Sitting of 24 January 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL
    Order for consideration, as amended, read
    To be considered on Monday 28 January at 7 o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions

  TREASURY
  Mr. Speaker: I am sure the House will understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here today. I know that Members will want me, on behalf of the House, to send him and his wife Sarah our sympathy and best wishes.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

  TREASURY

    Euro
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: When he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss the exchange rate against the euro. [27551]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Chancellor meets the Governor regularly, and they discuss a wide range of issues.
    Mr. Swayne: That is a matter of great comfort. Ministers have previously said that they have no intention of entering an exchange rate mechanism between sterling and the euro. Will the Chief Secretary now rule out absolutely the question of an exchange rate mechanism prior to any arrangement for joining the euro?
    Mr. Smith: We have made it clear that we have no intention of rejoining the exchange rate mechanism. I am happy to confirm that that is indeed the policy.
    David Taylor: Following the letter in The Guardian this week from numerous Labour colleagues urging the Government to ignore the costly distraction of the euro, will the Chief Secretary discourage his more zealous Cabinet colleagues from
    992
    trying to pre-empt the debate on this issue, especially given the fact that the five economic tests are increasingly as obscure and ambiguous as tests set by Edexcel?
    Mr. Smith: There is no inconsistency between investment in high-quality public services and a policy on the euro that is in Britain's economic interests. The truth is that we are delivering on both, whereas the Conservative party could do neither.
    Matthew Taylor: Will the Chief Secretary clarify an issue that seems to be dividing the Government? Does the Treasury maintain the view that the five tests can be answered clearly and unambiguously in economic terms, or is it a political test, as the chairman of the Labour party has suggested?
    Mr. Smith: The five economic tests are clearly set out, and, as we have said time and again, it is our policy that it must be clearly and unambiguously in Britain's economic interests before we would recommend entry to Cabinet, to Parliament and in a referendum. When that recommendation is made, the issue will of course enter the political process and be the subject of political debate, but the economic tests must clearly and unambiguously be satisfied in the country's interest before we recommend entry.
    Mr. John McFall: Does the Chief Secretary agree with me that we cannot have everything in this world, but that we do not want high interest rates, high unemployment and instability in finances, to which the shadow Chancellor is inextricably linked? We want low inflation, low unemployment rates and stability in public finances. Does my right hon. Friend agree that fiscal autonomy for individual member states is important? Will he and the Chancellor resist every attempt at harmonisation of taxes in Europe, ensure tax competition and that our policy delivers our economic stability and social justice objectives?
    Mr. Smith: As I made clear in the Economic and Finance Council this week, the Government's priority is economic reform. As my hon. Friend says, we believe in tax competition, not tax harmonisation.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: It is meaningless for Ministers to go on saying that they will never join the exchange rate mechanism but that they hope to join the single currency in certain circumstances. If we were unwisely to join the single currency, we would, in effect, automatically be members of the exchange rate mechanism with no opportunity to get out of it, as we were able to do in 1992. Will the Chief Secretary take on board the fact that the concept that there might one day be a right rate of exchange at which sterling could join the euro is nonsense? The right rate of exchange for Britain changes from day to day, and from hour to hour. Would he accept that the economic crises that overtook Thailand and now Argentina stemmed primarily from the fact that their currencies were on a fixed rate to the dollar?
    Mr. Smith: I thought that the leader of the Conservative party had urged his colleagues not to be monomaniacs on this issue, but it seems that they are not listening to him. As the Commission confirmed last week,

    993
    flexibility on the ERM condition has been shown to other entrants to the euro in the past. I repeat that we have no intention of rejoining the ERM. The sustainability of exchange rates will be factored into the economic tests on the sustainability of convergence.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: Is the present exchange rate with the euro, which has been sustained for about four years, consistent with the Government's longer-term policies for growth and rising employment?
    Mr. Smith: As we have made clear, we do not maintain a running commentary on satisfying the five tests. That assessment will be undertaken rigorously, and only if it is in Britain's economic interests, unambiguously and clearly, will we join.
    Adam Price: Has the Chief Secretary read the report of the Ernst and Young Item club of economic forecasters, published this week? It argues that there has never been a better time for the Government to adopt an active exchange rate policy to bring about a more competitive exchange rate.
    It is surely no coincidence that there has been virtually no growth in output and manufacturing since the pound appreciated five years ago. As the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has said,
    "there is something fundamentally wrong in the current euro-pound exchange rate"
    Will the Government do something to make it right? Will they bring down the level of the pound by intervening in the exchange markets?
    Mr. Smith: No, I have not read the report that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. As for what he says about the exchange rate, I have already made it clear that sustainability of convergence, one of the economic tests, would cover that.
    Let me tell the hon. Gentleman, and others who share his view, that attempts by this country in the past to steer the economy by means of exchange rates were an unmitigated disaster.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Yesterday the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said:
    "there is something fundamentally wrong in the current euro-pound exchange rate".
    Last week the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said:
    "The Government should not try artificially to massage down the level of the exchange rate, which is properly the outcome of sound economic fundamentals."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 15 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 24WH]
    Which of them is right?
    Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was rightly identifying the fact that manufacturers exporting to the eurozone are having to cope with the weakness of the euro. That is why we are taking steps to help manufacturing industry with the research and development tax credit and the cuts in business taxation. What is most important to manufacturing industry, as to other businesses, is that we continue to deliver a platform of economic stability. What
    994
    manufacturers certainly do not need is a return to the 15 per cent. interest rates—for a whole year—and the 10 per cent. inflation that they experienced when the shadow Chancellor's party was in government.

    National Health Service
    Laura Moffatt: What changes he plans to NHS spending commitments. [27553]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): As the Chancellor has previously announced, NHS resources in the UK are planned to reach £69.5 million by 2003–04. That represents an annual average increase of 5.7 per cent. in real terms over the period 2001–02 to 2003–04. Plans for future years will be set out in the 2002 spending review.
    Laura Moffatt: Towns such as mine are having to cope with unprecedented spending on their public services, especially those provided by the national health service. Rightly, they—and I—want to hear from the Treasury team that the commitments are real and sustained, and will produce the public services that we so richly deserve. Is it not good to hear that spending is sustainable, and will benefit our communities?
    Mr. Smith: I know how actively, energetically and effectively my hon. Friend has campaigned for health services on behalf of her constituents. She is entirely right. It is because the Government made the tough decisions required to establish the monetary and fiscal framework that the country needs, because we reduced the millstone of debt that we inherited from the Conservatives, because we placed the public finances on a sound basis and made the economic fundamentals strong, and because we are maintaining a platform of economic stability that we can and will sustain investment in our front-line services, which would be at risk if the Conservatives ever came near them.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: Is the Chief Secretary concerned that the savings ratio has fallen by a third in the past year?
    Mr. Smith: In fact, the savings ratio has been higher than the low point it reached under the—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The savings ratio has nothing to do with this question.
    Mr. Andy Reed: Rightly, constituents compare the state of the NHS in this country with other parts of Europe. However, NHS funding here is much lower than elsewhere. Last year, the Chief Secretary confirmed to me in a parliamentary answer that Britain remains one of the lowest tax countries in Europe; it is third from bottom. When will we bring in the resources required from those most able to pay—higher rate taxpayers—to ensure that we have financial security for the NHS not just in the short term but in the long term?
    Mr. Smith: The share of GDP invested in the NHS was 6.2 per cent. under the Conservatives. It has risen from 6.9 per cent. to 7.4 per cent. this year. It will be 7.6 per cent. next year and reach 7.7 per cent. in 2003–04

    995
    as we move towards achieving the European average. On my hon. Friend's comments on taxation, we will keep each and every promise on taxation in our manifesto, on which both of us fought the general election.
    Mr. Michael Howard: I am afraid that if the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) wants an extra £200,000 for her hospital, she will have to ask rather more biting questions than she did a moment ago.
    Whose fault is it that the NHS underspent by £700 million last year?
    Mr. Smith: The figure to which the shadow Chancellor refers is just 1.5 per cent. of the NHS budget. Last year's health underspend was lower than in just about any other Department. With end-year flexibility—this did not happen under the Conservative Government—Departments and agencies can carry forward money from one year to the next. A third of that money was specifically earmarked for expenditure which was known to be coming forward. The NHS plans to spend all the money that it has been allocated for this year.
    Mr. Howard: In view of last year's history, how can the Chief Secretary possibly explain the letter from the chief executive of the south east region of the NHS, in which she asks trusts in the region, including in my constituency, to reduce spending in the current year by £60 million? Is it not clear that, from top to bottom, despite the heroic efforts of the doctors and nurses who work in it, the NHS is in a state of crisis?
    Mr. Smith: I understand that the pressures to which the shadow Chancellor refers arise from extra prescribing costs during the year. There is no doubt that his trust, along with every other trust, is getting a very substantial increase in resources under this Government: a real increase on average of 5.7 per cent. year on year, more than twice the level that was provided by the Conservatives. When the Leader of the Opposition accuses NHS staff of treating patients no better than dogs, that is a grotesque slur on NHS staff dedicated to the principles of a caring service.

    Pensioners
    Dr. Ashok Kumar: If he will make a statement on Government policy on tackling pensioner poverty. [27554]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The Government are committed to tackling pensioner poverty and helping those in greatest need. The Government introduced the minimum income guarantee and are committed to raising that in line with earnings throughout this Parliament. From 2003, the pension credit will ensure that those with a modest amount of savings stand to gain on average just over £400 a year.
    Dr. Kumar: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Last week, I met the Cleveland pensioners convention forum. Pensioners told me that they support the Government strongly for all they are doing to tackle poverty among pensioners, but that they are concerned about one issue:
    996
    nursing and personal care for the elderly. Given the recent decision by the Scottish Parliament to provide services free for the elderly, will my hon. Friend look at that issue again, so that my constituents can enjoy the same privileges as pensioners in Scotland?
    Dawn Primarolo: I share, as I am sure do all hon. Members, the concern felt by my hon. Friend about the care of elderly people in our society. In England, the Government's key priority is to improve services for older people by promoting independence and minimising the need for institutional care. Overall, the Government will be making available an extra £1.4 billion a year for older people's services. That will emphasise the importance of maintaining the health and independence of older people, preventing unnecessary ill health, ensuring that health and social services are working in partnership and that older people have fair access to services, and making the funding fairer. The Government have decided that that is the best and quickest way to restore to older people the independence and the care that they say they so desperately want to be re-established.
    Mr. Gregory Barker: Is the Minister proud of the dramatic increase in the number of pensioners forced on to means-tested benefits since the Government came to power?
    Dawn Primarolo: I am proud that the Government have introduced the minimum income guarantee, raised pensions and established the £200 fuel allowance for pensioners. We are now spending around £6 billion a year extra on pensioners, which includes £2.5 billion more being spent on the poorest third of pensioners in our society. As I said, the pension credit to be introduced in 2003 will further increase the resources going to the very poorest. That is the way to tackle the poverty among pensioners that we inherited from the Conservative Government.
    Ms Diane Abbott: The Government's strategy to tackle pensioner poverty rests on the minimum income guarantee, which is a means-tested benefit. The widening use of such benefits is dubious enough anyway, but their use in relation to pensioners is especially doubtful. Successive Governments have found that, however much is spent on the take-up campaign, there will always be a substantial proportion of pensioners who are too proud to claim means-tested benefits. Does my hon. Friend agree that a strategy to counter pensioner poverty that rests on means-tested benefits always risks leaving a substantial number of pensioners in poverty?
    Dawn Primarolo: As my hon. Friend will know, the Government are doing far more for pensioners in addition to the minimum income guarantee. The full state pension for a single pensioner will rise by £3 in April. That is on top of last year's increase of £5, £4.55 more than the normal inflation rise, and £2.10 more than the earnings link would have produced over those two years. In 2003, the annual basic state pension will rise by £100 for single pensioners. In the future, it will always increase by at least 2.5 per cent., even if the retail prices index is lower. I think that my hon. Friend would agree that, alongside the minimum income guarantee, the increase in the basic

    997
    state pension that underpins our commitment to pensioners, and the annual £200 allowance to pensioners comprises the most effective, speedy and productive approach to ensuring that we tackle pensioner poverty.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: The Minister's final statistics will not wash with pensioners because the Government are busy increasing pensioner poverty by pushing up council tax by three times the rate of inflation. Does the Minister realise that more than 1 million pensioners now have to pay more than 10 per cent. of their disposable income in council tax? I hope that the Minister believes that fuel poverty is unacceptable, so why are the Government creating council tax poverty?
    Dawn Primarolo: That is truly breathtaking from a member of a party that introduced the poll tax, forcing millions of pensioners into long-term poverty to pay it, put VAT on fuel for pensioners and denied decent rises in the basic state pension to every pensioner in the country. Pensioners are better off under the policies that the Government are pursuing and it is about time that the hon. Gentleman recognised that.
    John Robertson: The Minister will be aware that my constituency has one of the highest concentrations of people over 60 not only in the United Kingdom but in Europe. Nearly a third of the electorate is over the age of 60. Although we have the minimum income guarantee, pensions are going up and we are helping small pension holders, a great many elderly people in Glasgow, Anniesland do not have any pension other than the state pension. Is it not time for the Government to look forward and put in place a 21st century plan for pensioners?
    Dawn Primarolo: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government have exactly that plan. In addition to the state pension, the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit, the introduction of the stakeholder pension will ensure that future pensioners have an income that will protect them. The Government are also supporting pensioners in a number of other ways.
    It is a reproach to us all that there are pensioners living in poverty, inherited from the previous Government. It is our duty to put that right, and we will.

    Manufacturing
    John Barrett: If he will make a statement on the impact of the level of the pound on the manufacturing industry in Scotland. [27555]
    Mr. Mark Field: What assessment he has made of the impact of UK interest rates over the past three years on the UK manufacturing sector. [27557]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Government's latest assessment of developments in the manufacturing sector, based on all relevant factors, was published in November's pre-Budget report. The world economy slowed significantly last year, and this has clearly affected manufacturing in all parts of the United Kingdom and throughout the rest of the G7.
    998
    Nevertheless, the UK is now in a better position than on previous occasions to cope with the turbulence in the world economy.
    John Barrett: Yesterday, Scottish manufacturers reported that they had suffered the sharpest drop in exports for three years, with output and employment falling. What more can the Chancellor do to help Scottish manufacturers? How long will we have to wait for action, especially when further falls in output, productivity and employment are predicted?
    Mr. Boateng: Scotland, of course, cannot be insulated from the global downturn. Scottish manufacturers—and I was up in Scotland last Friday talking to one section of industry there—appreciate that not only have they been assisted by the sound public finances that now benefit the United Kingdom, the action that has been taken in terms of the Scottish Executive and the RDA but, importantly, the cuts in corporation tax and capital gains tax as well as research and development tax credits. All those measures contribute to a sound basis for manufacturing industry. That, rather than anything else, is likely to bring benefits in the medium term.
    Mr. Mark Field: In view of the relatively rosy picture of the UK economy that the right hon. Gentleman has painted, will he go into some detail as to why he believes that the manufacturing sector, compared with others, is doing so badly?
    Mr. Boateng: I do not think that there is any question of painting a rosy picture or of any complacency. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the words yesterday of Mr. Martin Temple, the director general of the Engineering Employers Federation. He referred specifically to the incredibly powerful base of our manufacturing industry. What he also called for—something that the Government are providing—is joint action to encourage investment in research and development and in plant and to ensure that we have the skills available in our economy to promote manufacturing. All those things have been addressed by the Government. They are judged in the pre-Budget report to be important and they are being delivered.
    Mr. Iain Luke: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his recent visit to Scotland. Does he agree that the measures introduced in the pre-Budget report will be of specific relevance and importance to small businesses in Scotland, creating more productivity and competitiveness and increasing investment in enterprise, which will, in the long term, mean more jobs in the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend takes a particular interest in small and medium-sized enterprises in Scotland. His analysis is absolutely right. It is significant that there has been a greater number of business start-ups in Scotland and that those businesses are more likely to succeed and endure as a result of this Government's policies and actions than ever was the case under the last Government.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Notwithstanding those points, does the Minister accept that the level of the pound is higher than is good for manufacturing industry

    999
    and that, indeed, if we are ever to consider joining the euro, the present exchange rate is unsustainable and Britain would require a devaluation?
    Mr. Boateng: No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend, although I respect his views. The issue is not the strength of the pound, but the weakness of the euro. The Government's objective is to make sure that exchange rates remain stable and that we have a competitive pound in the medium term. The best contribution that the Government can make is to ensure that we maintain sound public finances and low inflation. This Government, unlike our predecessors, have delivered and will continue to deliver that.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Does the Minister think it right for the Government unilaterally to seek to redefine national statistics classifications in order artificially to boost manufacturing output figures?
    Mr. Boateng: We have done no such thing. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has rightly pointed out the contribution that the services sector makes to industrial output. That is a perfectly proper reflection for her to make and one that the hon. Gentleman would do well to consider himself.
    Ms Meg Munn: My right hon. Friend will know that many of my constituents work in the steel industry. Does he agree that while a more favourable exchange rate would be important, equally important is the stability that the Government are delivering in the economy, which enables the steel industry to plan for the future?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend takes a particular interest in the steel industry for understandable reasons. I am grateful to her for the representations she makes on its behalf. Her analysis is absolutely right and the steel sector recognises that.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that manufacturing output has slumped by 5.5 per cent. in the past 12 months, that the Engineering Employers Federation, to which the Financial Secretary has just referred, says that the climate change levy punishes competitiveness and initiative by world-class manufacturing companies and that the Director General of the CBI says, "I have members in south Wales and the midlands who are laying off people in order to write cheques to the Government to pay the energy tax", is it not time that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister for Europe stopped blaming the exchange rate for the problems of British manufacturing industry and started to do something to arrest and reverse the tide of regulation that is drowning British businesses the length and breadth of the land?
    Mr. Boateng: The reality is far from that. Under this Government we have taken steps to make sure that manufacturing is put on a sound basis. Under this Government when we have taken steps to deliver on our Kyoto obligations we have involved industry, including the manufacturing sector, in order to help us design the effective tools to do that. That is why we invited Lord Marshall, whose leadership of the CBI was without
    1000
    parallel, to help us devise a climate change levy. That is what is delivering our Kyoto obligations and it is our sound management of the economy that is delivering to manufacturing industry. The sooner the hon. Gentleman learns that, the better. He should stop giving lectures to this House and continue to give lectures to his constituency party and his party because they have need of them.
    Kevin Brennan: Is it not the case that the long-term interests of manufacturing industry in Scotland, Wales and rest of the United Kingdom are served by an economic policy that pursues low inflation, high growth and productivity, and that those things have been achieved by the present Government's economic policy? The only manufacturing that we get from Conservative Members is manufactured synthetic anger. Is it not the case that a policy of devaluation would fail because it is short-termist and short-sighted?
    Mr. Boateng: I could not have put it better myself.

    Agriculture
    Mr. Mark Simmonds: What discussions he has had with those in agriculture in advance of his forthcoming Budget. [27556]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): Treasury Ministers have regular contact with a wide range of interest groups and individuals, including those with an interest in agriculture.
    Mr. Simmonds: I thank the Minister for that answer. Considering that the Government have overseen a crisis in agriculture and in rural Britain since May 1997, crops grown for biodiesel would provide an excellent additional agricultural income and substantial environmental benefits. In the Chancellor's 2001 Budget, he announced that biofuels would qualify for a 20 per cent. tax rebate in fuel duty. The Minister should tell the House why the environmentally superior biofuels have not been given the same duty rebate as the gas fuels, currently 40p per litre, and that that anomaly will be addressed to the benefit of agricultural incomes throughout the United Kingdom.
    Ruth Kelly: I am absolutely delighted that the hon. Gentleman recognises the sense of the Chancellor's proposal in the previous Budget to introduce a specific rebate for biodiesel in the next Budget. We have been listening to representations on that subject. I believe that there will be significant environmental improvements as a result of that rebate and I am sure that the Chancellor will listen very carefully to the representations that have been made today.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: When my hon. Friend meets representatives of the farming industry before the Budget, will she discuss the increased resources that the Government have put into organic conversion, and the support that they have given to agri-environmental schemes such as Tir Gofal in Wales, which has been remarkably successful and was commended by those organic producers from my constituency whom I saw yesterday? Does she agree that the future for agriculture must be to support those family farmers who farm in an

    1001
    environmentally sustainable way, instead of giving disproportionate subsidies to large-scale producers in the east of England?
    Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I certainly agree that the organic sector of our farming industry has an important role to play in the development of that industry. At the moment, I believe, about 2.5 per cent. of agricultural land is devoted to organic farming. There have been calls from the organic sector to increase that to about 30 per cent., which, at first glance, strikes me as rather ambitious.
    However, I completely agree with my hon. Friend that we need to take the development of the sector seriously. We need to continue our strategy of moving resources away from production support and into measures that will contribute to environmental development. In future, we want a market-oriented agricultural sector that provides for sustainable development and meets consumer demand.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall meet members of Macclesfield and district National Farmers Union on Saturday morning, and I should like to take them a message of hope from the Government. Does the Minister accept that if we are to maintain the countryside and to produce from land within the United Kingdom that food which we can economically and properly produce, the Budget must include some assistance, incentive and encouragement for our farmers? Will the Minister give me that assurance, to take to my farmers on Saturday morning?
    Ruth Kelly: I certainly ask the hon. Gentleman to pass on my warmest regards to members of his local NFU when he meets them. He can of course tell them that it is the present Government who have commissioned the Food and Farming Commission, led by Don Curry, to look at the development of the sector to ensure that it can be developed in a sustainable way. The commission includes stakeholder representatives from all parts of the industry, and we look forward very much to considering their representations.
    I would also ask the hon. Gentleman to point out that it is the present Government who have led reform of the common agricultural policy within Europe. It is by forming alliances that the Government have been in the vanguard of reform and able to put forward the real changes that will matter in future to the agricultural sector.

