. I accept that there is a need to co-ordinate. We want to avoid duplication and too much inspection in relation to individual organisations where a co-ordinated approach is likely to be much more effective.
As regards the other points raised by the noble Lord about public health, I do not believe that the Government are failing in those areas. I believe that our public health strategy, our strategy to tackle health inequalities, the consultative paper on sexual health strategy and the recent CMO's report on public health surveillance show that we are taking these matters very seriously. Of course, I share the noble Lord's concern about the low uptake of MMR, particularly in London, but also in other parts of the country. I believe that we have a massive job to do to restore public confidence in these vaccines.
I also believe that at the local level it is important to have a strong public health function. In response to the worries in relation to the BMA, we have made it abundantly clear that every primary care trust will appoint a director of public health. There will be a senior public health doctor at the strategic health authority level. I believe that making the primary care trust the primary public health body at local level will help to ensure a much closer relationship between public health and primary care. I believe that that is where we can tackle the issue of the low uptake of vaccination in a more effective way in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, will know that the particular drugs that he mentioned are the subject of work being carried out by NICE at the moment. Taken as a whole, it is much better to have a situation where such drugs are properly assessed rather than leaving that to the ravages of postcode prescribing, which he so aptly described.
I also listened to the remarks about "NICE blight". I want to make it abundantly clear that it is unacceptable that health authorities should decide that a treatment should he prescribed while awaiting an appraisal of that treatment. I believe that Health Service Circular 1999/176 is clear about that. If health authorities are seen to make arbitrary judgments outwith the terms of that circular, I have made it clear that any complaint that is received will be investigated.
I have spoken at length but I believe that it is important to answer many of the points that have been raised in this important debate. I can reassure the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that of course we listen to comments made. They are taken into account in regular discussions with the National Institute for

1531
Clinical Excellence. However, at the end of the day I believe that NICE has established robust mechanisms and that it is helping to ensure quicker update of new treatments, new technologies and new drugs. I also believe that that is the way forward. It will enable the NHS to ensure that, overall, patients will receive effective treatments quickly, and that is the NHS that we wish to achieve for the future.
7.12 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, we have had an interesting and well-informed debate. I warmly thank noble Lords who have taken part, particularly my noble friend Lord Colwyn. It is always a great pleasure to hear from experts who speak about their own field of expertise. I listened to him with enormous interest.
My noble friend Lord Roberts told of his experience from a more personal angle, but his speech was also important. We have heard clear expressions of concern. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, gave a trenchant speech, pointing out many areas of concern, and my noble friend Lord Howe made some important points that must be borne in mind all the time.
I am grateful that the Minister took on board the fact that unless NICE is respected, and unless the public feel that it is a body that is of real service, it will not be of much use. The noble Baroness, Lady Howells, for whom I have a warm regard, gave a statutory few moments of support for NICE, which we were all pleased to hear.
I wish I could feel more gratitude to the Minister, but questions were raised in the debate that he has not answered. Perhaps he would kindly read the speeches made and answer directly some of the clear questions that were put. He tried to answer one or two. Having said that the point was not to make savings, later he said much about being cost-effective. To me being cost-effective is allied to making savings. I listened carefully to what the Minister said, but when he said that the Government will fund the recommendations of NICE, did he mean that there will be other areas of treatment that will suffer because the money will go to the treatments that have been recommended by NICE? We do not know. We have had an interesting and helpful debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Disability Discrimination (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.15 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Despite the Disability Discrimination Act, discrimination is still rife against Britain's disabled people. This Bill seeks to transform the legislation into a package of genuinely comprehensive and enforceable civil rights.
1532
Its message is that discrimination in any area will no longer be tolerated. It is time for it to go and we want urgent government action, complete with a timetable. Despite the legislative advances made since the admirable Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. initiated by my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester in 1970, vast numbers of disabled people are still excluded from the protection of the Disability Discrimination Act. Much of transport is excluded, and so too are private clubs. Tribunals lack the powers to be able to dispense justice for disabled employees and the Disability Rights Commission needs to be able to take proceedings on behalf of disabled people under the Human Rights Act.
All these serious and significant shortcomings are addressed in my Bill. When I was preparing it, I had very much in mind the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force and the Government's response in Towards Inclusion. But we now want government action rather than words on the recommendations of the task force.
Many disability organisations strongly support the Bill and the Disability Rights Commission has called publicly for the changes that it proposes. I greatly appreciate the help that I have received from the commission in preparing my Bill. It prepared an excellent briefing for noble Lords. I am also grateful for the help that I have received from RADAR and the Public Bill Office.
Of course, I am aware that some of the proposals in the Bill can be implemented by regulations. But a unified, focused approach, as in this Bill, is preferable to a piecemeal one. The elements all hang together, affecting the lives and the happiness of many disabled people.
In a debate on the need for a new disability Bill on 8th November last year, the Minister was sympathetic, but reserved. That is an understandable posture for a cautious Minister, but it is not good enough. This Government deserve credit for some measures on disability, such as the Disability Rights Commission Act, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act, the Disability Discrimination Act and the Carers Act, but they have failed to keep their categoric promise in their 1997 manifesto of "comprehensive and enforceable rights" for disabled people and they are not moving fast enough on most of the task force recommendations. It is time to get a move on as disabled people cannot wait indefinitely.
Now a word of explanation about the Bill's clauses. Clause 1 deals with the problem that people with progressive conditions can suffer discrimination well before they have symptoms. Yet the DDA does not cover a person until symptoms have emerged, which is preposterous. So Clause 1 ensures, for example, that HIV is included from the point of diagnosis, and that cancer patients are included from the point at which significant treatment is required.
Clause 2 includes private clubs in Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act, which relates to goods, facilities and services. This will help prevent discrimination in applications for membership and,

1533
specifically, in terms of membership. Let us take the following example. A British Legion branch is citing the DDA's exemption for private clubs in its shocking decision to bar a long-standing and active member from attending with an assistance dog. This lady has been a member for 10 years, and was recently elected branch secretary of the Royal Air Forces Association. When people can behave in that manner and use the DDA in order to defend such an indefensible posture, it seems to me that it is time for this Act to be changed and improved.
Clause 3 addresses the problem of some important rights for disabled people that are established not by the DDA but by the Human Rights Act. These include the right that no one should be deprived of life intentionally or be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. Perhaps I may give the House an example. A company director with spinal muscular atrophy, a qualified solicitor, was admitted to hospital with a chest infection. To her horror, she found that a doctor had placed a "Do Not Resuscitate" notice on her medical notes because it was considered that her quality of life did not warrant such intervention. Do not noble Lords find that quite incredible? Nevertheless, it is what actually happened. As yet, there is no commission to enforce the Human Rights Act. The power to represent such people should, therefore, be given to the Disability Rights Commission, along with the Equal Rights Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. Indeed, it should be done without delay.
Clause 4 extends the cover of the DDA to the police, prison officers, fire fighters and the Armed Forces. There is no valid reason why they should not have been included in the first place. While including them in this Bill, we can ensure that, for the Armed Forces in particular, there should be nothing to interfere with their operational effectiveness.
Clause 5 would ensure that all firms were covered under the DDA. I think, as I have always thought, that it is ludicrous that 382,000 disabled employees are without protection from even the most blatant forms of discrimination. The Act provides for 92.5 per cent of employers a continuing legal licence to discriminate. It is a funny old piece of legislation: it does not really protect people because of these absurd exemptions. The original Act included only firms with 20 or more workers. The Labour Government's change to firms with 15 or more workers was helpful, but insufficient. It merely brought in 70,000 employees, whereas this Bill will bring in 382,000. Nor is the Government's decision to include all firms by 2004 acceptable. There is absolutely no need for delay because including these firms now simply means that they should not discriminate; that is all. It asks them not to discriminate against their disabled employees and to take "reasonable" steps to accommodate them. Therefore, no unreasonable demands would be made on any firm. So why not get on with it, and bring in all these firms under the legislation pronto? The size of the firm should he irrelevant.
Clause 6 'would give employment tribunals power to order reinstatement of an employee who had suffered discrimination. At present, they can only order
1534
reinstatement for cases of unfair dismissal Clause 7 removes the short clauses in the DDA that exclude transport. It is absurd that transport was mainly excluded in the first place. Transport is currently an enormous hole in the provision. Accessible jobs and services are useless if inaccessible travel prevents disabled people from getting to them. As my noble friends will confirm, that is often the case.
Clause 8 seeks to ensure that the vast majority of public authorities are forbidden to discriminate against disabled people. Obviously, we need to exclude the Security Service, Government Communications Headquarters, and any judicial bodies making decisions such as not to institute criminal proceedings and related actions. These would mirror the Race Relations (Amendment) Act exclusions.
Clause 9 is based on the belief that it is inappropriate to leave responsibility for change on such vital issues to disabled individuals protesting and establishing case law because it would take far too long. It is unfair to leave it to them. The clause places a duty on the public sector to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people. It also gives the Secretary of State power to specify appropriate duties. If anyone fails to do so, the Minister can issue a compliance order, which is very necessary. This clause would speed up understanding and awareness of disability rights.
Clauses 10, 11 and 12 are linked. They ensure that the duties in Part III of the DDA are extended to landlords. There is evidence of landlords withholding consent for disabled people to make much needed changes to property, such as installing a stairlift. It beats me why they should have the power to veto improvements that are vitally necessary for disabled people. This Bill would certainly deal with that anomaly.
The background to Clause 13 is that the DDA has already established a questionnaire procedure for discrimination in employment claims which enables applicants to assess from employers' responses whether or not they have a case. It is a very valuable questionnaire that can clarify the strength of a potential claim and prompt an early resolution—something that we all want. The clause would extend this provision to the goods and services sections of the Act.
Clause 14 ensures that all goods and services discrimination cases under the DDA are commenced in an employment tribunal. The Disability Rights Commission quotes research by Income Data Services showing that the number of cases alleging discrimination regarding goods, facilities, services and premises brought before the county court in the first four years of operation was very small—only some 50 odd—compared with the thousands of claims to employment tribunals. I have seen an estimate of some 11,000, which, when compared with 50, speaks volumes because people are equally discriminated against in the provision of services. The reason for that difference is that, unlike county courts, tribunals do not charge fees. They are flexible and informal, and they do not frighten and deter disabled claimants.