    Global Downturn
    Fiona Mactaggart: What assessment he has made of the impact of the global downturn on the future performance of the UK economy. [27558]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): No country can fully insulate itself from developments in the world economy, but the UK is now in a better position than on previous occasions to cope with turbulence in it. As a result, leading external forecasters expect UK economic growth to be the fastest in the G7 this year.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the Economic Secretary for that reply, and I believe that the very challenging global
    1002
    circumstances—this is the first time for 30 years that every region of the world is facing a downturn—are only matched by the fact that this is the first time in the same period that Britain is the best-placed country in the world to face them. Does she agree that this is a very difficult time to consider increasing taxation to improve our public services because of that challenging global situation?
    Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and for pointing out that Britain is indeed in a very positive economic situation and better placed than any of the other 29 member countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to weather the very serious global economic downturn that has taken place since 11 September and as a result of the unwinding of the high-technology boom, as she rightly appreciates. Of course, we in this country must have a debate about the funding of our public services; it is important that people realise that, to correct 30 years of underinvestment, we need to put public services on a sustainable footing. What the Opposition consistently refuse to tell us—it became apparent just this week in the debate on public services—is whether they would match our funding plans, or whether they would slash public services.
    Chris Grayling: May I ask the Economic Secretary to turn her attention to one of our key international trading partners and markets—Germany? What assessment has the Treasury made of the degree to which the problems in Germany are either caused by the current international situation or, as increasingly frequent independent analysis argues, are long-term, structural and caused by the fact that it joined the euro at the wrong rate? Is that latter analysis the accurate answer?
    Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman refers to the problems that the Germans are currently experiencing. In fact, growth in the euro area has turned out to be weaker than most independent forecasters were predicting only a few months ago. However, the European Council confirmed at the December ECOFIN meeting that the economic fundamentals are sound in the EU and that it expected a gradual recovery during 2002. What is important is that we have sound fundamentals and that we take the measures on economic reform to improve labour market flexibility and product-market competition and to ensure that it is as easy as possible for the EU to recover from the slowdown in global demand.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my hon. Friend agree that, at this time of global downturn, it remains an absolute Government priority to allow industry to invest, especially in research and development and in high-value, high-skill products, so that we are best advantaged when the markets start to pick up?
    Ruth Kelly: I completely agree with the points made by my hon. Friend, and it is incredibly important that we improve the manufacturing base and increase productivity in our manufacturing sector, so that we can take full advantage of the upturn in global demand when it comes. That is why the Government have introduced tax credits for small and medium sized enterprises and are consulting on how to extend those measures to larger firms. It is why we set up regional development agencies to drive forward economic growth in each of the regions. It is why we set

    1003
    up venture capital funds to ensure that small and medium sized enterprises have the access to capital that they so desperately need to grow, and it is also why we are working in partnership with the CBI and the TUC to look at ways of raising skills in the workplace, so that we have people who are fully trained and able to take advantage of those opportunities as they arise.

    Agriculture
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What plans he has to review the provision of roll-over relief on capital gains tax on the sale of agricultural land for development; and if he will make a statement. [27559]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): We currently have no plans to review this relief, which supports trading including farming.
    Mr. Mullin: May I put it to my hon. Friend that the windfall profits arising from planning permission for agricultural land are already sufficiently enormous without it being necessary to award the landowner tax relief as well, especially since one of the effects is artificially to inflate the price of agricultural land? Whose idea was this? How can it possibly be in the public interest? Is it really not about time that a stop was put to it?
    Dawn Primarolo: I have discussed this matter with my hon. Friend before and I know that he follows the subject very closely. The proceeds of the sale have to be reinvested in trade assets for the roll-over relief to be available in the first place. Roll-over reliefs are designed to allow traders to Modernise and expand without an immediate charge to tax being made on the money of the business.
    I continue to have an open mind on the subject and I have considered closely the factors that interrelate with the sale of land, particularly farming land, for greenfield development. I am not convinced that roll-over relief is the problem, but I understand that the subject is dear to my hon. Friend's heart. I look forward to continuing to discuss the issue with him. If he has any further information, I shall be more than happy for him to send it to me and for me to reconsider it.
    Alistair Burt: When the hon. Lady is examining submissions about tax relief and other initiatives for the Budget, will she take into consideration a recent European Commission survey that showed that, contrary to the beliefs of some Labour Members, Britain provided the lowest state aid to agriculture of any country in the European Community, whether that was measured as a percentage of GDP or in terms of the number of people employed?
    When the hon. Lady thinks about initiatives for the future, will she bear in mind the difficulties that agriculture has faced and will she therefore consider favourably tax changes that will help farmers? Will she particularly consider the initiatives suggested by people in that hard-pressed sector, because she is very unlikely to receive any suggestions from the Ministers with responsibility for agriculture?
    Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that a vast array of tax reliefs and supports are
    1004
    available for the farming community. He went on to make an important point about the diversification of rural communities and about considering ways in which we could assist that. I assure him that the issue is a high priority for the Government. I take his contribution to be a Budget representation and I will draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
    Mr. John Smith: May I welcome my hon. Friend's comments? The last thing in the world that we should be doing is putting up more barriers to farmers diversifying from agricultural overproduction and into new rural industries. I shall meet members of the Glamorgan branch of the NFU in Cowbridge tomorrow, and I would be delighted to be able to tell them that the Government plan to do even more to help them with diversification.
    Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend can take my best wishes and those of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the group that he will meet. I am sure that he will be able to reassure its members that the Government continue to take the views of the rural community very seriously. Not least, I point to the substantial help that Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue were able to give members of the rural community during the difficult period that they all experienced during the foot and mouth crisis.
    I would like my hon. Friend to echo the comments that I have made to him and to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) about the fact that diversification of rural communities is of great importance to the Government. We will continue to take forward that programme as best we can and, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would expect me to say, as resources allow.

    Services Sector
    Mr. Mark Hoban: What recent assessment he has made of the state of the services sector. [27560]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Government's latest assessment of the United Kingdom economy, including the service sector of course, is contained in annexe A of the pre-Budget report.
    Mr. Hoban: In the last quarter, we saw the end of employment growth in the service sector. It is now clear that it cannot absorb job losses elsewhere in the economy. When will the Government realise that their policies on red tape and taxes are damaging all sectors of the economy, not just manufacturing?
    Mr. Smith: The capacity of Opposition Members to talk down important and successful sectors of the British economy never ceases to stagger me. The truth is that the service sector, notwithstanding the difficulties arising from foot and mouth disease and the events of 11 September, has continued to perform strongly, with outputs up 3.7 per cent. on the previous year and employment in September 229,000 higher than a year before. As the figures that came out yesterday show, the

    1005
    sector made a trade surplus contribution to the economy of more than £12 billion in the first 11 months of last year, although there are, of course, difficulties in some sectors.
    As for regulation, this Government introduced regulatory impact assessments, mandatory on audits and registration. We are raising the audit level for firms, simplifying the VAT procedures and doing everything that we can to cut down unnecessary regulation.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: May I take the Chief Secretary back to the answer given a few minutes ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey)? Is he aware that the Government proposal to redefine services to boost manufacturing output has been roundly condemned by, among others, the director of the highly respected National Institute of Economic and Social Research, because to do that unilaterally would be against Britain's international treaties and bring the statistical service into serious disrepute? Will he agree to approach the issue with a little more humility than the Financial Secretary and to take a fresh look at it?
    Mr. Smith: The derivation and basis of official statistics is independent and the statistical service will form its own judgment. When my right hon. Friend answered that question he said that what is at issue is the very important contribution that services make to manufacturing success. Genuine issues, however, arise as a result of the fact that there is less vertical integration within industry than there was in the past.

    Public Service Agreements
    Mr. Nigel Beard: If he will make a statement on the progress in capital investment made by Government Departments toward their public service agreement targets. [275611]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The projections contained in the pre-Budget report show that we are on course to meet our ambitious targets on public sector net investment over the three years to 2003–04. This substantial increase in investment, matched with reform, will help Departments in achieving their public service agreement targets.
    Mr. Beard: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress that has been made. It stands in marked contrast to the days of successive Conservative Governments who borrowed for day-to-day spending and fecklessly neglected investment in schools, hospitals and railways. What are the possible impediments to maintaining the momentum of the capital investment programme? Such as they are, can they be overcome quickly? What steps are being taken to ensure that investment projects continue to be made on time and achieve their timetable as set out in public sector agreements, and that they are completed to best effect?
    Mr. Smith: As for the record of the previous Administration, the last time they were in office public sector net investment fell by an average of 15 per cent. a year whereas in this spending period it is increasing by 40 per cent. a year. On bringing capital investment on-stream, my hon. Friend mentions impediments. It is
    1006
    the case, of course, that projects must be planned, implementation teams put in place, planning permission secured and so on.
    Some of the procurement practices, as well as the institutions, that we inherited from the Conservatives were greatly in need of reform. That is why we set up the Office of Government Commerce, which is revolutionising public sector procurement. It is also why our commitment to investment is matched with reform. We have devolved more power to the front line, given local managers a greater ability to manage and formed a close partnership with the private sector where appropriate so that we get the investment that we need. I assure my hon. Friend that that investment will be sustained.
    Roger Casale: Was not the legacy of the Tory Government—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be worrying about the last Conservative Government. The Minister is responsible for his Department and his Government.
    Roger Casale rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should leave it.
    Roger Casale indicated assent.

    Manufacturing
    Mr. Mark Prisk: When he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss prospects for manufacturing industry. [27562]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Chancellor and the Governor meet regularly to discuss a wide range of issues. As I made clear in my earlier answer to the hon. Members for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), the Government have introduced a wide range of policies that benefit the manufacturing sector. The economic stability that our macro-economic frameworks are delivering offers the best foundation for manufacturing to thrive once global prospects strengthen.
    Mr. Prisk: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Since the latest discussions to which he referred, employment in manufacturing is now at its lowest level since records began. Manufacturers in my constituency and elsewhere tell me that they are struggling under a burden of regulation; small firms, in particular, are struggling with payroll regulations. Given that the Government have had the answer to payroll regulations since September, in the form of the Carter review, can the Minister tell the House why they are dithering over that report? How many more people have to lose their jobs in manufacturing before the Government act?
    Mr. Boateng: We are of course doing no such thing. The document to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a consultative document, aimed at finding out from business what it wants by way of Government action. We listen to

    1007
    business and we involve business. Interestingly enough, Mr. Martin Temple was good enough to acknowledge that fact yesterday in his observations about manufacturing. We are not prepared to accept any suggestion from Conservative Members that red tape is the minimum wage, that red tape is health and safety at work and that red tape is combating poverty through tax credits. We are proud to do all those things while removing burdensome regulation, much of which accumulated while the Conservatives were in charge of government.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Does the Governor of the Bank of England show any concern for matters beyond overall fiscal policy when he is involved in these discussions? Is he concerned about the fact that manufacturing in certain areas faces considerable problems, such as those in north Derbyshire, where several firms have closed? At the moment, Chesterfield Cylinders is downsizing because it faces problems, yet it has Ministry of Defence contracts and it is important that those are maintained. What ideas does the Governor offer the Government to try to solve those problems?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend understands that the Governor will speak for himself. He will also realise that the Governor has the benefit of the Bank's regional network, and that all relevant factors, including those that he mentioned, are taken into account by the Monetary Policy Committee.
    Mr. Mark Francois: Does the Minister remember Labour's promise in opposition to implement an industrial policy to enable our manufacturing industries to grow again? Given that manufacturing output fell by over 5 per cent. in the last year alone, when will Labour deliver on its promises to our manufacturers?
    Mr. Boateng: Not only do I remember that promise, but I am part of a team that is delivering it. The hon. Gentleman
    1008
    needs to understand that in 2000 manufacturing output grew at its fastest rate since 1994. That is a tribute to this Government and an indictment of his.

    Working Families Tax Credit
    Siobhain McDonagh: What his estimate is of the impact of working families tax credit in reducing child poverty in (a) Mitcham and Morden and (b) the UK. [27563]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The introduction of the working families tax credit, along with other changes to the personal tax and benefit system since 1997, means that there are 1.2 million fewer children in relative poverty in the United Kingdom than there would otherwise have been. In Mitcham and Morden, 1,600 families are currently benefiting from the working families tax credit.
    Siobhain McDonagh: I thank the Minister for her answer. Will she look at the categories of child care that are eligible for the child care tax credit? As she knows, a number of us are concerned that although registered child minder costs are covered, those of resident Nursery Nurses Education Board nannies are not, even though the training for that child care qualification is significant. That restricts the ability to work of people who work shifts, particularly NHS nurses.
    Dawn Primarolo: I can tell my right hon. Friend—my hon. Friend; I nearly promoted her—that the question of care for children in their homes, whether they are disabled or their parents work unsociable hours, is of great importance. I am currently discussing with Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills how to ensure that regulation is in place so that the child care element of the working families tax credit could be paid. My hon. Friend will understand that it is not for the Treasury to regulate the standard and quality of care; that is the responsibility of the Department for Education and Skills. I hope that we can resolve that problem soon.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House please let us have the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 28 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Civil Defence (Grant) Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business, namely the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill, for consideration at 7 o'clock.
TUESDAY 29 JANUARY—Opposition Day [9th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate entitled "The Government's Mismanagement of the Post Office"—[Interruption.] I have grown accustomed to a cheer at this point in the proceedings, but it is really not necessary.
WEDNESDAY 30 JANUARY—Motion on the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2002–3.
Motion on Local Government (Finance) Report 2002–3.
THURSDAY 31 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Environmental Impact Assessment (Uncultivated Land and Semi-Natural Areas) (England) Regulations 2001.
Motion to approve the Administration Committee Report on the reopening of the Line of Route.
FRIDAY 1 FEBRUARY—Debate on implementing the Learning Disability White Paper on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [10th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
TUESDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Education Bill (1st Day).
WEDNESDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Education Bill (2nd Day).
THURSDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Tax Credits Bill.
FRIDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Debate on Government measures to regenerate disadvantaged areas on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House may wish to know that subject to the progress of business the House will rise for the Easter recess at the end of business on Tuesday 26 March, returning on Tuesday 9 April.
In last week's business questions, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) drew attention to the confusion over the precise date of Whit this year; some Members anticipated that, as normal, it would fall in the last week of May. I reflected on the matter and I can inform the House that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the end of business on Friday 24 May, returning on Tuesday 11 June.
Mr. Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing not just the business for next week but the recess dates. Is he in a position yet to tell us when Budget day will be this year? We are now perilously close to February and we usually expect to have notice of the Budget at this stage.
May I ask the Leader of the House about proposals floating about in the Modernisation Committee on the House sitting in September? I have been approached, as, no doubt, has the right hon. Gentleman himself, by many Members asking for clarification of the matter. It would be helpful if he could give some indication at this stage of whether the House will be, or may be, sitting in September this year. We are anxious that the House should sit in September, as you know, Mr. Speaker, so that we can harry the Government and hold them to account even more frequently, and would be grateful if the Leader of the House could give us some indication. If for any reason we were unable to sit, I am sure that he would be able to give us a very good reason why not.
The Leader of the House announced a debate next week on mismanagement of the Post Office. It is to be held in our time, on an Opposition day, but it gives rise in my mind to the question why, given the uncertainty surrounding the Post Office, the National Audit Office report and the unease among employees—and, indeed, among all of us as users of the Post Office's excellent services—we have had to force the Government to come to the House and give an explanation by using an Opposition day. They have used their time to tell us about volcanoes in Africa and all sorts of other things recently. Why must we drag them here to tell us about what is going on in the Post Office? I am sad to say that that is an indication of the rather odd priorities that they seem to have these days. I can only hope that we will get some far more convincing answers in our debate next Tuesday than we have received hitherto.
Mr. Cook: First, in response to the question about the Budget date, I say to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that we will ensure that they are advised of the date as soon as it is confirmed. At the present time, I have no reason to suppose that it will be significantly different from those in previous years: either in mid to late March or very early in April.
I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about the importance of returning in September. We on the Labour Benches look forward to returning in September as well, although possibly for different reasons from his. We want to do so in order to put before the nation the way in which we are carrying through our programme to improve public services—[Interruption.] I am very glad that I can take the rest as read. None the less, we will want to talk about the record investment in education and health that we are carrying through. I regret to say that there are several good reasons why it will not be possible to introduce that innovation this year. A number of hon. Members have made their arrangements in good faith—I am impressed by the number of Members who are thinking so far ahead—and Mr. Speaker has arrangements to visit Canada and also to represent Britain on 11 September in New York. I am also advised that there will be roadworks outside the Palace. [Laughter.] While I believe that it would be entirely right for us to meet in September, people have taken it in good faith that we will not be sitting and I want the innovation to be introduced in an

1011
orderly, satisfactory and successful way. Therefore, I think that it is right to give adequate notice, which means that I would hope that we would introduce this change for next year.
On the issue of Consignia—
Mr. Forth: The Post Office.
Mr. Cook: It is technically and legally constituted as Consignia, but I have no problem with the right hon. Gentleman using phrases that he understands from previous years. With regard to Consignia, the House introduced a Bill only two years ago on this Government's initiative—it was broadly supported by the Opposition during its passage—that created commercial freedom for Consignia. It is absolutely right that we should let the management of Consignia, in consultation with its work force, take forward its plans for the company without constant micromanagement by Government, this House or any external political influence.
I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should take exception to our coming to the House with a statement on our response to the emergency situation caused by a volcano erupting in the Great Lakes area. I welcome the fact that a statement was made to the House on the matter. Many people outside in Britain would expect their Government to respond sympathetically and humanely to that emergency.
Jean Corston: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the issues arising from the use of personal cases to illustrate what is happening in the national health service? Is he aware that the shadow Health Minister, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), said in his maiden speech that
"dredging up personal cases of misery to try to find the one case that has gone badly in the national health service and overlooking all the reforms and successes that we have had"
was the
"lowest form of political debate"?
He went on to say:
"To try to say that every case that has gone wrong is typical is loathsome."—[Official Report, 12 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 541.]
Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a debate would give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to explain why he now thinks that it is acceptable for the Leader of the Opposition not only to raise such a case, but to do so without the common courtesy that we would all observe of contacting the hospital first?
Mr. Cook: It is regrettable that the good sense of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has declined since his maiden speech. Every hon. Member would echo some of the sentiments that he expressed in it. From time to time, I have raised personal cases in the House; they probably live in the memory of some hon. Members who were present at the time. However, my hon. Friends and I did that with the full support of the relevant staff, who were appalled at the poor resources with which they had to work. I cannot recall an occasion when I or any Labour Member took up a personal case to attack NHS staff. Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) attacked not simply the health service but those public servants who work in it. That will not be forgotten.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I thank the Leader of the House for clearing up the confusion about the Whit
1012
recess. It will enable my Liberal Democrat colleagues to stop juggling their constituency commitments during those two weeks. It may also enable them to fix their matrimonial arrangements.
When can we expect a Government response to yesterday's statement from the Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the confusion about what is being investigated in relation to foot and mouth disease cannot continue? Several inquiries are in progress, but they are leaving unresolved and unexamined important matters such as the effects of the disease on rural Britain and the way in which the Government tackled it. A Select Committee, which has a Labour majority, has called for an overarching, comprehensive inquiry. I hope that the Government will take that more seriously than previous requests from us and hon. Members from other parties.
In the past, Mr. Speaker, you have deprecated Ministers' habits of making statements to the media before they make them to the House. It appears that, in an interview on "Today" this morning, the Foreign Secretary signalled a change of policy on the internees at the Cuban base. He suggested that he expects any British citizen there to be brought back here to face justice. Is that now the Government's policy? Is it also their policy that other nationals should return to their home states to face justice rather than facing the perhaps peculiar justice of the United States? What is the Government's position on the use of the death penalty? The Minister of State has signalled a different conclusion on that. Are we trying to insist that our American allies respect the Geneva convention?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman began on a happy note, and I welcome his welcome for the Whit recess. If that enables the leader of the Liberal Democrats to achieve his marriage in good order with a good honeymoon, I am all the happier that I have been able to give the dates to hon. Members. For once, perhaps all hon. Members can agree to ask the hon. Gentleman to convey our congratulations to his leader.
Mr. Forth: Can we have a vote?
Mr. Cook: No. I take it as a foregone conclusion.
The report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee was published only yesterday, and it is premature to expect a Government response. We have established three separate inquiries; one may report soon and the others will do so in the longer term. That panoply of inquiries gives us a good basis for examining what happened and, more important, looking ahead to what we shall do with the countryside and the rural economy. At an appropriate time, the House will have an opportunity to examine that. Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions will take place next week.
As I have said previously about the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, whether the Geneva convention applies is not the most important consideration. Even if it does not apply, international humanitarian law does. I believe that it is accepted here and in the United States that it is important to ensure that our humanitarian standards apply to the detainees, and that we thus show our superiority and that of our system to the ruthless terrorist values that they pursued.
On the issue of the death penalty, the Foreign Office and the Government have repeatedly expressed the view to all countries that they should abolish the death penalty,

1013
as we have done. We shall continue to campaign for that. Should there be a case for charging the three British citizens, we would expect them to face those charges in Britain if they have broken British law. That is not a new position; it is the position that we have always held.
Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House reflect further on the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) for a debate on the national health service, to enable Members of the House to express their full support for all staff, black and white, at the Whittington hospital in my constituency for the very caring way in which they look after all their patients, and for their dedication to the principles of a national health service that is free at the point of use? If allegations are made concerning inadequate care or support for any patient, it is incumbent on us all to listen to both the family and the hospital concerned first, and at all times to try to prevent a public debate about the care of an individual patient. Surely all of us deserve the right to privacy in matters of medical care.
Mr. Cook: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of supporting the principles of the NHS and the staff who work hard to try to deliver on those principles. It is important that the national health service should, as it goes about its business, be a model employer that is blind to any racial discrimination or division, and that it should provide for fair opportunity and an excellent quality of care. I would remind the House that the hospital in my hon. Friend's constituency was only recently praised for the quality of its care for patients.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) about the importance of having regular debates on the state of the health service. Has the Leader of the House had a chance to see the very worrying reports in the press in the last week that, despite increased expenditure on the health service, the amount of NHS activity in the last quarter has declined? Does he understand why our constituents are enormously concerned about the state of the public services, and the health service in particular, under this Government's stewardship? Will he, therefore, accept the need for regular debates, with the Prime Minister in attendance, so that we can monitor the extent to which the Prime Minister is delivering on his solemn pledge to the British people at the last election that the NHS would improve under his stewardship?
Mr. Cook: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the report of the NHS Modernisation board, which, only the other week, confirmed that we now have more nurses, more doctors and more beds in the NHS than ever before. Indeed, last year was the first year for 30 years in which the number of beds in the health service actually increased. As to activity rates, 500,000 more operations are now performed every year than during the Conservative years, which is a 10 per cent. increase. I welcome that increase in activity, and we will continue to put in the investment to ensure that it continues. I would ask the hon. Gentleman, and any other Opposition Member inclined to raise the issue of the NHS, whether they will give a commitment to match our level of
1014
investment. If they are committed, as their leader has said, to introducing tax cuts, will they please explain how they will do so without bringing in public spending cuts?
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Given the statement by the Secretary of State for Health last week that we should privatise the management of the national health service, and the statement by Lord Haskins this morning that corporate business should run the NHS, may we have an urgent debate on the failed privatisations—such as the privatisation of the railways, and of care for the elderly—brought in by the last Conservative Government, so that we can expose once and for all this neanderthal thinking, and the myth that the private sector can run our public services better than the public sector? All the evidence points to the fact that it simply cannot do so.
Mr. Cook: We have debated the failed privatisation of Railtrack on a number of occasions recently. The net effect of the many attempts by the Opposition to attack us on that matter has been to produce a poll for ITN which showed that more people blame the Conservative Government than the Labour Government for the difficulties on the railways. I welcome the fact that we have now taken Railtrack out of an environment in which it had to struggle between its priority to the travelling public and its priority to its private shareholders.
On the question of the management of the NHS, I say to my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has proposed that we should devolve management within the NHS and provide more discretion for local hospitals to take the initiative, run their affairs and respond to local circumstances. We must strike the right balance between a national health service with national standards and values and local initiative at management level.
Sir George Young: Has it not been the House's practice regularly to debate in Government time key issues such as taxation, public expenditure and the performance of the economy? When in this Parliament have the Government provided time for such a debate, and when does the right hon. Gentleman plan to hold one?
Mr. Cook: The whole House understands that the Chancellor is unable to play a full part in our proceedings at present, but, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, there will be a Budget debate shortly and plenty of opportunities to examine the economy in that context.
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: Did my right hon. Friend see this week's Sunday Herald report of the allegation made by a former corporate lawyer with Arthur Andersen in the UK that the firm's auditors in this country were bullied by Enron in Europe into signing off audited accounts that inflated earnings? Will my right hon. Friend ask his colleagues to investigate that claim and arrange a debate, perhaps in Westminster Hall, on the relationship between external auditors and the businesses they audit?
Mr. Cook: If the US law enforcement agencies carrying out the investigation approach the UK authorities, they will

1015
receive full co-operation from all our people if we can assist with the investigation into the affairs of Enron. My hon. Friend refers to an issue that is a concern to a number of Members. The importance of safeguarding the independence of auditors and finding ways in which to ensure that the commercial world and our constituents are confident that audits are independent, not the result of pressure or bullying, has been raised in a number of areas and there is no excuse under any circumstances for bullying people into signing fraudulent accounts.
Mr. Charles Hendry: Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on the growing problem of antisocial behaviour, such as vandalism, graffiti and loutish behaviour, which affect all our constituencies and make the lives of so many people, especially the elderly, a misery? Often, they live in constant fear. He is aware that in many of our constituencies the police simply do not have the resources to tackle those issues because they are so overstretched elsewhere. May we have an urgent debate in Government time so that the Home Secretary can tell the House what he plans to do about those matters?
Mr. Cook: First, on a point of fact, police numbers are increasing and there is a record increase in the number of those being trained for the police force. Quite properly, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering ways to ensure that uniformed police maximise the time spent on patrol and in the community and minimise the time that they have to spend on paperwork at the station.
Every Member of the House has constituency experience of the grave impact on the quality of life that can arise from antisocial behaviour. We have already introduced orders to try to deal with that and we are considering ways in which they might be improved by further legislation.
Dr. Brian Iddon: This month, the worst outbreak of salmonella poisoning in Bolton in more than 50 years occurred in my constituency. Dozens of people have suffered and seven were admitted to hospital, including 80-year-old Ted Ivers, who was in intensive care, his wife Edith and their son-in-law. Will my right hon. Friend join me in sending best wishes to all those who have suffered? A few days ago, the Government published "Getting Ahead of the Curve", which is a strategy compiled by the chief medical officer for combating infectious disease. Will the Government give time to debate that important document?
Mr. Cook: I have no hesitation in joining my hon. Friend in wishing a speedy recovery to those who have—
Mr. Forth: An individual case.
Mr. Cook: All of them. I presume that my hon. Friend has contacted those affected and has their authority to speak. I send all those affected our best wishes for a speedy recovery. I am sure that the report makes a number of interesting points and recommendations and I have full faith in the Government's plans for coping with infectious diseases. This may be an excellent case for a debate in Westminster Hall on which he might wish to reflect.
Mr. John Taylor: Is the Minister aware that bed blocking at Birmingham Heartlands hospital by clients of Birmingham social services department is delaying operations for Solihull patients who also use that hospital? May we have a debate on bed blocking?
Mr. Cook: In fairness to the House, this issue has been ventilated on several occasions and we have had a number of opportunities to examine policy in the NHS. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those exchanges have shown that both sides of the House recognise that this is a serious issue. That is precisely why the Government have made significant sums of new money available to local authorities, to assist them to move patients into more appropriate care.
This is a problem not just for patients with an acute need for an acute bed, but for the people in those beds who have nowhere more suitable to move to. It is important for both groups that we find a way forward. We are seeking to do that through better management and by providing more money.
Andrew Mackinlay: Will my right hon. Friend make a definitive statement on the Government's attitude to the opposed private business on Monday, the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill?
Mr. Cook: It would be improper of me, on behalf of the Government, to express a view on that private Bill one way or the other. I am aware that my hon. Friend and some of his colleagues have expressed vigorous views on the Bill. As the Leader of the House, I am content for it to be a matter for the House to decide, and I am sure that my hon. Friend and his colleagues will continue to express their vigorous views.
Pete Wishart: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the vexed question of the proposed Bill to ban tobacco advertising? He will be aware of the growing frustration in Scotland about the Government's inaction on this issue. The Health and Community Care Committee of the Scottish Parliament is considering asking the right hon. Gentleman to give evidence to it and to explain the lack of Government action. What is the status of the proposed Bill, and will the right hon. Gentleman attend that Committee if asked?
Mr. Cook: I read with great interest the press release from the hon. Gentleman's colleague in the Scottish Parliament. Should any such decision be approved by that Committee as a whole, I will reflect on how I can be helpful without straying across the clear boundaries that we set up under the principle of devolution. I am fully seized of the importance of the tobacco Bill, and should an opportunity arise to address that measure during this Session, I will take it.
Mr. John Smith: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend and the House to a candlelight vigil that will take place outside St. Stephen's entrance this evening in memory of the 44 people who have died from deep vein thrombosis related to air travel? I welcome the Government's statement in a written answer this week that they are unequivocally committed to an investigation into the incidence, extent and causation of deep vein thrombosis related to air travel.

1017
It is more than four months since the Civil Aviation Authority placed before Ministers research that it had carried out on aircraft seat spacing, but the House has not had a response. It is important that we get a response, because one of the recommendations of that independent research was that seat spacing in United Kingdom aircraft should be increased immediately.
Mr. Cook: I commend the diligence with which my hon. Friend raises this important matter in the House. I was saying only this morning, when I heard about the vigil, that I was sure that he would raise the matter during business questions. We are seized of the importance of this issue, which is why on 30 November we issued new guidance to passengers and the public on how to minimise the risk of deep vein thrombosis. We remain willing to consider other ways in which we can be of assistance. I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks on seat spacing to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health—with perhaps the rider that, as a frequent air traveller, I would welcome more seat space.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: The Leader of the House will recall that yesterday there was a significant debate on Zimbabwe in Westminster Hall, and Opposition Members also questioned the Prime Minister and expressed grave concern about the deteriorating situation in that country. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an absolute assurance that in the coming weeks, in the run-up to the March presidential elections and probably thereafter, when the Mugabe regime will almost certainly behave despicably, Ministers will regularly be available to update the House and to take questions from us?
Mr. Cook: I have no doubt that the House will wish to be kept informed on the issue, and I fully appreciate and share the deep concern in the House about the entirely improper way in which the Mugabe regime is seeking to rig the presidential election. There will be two important meetings next year, a European Union meeting to discuss the EU's approach to Zimbabwe and a meeting of Commonwealth Ministers to discuss the country's place in the Commonwealth. Whether a statement is appropriate is a matter that we will keep under advisement, but I assure Members that we will keep them fully informed of our views and of the action we are taking.
Mr. Anthony D. Wright: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the chief medical officer's report on myalgic encephalomyelitis—ME—which was published last week, and is he aware of the effects that it will have for ME sufferers? May we have an early debate on the report on the Floor of the House, and on all the problems that sufferers throughout the country have experienced for far too long? The report in itself—produced by a working group—gives them hope and encouragement, but I think it should mark the beginning rather than the end of a campaign.
Mr. Cook: I am sure that all ME sufferers will be pleased that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to their case, and to the need for more recognition of, and a better response to, their requirements. I have no plans to arrange
1018
a debate on the report, but I am sure that my hon. Friend and others will look for ways of ventilating its conclusions.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I was going to ask for a debate on early-day motion 700, which states:
[That this House is dismayed by the report in the Evening Standard of 21st January that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has blocked the appointment of the career civil servant Ian Jones as head of media in his Department; notes that his preferred choice, Ms Ann Wallis, is an outsider who is a friend and former colleague of Jo Moore; urges him to abandon this further attempt at politicisation; and fears that if successful, this will bury the impartiality of the Civil Service.]
In other words, it concerns the Transport Secretary's attempt to impose a crony of Jo Moore as head of media in his Department.
As that question has been blocked, may I instead ask why the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the roadworks scheduled for September will hinder us from sitting then? We have been informed by the office of the Serjeant at Arms that both the Black Rod's Garden entrance and the Carriage Gates will be open, and that access will be unimpeded. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that such minor roadworks will be an obstacle, what does he think will happen in 2003 and 2004, when massive roadworks are planned for Parliament square as a result of one of the crazy schemes of his former parliamentary colleague, Ken Livingstone?
Mr. Cook: The post of head of media has been filled according to civil service rules and with a civil service commissioner involved in the appointment.
The main reason for our proposal not to proceed with the change in sittings this year is that it will be convenient for Members who, in good faith, have already made arrangements for September. That includes Mr. Speaker, who has undertaken to fulfil a commitment in Canada. We want him to fulfil that commitment, and also to represent Britain in New York on 11 September.
I personally am strongly committed to ensuring that we make changes in the long recess. After all, I proposed them. I think that they will be convenient to the House, and that the public will be pleased to see us sitting in September. From next year, we shall do so.
David Winnick: Many of us have campaigned for a shorter recess over the years, and I am glad that at long last the House is to sit in September, even if it does not do so this year. Oddly enough, such a proposal—despite the delay by a year—has been criticised by Opposition Members, and was opposed by past Governments, who always resisted any proposal for the House to return in less than 10 or 12 weeks. The 1992 summer recess lasted at least three months.
Mr. Cook: I thank my hon. Friend for his observation. I welcome the Opposition's impatience for us to act on my Modernisation proposal, and I hope that it will extend to the other recommendations.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: As the Leader of the House will know, the Department for

1019
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has existed for more than seven months. It has probably the worst record in Government for replying to Members' letters, and responding to the concerns of our constituents. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Secretary of State makes a statement next week about how she will improve the Department's responses?
Mr. Cook: The Secretary of State will be answering questions next week. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and others will seek to raise that point, but as I have said before, the reason for the delay in replies from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is that the volume of its correspondence has gone up threefold, which is why the Secretary of State has written to every Member setting out the steps that she is taking to increase the staff in the correspondence unit and to improve the turnover to MPs. The delay is a result of the increased work load, not of any reorganisation of the Department.
Mr. Alan Simpson: The Leader of the House has rightly acquired a reputation as someone who is willing to think radically about the reform of the Houses of Parliament in order to make sure that we are relevant to the 21st century, rather than redundant. It is in that context that I ask him to consider an urgent debate on the future of the NHS. The reason is that at the very least there are some discrepancies that need explaining between repeated assurances from Ministers that the NHS will never be transferred out of public hands and into private hands, and this morning's statement by Labour peer Lord Haskins suggesting that the NHS's future is to be found in transferring it lock, stock and barrel into the hands of a private corporation.
Given the number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have asked questions about the NHS today, will the Leader of the House at least reflect on the urgent need for such a debate, before another of the luminaries in the other House, who increasingly represent the voices of the new corporate aristocracy, suggests that democracy itself would be best served if Parliament were also transferred to a private corporation?
Mr. Cook: I am pleased to say that, as Leader of the House, I have no plans to transfer Parliament to a private corporation.
Lord Haskins, who is not a Minister, was speaking at the launch of the report by the King's Fund, which is not a subsidiary of the Government. It has made a number of recommendations about the decentralisation of NHS management, with which we are comfortable, but it is an independent body and it must speak for itself. I cannot speak for it, but I assure my hon. Friend and the House that we will not privatise the NHS, which will remain a public service, accountable through Ministers to the House and based on national values that reflect its importance as a service to meet need, not a service to chase money.
Mr. Colin Breed: Can the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made at the earliest opportunity on the Trident refit complex at Devonport? He may be aware that, with only a few weeks to go, it is reported that the complex is not complete.
1020
More important, it has yet to receive its nuclear installations certificate. That is causing my constituents, and, I think, others in the Plymouth area, some concern.
Mr. Cook: The issue is of concern to the hon. Gentleman's constituents but it is of wider concern because it raises larger issues. In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, he has always been vigilant in making statements to the House on procurement or the management of his Department. I welcome the fact that only this week there was a statement from his Department on the treatment of Army pensions. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State, who will no doubt wish to write to him direct.
Mark Tami: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 714?
[That this House expresses its deep concern at the conduct of KPMG as receiver for UPF-Thomson who are effectively holding Land Rover to ransom and placing over 10,000 manufacturing jobs at risk; believes that this will endanger well established business arrangements that could lead to increased sourcing of components overseas; and calls upon the Government to review all it's department contracts with KPMG in light of their actions.]
KPMG's demand for over £40 million for resupplying Land Rover with chassis is nothing short of blackmail and threatens the whole manufacturer/supplier relationship in Britain. It will put tens of thousands of jobs at risk, many of them in Wales. Will he agree to an early debate on that crucial subject, and will the Government look at what contracts they have with KPMG?
Mr. Cook: I hesitate to be drawn into the commercial character of the argument to which my hon. Friend refers. I welcome the fact that the business statement has given him an opportunity to ventilate the matter in the House, and I have no doubt that he will look for other ways to do so, but it is unlikely that the Government will wish to intervene in what is a commercial dispute.
Mr. Michael Jack: When last week I asked the Leader of the House to be kind enough to hold an urgent debate on Sir Donald Curry's report on the future of food and farming, to be published next week, he urged me to curb my enthusiasm until the other two reports on the foot and mouth disease outbreak were published. Now that the Leader of the House will have had a chance to read the report by the Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, he will realise that those two reports will not see the light of day at least for six months and most likely for 12 months. That is too long a gap for the House not to debate in Government time those important rural matters. I wonder whether he would be kind enough to re-examine the situation.
Mr. Cook: We will always keep the issue under review. If it appears appropriate to hold a debate, I am sure that the Government will wish to respond to any feeling in the House that is consistent with it being the right time for that debate to take place. However, I remind Opposition Members that they were the ones who pressed for a full public inquiry, which would have taken years rather than months to produce a result.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: Does my right hon. Friend share my sense of disgust at

1021
the case of the 39-year-old Somerset father of two who apparently committed no offence in enticing two 11-year-old girls to strip naked for his sexual gratification, although he would have committed an offence if he had photographed his child victims? Surely we need an early opportunity to discuss that obvious loophole in the laws designed to protect children from paedophiles?
Mr. Cook: I share my hon. Friend's puzzlement about the case. Many hon. Members will find it difficult to comprehend that no offence existed under which a charge could be brought in the case. As I told the House last week, we are carrying out a review of sexual offences, with a view to producing legislation at some point in the future. We want to make sure that the range of offences is Modernised so that it meets the current realities and has no substantial loopholes. I am sure that those carrying out the review will reflect on the case to which my hon. Friend refers.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to set out at the Dispatch Box the parliamentary timetable for legislation to impose a levy to recoup the costs of the air travel transport fund? The fund, which is operated by the Civil Aviation Authority, was set up 20 years ago to reimburse operators and bring back stranded tourists if a major travel company went broke. However, it has run out of money, and the CAA has emphasised the seriousness of the consequences should a major travel operator, package holiday company or charter airline go bust as a result of the very serious security threats in the wake of 11 September. We need appropriate legislation in place before the summer.
Mr. Cook: I remind the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will be answering questions next Tuesday. This is clearly a matter on which he can be interrogated by the House. The hon. Lady raises a serious issue, and I shall certainly draw her remarks to the attention of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions so that appropriate steps might be considered. However, given where we are in the parliamentary year and the pressure of legislation, I cannot necessarily commit the Government to further legislation this Session.
Dr. Ashok Kumar: Will the Leader of the House make available some time before Budget day for a debate on the climate change levy? The levy has been in place for nearly a year, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make his own statement about it on Budget day. However, it is a very important issue, affecting the steel and chemical industries in the north-east and Teesside, and the people who work in them. Before my right hon. Friend the Chancellor makes his decision, we should have a debate on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Cook: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his ministerial team are well aware of the
1022
views that have been expressed on the matter. However, a balance has to be struck. We have to make sure that we do not place our industries at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis the industries of other countries in the world, but we also have to make sure that Britain plays its full part in stabilising the climate. Although it will remain important, the health of our industry will be relatively less significant than the very sharp changes in lifestyle and health, among other problems, that will follow if we do not manage to get a grip on the problem and secure a stable climate.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will the Leader of the House say whether it will be possible for the Deputy Prime Minister to come to the House for a debate in the near future? He has become almost invisible recently. I have not seen him in the House or on television, and as far as I am aware he has not punched a member of the public recently. Is the right hon. Gentleman still a Minister? If so, will the Government try to make better use of him?
Mr. Cook: I would urge the hon. Gentleman to attend Prime Minister's Questions. Had he done so yesterday, he would have seen my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in his place. I can tell the House that I saw my right hon. Friend only an hour ago, and he was taking part vigorously in our debates on public policy.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware of yesterday's excellent debate in Westminster Hall on the coal industry? It lasted an hour and a half and the Members present were all of the opinion that we need a full debate in Government time on the Floor of the House because of the many problems surrounding the coal industry. The debate dealt essentially with the future of the coal industry, but there are other matters to do with the impact of the industry on areas where pits have been closed.
I have raised matters in previous weeks that require a debate on the Floor of the House. To that list of items I have added vibration white finger, for which the Benefits Agency has a very peculiar test. People who get compensation for vibration white finger under the compensation scheme miss out on benefit provision. Along with the list of items that I have been pressing in recent weeks and those dealt with in Westminster Hall, that calls for a full debate on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend, who is one of our most regular attendees at business questions. No one raises constituency issues more assiduously than he does. He frequently reminds us of the many problems facing those who formerly worked in the coal industry and the communities that sustained it.
I will reflect on what my hon. Friend says. He argues his case with his customary logic and a well-researched brief. I have said to the House before that it may be appropriate at the right moment to have a debate on the present energy review. Perhaps my hon. Friend could raise some of these questions then.
Dr. Evan Harris: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government's generally admirable Adoption and Children Bill will shortly come back to the House for its Report stage.