1535
I have reached the end of my speech. I hope that the Government will support and assist the Bill's progress. What we really need are specific dates for action. I am, of course, willing to consider any amendments. If I can help my noble friend in any possible way, I shall be only too glad to do so. If the Government can give a guarantee of some kind to introduce their own Bill on similar lines, it would provide significant reassurance to my noble friends, to the many disability organisations, and to me. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Ashley of Stoke.)
7.29 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the whole House will be very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has explained his Bill in such a clear way. I am sure that all noble Lords will extend a warm welcome to the Bill. The noble Lord is now, and has been for many years, a tireless fighter on behalf of people with disabilities. This is but another action in his long campaign.
As the noble Lord said, the Bill is designed to put into effect the recommendations of the task force established by the Government in its report of December 1999 entitled, From Exclusion to Inclusion. We should all remember that this Bill, as well as benefiting disabled people today, could in the future benefit those of us who are not disabled, as there is always the chance that we ourselves could become disabled.
I particularly welcome Clause 2 which prohibits discrimination by associations. That will bring disability legislation into line with the laws on both racial and sexual discrimination. Why should private clubs be exempt from the general law?
The House knows that when the Conservatives were last in power I was often a thorn in the flesh of our Front Bench on disability matters. For over 20 years I have fought in this House for disabled people.
I have serious doubts about Clause 4 as it affects the Armed Forces. I speak as someone who was at one time a regular soldier. The Armed Forces already do their best to keep employed servicemen and servicewomen who become disabled. But it is not in my view practical to recruit disabled people. All service people, whatever their task and wherever their service, must be able to fight. A disabled recruit, unlike an able-bodied recruit, cannot acquire the experience or training that would enable him to effectively assist his colleagues in the way that an able-bodied person could who later suffered a disabling injury. I say sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, whom I greatly respect, but I cannot support him on that particular point.
I do not have experience of the police or of fire fighters. Therefore, I shall not comment on them. However, I wonder whether some of the points that I have made about the Armed Forces may apply also to them. The matter needs to be carefully looked at.
1536
I very much welcome Clause 5—the extension of the Disability Discrimination Act to small employers. I welcome the fact that the Government have already reduced the threshold from 20 to 15 employees. I, along with others, tried unsuccessfully to have this new proposed lower limit written into the original Disability Discrimination Act when it was a Bill passing through this House. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, will recall that point because we worked together on it at the time.
Clause 7 of the Bill brings transport within the remit of the Disability Discrimination Act. I welcome that. For example, why should a bus driver who is possibly late be allowed to refuse a disabled person from boarding his bus just because he would take longer to get on board than someone more active?
Clause 9 provides a general duty to promote equal opportunities for disabled people. It is to be welcomed. In the long run, it will lead to a general improvement in our society of the position of people with disabilities.
Clauses 11 and 12 deal with rented property. They may need to be looked at in Committee to ensure that they work properly because I can see that there are likely to be certain difficulties. On the whole, I welcome the idea behind the clauses.
I do not need to say a great deal more. Generally, I welcome the Bill, but with the exceptions that I have mentioned. I trust that the Government and the usual channels will help it to have a speedy passage through this House. I look forward with great interest to its Committee stage.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, first, I must declare my long-standing interest in the world of learning disability as president of Mencap. We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for giving us a further opportunity to fine tune the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act. I know that he will have many allies, for your Lordships are among the foremost advocates for disabled people and none more so than the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, himself.
We have come a long way, particularly in the world of learning disability, since our Down's Syndrome daughter was born some 50 years ago. The first improvements surfaced in 1971, with the White Paper, Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped, and with the enactment of the Education (Handicapped Children) Act 1970, which included children with severe learning disabilities in the education system for the first time. It was at that time too that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, as we have heard, was piloting his Private Member's Bill through another place—eventually the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. All these ground-breaking achievements—for they were ground-breaking achievements, believe me—came only a year or two after the population of the old "subnormality hospitals" had peaked, with the appalling number of 70,000 men, women and children still virtually incarcerated and cut off from all normal communication with the outside world.

1537
Today, there are still about 1,500 people with a learning disability in English hospitals. Hopefully, they are living under greatly changed circumstances, while those still alive from that peak figure of 70,000 have become part of the care-in-the-community population, to the great enjoyment of the majority of them.
Successive governments deserve great credit for their policies on disability. Our current rulers are, I am glad to say, no exception. There is a vast range of legislation for which we are all very grateful. All have, with various degrees of enthusiasm, vigorously promoted the interests of disabled people over the years. I congratulate them warmly on so doing.
However, there is still a long way to go before disabled people gain equal rights and opportunities in all areas of life. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has already highlighted the need for further progress and I wholeheartedly support his Bill.
The first of my concerns is the thorny issue of employment and the exclusion of small employers from the DDA. While I recognise the Government's wish to carry these small employers with them, giving them time to understand in full the meaning of the DDA, 1 must remind your Lordships how pitifully few people with a learning disability are afforded full employment, or employment that is anything other than token, and many of the smaller employers would never consider employing them anyway. Other disabilities, well, maybe; learning disability, frankly, no. Yet the Government have set a target for the employment of learning disabled people in their recent, excellent White Paper, Valuing People, of 30 per cent in order to achieve parity with other disabled persons. They will never achieve that figure unless smaller employers join the ranks of the already proactive big boys—the Marks and Spencer's, the Sainsbury's, the Tesco's et al—in realising the potential of people who until recently were probably considered to be hopeless basket cases.
Even when disabled people secure jobs, therefore enhancing their independence, there is no guarantee that they will be able to travel to those jobs. In recent years we have seen many improvements in public transport. We have to thank the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee for these improvements, but unnecessary problems still abound.
Twenty years ago, while working with the BBC, I presented the programme "Let's Go" for people with a learning disability. It is an interesting fact that one of these programmes highlighted transport issues and mobility training. Twenty years later, we still do not have accessibility for the majority of disabled people right. That can be rectified only by the omission of Section 19(5)(b) from the DDA.
Although physical access is a major issue for disabled people, people with a learning disability experience discrimination on a different scale. In Mencap's recent report on bullying, people with a learning disability stated that they were regular victims of bullying while using transport, often by groups of fellow passengers. Many felt isolated and trapped in an
1538
enclosed environment. Unfortunately, the bullying was not just by members of the public but by transport staff. People with a learning disability reported that bus drivers often harassed them, so much that many were forced to leave the bus.
Clause 7 of the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, is much needed. It will not only greatly enhance the ability of disabled people to travel throughout the United Kingdom but will remove the somewhat anomalous situation in which rail and bus stations must provide access while transport itself is not covered by the DDA. I do not believe that access to training will impose great costs that threaten our already beleaguered transport service.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, I welcome Clause 2 of the Bill, which takes away the right of any association—public or private, small or large—to discriminate against disabled people. The noble Lord cited the British Legion as an example of the DDA being used unfairly. I shall add a further illustration. Last year, a number of parents of children with a learning disability wrote to Mencap expressing their concerns about the withdrawal of riding lessons for their children by the Riding for the Disabled Association. The children are between eight and nine years old. Some have profound learning difficulties and some have additional physical disabilities. Horse riding has been a valuable activity for them.
I respect enormously the achievements of t he RDA, and I do not want to demand the impossible, but the rationale given for the withdrawal of the service was that staff were having difficulties lifting the riders onto the ponies. There were no male volunteers to help with lifting, and there was no hoist available. Some of the children in question weigh well under six stone. Although some are profoundly disabled, they were never unruly in the saddle. Even so, there was little that parents could do about it, for the DDA excludes membership organisations that provide social, cultural and recreational activities, such as the Riding for the Disabled Association and, of course, the Scout Association. That goes against the spirit of the Government's policy of integration and inclusion of disabled people in recreational and leisure facilities. Once again, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, is on the side of the angels.
Whether we like it or not, we live in a doctrinaire age. A number of interested parties are determined on change for change's sake. In this case, I argue strongly that change is needed sooner, rather than later, to ensure that disabled people have the rights and opportunities that the rest of us take for granted. I would welcome a reassurance from the Government that, if the Bill does not gain parliamentary time, they will introduce a comprehensive new disability Bill in the next Queen's Speech. I hope that we can set an example that will be a beacon to all other countries and will further tackle widespread discrimination, enabling even more disabled people to live fuller and happier lives.
In 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the severely disabled President of the United States, proclaimed the four essential human freedoms: freedom of speech,