1023
He will also be aware of a cross-party amendment, to which I have added my name, which calls for unmarried couples to be considered for adoption. That would help deal with the concern about the tens of thousands of children requiring placement who are in care homes. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that would be an admirable change for the Government to make? In view of the confusion and press comment that there has been this week, will he confirm that the Government, along with Liberal Democrat Members, will support such an important measure, or at least allow Labour Members a free vote on it?
Mr. Cook: First, I should like to pocket the hon. Gentleman's praise for the admirable Bill. I am glad that it has his support. On the amendment that he proposes to make to the Bill, that is a matter to be argued on Report. I will make sure that the Report stage is held in good time for the hon. Gentleman and others to debate these matters.
The law on this was first changed in 1976, when some moves were made to allow greater liberality. Whether there is a case for a further move is for the hon. Gentleman to argue. However, the Government's position—and, to be fair, that of the previous Government—is that the interests and welfare of the child must always come first.
John Cryer: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the appalling proposal to privatise the RAF's fire and rescue services. It is causing a great deal of concern inside the RAF and outside, particularly among trade unions such as the Transport and General Workers Union and the Fire Brigades Union. I have had representations from constituents, as my constituency has a long-standing relationship with the RAF. RAF Hornchurch was part of the ring of steel in 1940 in the fight against fascism. Could we at least have a statement or a debate on this?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is correct, in that there is a project in the Ministry of Defence to assess the most viable and cost-effective solution for the provision of airfield support within the Ministry. If any proposal is made to meet those needs with a privatised service, it will be tested against a public sector comparator to make sure that it represents value for money. It must also be tested against other policy requirements, including, of course, the security of the armed forces and Ministry of Defence airfields. Should a decision be reached, I am sure that it will be announced to the House and that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to offer his views both in advance and afterwards.
Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Leader of the House make time available for an urgent statement on the policing of Greater Manchester, particularly in the light of the Commonwealth games to be held this summer? Greater Manchester police are facing a shortfall of £22 million in their budget, exacerbated by the fact that the Government have not yet agreed to fund the £7.5 million cost of policing the games. The chief constable of Greater Manchester police has said:
"We are in a desperate situation and if we don't get funding for the games, it will have a massive impact on policing in Greater Manchester."
1024
It is vital to all the people of Greater Manchester that we have a proper debate so that there is an opportunity for a statement and we can extract that promise from the Government.
Mr. Cook: I remind the hon. Gentleman that Manchester sought to hold the Commonwealth games and, indeed, fought hard for that. I congratulate it on its success. Naturally, there are consequences of Manchester's success in securing the Commonwealth games. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman gives a full, rounded picture of the position on Manchester police funding. Recently they received a special grant which has made theirs the first police force in the country to have digital radio for their services.
Mr. Brady: A cut.
Mr. Cook: Hardly. That puts them ahead of all the other police forces in the country and it will continue to ensure that they provide an excellent service.
Kevin Brennan: Will my right hon. Friend make time to introduce legislation on the continuing scandal of short measures of pints of beer in our pubs? Is he aware of the recent research conducted by the Campaign for Real Ale which shows that nine out of 10 pints being served in England and Wales are short measures, and that things are getting worse? Over the past three years the number of short measures being served has increased by 10 per cent. [Interruption.] I am glad to hear the inheritors of the men who watered down the workers' beer supporting this. I invite my right hon. Friend when he visits Cardiff for Labour's spring conference to partake of a pint of Brain's, the finest beer in Britain. If he finds time to introduce legislation, he will be the toast of Cardiff and, indeed, of Britain—because everyone who pays for a full pint, should get one.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a matter of great concern to the public and to many Members of this House. Any short measure is a clear public scandal and I assure my hon. Friend that we will seek to bear down as hard as we can. I would be in trouble with many hon. Members if I tried to express a preference for one particular regional beer over another.
Mr. Tyler indicated assent.
Mr. Cook: I see that I carry the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) in my caution on this point. I will be coming to Cardiff soon and I shall sample Brain's beer and consider whether it possibly reaches equivalence with the excellent McEwans beer that is brewed in my native country.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Many of us will remember with nostalgia and affection the silver jubilee celebrations in the days of our youth. Will the Government make a statement on how the new generation can similarly enjoy the golden jubilee celebrations of Her Majesty the Queen's reign this year, by lifting the absurd threat of administration charges for traffic orders, risk assessments and health and safety inspections, which have been quoted as £800 for a street party; and similarly, by ending the demands for absurd levels of third party

1025
insurance? Would it not be nice to read a headline that says, "Cook calls for common sense. Bring out the bunting!"?
Mr. Cook: I regret that I cannot write these headlines, but the hon. Gentleman makes an attractive suggestion which I enjoin on all newspaper editors. We hope that the golden jubilee will be a success. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are working hard to do all we can to support it. There is no requirement for third party insurance for street parties. We hope that local authorities will apply common sense with regard to the other charges that he mentioned and will want to work with local people to make a success of local celebrations. That is why we welcome the decision of some local authorities to reduce or remove these charges.

NHS Cuts
1.23 pm
Mr. David Lidington: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision by the south east regional executive of the NHS to instruct every health authority and NHS trust in that region to implement cuts in planned expenditure and services by the end of the current financial year.
The matter is specific and important. The cuts have been ordered by the regional chief executive to eliminate a projected deficit of £60 million in the NHS in the south-east of England. The cuts will apply to each NHS institution in Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire. The chief executive's letter is explicit in saying that savings will be required not only from those authorities and trusts that are at the moment projected to be in deficit at the end of the financial year, but from those that are set to break even or to achieve a surplus.
Ministers have made no public announcement so far, but it is now clear that the matter is urgent. A leaked letter to health authorities and trusts from the chief executive of the NHS south-east region, dated 14 January, demands immediate action to implement the savings required:
"Proposals need to be capable of being actioned to deliver savings before 31st March. I do not want reasons as to why savings cannot be achieved but proposals on what could be actioned. I recognise that this will mean reductions in areas that do not contribute to national imperatives … You should revisit all revenue and capital spending plans for the remainder of the year".
We need a debate because local people have a right to know where the axe will fall. I hope that there will be an opportunity for Ministers to be questioned and to tell the truth to the House.
Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said and I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24, and I cannot therefore submit the application to the House.

Points of Order
1.26 pm
Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that at 11.30 this morning the Chairman of Ways and Means moved that the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill be set down for debate, and in the business statement the Leader of the House said that it would be debated at 7 o'clock on Monday evening. Would you consider some means by which the time for tabling amendments can be extended? Under the procedure, amendments to be considered for selection on Monday would have to be on the Order Paper by tomorrow morning or this evening, which means that there are only seven and a half hours in which to table such amendments. Do you not think that that is a wholly inadequate time for what is, after all, a deeply controversial and, many of us believe, wholly unnecessary piece of legislation?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman might realise that I cannot make an exception for one Bill. It would be very difficult for me to do so.
Mr. Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I of course fully accept the ruling that you gave my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), but I seek your advice as to how to raise the ghastly case of my constituent, 83-year-old Arnhem veteran Bill Holman, whose surgeon telephoned me a few minutes ago to say that Mr. Holman spent 36 hours waiting among 40 other people on trolleys in casualty, with really severe stomach pains. I could not get into business questions because I was telephoning Mr. Holman. He told me that at one point he was considering suicide. The place was so overcrowded and
1028
the staff were so over-stressed that he had his coat instead of a pillow under his head at one stage. How much longer will this go on in our hospitals in Kent?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already used his ingenuity to help his Arnhem veteran. The hon. Gentleman knows his way around the Order Paper and knows how to get in touch with Ministers.
Dr. Evan Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following exchanges in the House yesterday at Prime Minister's questions, Members of Parliament will be aware that they are not, unlike medical staff, under a duty of confidentiality. Does that not nevertheless place a responsibility on MPs, given parliamentary privilege, to recognise, first, that best practice involves seeking the permission of a patient, where a patient is competent to give consent, before raising their case publicly; and, secondly, that medical staff are not in a position to respond to allegations made against them by patients' relatives, other third parties, the media or MPs without risking employment sanctions or being reported to their professional regulatory body?
Would you consider, therefore, Mr. Speaker, some guidelines to Members of Parliament, similar to our self-denying ordinance on the question of sub judice, that will show best practice and recognise patients' right to confidentiality and the difficulty that medical staff have in responding to allegations made, because of the risk that they will be reported to their professional bodies for breach of confidentiality? I should be grateful if you would consider issuing such guidance.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice of this point of order, and I understand that, in doing so, he said that he would write to me. The best course of action is for him to write to me, so that I can consider this matter.

Public Accounts
1.30 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the 38th to 47th Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1999–2000, of the 1st to 16th Reports of Session 2000–01, and of the Treasury Minutes on these Reports (Cm 5021, 5071, 5078, 5127, 5201 and 5261).
I feel very privileged to be Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. Dating from Gladstone, the office has been held by some very distinguished Members, some of whom went on to even better things. Harold Wilson, for example, held the post before becoming Prime Minister, and my immediate predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), held the post before becoming chairman of the Conservative party.
I pay tribute to my immediate predecessor. He asked me to pass on his good wishes to the Committee, but, ever scrupulous about our impartiality, he thought it better for the chairman of the Conservative party not to attend today.
My right hon. Friend often said that his challenge as Chairman of the Committee was to make audit exciting. Did he succeed? He certainly raised the Committee's profile during his four years as its Chairman, and it was—almost to coin a phrase—a profile with a purpose. That higher profile caused the Committee's work to be taken more seriously and resulted in it having a greater impact. His drive and intellect were matched by an appreciation of the Committee's impartiality, and he was quick to condemn failure in our public services, regardless of political sensitivities. Even in his first two years as Chairman he was prepared to put his name to reports that were very critical of the previous Conservative Government. He was utterly impartial. He had a very clear agenda as the Committee's Chairman and understood that its work could make a real difference to the quality of people's lives across the spectrum of Government policy.
My right hon. Friend took a particular interest in the Committee's work on hospital-acquired infection, which affects thousands of people each year at a staggering cost that is measurable financially and in lives lost. The Committee's work raised the profile of that issue and led to the first concerted programme of action to make hospitals cleaner and safer places.
My right hon. Friend became increasingly frustrated by the fact that the Committee would see the same errors repeated time and again, so he commissioned three reports—on privatisations, the private finance initiative and information technology projects—that identified those recurring themes and made practical suggestions for improvement. The IT report that he commissioned has had a particular impact. It drew on 25 reports, spanning 10 years, and contained a wealth of experience gained from studying IT projects. Its objective was to look forward and to identify lessons from the past that would be relevant to future IT projects. The Government's response to it was positive, and I hope that its impact will continue to be felt for many years to come.
My right hon. Friend was a very keen advocate of the need for Parliament to have the power and the information to hold the Government properly to account. He intervened on numerous occasions to ensure that the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General were
1030
strengthened. In particular, he played a leading part in the debate on the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, as well as in the ensuing review, led by Lord Sharman, of audit and central Government accountability arrangements. That review recommended a significant extension of the CAG's powers, on which I hope the Treasury will respond in the very near future.
My right hon. Friend inherited a Committee steeped in a long tradition, spanning 140 years of thorough and worthwhile work. During his chairmanship, he raised the profile of the Committee's work and focused its energies more rigorously on issues of importance to people's day-to-day lives. I am sure that the House will join me in commending his contribution to the Committee's work, and we wish him well in his new role. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Other significant changes have been made. In the past year, the Committee has lost a number of valuable members. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and to the hon. Members for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), for Edmonton (Mr. Love) and for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy). It gives me great pleasure, however, to welcome to the Committee the hon. Members for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) and for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) and—two new additions to the House—my hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) and for Tatton (Mr. Osborne).
Membership of the Committee is not an easy ride. The subject matter varies widely across the range of government and it is often very technical and difficult to master. Members have to work hard in preparing to dissect two entirely different topics every week that Parliament sits. No other Select Committee has anything like our work load. Members of the Committee work with energy, commitment and enthusiasm and I am indebted to them for their support. I pay tribute to them, and I am sure that some of them will wish to catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I also pay tribute to the former Committee Clerk, Mr. Ken Brown OBE. He retired in December after serving the Committee for six gruelling years and after 40 years' service to the House. Ken will be known to many Members, and he will be remembered for his good humour, sound advice and his ability to get things done. He served three successive Chairmen of the Committee and we all came to rely on his sure-footed approach. He understood perfectly the dynamics of the Committee and was able to find appropriate ways to push at the boundaries of the conventions within which we operate, of which there are many, but he was careful never to breach them. I thank the other Committee staff for the sterling service that they provide and welcome Mr. Nick Wright, our new Clerk, to his work.
I look forward to working closely with the new Financial Secretary, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). We have always had a very good working relationship in the past and he is, uniquely, a member of the Committee. I understand that the convention is that he makes a formal appearance, and we look forward to seeing him at some time in the near future.
The Committee's work would be pointless if it did not have an impact. Much of its impact is the result of the expertise of the Comptroller and Auditor General and his

1031
staff at the National Audit Office. The Committee is so strong because it is serviced by the NAO, which employs 700 people. Between us, we have generated savings of £1.4 billion over the past three years. We have produced 30 reports over the past year alone on matters as diverse as the National Blood Service and the refinancing of the Fazakerley private finance initiative prison contract. We have ranged right across government.
Those considering possible reforms of the Select Committee system should look at the Public Accounts Committee—at the way in which it is so expertly serviced, at the care with which the reports on which we base our deliberations are prepared and at the impact that they have every week of the year.
We cover many issues, but when we first considered taking evidence about obesity—just one of the subjects that caused contention—some members questioned whether the issue was within the locus of a financial scrutiny Committee. It was suggested that, surely, people had a right to choose to be fat. One of my Committee, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg)—who is in his place—said that
"the vast majority of people eat too much, they indulge, they do not do any exercise and basically it is their own fault."
That is typical of his valuable contributions to our Committee.
Our evidence session revealed that obesity is very much a public policy issue; the public purse, in the form of NHS care and benefit payments, certainly picks up much of the cost. Obesity contributes to 30,000 premature deaths each year and costs the economy £2.5 billion a year.
Before our deliberations, the NAO helpfully provided a body mass index dial, which the hon. Member for City of Durham viewed with incredulity. How could it be that he—a finely honed athlete—should be uncomfortably close to the obese category? Indeed, so strongly did he feel that he stood up before witnesses—permanent secretaries from five Departments—and gave them full sight of his muscular physique, toned by many years actively gracing these Benches. "Could you describe me as obese?", he challenged. The assembled mandarins flinched or blanched and, with an aplomb of which Sir Humphrey would have been proud, they ducked the question. The issues that surfaced, however, were real, and the costs, in terms of cash and human lives, enormous. I mention the subject because it was the first time that the PAC considered a subject that involved so many Departments, and it was a good and useful exercise.
Our work encompasses all central Government spending. It covers a staggering breadth of activity, with a level of complexity to match. Hard-pressed public servants in our hospitals, schools and armed forces, to name just a few, work to deliver ever-more complicated services against a backdrop of rising public expectation. All their work is carried out in the glare of publicity in a media often interested only in failure. It is true that some public servants might see my Committee in the same light—interested only in failure. That is not true, and to do so would be to misunderstand our purpose and approach. I want dwell for a moment or two on what I believe to be the central purpose of the Committee. At the start of this Parliament, it is right that we should ask ourselves why we are here and what we are going do with the powers given to us for the next four or five years.
In brief, the members of my Committee—I think that I speak for them when I say this—represent the interests of the taxpayer. That is why we are here as Members of
1032
Parliament, and our priorities reflect those of our constituents. We want to be sure that taxpayers' money is spent properly on what Parliament has approved, and we want to be sure that the services delivered to the public are of good quality and achieve the outcome intended. By bringing our constituency and personal perspectives to the issues that we consider, we speak for the layman—indeed, we are laymen—but we do so with much more authority because our deliberations are informed by the detailed work and expert analysis provided by the NAO. We, with our experience, can speak for our constituents.
It is well known that we do not interrogate Ministers. We normally interrogate permanent secretaries and are unique in that respect. As a Committee and the mouthpiece of Parliament, we have a unique relationship with the British civil service. It is renowned for its honesty and integrity. I believe, however, that my Committee has a role to play in ensuring that it also develops a reputation for successfully delivering public services. It is no longer good enough to have a worldwide reputation for honesty and integrity.
The British civil service has to deliver successful public services. We have an important part to play in understanding why projects and programmes have not delivered what was expected, but we seek also to identify the elements of success when we find them and to suggest solutions. We do not want to be negative all the time. We do not want to be just an undertaker. We do, however, want to be a practical force for good, trying to suggest how things can be done better.
We do not get involved in policy, which is our key to success. It is why we are a united Committee and why we hunt as a pack. No one can put a piece of paper between any member of the Committee because we focus our attention on the civil service, not on policy, and on trying to get things done.
Our task is to ensure that the learning points from our work are not lost, but crystallised and acted on. The fact that more than 90 per cent. of our recommendations are accepted by the Government clearly shows that our concerns are well founded and our suggestions well grounded. If anyone says that Parliament means nothing, that Back Benchers have no power and that Select Committees mean nothing, here is one Select Committee—meeting twice a week, producing up to 50 reports a year—that has 90 per cent. of its recommendations accepted by the Government. That is not a bad track record.
We are also sometimes criticised for focusing on relatively small bodies that spend relatively little. My response to such criticism is that if we constantly target very large spending Departments, there is a danger that those in the smaller bodies will feel free from the discipline that parliamentary scrutiny provides. In our experience, the smaller spending areas are most vulnerable to fraud, mismanagement and impropriety because often there are fewer controls. We believe that each public pound is as important as the next, and we take an interest in them all.
In summarising our work for the past year there are four themes of particular interest: the quality of financial management, improving public service, innovation and risk, and accountability. First, monitoring the quality of financial management is central to our role and it is a fundamental part of our work. The past year has seen a

1033
major change in the way in which the Government account for public expenditure. After 140 years, the wholly cash-based system by which Parliament approved Government expenditure has been replaced with one in which Parliament votes on expenditure in terms of resources, reflecting when liabilities are entered into, rather than when cash is paid out. For Departments, the challenge of changing systems has been immense, and I pay tribute to Sir Andrew Likierman and his team in the Treasury and their personal contributions in driving through this very difficult work. It has often been a uphill struggle.
What next? As a result of the shift to resource accounting, we have a wealth of information that was not available to us before. We need now to play our part, and we owe it to the taxpayer to devote more of our time to understanding and interpreting the information that is now available. That in itself is a massive task for Parliament and a huge challenge for us if we are to hold the Government to account day by day. We intend to do our best.
Reliable and timely accounts are essential if we are to grasp the potential of resource accounts. We can make progress only if those accounts are delivered well and on time and they are accurate. Last November, we reviewed the progress that Departments have made as they move from the old system to the new. I accept that the transition to the new commercial-style accounts, which are complicated, has caused many Departments headaches and difficulties, but it has been largely successful, with many Departments making substantial efforts to improve the quality of their resource accounts.
We were disappointed, however, that far too many Departments had qualified opinions on their accounts. That position must improve. Departments must also address the widespread and persistent lack of timeliness in delivering their accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Delays in submitting accounts suggest a more disturbing malaise, and we must ask whether senior staff in Departments, including permanent secretaries, are sufficiently engaged in the process, although I am sure they understand it. It is essential that senior staff in public bodies take seriously their personal responsibility for the public funds with which they are entrusted.
As I said, the propriety of the British civil service is not in doubt. My concerns, and the three examples that I shall briefly give, are about the need for sound systems of control and early warning signs before things go badly wrong. The first example in which my Committee recently played an part, and acted particularly strongly, concerns the Public Trust Office, which existed to protect the financial interests of the mentally incapacitated and was therefore responsible for one of the most vulnerable sections of the community. The Committee first reported on the very poor service provided in 1994, and we were dismayed to find in 1999 that the improvements we had been promised had still not materialised—indeed, performance had declined.
A further dimension to the PTO's problems emerged when we considered the management of unclaimed balances in court funds, weaknesses in its financial reporting and bonus arrangements for the agency's former chief executive. The Lord Chancellor's Department had responsibility for the PTO, but its approach was woefully
1034
hands off. It had ignored the warning signs so clearly heralded in our earlier report. For example, despite the PTO's worsening performance, the Department allowed its chief executive to continue to receive her full performance bonus. In the course of our subsequent work, the Department acknowledged that its oversight should have been a lot better; supervision should have been more rigorous and greater leadership should have been shown to help the agency think more imaginatively about its operations. In accepting our recommendations, the Lord Chancellor's Department took the radical step of closing the PTO and creating a new system to protect the interests of those vulnerable people. Clearly, we have to keep a close eye on that in future, but it is an example of the PAC's work and the way in which we have acted.
Failure to act on warning signs was a factor in our report on the corruption case involving Focus housing association. Two former Focus employees and a property dealer were convicted after the two employees took bribes from the dealer in connection with a purchase by Focus of 47 houses between 1991 and 1995, many at inflated prices. The case illustrated the failure of the Housing Corporation, which oversees housing associations, to act with sufficient urgency and improve their regulation of them. The Housing Corporation acknowledged to the Committee that there were inadequacies in its regulation of housing associations in the early 1990s, particularly in assessing their internal controls; those weaknesses may have made it easier for the corruption to occur. While the corporation began to improve its regulation, following a PAC report in 1994, it took until 1998, long after the discovery of corruption at Focus, to complete those improvements, which was far too slow.
Suspected impropriety at whatever level in government should be investigated properly and thoroughly to protect public funds. The corruption was discovered as a result of an investigation prompted by allegations received by Focus, but only after it and the Housing Corporation had received between them no fewer than six earlier warnings of possible impropriety. The case reinforces the need for allegations of impropriety to be swiftly and fully investigated.
It is outrageous that the Comptroller and Auditor General did not have the right of automatic access to the housing association, but had to negotiate with it for six months before gaining access to the information that he needed to bring the matter to our attention. Parliament has had a central role in such matters throughout history, but in that clear case of impropriety it took six months for the CAG to gain access, which is not good enough. We shall soon have the Government's response to Lord Sharman; I hope that they accept his recommendation that the CAG should have automatic access so that people working in that sector are aware that they are answerable to Parliament for the way in which they use public money.
Further education is another sector with which there are problems. It is a large sector and receives about £3 billion a year. Most colleges manage their financial affairs successfully, but our ninth report found that 72 FE colleges—some 17 per cent. of the total—were in financial difficulty. Financial problems on that scale give rise to serious questions about the funding, organisation, governance and management of the sector, and unnecessarily divert management from its primary role of delivering quality and successful education. We found that the Further Education Funding Council focused too

1035
much on trying to help colleges once they had got into difficulty, rather than spotting the warning signs and taking early preventive action.
We urge the Learning and Skills Council, which now has responsibility for the sector, to take a more pro-active approach than its predecessor. It must identify problems earlier and take preventive measures sooner if the sector is to meet the targets for widening participation and improving quality. That illustrates a wider problem that has vexed other committees. There is a danger that bodies with responsibility for oversight of a sector confuse their support and regulatory functions. Instead of policing a sector, they are captured by it. We recently looked at the Charity Commissioners; they are a notable example in which there is confusion about the role that they play.
I shall say a bit about better public service delivery, which is now at the heart of the political agenda. That reflects the genuine concern and belief across the political divide that there is enormous scope for improvement. The issue must, therefore, be central to the Committee's remit.
I want to focus on one element of public service delivery that has become something of a recurring theme for the Committee—equity. I hope that we can emphasise equity in our work in the next few years. It is the principle that access to and quality of the services that a citizen receives should not vary according to one's postcode.
For example, in the Committee's 43rd report of 1999–2000, we considered hip replacements. Total hip replacement is a highly effective procedure that reduces pain and increases mobility in almost all cases. In England, the NHS performs more than 30,000 replacements each year, at a cost of about £140 million. Most patients who have a hip operation receive an excellent service, but we expressed concern about variations in access to treatment and the quality of care that people were receiving. Believe it or not, patients can wait for an operation for anything between two and 16 months, although the average is eight months. Clearly, waiting 16 months for a hip operation is completely unacceptable. Integrated pathways for hip patients reduce their length of stay in hospital and improve outcomes, but what do phrases such as "integrated care pathways", which are used by the bureaucracy, mean? This particular term means people talking to each other in the NHS. Less than a third of trusts use pathways for all hip replacements. We hear much about joined-up government, but our role in the Committee in this matter and indeed all others is to ensure that we have joined-up management as well as joined-up government. There is no point in all the Ministers in the world ensuring that we have joined-up government—if they can do such a thing—if we still do not have joined-up management.
Sticking with health, I mentioned the terrible blight that hospital-acquired infection represents for patients. It kills about 5,000 people a year and costs the NHS about £1 billion a year. I am pleased that, since the Committee worked on it, the issue's profile has been raised considerably, but I still remember being staggered by the differences in how trusts were handling the problem. Again, there were enormous differences throughout the country. Infection control nurses have been shown to be vital in reducing the level of hospital-acquired infections. At the time of the National Audit Office investigation, the number of beds that one of these crucial nurses had to cover varied from about 150 in some trusts, which is fine, to an impossible-to-manage 1,800 in the very worst cases.
1036
Such a difference may mean that a patient's chances of picking up an infection and dying—that is what we are talking about—depends on which hospital they are lucky or unlucky enough to end up in.
More recently, and again on health, the Committee took evidence on another example of poor-quality service following our recent investigation of NHS waiting lists. Drawing on the CAG's report, we noted that there were sharp disparities in patient waiting times across the country. For example, 37 per cent. of people in west Sussex wait more than six months for admission, but in Dorset, less than 1 per cent. wait six months. That is a huge disparity on a central issue of political concern. It is also a concern for our constituents and it simply cannot be right. Indeed, these wide variations can occur in adjacent areas. I know that that is the case. They occur between Lincolnshire and Humberside in my constituency.
Variations in patient care are not confined to waiting lists and hip replacements. The Committee found the same problem in the previous Parliament when we examined cataract surgery and cervical screening. Although politicians spend a lot of time arguing party political points about health, there is a huge amount of detailed management work to be done that makes a real difference to people's lives, irrespective of views on the future of the NHS. We intend to pursue those problems. Almost 6 million people a year are admitted to hospital in England for at least one night, so good information systems that provide real information on current and planned uses of resources are essential.
We highlighted the Royal Shrewsbury hospitals NHS trust because it has a good system, which has dramatically reduced the number of operations cancelled for non-medical reasons. Sadly, that is rare.
Too many trusts continue to have inadequate information systems. In the 21st century, bed managers in 90 per cent. of hospitals can find out whether beds are vacant only by physically inspecting them or telephoning wards. It is disappointing that the NHS executive has not done more to build on the success of systems such as those developed in Shrewsbury. Although the new NHS information technology strategy aims to tackle that, many trusts will continue to operate without the information that they need until new systems are available nationwide. That is a simple matter, but it could make so much difference to people's lives.
I have already considered some of the disparities in waiting times. Why should patients, who may have waited many months for an operation, face the disappointment of a last-minute cancellation simply because the trust in their area—they have no choice about where they are being sent—does not adopt the good practice that already exists in other parts of the country?
I am pleased to say that our criticism has not fallen on deaf ears. When questioned, the Department of Health acknowledged that such variations need to be tackled, and is taking action. Distributing resources more fairly and targeting them to remove variations is an important first step. Setting national standards through the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and a national service framework, and testing compliance with the Commission for Health Improvement, are also crucial. We shall keep an eye on all those matters. We were told that differences

1037
in management processes were a factor in the variations. It is therefore imperative that best practice is quickly rolled out to ensure consistency of service.
The autumn of 2000 provided a grim reminder of the misery that serious flooding can cause.
Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Committee's work is valuable because it does not simply isolate opportunities for improvements but provokes them? He mentioned hip replacements, consistency, hospital-acquired infection and the regulation of waiting lists. There have been significant responses to our work, such as improvements in the NHS from which people have benefited.
Mr. Leigh: I am happy to accept that. The value of our Committee is that we do not try make party political points and we can therefore focus attention on issues, sometimes through pretty hard questioning and embarrassing the civil service. Most of the time, the Government respond. I pay tribute to those who respond and take our Committee's work seriously.
I was about to consider flooding, a serious matter that came to the fore in the autumn of 2000 when approximately 10,000 properties were hit by floods. Up to 5 million people and 2 million homes, businesses and other buildings in England are at risk from flooding. Yet the protection that homes and families might receive and whether flood warnings are issued depends on where one lives. That is remarkable. I did not know that before I began to study the Committee's work. When we took evidence on that serious issue, we learned that fewer than half those at risk of flooding live in areas covered by the Environment Agency's flood warning systems.
The Environment Agency needs to examine why different regions use different warning systems. It must satisfy itself that the methods used are the most effective in the circumstances and that they do not simply reflect local attitudes or the willingness to make funds available for warning systems. We were appalled to discover the poor condition of flood defence assets.
Nearly half the flood defence structures and a third of the barriers were categorised as fair, poor or very poor. We found that 165 km of flood defences are derelict. When someone is unfortunate enough to experience flooding, they can sometimes only use sandbags. However, in 2000, not everyone who wanted them could get them. Members of the public whose properties are at risk should not have to live with uncertainty about whether they will receive warnings or whether sandbags will be available.
Of course we welcome the extra investment for flood protection, but it will take years to take effect. A country-wide strategy is now required to deliver appropriate flood defence measures to the public, where similar flood risks exist regardless of where they live. This reflects our belief in equity. The current organisational responsibility and funding arrangements for inland flood defences are extremely complex. They involve a significant number of bodies—as I know, representing a low-lying area. They are confusing to the public, and possibly a hindrance to a consistent level of service.
To take a completely different example—one can range over the whole of government; I am just going to pick up one or two examples—there is also disparity in the
1038
treatment of benefit claimants across the country. For example, when we considered those who undergo medical assessments to determine their eligibility for disability and incapacity benefit, we heard another tale of large regional variations. The money involved is significant: more than £19 billion is paid each year in such benefits. Timely assessment is vital to avoid unnecessary delays for the prospective claimant, which could cause them worry or hardship. It is also important to protect the public purse by ensuring that people are paid only what they are entitled to.
The Committee heard that the time taken to process cases due for review varied across the country from 90 days—quite good—to 170 days. For example, those living in the west of Scotland have to wait nearly twice as long to hear the decision on their case as those living in the west country. The simple question that we want to ask is why they should have to do so. The Department for Work and Pensions needs to step up its efforts to ensure that claims are processed quickly, so that claimants across the whole country get their benefit without delay, and people who are ineligible are speedily removed from the system.
Equal access to public services and consistency in the quality of those services are essential. People across the land pay the same levels of tax, and we believe—this is a central part of our work—that they rightly expect to, and should, receive the same levels of service. My Committee will, I hope, continue to highlight cases of inconsistency. We will continue to define the elements of success where services work well, and provide a pointer so that the quality of services across the country can be brought up to the level of the best. There is no doubt that so much in our public services is of the best, but so much lags far behind. If our Committee can focus a spotlight on the worst services, and drag those responsible—including civil servants and officials—before us, we will have done our work.
If someone in the private sector fails, they may lose their job. In the public sector, perhaps the worst that can happen is that they come before the hon. Member for City of Durham, or my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, but we will give them a hard time. We will not flinch from doing so because it is their job to provide the best public services throughout the nation.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the NHS seems to be the only organisation in the country in which someone who fails can get a £95,000 bonus?
Mr. Leigh: The Committee has studied that case recently, and will produce a report to which the Government will have to reply. I cannot go into too much detail until that has happened, but we were horrified by the case, and held a very hard-hitting hearing on it. It is simply not acceptable that people who fail in the public sector can be shuffled off—even into another job, in the NHS—so that those who are trying to investigate them cannot do that. We have to sort that out. We must ensure that people do not have a job for life just because they are in the public sector. Those who use the NHS have paid for their health care, and they deserve the best. If people are fiddling the waiting lists, they will have to go, and they will have to pay the price.

1039
I turn to the theme of innovation and risk management. Innovation is essential if public services are to improve, and it entails risk. We are not against risks. They are not something to be avoided, but they must be carefully identified, evaluated and managed. That is so easy to say. One might think that those are just words, but how often have those words been taken into account over the past decades?
Numerous reports by the Committee have focused on the issue of risk. Two, in particular, demonstrate the flexibility of our approach to the issue. In December, we reported on the debacle—there is no other word to describe it—surrounding the benefit payment card, which was a vast and complex project that failed at vast expense. Estimates vary, but the figure involved could be up to £1 billion. Some clear learning points surfaced in our inquiry.
The other report was published in November. It considered risk management across government and identified important gaps in risk management systems. If risks are not managed, enormous sums may be paid out. The benefit payment card is a classic example, although we acknowledge that the project was innovative and that it had special features that added to the risk, notably its status as a pioneering private finance initiative project and the need to join up the systems of two purchasers with different business objectives. While the various parties identified many risks at various stages, they underestimated the difficulty of tackling a huge and complex project at the heart of achieving benefit delivery and post office automation, all in one go.
We also investigated many basic management failures. When projects go wrong, which they inevitably do, management must face up to the prospect of failure and take prompt action to avoid abortive costs. Time and again in our work, we witness management's failure to get a grip. We might use fine words—the jargon and the long phrases in National Audit Office reports—but everything comes down to getting a grip. It took the former Department of Social Security a laboured 18 months to put the project out of its misery. The Government have set up better IT project management arrangements and I am sure that they take on board many of the lessons of good practice highlighted in our reports.
Our first report this Session considered what has been done to encourage Departments to improve risk management. For risk management to become a standard feature of how they carry out their activities, the benefits that it brings to service delivery and safeguarding public money need to be understood and accepted by all staff. One would have thought that obvious and clear, but if it is so obvious and clear why has it not been done? For example, we found that only 25 per cent. of Departments set clear risk management objectives. The initial Cabinet Office assessment of departmental risk frameworks shows that some are much more developed than others.
I hope that the report puts an end to the myth going round Whitehall that the Committee is a barrier to innovation and risk. Some permanent secretaries criticised my predecessor—in private, of course, not in public. The myth is, "If people in the civil service innovate and take risks, they might end up in the hot seat before the Committee." We will criticise Departments if they fail to identify and manage foreseeable risk, but we support greater innovation and we are prepared to accept that, on occasion, something unforeseeable will scupper even the
1040
best-planned project. One can at least plan for the future, but that is often not done. That was particularly the case with the former Department of Social Security's IT systems.
Mr. Brian Jenkins: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we often find not a lack of understanding, but a lack of skill to implement risk assessment and risk management across the Departments? We do not oppose risk, but we do oppose the inability to carry out a proper risk assessment and put in place adequate management strategies at the start of a project.
Mr. Leigh: That is absolutely clear and we shall continue our work on it. We believe that risk taking and innovation are wholly consistent with careful and proper control of public money. To follow on from that intervention, if Departments have sound control systems they are more likely to have the confidence to innovate, because they will be able to take account of adverse circumstances. In the game of politics, we all know that policies, Ministers and requirements change all the time. Risk management will become an integral part of how Departments operate. Their civil servants have the skills to identify and assess risks and take the action to manage them. Having the right skills to manage risky projects is a salient issue.
I want to make as an individual a point that I put to the Treasury permanent secretary. It is worth reminding the House that those in the highest echelons of the civil service have, without exception, a background in policy rather than project management. Perhaps for that reason, those people of honesty and integrity, who have brilliant minds, sometimes fail to get a grip on major projects. Time and again, they are called to our Committee to explain themselves.
No project director—no one who has ever attempted to run a Government project—has ever become a permanent secretary in the history of the civil service. That says something about the culture, which needs to change. There is now a culture of delivery and the public expect first-rate public services across the nation. We expect our senior civil servants to have hands-on experience of how to deliver a successful project. We found that one project was run by seven people over its lifetime. Some lasted just a few months before being shuffled off to another part of the management structure.
Geraint Davies: Many people might find it unbelievable that no permanent secretary has run a project in his entire career. Can the hon. Gentleman explain what he means? Do not those who join the civil service run projects and work their way up or is he suggesting that all such people are parachuted in at senior level?
Mr. Leigh: No. Project director is a term of art and no person responsible over months and years for delivering a major IT project such as the benefit payment card—the one in the hot seat—has risen to the top of the civil service. I put that to Sir Andrew Turnbull, the Treasury permanent secretary, and he could not deny it. To be fair to him, and as he said, permanent secretaries need many other skills. They have to advise Ministers, which may require a particular ability that does not arise from running projects, but the civil service culture is changing and many people will expect a different type of person to rise to the top.

1041
We welcome the Cabinet Office and Treasury initiatives to improve risk management by Departments, but they need to monitor how Departments implement their plans to ensure that they are underpinned by effective action to manage risks. I also welcome the decision that the public sector should apply the Turnbull requirements on corporate governance being adopted in the private sector. The Government must get to grips with finding ways to reward, encourage, promote and retain good project managers.
My final theme is accountability, which is vital. Last February, Lord Sharman published a valuable review of audit and accountability in central Government and the momentum behind his recommendations must not be lost. Opportunities for Parliament to consider and legislate on issues of financial accountability are few and far between. Believe it or not, the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 represents one of the few opportunities to do so since Gladstone's time. My predecessor and the Committee were disappointed that the Government did not take the opportunity to iron out anomalies in the financial accountability arrangements, although they were pleased to contribute to the Sharman review, which they established in response to our concerns.
The Sharman report made a series of welcome recommendations designed to strengthen central Government audit and accountability arrangements. The Committee endorsed that report in our sixth report in 2000–01. It recommended that, as a matter of principle, the Comptroller and Auditor General should audit all executive, non-departmental public bodies, that his access rights should be on a statutory basis, and that if a Department has a substantial stake or influence or if a company has a public interest role, he should be eligible for appointment as auditor of companies.
The report went on to recommend that external validation of performance information for central Government should be progressively developed. It also made a number of recommendations to bring central Government corporate governance arrangements into line with best practice in the private sector to address issues of audit burden and the effect of audit or risk taking, and to ensure that best use is made of audit work.
We are still waiting for the Government's response. The report was produced almost a year ago, and the Government have still to respond, but I think that they will fairly soon. The report covers important matters of direct concern to Members of the House, and further delay would be unacceptable. I know that the Treasury has been in close contact with the CAG and his team on the practical issues of implementation, and encouraging progress has been made. If—I use the word advisedly—the Sharman recommendations are implemented in full, that will be a significant step forward for accountability to Parliament.
Two issues may cause difficulty. In our report on the Sharman review, the Committee raised the issue of access to the civil list, which is the one area of royal spending outside our remit. Since 1988, the National Audit Office has had access to relevant information held by the royal household relating to the use made of the grants paid by Departments to meet the costs of royal travel and the royal
1042
palaces. The Comptroller has produced reports on both those grants, which the Committee has examined. Indeed, we considered his report on royal travel only last week. Both reports provided an opportunity for the palace to show that it has taken seriously issues of costs and efficiency. It has done pretty well, and I think it has proved the case for greater transparency. I urge the Government—I mean this sincerely—to reconsider the question of the CAG having similar access rights to the civil list.
Two other bodies are currently outside the scope of our remit, the first of which is the BBC. It is essential and right that there should be improved accountability to Parliament for the funds spent by the BBC. The sums are large: some £2 billion each year. Believe it or not, Gavyn Davies, now the chairman of the BBC, recommended when he chaired the review on the future funding of the corporation that the CAG should have access to the BBC. That was before he became chairman. That is the same man who recommended that Parliament should have some access to the BBC. That view was supported by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport and by Lord Sharman.
All those parties failed to be convinced by the corporation's line—in my view, it is a line—that parliamentary accountability would impair editorial independence. Examinations of the value that the BBC gets from the way in which it uses our money could be completely separate from editorial decisions. We would not get involved in who should be on programmes and who should run the corporation. We, on behalf of the people, merely want some idea of what the BBC is doing with £2 billion each year.
I should be pleased to hear from the Chief Secretary whether he has consulted the chairman of the BBC on this point. I know that the Financial Secretary will reply to the debate, but the Chief Secretary will be writing to me on this matter. Has Gavyn Davies changed his mind? Why should he change his mind?
A similar point was made in the 1960s about the CAG's access to universities. It was said that there would be difficulties with academic freedom and independence, but no one would now suggest that his involvement in that sector has compromised academic freedom. The NAO spends its time examining implementation of policy across government without the need to question the policies in the first instance.
If every family in the country is compelled to pay the licence fee—they are not compelled, but we all know that they do so—it is a poll tax by another name. I believe that that large sum of money should be subject to the same scrutiny as all other taxes, and we will pursue that point.
Mr. Richard Bacon rose—
Geraint Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is a discussion of the BBC's finances in order? I would welcome a report on the BBC, but we have not had one, and I do not think that we should discuss the matter. I bow to your wider wisdom, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): We are hearing a report from the Chairman of the Select Committee. He is alluding to something that might be, so