1539
freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear. He might well have added a fifth: freedom from discrimination. The Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, is one further step in granting that freedom. I wish it well.
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I strongly support the Bill. My education in the necessity of civil rights legislation to create equal opportunities for disabled people began over 20 years ago with a television documentary called "We won't go away", which I made with Patricia Ingram. The documentary was an exciting revelation to us here in Britain, showing the integrated schools, accessible buses and subway trains, signed TV and other wonders that had resulted from America's first civil rights legislation for disabled people. That was Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 1973, passed nearly 30 years ago. Since then, the Americans have built a comprehensive body of anti-discrimation law on those initial foundations, most notably with the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990.
I am delighted to say that my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke has the same staying power as the title of our documentary. Fortunately, he won't go away either. He has been a tireless advocate, and this is one of his many Private Member's Bills promoting the civil rights of disabled people. I support the Bill wholeheartedly.
As the Minister will no doubt be reminded many times during discussion of the Bill, the Government made a manifesto commitment in 1997 to ensure full civil rights for disabled people. To that end, I hope that the Minister will be able to give the Bill her invaluable support. The Bill would take us well down the road from our partial civil rights legislation towards the full and enforceable civil rights provisions pledged by the Government. The Bill is doubly effective. It identifies and fills many of the loopholes in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and it takes a new, more proactive approach to equality for disabled people that would make it easier for us to access and enforce our rights.
I shall briefly mention the main loopholes that my noble friend's Bill identifies. Our current legislation falls far short of full civil rights for disabled people in key areas of life where discrimination continues to be sanctioned by the law. The most glaring of those, as noble Lords have said, are in employment, housing and transport. I support the clauses that seek to address those shortcomings.
Clauses 4 and 5 would end the current employment exemptions and bring small employers, police officers, fire fighters and the Armed Forces within the DDA. The Government have agreed in principle to end those exemptions, apart from the Armed Forces, so why should we not grasp the nettle and act now? No employer is asked to recruit or retain people unable to carry out the job required or to make unreasonable adjustments. If disabled people are not to continue
1540
pointlessly being barred from the Government's policy of providing work for those who can, the Minister must support those clauses.
I particularly welcome Clause 7, which would bring transport operators under Part III of the DDA. The current exclusion has meant that people continue to experience discrimination in ways that non-disabled people would be shocked to hear about. MIND has reported to me the case of a woman who declared her diagnosis of schizophrenia when she booked a coach ticket, explaining her need to sit at the front. She was sold the ticket on that basis, but when she tried to take her seat and explained her reason to the driver she was told to get off the bus. Another instance involved deaf passengers on a train who were denied service at the canteen because the attendant was too impatient to communicate on paper.
Clauses 10 to 12, which would apply duties to make reasonable adjustments in housing, are also extremely welcome. The lack of accessible housing is a major difficulty for physically disabled people, and it is one of the major hurdles in pursuing job opportunities. Under the Bill, a landlord could not withhold consent unreasonably if a disabled person needed to make physical alterations to the premises. It would also mean that basic forms of discrimination such as guide dog bans could be challenged more effectively.
As I said, the Bill not only addresses loopholes in the current law but tackles no fewer than five of the key barriers to access to justice for disabled people and the effective enforcement of our civil rights. Having rights by law will have little practical impact unless there is an easy and effective means of enforcing them. The clauses would give the Disability Rights Commission the power to assist disabled people under the Human Rights Act 1998; introduce positive duties on public authorities; and enable Part III cases to be commenced in tribunals. I shall resist the temptation to expand on those parts of the Bill but will give them my full support during the passage of the Bill.
I turn to the definition of disability, which is one of the major deficiencies in the current law. Many disabled people have discovered that they are excluded from its protection. Indeed, the DRC has found that one in four—a quarter—of the cases of alleged discrimination, fall at the first hurdle.
I strongly support Clause 1 of the Bill which calls for the extension of DDA protection to those with cancer and HIV from the point of diagnosis. However, the Bill does not go far enough. I hope that the Government are willing to consider amendments during progress of the Bill to extend the definition of disability in order to ensure that people with mental health problems and blind or partially sighted people are also given protection against discrimination.
Despite being registered as blind or partially sighted, visually impaired people have often had problems establishing that they are covered by the DDA. That is either because they have developed coping mechanisms, or because tribunals have failed to apply the guidance correctly.

1541
The matter of definition was one of the most complex issues facing the Disability Rights Task Force and one which it acknowledged needed further work. Case law has already provided evidence that people with mental health problems are particularly ill served by the Act's current definition of disability.
First, they have to prove that their condition is clinically well recognised. That is not required for someone with a physical condition, even though diagnosis can often be just as difficult—as in the case of ME.
Secondly, the claimant must show,
"a mental impairment which has a substantial adverse effect on normal day to day activities".
However, the list of activities is focused principally on physical impairment. It contains six physical activities and only two mental ones. In most cases the only relevant activity for people with mental health problems is, "inability to concentrate".
As the task force acknowledges in its report, since "normal day to day activities" does not cover impairments of "thinking, feeling, or social interaction", it may not serve people with mental health problems well. In a recent unpublished survey of decided cases at employment tribunals, the DRC found that the definition caused more problems for people with mental health conditions than for any other group.
There have been numbers of cases where employees with depression have failed to satisfy the definition—either because the period was shorter than 12 months, or because they failed to convince the tribunal that their ability to concentrate was impaired. Out of a total of 210 cases in which the employment tribunal found against the applicant, around a quarter were mental health cases. Of these 210 cases, 67 were criticised as being unfair.
The issue of definition of disability needs much further consideration and I hope to return with amendments at Committee stage of the Bill.
Since coming to power the Government have done much to further the civil rights of disabled people with the creation of the Disability Rights Commission, the setting up of the Disability Rights Task Force and the passage of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act. However, there is still a long way to go before they fulfil their pledge of full and enforceable civil rights for disabled people.
I hope that the Government maintain the momentum of the past few years and demonstrate that the civil rights of disabled people are high on their agenda by supporting the Bill. By now, the Minister must be only too aware that, as the demonstration placard said of disabled in that documentary all those years ago, "We won't go away".
7.54 p.m.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I would like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, on bringing forward this excellent Bill which will be welcomed by all disabled people and by all who campaign for a genuinely inclusive society.
1542
The noble Lord gave a wonderfully clear and comprehensive introduction, and I would like to concentrate on one or two of the measures it introduces which I feel are essential improvements to the 1995 Act.
First, I am delighted that the definition of disability should be widened to include people who have been diagnosed as HIV positive or who have cancer likely to require substantial treatment. The mere mention of either of those conditions sometimes leads to panic discriminatory measures long before the people concerned can qualify as disabled people under the Act. That leads to unacceptable injustices.
The same is true of people with a mental health problem, and I very much hope that it will be possible to expand the definition of disability to cover more effectively the hundreds who now face discrimination on account of a mental health problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. has already spoken of this and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, will speak in much more detail and with much more expertise.
However, it seems that Australia, Canada and now Ireland have arrived at a definition which has been tried and tested and works and that no floodgates have been opened, as people always fear. Therefore. I would wholeheartedly support any amendment which may be brought forward in Committee to end the discrimination. I believe that the statistics on discrimination against people with a mental health problem are horrific.
I very much welcome Clause 4, which will make it illegal to discriminate against disabled people in relation to employment in the police forces, the fire services and the Armed Forces. I fear that those who argue that discrimination against disabled people is essential if those important services are to function properly are being misled by watching too many Rambo-style police and special forces television programmes and films.
I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said and I stress that I am certainly not referring to him. He spoke with experience, but I am talking generally about people. Surely there are many non-combative jobs that people in the Army can do.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, has already said in what I thought was an excellent speech, there are numerous jobs in all these services which many disabled people could do effectively with or without reasonable adjustments. I have never heard anyone advocate that those services must employ disabled people to do the jobs for which their disabilities make them justifiably unsuitable.
Unfortunately, however, the existence of some jobs requiring high degrees of physical ability is used to justify banning disabled people from every job. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, some of those services already keep employees who have been disabled in the course of their work. That shows that the opportunities are there in the forces and yet, surprisingly at present, the employers would be