1043
I do not think that he is straying from the reasonable terms of the debate. I am prepared to hear what he has to say on that matter.
Mr. Leigh: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon).
Mr. Bacon: I was interested in what my hon. Friend said about academic freedom. Does he agree that, far from compromising the BBC's editorial independence, scrutiny of its finances by the CAG could enhance its independence? Since the CAG has had oversight of the finances of universities, there has been a growth in academic freedom. There are now joint honours degrees in basket weaving and sociology and a professor of in-flight catering. By analogy, surely the BBC should welcome the chance of greater independence that scrutiny brings.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was an overlong intervention.
Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend has made an interesting and worthwhile point, and I look forward to hearing him develop his arguments.
Similar arguments apply to whether the CAG should have access to the Financial Services Authority, which was established as a company limited by guarantee with many of the attributes of a public body. Its purpose is to protect the public's interests. It is funded by a compulsory levy on the 34,000 firms in the financial services sector.
I was shocked to discover that the CAG, Parliament's watchdog, has no access to the FSA. As the Equitable Life saga showed, the citizen has a direct interest in the authority's work. It is crucial that there is some accountability to Parliament for the way in which it discharges its functions. Parliament has no power to obtain independent evidence on its activities. That is a matter of some urgency, and I look forward to hearing what the Chief Secretary has to say about it. Greater transparency would bring benefits, so that another Equitable Life fiasco could be avoided.
Mr. George Osborne: Is it not striking that, of all the issues on which I have received correspondence from my constituents, the Equitable Life case is the one on which I have received the most, yet as a Member of Parliament I am not able directly to examine the FSA's work? That concerns many of my constituents. I fully support what my hon. Friend has suggested.
Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. We look forward to hearing what the Government intend to do about these sensitive issues that are of huge importance to many people.
We have a clear agenda for the future. We shall focus on issues that directly affect the public, and shall ask the questions that they want to ask on topical issues. We are shortly to consider access to and quality of higher education. We have work in hand on the millennium dome and the inappropriate adjustments to NHS waiting lists.
We will be asking how the foot-and-mouth crisis was handled, about the financial implications for the taxpayer of the events at Railtrack, about the lessons that can be learned for the future management of and investment in
1044
the railways, whether the way forward for London Underground—when it is eventually decided—provides the best value for money, and what lay behind the suspension of individual learning accounts. We will aim to get to the bottom of those matters, and offer recommendations for improvement.
I am glad to stand here today as Chairman of such a distinguished Committee. Our Committee has a long history, but the careful stewardship of my predecessors has ensured that it has remained relevant. We have a serious role to play in improving the administration of government, and I am delighted that my colleagues on the Committee are so adept at what they do. By holding to account those responsible for delivering public services, the Committee aims to ensure that there is a vital check from which the general public can take much confidence. It is a great privilege to chair the Committee.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chairman of the Committee has been given a certain licence in introducing his first report, but I will not necessarily apply it as widely to other Members.
2.29 pm
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I do not present as sleek a figure as I had hoped following the obesity report. Obviously the recommendations are not working.
I greatly enjoy serving on the Committee. The work is the most interesting that I have experienced in nearly 15 years as an MP. The Committee does a genuinely worthwhile job. I must admit that I have served on other Select Committees that I felt were a waste of time, because Governments—Labour as well as Conservative—never seemed to listen. This Committee's work seems very relevant, and we receive positive responses, which makes our work worth doing. I become cynical as I grow older, but serving on the PAC strikes me as an excellent way of spending my time.
I thank all the Committee's staff for doing a tremendous job, and for being so helpful and obliging. Sometimes people who are getting old, as I am, forget what they have done. They forget that they already have their papers, and ask for them again. We never have any problem on such occasions, because our staff are so helpful. I also thank the National Audit Office for its help and expert advice. Its outstanding professionalism goes without saying, and it makes life a lot easier.
Yesterday we received a delegation from the South African Public Accounts Committee, which asked, among other things, whether we were given any secretarial support. I said that we were not, but I should have said that we can call on 750 auditors at any time. We could be described as the most-briefed Committee in the House, with the best possible support.
Let me join the Committee's Chairman, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), in extending my thanks and good wishes to Ken Brown, the Clerk, who retired earlier this year. His influence and personality will remain with the Committee for many years. He is greatly missed, and I wish him a long and happy retirement. He was a genuinely nice man, and there are not many people of whom that can be said. I thought a great deal of him.

1045
I wish good luck to our previous Chairman, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who has taken what must now be an almost impossible job. Did I say that I wished him luck? I am not sure that I wish him too much luck—a little bit of luck, perhaps.
I also congratulate our new Chairman on his recent appointment following the general election. We are monitoring him carefully to see that he does his job well. So far we have given him 9½ out of 10, so he is okay.
Unlike the Chairman, I do not want to trawl through all that we have done. I want to concentrate on three reports on the national health service and some of the issues in them that we have identified as giving cause for concern. Many of those issues were discussed at a valedictory hearing with Sir Alan Langlands, the departing chief executive of the NHS.
It is clear to me that the NHS executive has experienced great difficulties in overseeing and monitoring the activities of many NHS bodies. Consequently, management failings have caused serious problems in the service, resulting in the wasting of billions of pounds over the last 10 years or more. In, I think, 1996, the previous Government introduced regional executives, but I do not believe that they ever succeeded in doing the job that they were meant to do. In my view, their purpose was to link the centre with those working at local level; but they were unaccountable, and often failed to pass on authoritative guidance from the NHS executive to trusts. In many instances, the priorities of both this Government and the last were not apparent locally.
One example of the executive's lack of success in preventing management failings is the control of hospital-acquired infection in acute NHS trusts. Our Chairman mentioned that. A hospital-acquired infection may result in prolonged or permanent disability, and a small proportion of patients die. Such infections add to patients' discomfort and to the length of their stay in hospital, which itself causes problems.
Hospital-acquired infection was the subject of a PAC report entitled "Inpatient Admission, Bed Management and Patient Discharge in NHS Acute Hospitals", about which I shall say more shortly. It was a damning report, which severely criticised the management at all levels. As the Chairman said, the cost to the taxpayer is some £1 billion a year—an incredible amount. In view of that, and in view of the suffering experienced by about 100,000 patients each year, one would have thought that trust managers would make the problem a priority. According to a National Audit Office report, however,
"in a number of NHS Trusts Chief Executives may have a low level of awareness of infection control issues and … may be unaware of the extent and cost of hospital acquired infection and how it is being addressed in their NHS Trust"
One trust allocated the measly sum of £500 or so to its infection control team in 1998, while another allocated £1 million. That illustrates the discrepancy mentioned by the Chairman.
In many NHS trusts, hospital-acquired infection has generally had a low profile. Although the Department of Health has launched initiatives, particularly in the past two years, we found that a quarter of trusts' service agreements with health authorities did not cover infection
1046
control services, and that when they were covered they were often inadequate. We found that, contrary to guidelines issued by the Department in 1995, direct involvement of chief executives in strategic management and supervision was very low. We also found that 21 per cent. of trusts had no infection-control programme, and that only 11 per cent. of the programmes that did exist had been approved by chief executives.
That is a perfect illustration of the NHS executive's failure to convey the seriousness of some NHS problems. We noted that there was scope for savings of some £150 million a year if infection rates could be reduced by a mere 15 per cent., but that the issue was not taken seriously by senior managers of trusts. Not only is this costing the taxpayer huge amounts; tragically, people are losing their lives.
Last Thursday, going home in the train, I was making some notes in preparation for my speech. Incredibly, when I opened the Evening Standard I was confronted by an article on this very subject. It was headed:
"Doctor's campaign against 'filthy' wards"
and, below that,
"GP takes action after hospital superbug kills his wife".
I shall quote extensively from the article, because it sums up the tragedy and the fact that not enough is being done about it, although we have taken up the issue.
The article says:
"A retired GP has launched a campaign to improve hygiene in hospitals after his wife died from a superbug she picked up on a 'filthy' ward while recovering from a routine operation."
The retired GP in question was Dr. Roger Arthur. The article continues:
"His wife Patricia, 73, died in St Helier Hospital in Carshalton last month from the superbug methicillin-resistant streptococcus aureus, or MRSA, an infection which kills 5,000 hospital patients a year and is a factor in the deaths of 15,000 more.
Dr Arthur says the real figure may be much higher.
The scale of the problem is highlighted in the fact that, at the time of Mrs Arthur's death, St Helier had a dedicated MRSA ward, designed to keep affected patients in isolation—but it was full.
She had gone to St Helier for surgery to remove a benign obstruction in her bowel. Her husband said: 'The operation was a success and she was discharged after eight or nine days.
I noticed she had a bit of a cough but she seemed fine. However, when we got home she seemed to become ill and within 10 hours I could see she was going downhill fast. We went back to the hospital and they did some tests. The doctor came back and told us that it was MRSA.'
Mrs Arthur died from the infection four days later.
Dr Arthur, from New Malden, has little doubt how his wife became infected. He said: 'The ward she was on was absolutely filthy. There were sweet papers, fluff, old bits of Elastoplast and the tops of disposable syringes behind the bed when we came in, and still there when we came out.
I ran my finger along the windowsill by my wife's bed. There was a thick layer of dust and a vase with dead flowers. There were cleaners around but they seemed to be cleaning the middle of the floor and not bother anywhere else.
I was told there was a ward for MRSA patients but that was full, so people with the infection were remaining in normal wards and infecting other patients.'
St Helier Hospital was the subject of a damning report last August by the Commission for Health Improvement, which said levels of cleanliness were 'seriously compromised', with wards smelling of urine and mortality rates significantly higher than the national average.

1047
A Department of Health spokesman said: 'The Government takes the issue of hospital-acquired infections very seriously and believes infection control and basic hygiene should be at the heart of good management and clinical practice in the NHS. A compulsory national surveillance service is being developed and a first phase, focusing on MRSA, was launched in April 2001.'"
That Department of Health spokesman may well be right. However, the PAC met Sir Alan Langlands and Liam Donaldson, chief medical officer, to discuss the report on 6 March 2000. Two years later, the problems are still occurring and that is not good enough. The Government's response was quite encouraging, but it is clear that there is much to be done. When we read about such a case, it is obvious that something must be done pretty quickly.
Everything that Dr. Arthur says was borne out in our report. Over the past eight years, isolation facilities have been significantly reduced, which must have contributed to the problem quite significantly. The majority of hospital-acquired infections are caused by bacteria. Some infections spread from person to person. Antibiotics have been used successfully for more than 50 years to control and to overcome bacterial infections. That has led to the emergence of highly resistant strains of bacteria. They are commonest in hospitals where high antibiotic usage allows organisms to evolve. The close concentration of people with increased susceptibility to infections allows the organism to spread.
MRSA poses one of the biggest threats to infection control in hospitals. In some, it is endemic. Cleanliness is paramount but I was staggered to read in the report—I could not believe it—that effective hand washing or hygiene was very poor in hospitals. It says:
"A number of studies have generated data that confirm that Doctors who decontaminate their hands between seeing patients reduce hospital infection rates. Yet many observational studies, mainly conducted in intensive care units, show low rates of hand washing especially among Doctors. Insufficient washbasins, supplies of liquid soap and paper towels, are some of the reasons that have been given for this."
I have no reason to believe that the NAO report is not correct. If even the doctors cannot do that, and they know the problems that it will cause, that is outrageous. For many years I was a head teacher at a nursery school. One of the first things we taught the children about hygiene was that they must wash their hands very carefully. Goodness gracious me: if we are teaching young children of four and five to do that, it is a shame that doctors themselves cannot do it. It is incredible that doctors are contributing to that horrific scenario. However, new clinical governance arrangements are being introduced. I hope that that appalling situation will be addressed vigorously.
As I have said, the PAC has commented on the need for better co-ordination within and between NHS organisations. In our report on in-patient admissions and bed management, we were concerned at the delay in many hospitals in discharging patients owing to poor co-ordination within hospitals and with outside agencies, which meant that some hospital beds were occupied virtually unnecessarily.
The NAO report highlighted 20 areas where performance at many trusts could be improved to match the lead of others. That would result in fewer cancelled operations and shorter waiting times for emergency patients, and reduce delays in discharging patients from hospital, which in turn would yield significant savings and free up resources for improving other aspects of patient care.
1048
Often patients are brought into hospital far too early. Incredibly the report showed that if there were a 10 per cent. increase in same-day admissions, it would release about 180,000 bed days for alternative use. Few hospitals had effective systems for monitoring and co-ordinating key resources such as beds and theatre time.
In particular, the Committee was concerned that in more than 90 per cent. of trusts bed managers obtained their information on bed availability only through physical inspection and telephoning wards throughout the day. That seems archaic in a Modern NHS. On any given day, around 6,000 over-75s who are ready to be discharged from hospital are blocking beds and costing the NHS £1 million.
In fairness, the Government have recognised the scale of the problem and are taking action. For example, only last week, my local social services department was informed that it had been allocated £1.886 million to ease bed blocking in the next financial year. There is a severe problem. The Government are doing something about it but we must ensure that even more is done.
Mr. George Osborne: The hon. Gentleman is right that efforts are being made to improve the discharge of patients from hospitals, but does he agree that we need a joined-up approach, to use the jargon? We need to look at the closure of care homes and of places in care homes in wider society, because that provides less opportunity for discharging people from hospitals.
Mr. Steinberg: The hon. Gentleman is right. I do not intend to get into a political battle with him over the issue, but he should remember that the Conservative Government encouraged the increase in the number of private care homes, which are now being sold off for property development, reducing the number of care places. I will not go into that. Let us try to keep it non-political this afternoon but I agree that there must be a joined-up approach and much more co-ordination between the NHS and local social services departments. More care places must be found.
The real problem is clearly outlined in the report, which informs us that the number of general and acute beds fell from 200,000 in 1986 to 138,000 in 1997, a loss of 62,000 beds. For years I was warned by health authority officials that efficiency gains of 3 per cent. a year that had been demanded since the 1980s would eventually have a detrimental effect on local health services. As a result, beds have been lost and there has been an increase in bed occupancy and reductions in staff. The efficiency savings became cost-cutting exercises. The cumulative effect of those efficiency savings has been an increase in bed occupancy from about 70 per cent. to over 90 per cent., which leaves little capacity to cope with peak demand.
I shall now be a little controversial. I do not think that matters have been made any better—in fact, they may have been made a lot worse—by the new private finance initiative projects, which appear to result in the loss of further beds. We are told that bed numbers in those projects are agreed by health managers and independent experts. I have had a lot of experience—I am not being arrogant, because one of the first PFI hospitals in the country was at Durham.
It is not the so-called experts who make the decisions about bed numbers, but the financial consortiums. I know that from my own experience. The new university hospital

1049
in Durham opened recently and, for the six or seven years since the building of the hospital became a possibility, I was told that it would have enough beds. However, within a week of the hospital's opening, it was clear that it did not have enough beds, and that there was a severe shortage. That is not surprising. The number of NHS beds has fallen by around 2 per cent. a year since 1980, but admissions have risen by some 3.5 per cent. in the period. Given those statistics, it is no wonder that there is a bed shortage.
The NHS is under constant scrutiny by the PAC. As a consequence, there has been a significant improvement in management over the years. There is no doubt that, during the past few years, there has been a significant strengthening in accountability and performance monitoring in the NHS. That is partly due to the excellent reports that we receive from the National Audit Office, and the work that the Committee does. That may sound arrogant, but I believe that the PAC's work has helped encourage the improvements.
Government spending is not as straightforward as it was years ago. It used to be that only Government Departments spent millions or billions of pounds on services, but now executive agencies and quangos spend billions of pounds of public money every year. For the sake of continued accountability, efficiency and best value, the NAO and the PAC must scrutinise all public spending.
In the previous Parliament, we failed to persuade the Government to legislate to ensure that. However, Lord Sharman, who was commissioned by the Government to carry out a review of Government audit and accountability, has recommended that the NAO should be appointed automatically as the auditor of all newly created executive non-departmental public bodies—in other words, quangos. I was pleased with that recommendation, and I hope that the Government accept it.
That has already been happening in practice. For example, the NAO was given the job of auditing the new Learning and Skills Council and the Postal Services Commission. However, I believe that that appointment should have been automatic. In that way, Parliament would be able to ensure that all such organisations were accountable to it, and therefore that all public expenditure was accountable to Parliament.
2.52 pm
Mr. David Rendel: When I rose in the equivalent debate in December 2000, I noted that there were so few hon. Members in the Chamber that I would have to speak for an awfully long time if the debate was to continue until 7 o'clock. On that occasion, I did not fill all that time, and you will be pleased to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not intend to continue today until half past six, or whatever time the winding-up speeches might be expected to begin.
It is perhaps a pity that so few hon. Members want to take part in this annual debate. After all, it covers a huge range of Government affairs, and it offers Members an opportunity to speak about a large number of specialist interests. I am sorry that more do not choose to do so. I am equally sorry that the debate does not seem to attract an enormous amount of attention from the press. However, perhaps that is just the way of things.
1050
Like the Committee's new Chairman, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), and the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), I shall begin by paying tribute to Ken Brown, the PAC's former Clerk, who retired at Christmas. As the hon. Member for City of Durham said, he was an enormously nice man, but he was also extremely helpful. I probably bothered him with my questions about the workings of the PAC as much as anyone, with the possible exception of the Committee's previous Chairman, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). He always took the time to explain to me everything that I had to have explained, however idiotic my questions must sometimes have seemed.
It was great proof of the esteem in which Ken Brown was held in the House, and the respect that was felt for him, that so many hon. Members and others attended a farewell party for him on the Terrace. They had known him during his long service in the House, and valued the work that he had done. Not only that, but some who attended were aware that his father and grandfather had both acted as Clerks in the House. I hope that he has begun what will be a long and happy retirement, with many happy memories of this place as a result of the tributes that were paid to him on that day.
I also pay tribute to the PAC's previous Chairman, with whom I like to think I worked effectively during his period of office. I hope that I shall continue to work effectively with the new Chairman as well, but the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden made a name for himself as a good Chairman, raising the Committee's prestige and increasing its influence in parliamentary and national affairs. It is to his credit that the PAC should continue to be held in the respect that has been its due for a long time. The Committee is an all-party body, and always reports unanimously. That is what gives it its strength.
I am pleased to be on the Committee, and the hon. Member for City of Durham made it clear that he felt the same. It is a good Committee, and I recommend membership to any Back-Bench Member, in government or opposition. Membership probably amounts to one of the most powerful positions available to people who are not in the Government, and I hope that other hon. Members will seek to become members of the Committee. I understand that some parties have not always found it especially easy to fill all the places on the Committee. Sadly, my party does not as yet have so many places to fill, so the difficulty is not so great. However, that may change in the near future.
I think that it is a great pity that we should have found it difficult sometimes to find members for the Committee. The PAC is a very interesting and powerful Committee to belong to. It is one of the few Select Committees in which Back-Bench or Opposition Members can make a real difference to the way in which things work, by influencing Committee recommendations that are then implemented by the Government. Normally, only Ministers can do that, but the PAC gives Back-Bench Members that power. That is why I recommend membership of the PAC heartily to those hon. Members who have not taken up the option so far.
As is true of all Committees, however, changes perhaps need to be made to the PAC. The Committee has been in place since Gladstone's day, and it may be time for us to rethink our way of working. I am delighted that the new

1051
Chairman has decided that we should all go on an away day to try to work out whether changes need to be made.
I suggested a number of changes in my equivalent speech a year and a bit ago, when we last had this debate in the House. Since then, more matters worthy of consideration have come up; among the issues then raised was the question of whether we need a second PAC.
As has been mentioned, the PAC is a very hard working Committee, which takes up an enormous amount of its members' time. It is possible that we should distinguish between bigger cases and smaller ones, with the second Committee discussing the smaller cases, and the main Committee discussing only those cases of really major importance.
I am sure that that proposal will be welcomed by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). He is one of the critics of the Committee to whom the new Chairman referred in his speech. When the hon. Member for Gainsborough talked about this particular criticism, I was sorely tempted to pretend that I was in some pantomime, and to shout, "He's behind you!" However, I resisted that temptation.
One criticism that I did not mention in 2000 is the sheer length of time that it takes for reports to come before us. Today, the House is discussing reports that appeared before the PAC a long time ago. The initial incentive for the NAO to draw up a report will have made itself apparent even before that, and we are talking about difficulties with Government policies that first arose two or three years ago. Those issues may well have been clarified and dealt with properly many months or even years before this debate began.
It is a pity that the process should take so long. A matter has to be pulled before the NAO, then the NAO has to investigate it and publish a report. That report then has to be the subject of a Committee hearing, then the Committee must look at the transcript of that hearing and prepare a draft report of its recommendations. That draft report has to be approved and sent off to the Treasury for its response. Finally, the Treasury's response is discussed in this annual debate.
It is a lengthy process. If we could find some way to speed it up, we could deal with some matters rather more quickly than we do at present.
Mr. Bacon: The Government closed down individual learning accounts on 23 November. The National Audit Office is investigating the matter and hopes to publish a report later this summer, perhaps by May, so that it can be discussed by the Committee before the summer recess. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a model of how we should do things in the future?
Mr. Rendel: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Perhaps he will back me on this point when we come to our away day—it certainly sounds like it.
Another matter that we might want to discuss in changing the structure of the Committee is a way of asking a further set of questions. We each have a quarter of an hour in which to ask our questions and although the Chairman is very good about sometimes allowing us back in at the end of the session, it would be useful to have a second go. We may think of something that has come up as a result of other members' questions to the witnesses.
1052
Occasionally we may need a second hearing. There was one occasion recently, which I shall refer to later, when we had a second hearing on the same subject. Recently we were discussing whether we might need another second hearing when it seemed that a witness had been a bit misleading and needed to be called back. There may be a case for having occasional second hearings as well.
We might need to think more about whether members should have a chance to discuss the recommendations that come out of the hearing. At present, we have our hearing and the NAO drafts a report with the Chairman as to what recommendations they think should come out of the hearing. The recommendations come before us as a draft and are often passed more or less on the nod. When it comes to making recommendations, the influence of individual members is not that great.
I should like to talk about the powers of the NAO. This comes out of one of the reports that we were discussing on the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 and the Government report on the investigation into audit arrangements by Lord Sharman. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me, in discussing this, to talk a little about the BBC, as the sixth report of the 2000–2001 session gives its response to the Sharman report which covered the BBC. There is a good case for increasing the powers of the NAO, as the Sharman report proposed. I hope that the Government will take due account of the Sharman report—after all, they set it up. Sometimes, sadly, Governments set up reports and then pigeonhole them and forget about them for a long time. I hope that that will not happen with the Sharman report, because there are strong arguments for increasing the powers of the NAO to investigate all areas of Government spending of taxpayers' money, not least the areas mentioned by the Chairman—the civil list, the Financial Services Authority and the BBC. I find it extraordinary that the BBC's accounts are not audited by the NAO. There is every reason for that to happen.
Some people have argued, in response to Sharman, that many private sector auditors are at least as good and effective as the NAO and that we can trust them. I have no doubt that many private sector auditors are extremely good at their job. However, it is worth remembering what happened at Enron. At least one very well known private sector auditor seems to have gone way off the rails not only in failing to audit Enron properly in the first instance but then, when things turned out to have gone badly wrong and the audits were found to have been a failure, in apparently starting to shred some of the papers to hide the evidence. If that can be done by an audit company of the quality and prestige of Andersens, I hate to think about what goes on in the private sector audit world. There are better arguments than ever for saying that when taxpayers' money is at risk, we ought to have our parliamentary auditors, the NAO, in charge of the audit.
Mr. George Osborne: Is it not also a case of democratic accountability? We are talking about public money, and Parliament, which is the representative of the people, should be able to hold the BBC to account for the way it spends its money so that we can see whether BBC News 24, for example, which costs tens of millions of pounds, is money well spent.
Mr. Rendel: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that that is the first principle—where public

1053
money is involved, it should be audited by the NAO, which is Parliament's auditor. The NAO acts on behalf of us all; it acts on behalf of the taxpayer. It is not the Government's auditor, but the auditor for Parliament and the public. That is why it should, on the whole, audit public money. I was trying to argue that the only possible counter-argument might be that a private sector auditor might do a better job. For the reasons that I have given, that is no longer arguable, if ever it was.
I should like to go through a few of the reports and highlight some of our most important findings. Unless I was not listening hard enough, I do not think that either of the two previous speakers mentioned the sheep annual premium report. A very interesting point came out of that report. We heard that some of our farmers tried to flout the rules on the sheep annual premium. In some cases, for example, they reported to the Government that sheep had been stolen and tried to claim for them. It later turned out that they did not report the theft of these sheep to the police. They had simply disappeared, for some reason. That raised queries as to the real status of the sheep.
In other cases, farmers had their sheep counted on one side of the hillside, knowing very well that those doing the counting would have to drive the long way round to get to the other side. Meanwhile, the sheep went over the top of the hill and were duly counted on the other side as well. I am not suggesting that that sort of thing was widespread, but it was going on.
The witnesses made the interesting point that we are inclined to believe that we are the only ones who obey the rules coming out of Brussels and the European Union. We believe that those rules are purely for our benefit, because we obey them and everybody else ignores them. In fact, it was clear from what we heard that every country in the EU believes that it alone obeys the rules and that every other country ignores them. Some of those who inveigh against the rules coming out of Brussels and like to pretend that ours is the only country that always obeys them might like to consider that every other country in the EU holds that belief.
The important report on hospital-acquired infection has already been mentioned. The potential saving of £150 million has also been mentioned. That shows how much we need to do something about the problem. I do not think that the two previous speakers mentioned that recently there have been reports of whole wards, if not hospitals, being closed down by viruses that have taken hold. That indicates that the problem that we highlighted some time ago is still with us, and that savings can still be made.
We asked the chief executive why we were not spending money on better cleansing of hospital wards so that we could save this huge sum of money. He replied that the notion of spending to save
"is not one that people always latch on to immediately in a system where short-term affordability is often a barrier."
That important point has wide significance. Sadly, the Government often control their finances on a short-term cash basis. That is not always the case, given the move towards resource accounting, but there is nevertheless still close cash control on many organisations such as the health service. That often leads to greater long-term expenditure. This case in point illustrates my wider point.
1054
The interesting point to come out of the report on hip replacements was, as the Chairman said, the lack of co-ordination between the various trusts. The PAC has been saying that we do not have joined-up government, nor do we have joined-up hospitals and trusts. We found that some hospitals discovered that a particular type of hip replacement material worked better than others, yet that information had not been sufficiently spread around the whole health service. As a result, some hospitals continued to use old implants and materials which had been proved less successful. That shows the need for a joined-up health service.
The Government response to the Chinook report came out this year. We now know that this is a topical issue because on 5 February we expect the report from the House of Lords Committee which was set up partly in response to our PAC work on the issue. We do not yet know what it will say, but from the types of witnesses it has called and recalled at least some indications are that it will take a rather different view from the Government's. I hope very much that it does.
The Government have always argued that they cannot possibly change the decision of the initial inquiry because there is no new evidence. That inquiry itself changed its conclusion between the initial decision taken at the bottom level by the people who did the work, who decided the pilots could not be blamed, and the air commodore at the top who decided that the pilots were to blame. Yet there was no new evidence between the initial decision at the bottom level and the top level decision. Already, the Ministry of Defence has changed its decision without new evidence. For the Government to pretend that they cannot override that decision and reach a different conclusion without new evidence is thus contradictory.
I hope that the Lords report will give the Government a face-saving way of withdrawing from the obdurate way in which they have faced the issue until now. I strongly believe that whether the pilots were to blame or not, there is no proof that they were to blame, and that is the issue. The tenor of these reports is that in such cases the pilots should never be blamed unless there is absolute proof that they were undoubtedly to blame.
There are a number of different possible causes of the Chinook accident, including the malfunction of the full authority digital electronic control, or FADEC, system. Another possible cause, raised by one of my constituents, could be the late change of weather conditions in the area around the Mull of Kintyre. My constituent, who used to be involved in these things himself, pointed out that in the old days pilots taking off on this sort of mission would have a face-to-face meeting with the meteorologists so that they could be told not just what the overall weather pattern was, but in more detail what likely changes they might meet during their flight. That no longer happens. There may be a case for saying that it should have happened and that if it had happened, the accident would never have taken place. If that is so, this is another case of a Government cut leading to a disastrous consequence. That point, too, weighs against any suggestion that there is absolute proof that the pilots were to blame.
Sadly, I was not at the hearing for the in-patient administration, bed management and discharge report, so I hesitate to say too much about it, but I attended the meeting at which the report was discussed. Clearly, major costs are involved. The major lesson from this is that if

1055
we are to reduce the costs of so-called bed blocking, we need to put more money into the social services functions of local authorities. That is how we can get or keep patients out of hospitals if that is the best thing to do. The hon. Member for City of Durham pointed out that the private finance initiative has sometimes cut the number of hospital beds and that clearly is happening. It is not the major worry, but it is a worry.
One of the difficulties with this whole issue is that funding for social services comes from local authorities while funding for the health service comes from the Government, although local authorities get a lot of their funding from Government too, so the position is not quite so clear cut as one might think. The difficulty of two sources of funding going in two different ways demonstrates once again a lack of joined-up government. It is good news that this Government have put such emphasis on the need for joined-up government, but in this case at least they have not yet properly resolved that problem.
It might be odd for me, as an instigator of the NAO report on SERPS, to allow the debate to pass without commenting on that report. I doubt whether a PAC report has ever led to such a large-scale change of Government policy in financial terms. We are talking about a policy change worth some £12 billion—a huge sum. The PAC can be proud of its efforts, first, to highlight the scandal of SERPS for widows, and secondly to refuse to accept the Government's first attempt to redress the balance. The fact that we hammered away at it and insisted on a better solution to the problem is to our credit. Many people throughout the country will benefit from the way in which we forced the Government to change their plan.
The report on parole is also particularly interesting in the light of more recent events. At the time I put it to Mr. Narey that
"the fact of the matter is that almost certainly some of them"—
that is to say, some prisoners—
"will be innocent, even though the court has found them guilty. In those circumstances it does seem to me less likely that they will get parole."
Mr. Narey replied, quite simply:
"I would agree with that."
A few weeks ago we heard of the case of Stephen Downing, who spent some 27 years in prison for murder—a far longer term than most murderers spend in prison. Why? Because he was innocent and refused to say that he was guilty. In the terms of the Prison Service, because he was not facing up to his guilt he was not eligible for parole. The injustice done to that man was vastly exacerbated because of the policy, which as far as I know is still in place, that if prisoners insist that they are innocent, in practice they will not get parole. That can lead to a huge injustice, as in Mr. Downing's case. I hope that the lesson from our hearing will now be taken on board, strengthened by Mr. Downing's case.
It would also be unusual for me to allow this debate to pass without mentioning the English Heritage report. We had a double hearing on it. Although the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) might think this is a minor matter, the hearing was fascinating, perhaps because it was the sleaziest subject of all that we came up against. We discovered that Sir Jocelyn Stevens, who had been chairman of English Heritage, had persuaded his board to allow Kenwood House, a public
1056
asset, to be leased to the ex-King of Greece for his daughter's wedding and, extraordinary as it may seem, the terms of that agreement were such that although the ex-King would cover all the expenses of the function, the only extra profit money to English Heritage was to be by way of a donation, the size of which would be decided by the ex-King of Greece. I hope there has been no other case in which a public asset has been rented to a private individual in return for money, the amount of which that individual decides. It is extraordinary that anyone could deal with a public asset in that way.
What was worse was that when the chief executive of English Heritage was asked whether the donation had been made and said that it had, on the first occasion she failed to reveal, first, that it had only just been made, and then only in response to a letter from her to the—by then—ex-chairman, pointing out that the donation had not yet been made and asking whether it was not about time that it was made, since the PAC hearing was about to take place. Secondly, she failed to reveal that although the donation had been made, it had been made not by the ex-King but by the ex-chairman of English Heritage—an extraordinary story. Rightly, the PAC decided to bring the chief executive back for a second hearing when the story became clear. Perhaps not entirely surprisingly, the former chief executive of English Heritage is no longer its chief executive.
We also had a hearing on the blood service. It became clear that volunteers who gave blood were not being properly treated by the blood service, and that some were inevitably being put off as a result. We cannot afford to put off volunteers who give their time and their blood to the national health service. There has been a failure to care for them, in that they often queue for a long time. They sometimes have to wait around for so long that their cars exceed car parking times, but they receive no help to pay any parking fine, although I understand that such help is given in some other parts of the health service. So if volunteers are kept waiting too long they have to pay fines in addition to giving their blood voluntarily.
Although the recommendation that something be done was fully accepted, people are still being kept waiting for long periods. I know of a young man who recently went to give blood for the first time. On arrival he told the assistant, in answer to a question, that he had recently been on holiday in Mexico, among other places. The assistants failed to tell him straight away, "I am sorry, but because of the malarial problem you cannot give blood now; we would love to have you back in six months." He waited two hours to reach the front of the queue, at which point he was sent home because his blood could not be taken. That is not the way to treat volunteers if you want to encourage people to give of their own blood freely for the sake of the wider community. The fact that that was still happening a week or so ago shows that, despite our recommendation, we have not yet been able to cure the original problem.
That is enough from me on the individual reports. I shall end with a few more general comments about general themes that have emerged from our reports.
Repeatedly, very large computer projects have gone wrong. We should draw from that experience two lessons, which we have discussed in the PAC. The first lesson is that in a massive computer project, the chance that somewhere in the project something will go wrong that

1057
will affect the whole project is much greater. If the project can be split into more manageable modules, so that each module is to some extent self-standing, and perhaps even usable on its own even if other modules are not yet ready and working, it may be possible to save some of the costs involved in searching through one massive computer system to locate an error.
The second lesson is that the bigger a computer project is, the harder it is to transfer the risk to the private sector if it is being run as a PFI project. If, two years down the track, with a year to go before the policy must be implemented according to the law that is introducing the new scheme of social services, tax or whatever, one suddenly discovers that the major computer project simply does not work, what can one do—pass it over to a new computer firm? Of course not. A new firm would not have nearly enough time to write a new computer programme to implement the policy. The only thing that can be done is to pour more and more money and resources into the firm that has already shown that it is not running a good project, to help it get that project up and running in time. So, far from the risk's being passed to the private sector, the risk often remains with the Government. The bigger the computer project, the greater the likelihood that that will happen.
I appeal to the Government—I hope that they will listen—to try to modularise their computer projects into smaller, bite-sized chunks, although "bite-sized" is probably the wrong word to use when talking about computers. I hope that that approach will enable the Government to overcome some of the problems that arise when one failure in a massive project causes the entire project to go wrong, as has happened in one case that the Committee Chairman mentioned, or when, as has happened in other cases, a lot more money has to be poured in to ensure that the problem is overcome entirely.
Mr. Bacon: The hon. Gentleman has given way very generously. Does he agree that although the issue of computer consultancy firms not providing an adequate service to the public sector is very serious, the issue of project management by the public sector, which has been alluded to, is crucial? The example comes to mind of the National Audit Office report on the implementation of the National Probation Service information systems strategy, which had seven programme directors in seven years. That is a fault of the public sector management, not of the firm.
Mr. Rendel: Yes; there is undoubtedly a problem there, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to it, although it is a slightly different problem from the one I was highlighting. I am sure that the PAC will want to examine it.
There are problems with the private finance initiative in relation to large computer projects. There are also problems in relation to the transfer of risk in other areas, such as hospital-building projects, which the PAC has highlighted. Given that all parties are currently to some extent reviewing PFI—what it means to pass things across from the public to the private sector—and given that, approaching from different angles, we are all perhaps forming views different from the ones that we started
1058
with, I hope that all parties will, during their review of the PFI, recognise the following important truths about risk transfer.
There is a genuine difficulty with transferring risk. It is never possible to transfer the whole risk. If the public sector needs something, it can never manage to transfer the whole risk in a project, and to pay for the whole risk to be transferred when one is not actually transferring the whole risk is a waste of money. PFI projects, by their nature, are bound to be more expensive, partly because one is paying for the risk factor and partly because one is probably paying for higher interest rates, because it is well known that, on the whole, the private sector cannot borrow as cheaply as the public sector can. The complexity of PFI contracts is such that, very often, PFI projects take longer to manage. We have seen that particularly in the hospital sector; we have read recent reports of the length of time that some PFI projects are taking.
I am not arguing that PFI is never the right answer, but we need to answer many questions about it if we are to expect it to be the solution for many major Government projects in future, particularly because we are now adopting resource accounting. If resource accounting means one thing, it should surely mean that it is easier for the Government to justify putting public capital into major assets than it has been. Because we are no longer doing cash accounting, we no longer expect the whole value to be paid for up front. The way in which assets are accounted for is changing and it should be easier for capital to be spent in the public sector in future.
The second general theme that emerges from many of the reports is that of interdepartmental working and the issue of joined-up government, which I have mentioned already once or twice. As a member of a local authority, I used to worry about interdepartmental working, even within the local authority. Very often in a local authority you find, as I am sure that you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the individual departments are very much segmented. A housing officer in a local authority, may never end up having anything to do with planning, finance or recreation.
In the private sector, people are often deliberately moved between different parts of the company to give them wider experience and enable them to take senior management posts. That does not tend to happen in local authorities and it certainly does not tend to happen in Government. I hope that among the themes that emerge from some of the reports that the Government will take notice of is the need to ensure that there is interdepartmental working and cross-Government working and experience, so that civil servants can move more easily between Departments. Many of our witnesses have said that they would like that to happen, but in practice there does not seem to be much effort going into it. I hope that the Government can do something to help that process.
We do useful work, and I believe that it is valuable work—the taxpayer benefits a great deal from the PAC's efforts—and it is also very interesting work. I am delighted to have had the chance to serve on the Committee for just over two years now, and I hope that I may be allowed to do so for some time to come.
3.30 pm
Geraint Davies: It is my privilege to speak—like last year, the press literally could not wait for this debate.
It is crucial that we all emphasise, as the Chairman of the Committee and others have, the importance of the NAO and the PAC to good governance in Britain. We have a dynamic whereby an auditor-supported Select Committee scrutinises value for money, management, efficiency and effectiveness, with a Chairman from the Opposition, and enables feedback from the Government to produce change in the interests of the taxpayer and public service.
It is a great privilege to serve on the primary Select Committee, which was, of course, established by Gladstone to scrutinise all Departments. The Chairman of the Committee referred to other areas of public expenditure, and there is a good argument to extend the remits of the PAC and the NAO to chase virtually all public money and ensure parliamentary accountability. I say that to ensure that my position is clear.
I, too, pay tribute to the former Clerk, Ken Brown—a very effective Clerk and a very nice man, as has been said—and to the Committee's previous Chairman, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who did sterling work. I also welcome the new Chairman.
I shall not deal with the generalities for too long, but I want to refer to risk, which has been mentioned. I believe that, increasingly, the highest risk is to take no risk, because we end up with no innovation, and the civil service culture is gradually changing in that way. However, when all is said and done, we have the best civil service in the world, and our role is to try to make it even better.
I shall allude to the reports that refer to some of the less contentious issues on which we concentrate—the NHS, the PFI and the railways. [Interruption.] I was just checking that hon. Members were awake. Hon. Members will know that the NHS is the biggest employer not only in Britain but in Europe, with some 990,000 employees in a business that delivers approximately 5.5 million operations every year. Given that massive bulk of work, it is no surprise that we can find opportunities to encourage improvements in value for money and effectiveness in delivering high-quality public services.
In commenting on the Committee's reports on the NHS, I should like to focus on patient care, variations in performance and co-ordination between the NHS and other agencies. Hon. Members have already referred to the report on hospital-acquired infection, in which it was noted that about 15 per cent. of such infection could be eliminated, saving approximately £150 million. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said, our report highlighted the fact that more hand washing would significantly reduce the incidence of infection in the NHS.
Despite the appalling case that my hon. Friend mentioned involving St. Helier hospital, Carshalton, I am pleased to say that the Government have responded with improved education and hygiene training, by spreading best practice, including on prescribing antibiotics, and by introducing a new surveillance system for hygiene. There is a new traffic light rating system, under which red is the worst, then amber and green. I understand that no hospital
1060
has a red rating for cleanliness, but I am keen to discover St. Helier hospital's current status. The point is that, once more, the PAC has focused attention on an area of public concern, which then agitated change in the public interest.
We found a massive variation in the effectiveness and cost of hip replacement operations throughout the country; people waited for different times and costs differed. I am glad to say that we are beginning to see progress, with the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence making recommendations on which type of hip is most effective. Indeed, we are making progress in shortening the time people wait for their hip replacements; I understand that in some areas waiting times have been reduced by between 20 and 40 per cent. That is another example of our being an agitating force and of our information provoking improvements in public service.
Sir Alan Langlands, who oversaw the management of the NHS, stressed in his valedictory report the need to produce national improvement standards and to introduce benchmarks and performance targets. He welcomed the establishment of NICE and the Commission for Health Improvement as quality and standards watchdogs. We shall continue to ensure that standards continue to rise, and we shall focus on those areas where that does not happen.
Patient management and waiting lists are hot, contentious issues. In a recent report we revealed that about 6,000 patients may have been affected by the fiddling of waiting lists, but in the wider context of 5.5 million operations the figure represents less than 0.1 per cent and the problem is now being sorted out. I am pleased to say that, in response to some of our recommendations, the NHS is beginning to introduce better scheduling systems and a new so-called national booked admissions programme. We are agitating for positive change, rather than moaning about isolated problems.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) mentioned the difficulty that we face because of bed blocking. The simple fact is that NHS activity is increasing. About 6 per cent. more funding is going into the NHS each year, whereas social services funding is increasing by 3 per cent. a year. That creates an imbalance, with insufficient places on the outside to take the number of people coming through the NHS. The situation is better than it might otherwise be because of the new focus on rehabilitation, whereby people return to their homes rather than having to be institutionalised in care homes.
The biggest growth in NHS operations is in the number of day cases, which have increased from 1 million to 3.4 million a year over the past 10 years. Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, people do not necessarily occupy beds for a long time; they go home, which is obviously a good thing. During the valedictory hearing, the point was made that, if the totality of care beds were to move from acute or intermediate care perhaps to short stay or institutional stay provision, we could more rationally invest our money in the right proportion of different types of bed.
Those involved in private nursing care have talked to me about the difference between the marginal costs of providing beds inside and outside hospitals. Of course, one of the driving forces for the NHS is the need to deliver an extra 5,000 intermediate-care beds, with an