1543
entirely justified in refusing employment to others with identical disabilities in identical jobs who were not already in their employ.
I am delighted that Clause 5 of the Bill will abolish any exemptions, no matter how many employees a firm might employ. I find it very difficult to justify any number when it comes to discrimination. I found it difficult in 1995 and I found it even more difficult in 1999. Therefore, this is a most welcome measure.
However, despite the proviso of reasonable adjustments, I can foresee difficulties that might arise because of human nature and a conflict of personalities in small two or three-person businesses. It could be made difficult, but rather than exempt such firms on those grounds, might it not be possible to arrange added safeguards to protect the interests of those employing one or two people against malicious prosecutions?
The RNIB would like to bring voluntary work and work placements fully within Part 2 of the DDA, and I totally agree. I tried hard, in conjunction with SKILL, of which I am the president, to get work placements covered during the passage of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act.
The further education and higher education institutions will be responsible for the accessibility of courses, including work placements, but they do not fully cover students on work experience against discrimination in the workplace. We really must do something about that. Work experience is becoming an increasingly central element of the curriculum in secondary education, as well as in FE and HE.
To ensure that disabled learners have access to the same opportunities as their non-disabled peers must be a priority for the Government—a government who place such strong emphasis on boosting the employability and employment of disabled people. Yet disabled learners on work placements and disabled volunteers are denied the protection of the DDA in the workplace unless they are paid.
Employers are not required by law to make any kind of reasonable adjustments for them. I hope that we can find some way of removing the disincentives to employers against giving work placements to disabled students. The task force stated that a code of practice should be developed to cover volunteers and that if necessary a reserve power should be taken to include them in the DDA. The question of work placements was not even addressed.
When she comes to reply, can the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, detail what steps are being taken to develop the code of practice? Can the DRC be asked to consult as regards what form DDA protection for disabled volunteers and students on work experience should take? What systems of support need to be put in place to protect and encourage such students? I have not given notice of this question so I shall be content if the noble Baroness replies to me in writing.
Another remedial measure that I wholeheartedly support is Clause 7, which excludes transport from the effects of measures covered by Part III of the Act.
1544
Surely it is totally illogical to allow discrimination in respect of goods and services provided on trains and buses whose accessibility has been prescribed under Part V of the Act. It has led to some gross injustices, in particular in respect of blind people. Transport is an issue particularly close to my heart because I am a member of the Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People. Furthermore, it is a subject which is close to the heart of its president, Sir Peter Large, whom noble Lords will know instigated the CORAD Report, in which anti-discrimination legislation was first advocated. I am greatly indebted to him for his thoughts on this matter, which have informed much of the speech I give tonight.
Whether and how Clause 7 will affect physical access to aircraft and ships not presently covered in the Act remains to be seen, but I hope that the possible difficulties here will not preclude goods and services on accessible transport vehicles being made subject to the Act.
I must confess that there are certain measures in the Bill the full ramifications of which I cannot yet assess. I look forward to further enlightenment on those issues during the course of our discussions on the relevant clauses.
I should like to flag up two areas of uncertainty in the 1995 Act which I hope will be clarified during the passage of the Bill or taken note of in good time before they become significantly important in October 2004. I do not think that either will require primary legislation; both can probably be remedied in regulations.
The first concerns uncertainty about the application of the Act. What exactly is meant by "facilities"? Do they include, for example, bridges, roads, on-street and off-street parking, children's playgrounds, village greens, nature reserves and nature trails? Further clarification and specific examples of what is and is not a facility would be extremely useful. As president of the Disabled Ramblers—although I must say that I have never been a rambler myself—I know that this is a point of great interest to the members of that association. Issues such as the accessibility of footbridges over rivers, towpaths and so forth have created huge problems. If some or all of these examples are deemed not to constitute facilities, there will be ample scope for making the lives of disabled people more difficult. narrower and less enjoyable than they need to be.
The second area of uncertainty is when the greater expense or additional cost of making reasonable adjustments can or cannot be passed on to a disabled customer. When an accessible taxi is available. is it permissible to charge a disabled passenger something extra, as I have been told has happened? Other possible examples include adaptations to a powered wheelchair to enable it to be controlled by a particular disabled person; ticket surcharges levied to pay for the hire of helpers to enable disabled people to attend or take part in New Year's Eve celebrations at an hotel; loading disabled people who cannot walk into aircraft seats; hiring a BSL interpreter to allow a deaf person to hear

1545
a paid lecturer at a function in a village hall; and a woman with cerebral palsy being charged more at a hairdressing salon because of her uncontrolled head movements. Those examples should show which of the additional charges are legitimate and which are not.
This is a hugely welcome Bill. No doubt some will argue that one or two of the clauses do not go far enough. Others will point out that there are still areas of discrimination that are excluded. No doubt others will think that we have done enough to eliminate discrimination and that some or other element, or even the entire Bill, goes too far and is yet another unwelcome addition to legislation governing people's rights. Perhaps those people should read what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in his speech. I hope that we will be able to make progress and will improve the Bill during its passage through this House, in particular with regard to mental health.
To those people who say that we have gone too far and to those who say that we should not pass the Bill because it will not plug all the gaps, I would point cut. as did the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, that several of its clauses fill holes in the existing legislation that were exposed and well delineated during debates held in 1995 when the original legislation was being considered in this House. I very much hope that those acknowledged gaps will not he allowed to persist merely because this amendment Bill omits some desirable extension to the DDA or because someone might consider that one or other measure goes too far to be contemplated at this time.
I wish the Bill a safe and speedy passage and that it will receive the Government's blessing. Better still, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, perhaps the Government will come forward with a Bill of their own.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Bragg: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Ashley for bringing the Second Reading of this Bill to your Lordships' House. Over the past months we have heard many reasons for the continuation of this House. Some have been to do with the number of amendments considered—I believe that well over 4,000 were considered and sent back to the other place, where most of them were adopted—while others have to do with the independent voices and deeply informed experience which make the opinions and the cases of some noble Lords heard in this place. I would suggest that none has been more successful and more important than that of my noble friend Lord Ashley in the area of disability.
I have known my noble friend since the 1960s when we worked together at the BBC Lime Grove studios. I admired him then as a television producer. I admire him even more now, if that is possible, as a fighting Member of your Lordships' House.
I hope that the House will excuse me for a moment while I clean my contact lens which is disabling me from reading my speech. It is ironic and rather trivial, but I shall have to see to it. That is better.
1546
Tonight marks the first occasion on which I have had the opportunity to make such remarks about my noble friend. I could not let it pass by.
I should also like to point out that I, like many others concerned in the general area of disability, welcome the Bill. I welcome also all that the Government have done so far. There are shortcomings. Those shortcomings are seized on by the usual standing army of the Government's critics and, rightly, they are being addressed here tonight. However, I would suggest that disability is one of several areas in which the Government are now making steady, if unspectacular—certainly unsung—but definite progress. The Bill marks a fundamental and important step forward and I support it, but in one area, at least, it is not yet enough. More steps are needed.
I speak as the president of MIND. I have been associated with MIND for over 15 years and now have the privilege to serve as its president. Nevertheless, I hope that the House will be assured that I also speak, as do all noble Lords, independently on this issue. Others have covered many and different areas of disability, but I shall concentrate on mental illness. mental ill health and, in this context, mental disability, as did my noble friend Lady Wilkins in her excellent speech, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth. Inevitably there will be some overlap—something which is not entirely unusual in your Lordships' House.
The ambition to work is widespread among people who use mental health services, yet exclusion from employment is very extensive for this group. The employment rate for people with mental illness is 19 per cent, compared with 47 per cent for all disabled people, and is the lowest for any disability group. In one survey, over one-quarter of employers said that they would never or only occasionally employ someone who had had mental illness in the past. That rose to almost half for people with current mental illness. Yet it is estimated that up to 40 per cent of people with a psychiatric disability are well capable of holding down a job.
Strengthening the Disability Discrimination Act to combat discrimination against people with mental health problems who wish to enter the work force or who are dismissed from employment is a vital reform. The Bill addresses this issue and we at MIND welcome that.
While we support the Bill, we should like it to be amended in terms of the definition of "disability" to provide greater protection for people with mental health problems. By amending the list of "normal day-to-day activities" in Schedule 1, by amending the definition of "long term" and by deleting the requirement that mental health illnesses be "clinically well-recognised", this aim would be achieved.
A comparative survey of the 11 countries whose disability discrimination laws contain a detailed definition of "disability" shows that the UK DDA is the most disadvantageous for people with mental health problems. The Irish and Australian federal law., for instance, specify,

1547
"a condition, illness or disease which affects a person's thought process, perception of reality, emotions or judgement or which results in disturbed behaviour".
The Americans with Disabilities Act 1990, upon which the UK Act is based, has been amplified in regulations and guidance to ensure full coverage of people with mental health problems.
The Disability Rights Task Force report made several recommendations on this issue. The Government's response was, I am afraid, very disappointing. They recommended that the Disability Rights Commission should keep these issues under review as part of its general monitoring of the operation of the Act. None of the task force recommendations appear in the proposed Bill. I suggest that this should be thought through again and that a truer measure of need be put in the Bill.
There are three main problems with the current definitions. First, the long term. The "mental impairment" must have a long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. "Long term" is defined in Schedule 1 to the Act to be a period of at least 12 months, or likely to last for 12 months. This is particularly problematic for a person who suffers a period of depression, or who suffers from post traumatic stress disorder, which may last for only six months or less but be sufficiently severe to require sickness leave or hospital treatment. It is estimated that 20 per cent of people who have a first episode of manic depression do not get another. These people would therefore not be covered by the provision in the definition for recurrent conditions. Several of the cases found by the DRC to have been rejected in employment tribunals concerned people with severe depression lasting up to six months only.
The second problem concerns the list of "normal day-to-day activities". The effects of mental health problems do not fit readily into the categories listed as "normal day-to-day activities", and some effects not at all. The problem is also compounded by the fact that the substantial effect must be to one of the activities, not spread across them with a cumulatively substantial adverse effect.
Finally, I turn to the point of clinically well-recognised mental illness. This requirement sets an extra condition for people suffering from mental illness who wish to rely on the Act. That is very unfair. It is problematic because medical definitions and diagnoses of mental illnesses are both uncertain and controversial. To have a different rule for physical and for mental conditions is itself discriminatory and out of place on the face of the Disability Discrimination Act. However, there is very little evidence to suggest that this is causing problems in practice.
Let me take depression as an example. People who have a depressive condition may exhibit a variety of symptoms—disruption to normal sleep patterns, a withdrawal from social life, difficulty in going out of the house, agoraphobic symptoms, intermittent panic attacks and a persistent pattern of self-harming or attempting suicide may all he characteristic of a
1548
diagnosis of depression. None of these distressing symptoms is satisfactorily encapsulated in "normal day-to-day activities". It is difficult to estimate accurately how many people are denied protection by the Act because of the deficiency in the definition, but people with a diagnosis of depression are the group most likely to find problems.
The ONS 2000 report, Psychiatric Morbidity Among Adults, found that at any one time in Great Britain, of people aged between 16 and 64, one in six suffer from mental distress. Of these, 9.2 per cent have mixed anxiety and depression; 4.7 per cent generalised anxiety disorder; 2.8 per cent a depressive episode; 1.9 per cent phobia; 1.2 per cent obsessive compulsive disorder; and 0.7 per cent panic disorder.
One in five people in our country will be affected by depression, and one in 100 people will experience manic depression at some point in their life. More than 2.9 million people in the UK are diagnosed as having depression at any one time—that is, at this moment in time, now. There are 30 working days lost due to depression and anxiety for every single day lost to industrial disputes. About one in six people who experience severe depression eventually commit suicide. Seventy per cent of recorded suicides are by people who have experienced some form of depression. On average it takes 10 years for someone to receive an accurate diagnosis of bipolar affective disorder, which is manic depression. One in five people who are not accurately diagnosed go on to commit suicide.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that I spoke as president of MIND, as indeed I do. I also speak as someone who has had two unhappy experiences of depression. I have some experience then of the blight that this can bring to people's lives. It is, in every sense and by any comparison, disabling.
Although we are undoubtedly making progress, it is still true that mental illnesses are simply not regarded as equal to physical illnesses, although they can be just as disabling if not more disabling. You pull a muscle or damage a disc in your back and everyone sympathises. You suffer from a depression which fells you equally and people are nervous and shy away. Obviously I generalise. The mood is changing and many people in our society are becoming much more tolerant and understanding. These people include the Government, I think. Once again, I welcome the Bill, but I hope and trust that in the area of mental distress they will take up the suggestions made here, by MIND and by other associations and go further. Like my noble friend Lord Ashley, I commend the Bill to the House and hope for the speedy passage of a strengthened version through your Lordships' House.
8.17 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I shall speak exceedingly briefly, but I want to give my support to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, and to most parts of his Bill.
I spent today chairing the Winston Churchill Fellowship in the category of "Long term medical conditions". The Bill follows well the debate on the

1549
National Institute for Clinical Excellence. One of the applicants we interviewed today was a professor with multiple sclerosis. I asked him if he had tried beta interferon. "No", he sadly said. Postcode prescribing discriminates. For severely disabled people who might have their quality of life improved, it is a tragedy that drugs which can help so many people with complicated disabling conditions are not available. I hope that the drugs will become cheaper and available to all those who need them.
It is not surprising that this Disability Discrimination (Amendment) Bill is now before us. Disability is very complex and very varied, as the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, said. People have many different needs, but discrimination must be eliminated wherever possible. The Bill aims to fill some of the gaps in previous legislation.
I welcome the extension of the DDA protection to those with cancer and HIV. There have been problems and serious cases of discrimination when people have been diagnosed with HIV. The registered blind and partially sighted people should be included, as stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, in her excellent speech.
I welcome the removal of employment exemptions in regard to police officers, fire fighters, prison officers and the Armed Forces under the DDA. I hope that suitable employment can be found for people who wish to work in their chosen profession. But a realistic and safe framework should be found; they must never put fellow workers at risk because of their disability.
I have some reservations about the proposals relating to small employers—some of whom are having great difficulty surviving as it is. I hope that the Minister will comment on this point.
Helpful in formation should be available to all those who want to improve the many facilities and needs of disabled people. I have heard from many who would like to help but who do not know where to obtain information. Could the Minister ensure that local authorities do more to make information available to all those who need it? That would be helpful.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am speaking in the gap because, when the list of speakers was drawn up, I was not sure that I should be able to be present. I strongly support the Bill. It will have a beneficial effect on many of those who are not covered by the current terms of the DDA. In particular, as a member of the All Party Parliamentary Group on AIDS, I welcome the extension of the Act to cover people with HIV from the point of diagnosis rather than onset of symptoms. HIV/AIDS organisations have long wanted such a provision. There is no doubt that discrimination in such cases begins at diagnosis rather than at the point of actual ill health. As a trustee of Cancer Backup, I very much welcome the provisions relating to cancer patients, as I do those abolishing some of the exemptions under current legislation.
Secondly, I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke—whom we all hold in high regard—will consider certain amendments to the Bill;
1550
for example, those so ably dealt with by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, and the noble Lord, Lord Bragg. Mental illness may soon overtake physical illness as a disabling condition in this country. There are currently some 650,000 people with a diagnosed severe mental illness. At any one time, the vast majority are economically inactive. Yet most of them want to work—and work could contribute greatly to their well-being. A survey conducted by the Mental Health Foundation in 2000 demonstrated the extent of the discrimination that such people face in finding employment.
As has been made clear, the current Disability Discrimination Act does not deal with the matter satisfactorily. I shall not repeat the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, or those so ably made by the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, in relation to the wording of the Act; for example, in terms of mental illness being a clinically well recognised mental impairment which has,
"a substantial adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities",
the actual list of "normal day-to-day activities", and so on. In reality, these tilt the balance against those with mental health problems. The Act is inadequate to deal with mental illness. It is often difficult for those with conditions such as depression to bring themselves within the terms of the DDA. The Act desperately needs amendment in that respect, as both the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and MIND have pointed out. The result is that the DRC has found that the definitions within the Act clearly cause major difficulties for those with mental health problems.
There are issues relating to the blind and the partially sighted, who have also experienced problems in establishing that they are covered by the present legislation. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will take on board some of the suggested amendments during the forthcoming stages of the Bill. Apart from that, we strongly support the provisions of the Bill as it stands.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, most of the "usual suspects" are present for this debate, with one newcomer, but not all of them. It seems odd not to hear the views of the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Morris of Manchester. However, I am sure that they will soon join this particular fray. The noble Baroness seems to be slightly ambiguous about the prospect.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis. of Heigham): Not at all.
Lord Addington: My Lords, it is also good to see the noble Baroness in her place on the Government Front Bench. In the past she has been on the other side of the Chamber when we have debated these matters I remember her being on my side in certain Divisions during the passage of the original Bill. Unfortunately, when people move across to the other side of the

1551
Chamber, one suddenly finds the brakes of government being applied. Perhaps this happens to all of us, and one day perhaps I shall find out. However, we have not moved as fast as we had hoped.
The 1995 Act was never seen by most of those involved as an end to the argument; it was merely a starting point. It was not happy in its inception—it was effectively dragged from the then government as a result of pressure from both outside and inside Parliament. As a result, the Act has a series of glaring holes.
The exemption for small firms is one that I particularly remember. I have never felt that having one more employee provides the grounds for not discriminating, when one less means that discrimination is possible. That is simply not right. There is something basically flawed about it. The series of exemptions in the Act does not make sense.
The defence of reasonableness runs through the 1995 Act. It states that if a person cannot do the job, he or she does not have to be employed. That is how I have always interpreted it. Then surely that relates to the Armed Forces exemption, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. Surely it is the case that if a disabled person cannot fulfil the basic criteria, the person should not be included. If, as a result of future technical developments, disabled servicemen and women can do their jobs satisfactorily, their entry to the services should be accepted.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to the disability that I know best. How many dyslexic infantrymen have there been in the Army? We do not know. There have always been such groups in the service. Let us not pretend that the barrier is rock-solid. That has never been the case. It is possible that the Army does not know the extent to which it has included disabled servicemen under the definitions in current legislation. I merely put that as a point of argument to the noble Lord and others who have spoken.
I have been on a steep learning curve in one area of disability. The noble Lord, Lord Bragg, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, spoke at considerable length about mental illness, as did my noble friend. When I first heard the suggestion that the Disability Discrimination Act should be extended to cover mental illness, I asked myself whether such a provision belonged in the Act. The Bill extends the Act to cover two new groups. Should we add a third; or should we opt for an amendment to bring all these areas together? We are all familiar with the "list" argument. Should we have a huge list including every possibility, or should we opt for a general definition at the beginning, so as not to miss anyone out?
I have concluded that a definition at the beginning might be a better way forward; and that a better approach would be to include in disability discrimination legislation the history of illness and its effects. Let us not kid ourselves. There will be other groups who are affected. We must bear that in mind. Having heard many of the arguments, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, and the noble Baroness,
1552
Lady Wilkins, have put their finger on a major flaw in our anti-discrimination legislation, even if there is a semantic argument as to whether mental illness is a disability. The history of illness means that people can be discriminated against. We could go on arguing the point. However, we are now down to tactics as opposed to principles. Our approach should be: how can we achieve the best objectives?
I cannot say much more about the rest of the Bill because I shall simply end up agreeing with virtually everybody who has spoken. The muddle of transport at the moment is ridiculous. The possibilities and permutations of a journey on public transport are farcical. It is very black humour, but there you are. The idea that somebody should be refused entry to public transport because they are taking slightly longer to pay a fare is also ridiculous. It is beyond words.
We have to take a stab at a broader brush approach. The Bill contains sensible proposals on housing. The principle is unarguable.
I shall try not to repeat everything that has been said. The Bill is another brave attempt at more comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation. I strongly suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, does not regard it as the final word because the foundations are not what we would have chosen. If the Government do not see sense and accept the Bill, we may have a look at expanding the foundations. As has already been said, this issue is not going to go away. I look forward to the Minister's response.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for introducing his Private Member's Bill and explaining its objectives so clearly. Disability and disability discrimination are matters that demand and deserve our attention. I welcome this opportunity to consider these important issues.
The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which was introduced in the other place by William Hague, who was then the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, represented the first attempt by a British Government to legislate on the concept of disability discrimination. It was a wide-reaching piece of legislation, which sought to enable all disabled people to engage fully and profitably in society. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, it has been described by the Equal Opportunities Review as,
"the most important discrimination legislation in a generation"
and,
"in some respects, the most radical of our discrimination laws".
However, on these Benches we accept that the time has come for a more proactive approach to equality for disabled people to make it easier for them to access and enforce their rights. It is becoming apparent that the legislation in its current form has a number of gaps that we must seek to close. For example, the extent to which electoral services, the built environment or highways are covered by the DDA is at present unclear. I note that Clause 8 would ensure that all such service functions were covered, thus sweeping away some of the uncertainty about what is and is not

1553
subject to the Act. Inequalities remain real and persistent for disabled people and the law sanctions discrimination in too many areas.
On these Benches we were pleased to support government legislation establishing the Disability Rights Commission. We believe that the commission has started well by emphasising the importance of example and conciliation as a first resort, but with underpinning legal sanctions for wilful and unacceptable behaviour. However, the Government have been slow to act further on the provision of greater protection for disabled people. The 1997 Labour manifesto contained a commitment to,
"comprehensive. enforceable civil rights for disabled people".
In March last year, the Government's response to the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force was published. The 2001 Labour manifesto affirmed the Government's commitment to implementing that response. Yet still we await definite action. The Disability Rights Commission has asked the Government to introduce a disability Bill in the 2002 Queen's Speech. If the Government do not back this Bill, they should take heed of the strength and breadth of support for it and introduce their own legislation at the earliest opportunity. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said, it is time to get a move on.
With the Government apparently giving no indication of when and how they plan to implement the remaining Disability Rights Task Force recommendations, I turn to the Bill. Like the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy de Knayth and Lady Masham, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I welcome the extension of DDA protection in Clause 1 to those with cancer and HIV. The complexity of the current definition encourages defendants to make spurious challenges to the claimant's status as a disabled person, adding to the length and cost of litigation and deterring disabled people from bringing or continuing cases.
I am particularly aware of the continuing unhappiness of organisations such as the RNIB, which has found that visually impaired people often have problems establishing that they are covered by the Act, sometimes because they have developed coping mechanisms and sometimes because tribunals have failed to apply guidance correctly.
Equally, I have received representations from MIND, which is unable to support the Bill fully, as the definition of disability does not include people with mental health problems. The noble Lord, Lord Bragg, spoke eloquently about mental health problems. I look forward to helping to improve the Bill on that important issue in Committee.
The Bill addresses the immensely important issue of disability and the workplace. Disabled people make up a large and growing proportion of the working age population. Properly implemented internal grievance procedures can help employers to resolve complaints in the workplace, meaning that fewer cases are taken to tribunal, which can be a lengthy and difficult process for everyone concerned. Employers must create work cultures in which discrimination cannot
1554
exist. Businesses react better to new legal frameworks when they can appreciate the strong business case for disability-friendly policies.
However, a recently published survey showed that employers are failing to introduce innovative, multi-disciplinary approaches to managing disability at work. That suggests that disability policies have become static, with few going beyond the basic administrative requirement. Moreover, the poll showed that only 45 per cent of respondents had made use of government funding in that area. Wider awareness of such schemes would mark a big step forward for disabled people—those already in the workplace and those looking to join.
None the less, like my noble friend Lord Swinfen, I must profess some concern at the provisions laid out in Clauses 4 and 5, in particular the proposal to end the current employment exemptions to bring the Armed Forces within the DDA. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilkins and Lady Darcy de Knayth, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but on this point I find myself in agreement with the Government. It would not be appropriate at this time to bring the Armed Forces under the remit of the Act. We have arguably the best Armed Forces in the world, and they must have full fighting capability.
With reference to Clause 7, I find myself turning again to the failure of the present Government. The travel choices for all disabled people should be increased, and easier access to public transport should be made a priority. However, here I sense that the Government have failed to build on the earlier model set down by the DDA. In their 1998 transport White Paper, the Government agreed that, "public transport must meet the needs of all".
However, save for introducing new accessibility regulations for public transport, the Government have been slow to improve transport choices for the disabled. We have been expecting the Government to publish a consultation document on transport for the disabled, but little has been forthcoming. Perhaps the Minister can advise the House when that document might be launched. I quite appreciate that I have not given her notice of the point, but perhaps she can write to me and put a copy of her letter in the Library.
I move on to the issues highlighted by Clauses 10 to 12. The Bill would apply to duties to make "reasonable adjustments" for the sale and rent of premises. That would be welcome. Basic forms of discrimination, such as guide-dog bans and refusing to communicate simple information, could be challenged more effectively. However, I must express some concern at the extent to which these "reasonable adjustments" could be taken. Under the Bill, a disabled person could request permission to make a physical alteration to the premises and the landlord would not be able to withhold consent unreasonably. My concern is that such provisions could overburden a landlord and the sense of "reasonable" could be applied too subjectively. A scenario could arise in which different pieces of legislation were applying different pressures

1555
to a landlord. It might, for example, be ruled illegal for a landlord to refuse to convert a property for a disabled occupant, while it might simultaneously be ruled illegal for him to perform that work under the planning regulations.
I conclude by saying, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, how much I admire the work of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, on disability issues. The thrust of his work is both valuable and admirable and he provides an example for us all to follow. It is clear that we still have barriers to overcome in ensuring that all disabled people are able to live in dignity and independence and play their full part in society. I hope that today's debate has gone some way to ensuring that that happens.
8.43 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ashley has introduced a Bill that clearly has wide support in the House. Extending and enhancing disabled people's rights is a topic that we debate regularly, and I think that we do it—as many of your Lordships have said—with considerable expertise. As other noble Lords have said, the issue is not one that will go away. I also do not think that, reading today's Hansard, one would be able to tell the party allegiance of any of the speakers in the debate. I think that that shows the bond we have between us.
For once, as this is a Private Member's Bill, I do not have the customary responsibility of replying to the debate and answering points. However, as even newly ingrained habits die hard, I am happy to have a go at answering just a couple of the wider, more salient points that have been made.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, asked when additional costs can be passed on to customers and gave hairdressers as an example. The costs can he passed on when the differences in treatment can be justified as a specialist bespoke service to an individual disabled person which costs more than the standard service. That is the basic position.
The noble Baroness also asked about what is meant by "facilities" in Part III, and whether they include footpaths, towpaths and bridges. The term facility is very wide ranging and is generally interpreted generously by the courts. I should expect footpaths, towpaths and bridges to be covered by the Act when they are part of public footpaths.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about local authorities' responsibilities in disseminating information. When information is a service, it will have to be provided in an accessible manner, such as in mail-packs, by local authorities. She also asked about small firms. Small employers will obviously not have to do anything unreasonable, as other noble Lords have commented. However, I am sure that she will be happy to know that, with the DRC, the Government will be helping to provide effective advice and information so that small employers understand the
1556
Act and are not burdened by it. We shall use the time before the changes are due to meet just those needs and seek to allay just those worries.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, the Minister said that she expects that bridges and footpaths will be covered by the legislation. Has she said that in a Pepper v. Hart sense? May one apply that interpretation to her comments?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it may be interpreted more as "Yes, Minister" than as "Yes, Pepper and Hart". However, the guidance that I have been given on the specific point is that they are likely to be covered by the Act when they are part of public footpaths. I cannot say, beyond that, what weight the courts will give to that assertion. It is the courts who will ultimately interpret the word facility, but my understanding is that we expect them to be covered by the word facility.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, there has been a huge amount of trouble over the issue.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it might be more helpful if the noble Baroness and I followed up the matter in correspondence. If she wishes to write to me more fully on the issue, I shall seek more expert advice than I have been able to receive today. The issue was somewhat thrown at us, and it is one of the very few not precisely addressed by the amendment that my noble friend Lord Ashley makes in his Bill.
In framing his Bill, my noble friend has—with his usual wily perspicacity—taken elements from the Government's response to the Disability Rights Task Force, Towards Inclusion, and found inspiration from other sources. However, whatever our view of the Bill's content, the Government do not believe that it is the right vehicle at the right time for taking forward legislation to amend the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 or the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999.
The Government have a positive agenda on civil rights for disabled people, and we have taken action to deliver on our commitments. I shall return to that point. However, before addressing the issue of the Bill itself, I should like to remind the House of some of our achievements and to outline recent progress, to help put discussion in context.
When we came to government in 1997, our manifesto made it clear that the DDA was neither comprehensive nor easily enforceable. I am delighted to welcome the noble Lord. Lord Astor of Hever, from the then government, to that view. We said that we would put that right and we started to do so very quickly. We established the Disability Rights Task Force within a few months to advise us on what to do and how best to do it. The task force was chaired by the Minister for Disabled People, with members from disability organisations, the business world and the public sector. Many members were disabled people or people with other personal experience of disability.

1557
Setting up a commission to enforce civil rights was its first task. In March 1998, the task force made recommendations to the Government about what the role and duties of a disability rights commission might be. We then consulted and produced the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999. By April 2000, the Disability Rights Commission was up and running. Since then, as your Lordships may be aware, the commission has established itself as an important source of information and advice for disabled people and also for business and employers.
In its first 18 months the commission's Helpline has received almost 100,000 calls; its website has received around 400 visits each day and its caseworker service has assisted over 3,000 disabled people who have brought forward complaints of discrimination. It has also established a conciliation service for disputes arising under the goods and services provisions of the DDA and has provided legal representation in nearly 80 cases. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that that is an excellent start and will want to join me in thanking Bert Massie, the chairman of the commission, and his staff for what they have achieved over this time. It is remarkable and effective.
The task force then looked at a wide range of complex issues which impacted across all areas of society. It published its final report From Exclusion to Inclusion. Noble Lords may recall that the report made 156 recommendations for change, including some which involved legislation. Prime among those was the need to bring within the scope of the DDA the provision of education to disabled children and adults in schools and in further, higher and adult education.
We immediately announced our intention to take forward that recommendation. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 ensures that, from September this year, disabled children and adults seeking to access education services will be protected against unlawful discrimination and education providers will have to consider making reasonable adjustments.
Aside from the work of the task force, the setting up of the Disability Rights Commission and the SEN Act, we also committed ourselves to implement the final phase of Part III of the DDA in October 2004. As your Lordships are aware, that will require reasonable adjustments to physical features of premises where access to a service is impossible or unreasonably difficult. The duty will be supported by a revised code of practice, which the DRC has prepared. That was laid before Parliament in November and completed its laying period today. It is a significant document that will help service providers and the courts understand the new and existing access duties.
I understand that the DRC intends to publish the code towards the end of February. And it is our intention to bring the code into force around the middle of the year. That will ensure that service providers have it well in advance of the new duties coming into force thus enabling them to prepare properly. Indeed, we are encouraging service providers
1558
to make adjustments to physical features before the new duties come into force; for example, while they are refurbishing their premises.
Implementation in 2004 of this final phase of the duties will be a major move forward in improving access to goods and services for disabled people. It will open up to them many more services and bring closer an inclusive society, one in which disabled people can enjoy the services that non-disabled people, such as those of us in this Chamber, often take for granted—simple things like eating out in a restaurant, using the local library, using train services or visiting a cinema or a theatre in due course.
In preparation for that, we have today launched "Open to Change", the latest in a series of publicity campaigns. These advertisements are aimed at small service providers and encourage them to make minor adjustments to ensure that disabled people can use their services. The campaign invites businesses to contact the Disability Rights Commission Helpline or website for help and advice.
Towards Inclusion was our response to the task force's final report. It outlined the progress we had made on issues of importance to disabled people and explained our position on all the task force recommendations. Although we are well forward on considering responses to the proposals in Towards Inclusion, we now have to do so in the light of what is needed to implement the employment directive brought forward under Article 13 of the EC Act.
That directive provides a common framework of protection against unfair discrimination in employment, vocational guidance and vocational training across Europe. It covers discrimination on grounds of age, disability, sexual orientation and religion or belief. This Government played an active part in its negotiation and adoption in November 2000. The Government are currently consulting on the implementation of this directive and also a directive on race equality. That consultation—in a document called Towards Equality and Diversity—does not end until 31st March.
During negotiations we ensured that the employment directive takes an approach to tackling discrimination—both direct and indirect—againstdisabled people which allows us to continue with the main, familiar elements of the DDA using the concept of reasonable adjustment, while underpinning our commitment to bringing into coverage a range of currently excluded employment and occupations. The consultation looks at options for amending the DDA in the few instances where it is possible that reasonable adjustments may not be the better approach; that is, in relation to performance pay schemes, occupational pension arrangements, group insurance schemes and bodies which control entries to professions or trade generally known as qualifying bodies. In each case we are consulting on whether the interests of disabled people and the sectors concerned will be best served by adopting an approach to indirect discrimination which involves objective justification or one which relies on making reasonable adjustments.

1559
We will also be making improvements to the DDA which did not form part of Towards Inclusion. For example, we will be specifically outlawing harassment and including provisions on the burden of proof so that, once a disabled person can show a prima facie case that discrimination has taken place, it will be for the respondent to show that their actions were not discriminatory.
We have to decide exactly how to reflect the directive when we amend the DDA, and what implications that might have for other things we may wish to do to improve the Act. We believe that the right approach is to look strategically at how all that impacts on the DDA and then to take forward appropriate legislative changes for securing effective civil rights in this area. That clearly has implications for proposals which are in Towards Inclusion, not least because, in a number of respects, we will be going further than envisaged even by the task force.
We have an opportunity to ensure that, as we seek to implement the directive's requirements across a wide range of areas, we do so in a coherent way which takes account of our other plans. What we have proposed in the Article 13 consultation document is to implement the directive's disability provisions in October 2004, two years ahead of the requirement in the directive. I am sure that this House welcomes that commitment. It means that the provisions will be implemented at the same time as we will be introducing the final part of the DDA's rights of access to goods, facilities and services.
Noble Lords will be well aware that we are committed to ending the exemption of small employers at that time. However, the directive means that we will also be covering business partners, barristers, advocates and their pupils, the police, prison officers, fire fighters, qualifying bodies and others. All told, these changes mean that we will be covering around 7 million new jobs in which disabled people could work, including around 600,000 in which they currently do.
As your Lordships will see, we have a very important package of changes due to be implemented in October 2004 which will make a meaningful difference to disabled people's lives. If we can add to those, we will do so. But now is not a time when I can outline every detail of the Government's overall strategy.
That brings me to the substance of my noble friend's Bill. It is difficult for me to comment on the proposals in the Bill when I am not in a position to confirm the Government's own strategy in every detail. I cannot, therefore. be drawn into addressing our intentions for each and every proposal that we have made, or which my noble friend has made, or which your Lordships have indicated tonight they may go on to make to my noble friend's Bill. However, I can make some comments which I hope will help the House.
Before I do that, I want to challenge the assertions that have been somewhat unfairly bandied around the House tonight that the Government are failing to
1560
advance comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people. I repeat, since 1997 we have introduced the Disability Rights Commission, education has been brought into the scope of DDA by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, and we propose to implement Article 13 of the directive two years ahead of when we might otherwise need to.
Perhaps I can make some further points. First, I wish to emphasise the extensive changes coming forward in October 2004, not only covering all small employers and bringing them within the framework of the DDA, and extending it to cover important occupations such as the police, but also the bringing forward of the final, full rights of physical access to premises for disabled customers.
Secondly, we will not legislate while we are consulting on the employment directive. Copies of the consultation document have been sent to over 6,000 people and organisations, including many disability organisations. The consultation does not end until March and we shall need to consider the responses thereafter. That takes time.
Thirdly, Ministers in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will shortly undertake their major consultation exercise on extending the scope of DDA to cover transport. They will consult widely with transport providers and disability organisations. My colleagues there would not intend to legislate until that consultation is over.
Finally, we have made absolutely clear—this was a point made both by the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Astor, both of whom I believe have experience in this field—that there are some things we simply will not do. Extending the DDA to the armed services is one such. It is not a question of consultation or discussion but of our concept of good and responsible government.
My noble friend's proposals in the Bill are affected by all four of the qualifications I have just outlined. It cannot therefore be right for us to seek to legislate in this way. Some of my noble friend's proposals flow from the Employment Directive, one involves the transport proposal on which the Government are consulting in a different department and yet another seeks to bring the Armed Forces within the scope of Part II of the DDA, which we have said we shall not do. As I said earlier, I shall not enter into a process of testing all the clauses in the Bill to see whether we agree with them now or may agree with them in the future or with some modified version of them. But I shall say this: if we did. there are difficulties with them which would require significant work to overcome.
It is not a one issue Bill that my noble friend has introduced, despite his seductive style. This is not a one issue Bill with simple provisions. These are complex issues and the Bill seeks to amend rightly a complex Act. It affects the Human Rights Act, the Police Act and employment tribunals. It has implications for Northern Ireland, education and transport provisions and the consultation that may be required with every government body, every government agency, every

1561
local authority and every public and private transport body, to say nothing of the regulation that would necessarily follow. I do not want to add to the complexities but your Lordships will understand that one does not address a problem by a simple piece of legislation. It has to be preceded by elaborate consultation across government and elaborate consultation with all the appropriate affected bodies. It has then to be extended to Northern Ireland, Scotland and the like. It also has to be followed up with workable regulations.
Inevitably, my noble friend's Bill confronts the problems that face all Private Members' Bills. Legislation has to be carefully thought through before it can be advanced. Taking forward my noble friend's Bill would result in piecemeal legislation which would have to be amended again when we took forward other of our proposals. That would be a strategy guaranteed to confuse those affected, I suspect, and certainly might bring down the wrath of some employer organisations which would be in the interests of no one, including disabled people.
In conclusion, it is customary to congratulate a noble Lord on introducing a Private Member's Bill where the Government believe that the Bill reflects their own policies and priorities. Therefore, I congratulate my noble friend on introducing his Bill and on his wily and shrewd attempt to draw out from us plans that we are not yet ready to produce. Therefore, I cannot offer the Government's wholehearted support.
We remain committed to pursuing an agenda that will produce effective change for disabled people. There can be no doubt that the changes we have introduced since 1997 have been widely welcomed and, in this context, the major stepping stones of the establishment of the DRC and the enactment of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act stand out. What we do next to amend the DDA will represent a further significant step forward and we must therefore ensure that it is a fully correct step. We are building on what we have done. We shall legislate when there is an opportunity to do so, and once we have taken account of all the factors involved in producing an effective legal framework.
We shall introduce significant and coherent improvements for disabled people in October 2004. And we shall continue to respect, and respond to, the desire of disabled people to lead independent lives as equal members of society. However, the Government cannot support my noble friend's Bill today as the appropriate, best and most suitable way forward.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, some sections of the press are quick to report odd debates in this House such as the discussion yesterday at Question Time on whether House of Lords Christmas cards were the correct size. The press reports that kind of debate in order to mock this House. However, if the press covers this debate, the public will gain a very different impression of what this House does. It really has been
1562
a superb debate and one of which I believe we can he proud indeed. The speakers have been eloquent, well informed, human and thoughtful and, indeed. if I may say so, thought provoking.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate which has constituted a wonderful discussion. I hope that it will be widely read by people interested in this subject. The few examples that we have heard of people suffering discrimination could be multiplied a millionfold. Enormous discrimination is taking place now in Britain, and we should be ashamed to allow any of it. Our legislation should be so comprehensive and so enforceable that such discrimination is not possible. This is supposed to be a civilised country but we allow that discrimination to go on and on and on. The fact is that discrimination equals suffering. It is our job to try to stop that suffering as best we can.
Before I address the speech of my noble friend the Minister, I wish to refer to some criticism from Members of the Back Benches. I fully appreciate concerns as regards the Army. However, all I would say is that the Army is a massive industry. It is, indeed, the best Army in the world, as the Minister said. It is a massive industry. Thousands of men do not go to the battlefront and into the trenches as in the 1914–18 war. The tail of the Army is enormous, as with any army. There are few personnel fighting at the front. Many personnel are involved in administration.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. We are not in a situation of fighting a 1914–18 war with static trench warfare. Warfare today is incredibly fluid. It does not matter where you are in the battle line; you are in the frontline far back in the tail. Every serviceman must be a soldier first, even if his job is that of a butcher. He must he capable of fighting wherever he is. If people are not capable of fighting, they endanger the lives of those around them.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the noble Lord is confusing two things. I am afraid that he is right to say that the Army today is complex, but he is wrong to assume that every person in the Army has to be able to fight. The fact is that with today's Army, battles do not go on at the front in the same way. However, I do not want to belabour the point at this stage.
It has been said that some Members of this House do not like the inclusion of the Army. We should discuss that in Committee, when I should be more than glad to discuss the details. It has also been suggested that those who are mentally ill, blind people and those with learning difficulties may be excluded. There is absolutely no intention on my part to exclude anyone. I assure those noble Lords who spoke so eloquently that we shall of course include such people. The right time for noble Lords to move amendments is in Committee. I am sure that the Minister will welcome, as I will, the many amendments that will be tabled—the Bill will have a good long session. I say to noble Lords, "Please table amendments"; I shall welcome them and he very glad to accommodate them

1563
The Minister gave the clear impression to the House that all is fine and lovely, that the Government are racing ahead making massive advances and that the Bill is so complex and piecemeal that it would be disastrous to pursue it. Did you ever hear such a story in your life? It is unbelievable that any Minister can get things so wrong. In terms of what the Government have done, no one in this House, including my noble friend, has paid more tribute to the Government for what they have done for disabled people than I have. Time and again—this appears in Hansard—I have said how splendid this is or that is.
I am sick of paying tributes, I have made so many. People think that I am trying to ingratiate myself with the Government, but I am not. There is no point in my noble friend coming out with the usual refrain that they have introduced the commission and special educational needs, and so on. We have already accepted that and paid tribute to the Government for doing so. Fine. Let us now discuss the Bill and the shortcomings in existing legislation.
The fact is that for all that the Government have done—which I repeat is admirable and splendid—thousands of people suffer discrimination, and it is our job to stop that. I have not said that no advances have been made, as my noble friend implied; I have said that advances have been made, but that they have not been made quickly enough. They should be realised far more speedily. All noble Lords apart from my noble friend agree on that. There have been some variations,
1564
difficulties and objections, but by and large that is the view of the House. The Government will isolate themselves if they reject the Bill as calculatedly and as dogmatically as the Minister seemed to be doing.
I do not want to go on at length because—I say this again—I have a high regard for what the Government have done. No one has spoken more vehemently than I have about how wonderful what they have done is. However, when it comes to advances, the Bill is a glorious—a golden—opportunity for the Government to move forward in a substantial way. Far from the Bill being piecemeal, the fact is that existing legislation is piecemeal. The Bill provides the Government with a comprehensive and enforceable package. That is what disabled people want.
Finally, it is almost time to get the placards out. I inform the Minister that we have a million tucked away in large buildings throughout Britain. If the Minister insists on saying no to the Bill, it would be time to get them out again. We could discuss that over a glass of beer. I am sure that we can reach some accommodation. I only hope that my noble friend—or another Government Minister—will meet us in Committee to discuss the amendments that will be tabled. We want some kind of reasoned advance from the Government. They have done that so far. Let us hope that they can do so in future. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past nine o'clock.

  Soft Drugs
  Soft Drugs
  Asylum Seekers
  Asylum Seekers
  Passports
  Passports
  Vulnerable Witnesses
  Vulnerable Witnesses
  Arms Exports
  Arms Exports
  ECGD: Yusefeli Project
  ECGD: Yusefeli Project
  Coastal Flooding
  Coastal Flooding
  Glass, Paper and Plastics Recycling
  Glass, Paper and Plastics Recycling
  Thirsk
  Thirsk
  Oilseed Production
  Oilseed Production
  A&E Units Wheelchair Access
  A&E Units Wheelchair Access
  NHS Patients in Private Hospitals in London
  NHS Patients in Private Hospitals in London
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists
  Digital Hearing Aids
  Digital Hearing Aids
  vCJD Cases
  vCJD Cases
  NHS Resource Allocation
  NHS Resource Allocation
  State Pension: National Insurance Contributions
  State Pension: National Insurance Contributions
  Wembley Stadium
  Wembley Stadium