1061
extra £900 million of investment, and another 1,000 extra beds in NHS hospitals, with another £300 million. So there is a response, and there is a new move towards care trusts, in which social services and health services are managed together to provide an integrated service.
There has been much debate about who manages the health service, but mismanagement occurs in only a small minority of cases. I have been a local authority leader, I have run my own business and have worked for a multinational company, and I believe that local authorities that deliver services efficiently should assume responsibility for running social services when they are next to a hospital trust that is not delivering them properly. That is part of a larger debate, but the simple point is that there must be joined-up government. The report that considered bad management focused on an issue that, no doubt, will be the subject of much more discussion.
Private finance initiatives also have a bearing on the NHS. As we always do, the Committee produced a number of reports. In particular, we considered the Fazakerley prison PFI, which involved Group 4 and Tarmac. The interesting point related to refinancing and the way in which money was reborrowed. Group 4 and Tarmac were set to make a windfall of £10.7 million, and clawback had not been negotiated in the contract. However, Group 4 and Tarmac kindly returned £1 million. They probably realised how much they were going to make and did not want to make too much of a fuss.
Since then, reports have considered the effectiveness of 121 PFI contracts that will be responsible for about £100 billion of public expenditure over the next 20 years. We found that 80 per cent. of managers thought that the PFI deals were very good, which suggests that there was a good response to them. However, when we dug under the surface, we found that only 55 per cent. of them kept open-book accounting, that only 49 per cent. were involved in benchmarking their prices and that only 43 per cent. knew what profit the private contractor would make. Only 15 per cent. had refinancing gains.
I mention those figures as a pointer for the future. The Committee should closely monitor the requirements in reorchestrated PFI deals to ensure that we deliver value for money and that we do not simply rely on the testimony of the managers who look after the PFI deals. They simply say that the contracts are good value for money. However, when we asked them whether they had refinancing deals or how much had been made by the private sector, I wondered whether they were capable of making the necessary judgments. Clearly, the question about PFIs should not be who is right, but what is right. What is right is a matter for us and we must ensure that we obtain value for money.
For more politically sensitive issues such as the tube, the Government should, and will, make their decision according to the acid test of value for money. They should not decide on the basis of what people think but on the basis of what is the most cost-effective way of delivering a quality public service.
The Committee's duty is not to consider PFIs in generic terms. Some say that they do not like PFIs and others say that they do. The evidence that the Committee has
1062
obtained testifies to the fact that some PFIs clearly work while others do not. However, the information that we have before us will help us to provide advice on how the ones that fail could have done better and the ones for the future could do better still.
The relatively uncontentious report entitled "National Savings: Public-Private Partnership with Siemens Business Services" has not received much press publicity because it simply said that it was a PFI done well. The objectives were clear, provisions were made for clawback, risk management and risk transfer and—without going into too much detail—National Savings renegotiated to reduce its exposure to fraud from £250,000. Provisions for clawback, compensation and penalties would appear on a checklist of best practice, and one finds such provisions in this case. That might explain why many people do not find the report interesting, but it should be read by other managers involved in PFI negotiations to ensure that best practice is benchmarked, as it is in the NHS with the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the Commission for Health Improvement. We can learn lessons from failure and from success and those lessons should be taken on board in a world of joined-up government.
Another contentious issue in the public arena is the railways. The Committee's report, "Strategic Railway Authority: Action to Improve Passenger Rail Services", found that significant problems existed, in particular with Railtrack. As we know from a previous report, it had been privatised for £1.9 billion when it was worth £8 million, which represented a loss to the public purse of £6 billion. It was not only handed over cheaply, but it failed to keep a proper asset register on the condition of its assets. That fact came to light as a result of the events that have been in the public eye. It did not know the state of its assets and our evidence was confirmed by the testimony of Tom Winsor, who told the Transport Sub-Committee that the trouble with Railtrack was that it was incompetent and ineffective in the management of its assets and in the treatment of customers.
The Committee found that Railtrack had made no real attempt to gain information on the assets making up the network, and that was one of the key reasons why customer needs were not being met. We produced our report and asked questions about punctuality, reliability, passenger satisfaction, cleanliness, late-running trains and so on. We discovered that the rail authorities did not have sufficient information or an incentive to provide the service that people naturally expect.
I remember vividly that we discussed the fact that Connex was considering—it still is—taking out seats so that people could stand on trains. That is supposed to provide more capacity. Our hearings on the rail regulations produced some unfortunate findings. The Committee stressed that the problems were not just with delivery, but with the overall structure. I am glad that, following the hearings and the Committee's insistence that it consider corporate governance and delivery, changes in Railtrack have occurred. We are moving towards requiring it to produce an asset register in the near future. We will therefore be able to build the 10-year plan on a more solid base.
I have kept my comments to a minimum given the generous amount of time that others Members have taken. Under new leadership, the Committee will have an increasingly important bearing on the delivery of public

1063
services. I am glad that its dynamics mean that it will not simply take potshots at the Government but will generate positive recommendations for change. In 95 per cent. of cases, such recommendations lead to improvements in public services. It has been a pleasure to share my thoughts with the House.
3.49 pm
Mr. Richard Bacon: As the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) concluded his speech, I thought I heard the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) say that the debate still had three or four hours to run. I read the speech that the hon. Member for Newbury made in the previous debate, and I note that he began his remarks by saying that he was conscious that no one else was seeking to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. I therefore came prepared with lots of documents, not least because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) finds it amusing when I quote from documents in the Committee. Of course, I subscribe to the Fidel Castro view that if a speech is less than four hours, it cannot do any good. However, I suspect that I would try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that of the House were I to go through all the documents that I have brought with me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton and I are at a disadvantage. As new Committee members, we have not witnessed much of the work that is being debated today, so I have decided to restrict myself to a couple of general themes that are of enduring interest to the work of the Committee and the NAO, which I shall illustrate with quotes from Committee and NAO reports.
I begin, however, by joining other hon. Members in paying tribute to the work of the retiring Committee Clerk, Mr. Ken Brown, who has been enormously helpful. I wish his successor, Nicholas Wright, every success in his new job. He has already been very helpful to Committee members. I also pay tribute to the NAO, in particular to the work of its press office under the able stewardship of Gabrielle Cohen and Keith Davis, both of whom have been enormously helpful.
The Committee's work is of central importance. The act of this House of Commons taking money from taxpayers by compulsion and forcing them to pay into the consolidated fund—into the Exchequer—is a cardinal act. It is of central importance that the House has that ability, but it is equally important that having taken money from taxpayers, the way in which it is safeguarded, looked after and spent is transparent, open and accountable.
In the last debate on public accounts, the then Financial Secretary said:
"I conclude from the debate that the Government need to focus on two matters. First we must continue to improve the management of the systems by which public money is collected and deployed. Secondly, we must continue to improve the management of projects to deliver public services."—[Official Report, 14 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 8651
That sums up the themes that I want to address. The first is that we need good procurement. Central Government—the same applies to other forms of government, such as local authorities and health authorities—have a role in that. The public sector needs to understand procurement and to be a good buyer. That is central to successful government. It is welcome that the Office of Government Commerce is taking a greater role under its new chief
1064
executive, Mr. Peter Gershon. He has appeared before the Committee two or three times and is doing an excellent job in persuading Departments of the importance of skill in procurement. I sometimes think that he has an uphill struggle, but he is trying to make it a priority in Departments.
My second theme is that of good project management, which the Financial Secretary also mentioned. I would add good risk management to that, because they go together. Risk has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. No one on the Committee is opposed to the public sector taking risks. It is, however, a matter of understanding what the risks are and, having identified them, ensuring that they are carefully managed. We all take a risk when we walk out of the front door, but it is knowing that there are risks and properly managing them that matters.
In the document "Working with Suppliers: The Code of Good Customer Practice" the Office of Government Commerce says:
"Central civil government will work to a high standard of professionalism when dealing with suppliers. It will do this by",
among other things,
"effectively managing risks during a procurement process and working with suppliers to reduce risks during the business relationship."
Both of those are central considerations.
In that earlier debate, the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), who used to serve on the Committee, referred to information technology projects. He could, however, have been referring to any kind of project when he said:
"We should recognise that they"—
IT projects—
"are not a marginal technical decision but part of the mainstream business activity of departments, and must be treated as such. We need to manage to staff in a way that is appropriate for a project. We must provide training and incentives to keep the staff with the project while it is introduced. The status of staff, especially in the public sector, must be appropriate to their responsibilities. Most important, staff must be accountable, not only for their success, but for any failures."—[Official Report, 14 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 854.]
When Mr. Gershon from the Office of Government Commerce came before the Committee, we discussed civil service culture, the approach to the management of staff and the attitudes of staff. I was interested to know whether he thought that the way in which the civil service moves staff around, which is inherent in its culture although not in that of the private sector, is fundamentally inimical to successful project management. Mr. Gershon agreed. He said:
"In my experience of private sector organisation, yes of course they want to appoint the best people to the job, but they also want the project to be completed successfully … and some say, 'No, we need to promote that man in situ because he is critical to the project, we need to keep him in place, but he should not suffer financially or careerwise as a result'".
He had spent 30 years in the private sector, and in his limited experience of the public sector he saw less of that approach in the civil service, for good and understandable reasons.
Mr. Gershon went on, however:
"But as there is an increased focus on the successful delivery agenda, there is a question of whether we need to put in place mechanisms that might help retain key people in key jobs, and

1065
something ought to be done about succession planning so that if someone does move for legitimate career reasons, there is someone to backfill in."
That brings me to the point that I raised with the hon. Member for Newbury, which is that the public sector does not seem to have taken that approach on board.
The NAO issued a report on the implementation of the National Probation Service information systems strategy. The project overran its budget by about 70 per cent. and ended up costing £118 million, which was about £50 million more than it should have cost. That project had seven project directors in seven years, which was fundamentally the fault of the project managers, not of the suppliers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, project management is central. It is time that that was more widely understood and acted on in Whitehall. Successful project managers need to move to senior leadership and senior management positions in Whitehall to a greater extent.
Some years ago, the Cabinet Office published a report on the use of consultants in the public sector. In a previous incarnation, I used to work for the consulting industry and came to know the report rather well. On page 59, it points out:
"In most effective organisations, management skills are high and they manage consultancy projects very tightly."
Again, just as it was possible to delete the reference to "IT" from my earlier quotation, it is possible to delete the word "consultancy" from this one and still be left with the idea that it is cardinally important to manage projects tightly.
The report went on:
"To maximise ownership and accountability the same individual, where possible, will often see the project through from inception to implementation."
I think that the Government are alive to that approach, but it is a case of promulgating it through the Departments and making sure that people act on it. It is essential that the Government understand the central importance of project management in what they do rather than in what they say.
In the short time that I have been on the Committee, it has dealt with the loss to the Revenue from fraud on alcohol duty, which amounted to £858 million, the loss of £48 million as a result of the project for the National Probation Service and the collection of the benefit payment card cancellation, which cost more than £1 billion. That is nearly £2 billion, equivalent to nearly 1p on income tax. It is right for us as elected representatives to ask how much hard work had to go in to earn the money to pay the £2 billion of tax to the Exchequer which was then wasted.
The subject of risk management is closely tied up with that of project management. Paragraph (iii) of page 1 of the Committee's report, "Managing Risk in Government Departments states:
"Risk management will only become a normal and integral part of the way departments and agencies operate if civil servants have the skills to identify and assess risks and take the action necessary to manage them."
The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) pointed out the need to ensure that civil servants have the skills to identify risks.
The recent closure of individual learning accounts, which was alluded to earlier in the debate, raises the question: where was the risk management? We might ask
1066
where was the understanding, even, that any risks were involved. I sat through the proceedings of the Education and Skills Committee yesterday morning and listened to the evidence of officials. The Committee was concerned about the apparent absence of any recognition that there were serious risks that needed to be managed. The Audit Commission published a report called "Ghost in the Machine", on the need to watch out for computer fraud in the public sector, and found that, again, the question of risk management appeared to have been completely ignored.
My next point concerns where the Committee should begin to focus its attention in future. According to a newspaper report in December, fraud and waste cost the NHS between £7 billion and £10 billion a year. I asked the chief executive of the NHS about that last week when he came before the Committee to talk about the report on inappropriate adjustments to waiting lists. I recently received the transcript of the proceedings from the Committee Clerks, and the stenographer had typed the figures as £7 million and £10 million. I corrected them to billions, and then I thought that I had better attach a note to say that the figures should be in billions because the sums are so huge that people would think that I was not serious.
Seven to ten thousand million pounds is enough to pay for between 30 and 43 hospitals like the recently completed Norfolk and Norwich hospital. In fact, that hospital is still being built, but patients are moving into it. It is a PFI project on the borders of my constituency. I mention in parentheses that no one bothered to build a road to the hospital, so it is difficult to get to even though it is consuming £229 million of public money. My point is that between £7 billion and £10 billion goes south every year in the NHS, and if that estimate is not correct, we need to get to the bottom of it. Those losses have been happening for years, and the matter needs much closer attention than it currently appears to receive.
The Department for Social Security, now the Department for Work and Pensions, is another area that needs the Committee's steady attention. Indeed, we shall soon be looking at fraud in income support. I have before me the DSS appropriation accounts, and I am looking at the page on which the CAG sets out in a certificate his views on the accounts. Just as the auditors of a private company sign off accounts, the CAG signs off the DSS accounts, in this case to the House of Commons. He has qualified his opinion of these accounts, saying:
"In my opinion, the appropriation account properly presents the expenditure and receipts … except for irregular expenditure arising from errors in benefit awards and from fraudulent benefit claims".
I tabled a parliamentary question to the Department for Work and Pensions asking in how many years since 1972 the DSS appropriation accounts had been qualified in that way. I was a little concerned when the Department phoned to ask me what was irregular expenditure, so I pointed to the CAG's certificate and said that that was precisely the term that he had used.
If one looks at the itemisation of that irregular expenditure, one finds that the DSS estimates that losses through error and fraud for income support and jobseeker's allowance in 1999–2000 were £1.32 billion, and in 1998–1999 the CAG noted that the Department had estimated that the combined level of fraud on income support and jobseeker's allowance could have been as high as £1.53 billion. Those are huge sums. If one

1067
considers only the health service and the DWP, one finds that huge sums are disappearing without the NAO being able to identify where they have gone because the Government are not managing the situation closely enough.
I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) that in recent years the Committee has spent about 4 per cent. of its time examining the accounts of the royal household. Although it is entirely appropriate that the royal household, which is the subject of great interest, is transparent, open and accountable and that its accounts are examined by the House, we should concentrate on going after the billions before we worry about the £5 million spent by the royal household. In any case, that figure is a reduction because the household is being extremely well managed, as was made clear in the evidence that we heard last week.
The final matter that I want to mention is less significant in macro-financial terms, but it is none the less of huge importance for many people. I refer to the sources of public funding for students. The NAO has recently produced a report on the subject, "Improving Student Achievement in Higher Education", on which we will shortly take evidence from the permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Skills.
The report contains an interesting chart that shows the 23 different sources of public funding from which students may seek support. The system is extraordinarily complex; for example, single parents who want a child care grant go to one source and those who are eligible for school meals grants go to another. One practically needs a PhD simply to understand the method of obtaining student support. I have raised the matter with the NAO, and I continue to encourage it to examine it.
The complexity of the system has direct implications for the economy, effectiveness and efficiency with which public money is deployed for student support. On the two occasions on which tranches of the student loan book were sold, it was at a very large discount to face value. The reason is that the quality of the student loan book is not very high—a lot of the debt is not repaid. As a result, the market requires a high discount before it will buy the debt.
As I said, last year the then Financial Secretary alluded at the end of his speech to the importance of focusing on collection systems as well as on systems for deploying public expenditure. If we could find a more economical, effective and efficient system for collecting the moneys that students owe, and there are many possible models, we would do a great service to the taxpayer but, equally importantly, make it much easier for students from disadvantaged backgrounds to go on to higher education.
Talking to people in my constituency on the doorstep and elsewhere has left me without the slightest doubt—I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House have had the same experience—that the extraordinary complexity of the student loan system has a big deterrent effect on a certain stratum of potential students who are on the cusp of deciding whether to go to university. That decision is as important for people from well-off backgrounds, but it is extraordinarily important to those who have not been used to getting into debt or who are from families in which no one has ever been to university. I hope that the NAO will take the issue seriously in future.
1068
In conclusion, I would just like to say what a privilege it is to serve on the Committee. As a new Member I still have a lot to learn, but I have been thoroughly enjoying the Committee's work. I believe that it plays an absolutely central role in ensuring that the money that we take from taxpayers is accounted for in an open and transparent fashion. The House of Commons, in sanctioning the Committee, is doing a very fine job.
4.8 pm
Mr. George Osborne: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on his speech and, in particular, on yet again mentioning his local hospital. He is truly adept at getting his local hospital into almost any speech and Committee sitting, and as a result he will no doubt get good coverage in the Eastern Daily Press tomorrow morning.
Like my hon. Friend and other Members who have spoken, I am extremely honoured to be a member of the Public Accounts Committee and to take part in this debate. I was a Government special adviser at the late lamented Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the days when "special" and "adviser" were not dirty words, which my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) will remember. I remember discussing with Ministers the introduction of multi-billion-pound BSE compensation schemes. I remember the permanent secretary telling the Ministers, "It's all right for you; you just have to go before the departmental Select Committees. I'm the one who has to appear before the PAC." It was at that moment that I decided that, should I get into Parliament, I would try to become a member of the PAC, as it seemed like the right place to be. I was delighted when, by the mysterious powers of selection that the House uses to choose members on Select Committees, I found myself serving on the PAC.
I genuinely feel that serving on the PAC has been about the most rewarding aspect of my work at Westminster since being elected. It is not only I, a Member for just seven months, who thinks so; refreshingly, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who has been a Member for 15 years, takes the same view. That shows what interesting and valuable work the PAC does. Like other Committee members who have spoken, I pay tribute to the people who support our work including, obviously, the National Audit Office, the Comptroller and Auditor General and their large staff, but also the people who service the Committee directly. Everyone has paid tribute to Ken Brown, but I also thank Nicholas Wright, who has stepped into his shoes. The Committee Clerk has an important function in servicing our work, and I pay tribute to both men.
I thank Committee members, a couple of whom are still in the Chamber, for their friendly and generous welcome of new Committee members, The bipartisan—tripartisan, I should say, since the hon. Member for Newbury is here—nature of the Committee is its greatest strength. In our party-political world, the fact that all parties are represented on the Committee and that we agree reports together gives us enormous authority. Serving on the Committee is even more pleasant now that we are under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). He had a hard act to follow, it is fair to say, but he has done so with great aplomb and humour; I wholly approve of his relaxed and sceptical approach. I fully support people who, in seeking to reform

1069
Parliament, say that the Chairman of the PAC should be paid the same as Cabinet Ministers and get a Government car. I very much hope that my hon. Friend bears that in mind when he is deciding whom to call in the next meeting.
Finally, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) for raising the profile of the PAC. He has gone from the difficult job of sorting out the civil service to the almost impossible job of sorting out my party, in which I wish him every success, since the future of Conservative Members depends on it. When I was thinking of applying to become a Committee member, he told me that it would be a crash course in government. He was right; even though I have previously worked as a Government adviser, it is fascinating to see different aspects of Government work in Committee.
In the seven months in which I have served on the Committee, we have examined the intricacies of air pollution policy and what it is like in the royal train, and we have witnessed some major successes. Despite problems with the hearing itself, the introduction of income tax self-assessment was an example of a massive project that was delivered on time and to budget, with savings in advance of those that were originally planned. I am afraid that we have also witnessed woeful failures, as Members have already mentioned. Most Committee members would probably agree that the most shocking and alarming hearing in recent months was the one last week on inappropriate adjustments to NHS waiting lists. That is a soft description of a shocking report on a gross abuse in the NHS.
From what I have seen as a Committee member—I hasten to add that I have served as one for only seven months—the PAC works best when it fulfils what, I imagine, was its primary function when it was established by Gladstone, and operates as a forensic watchdog on behalf of the taxpayer, with a deterrent effect on the misuse and waste of public money. Returning to my anecdote about my days as a special adviser, when accounting officers are forced to approve an item of Government expenditure, somewhere in the back of their mind they should ask whether they could justify it to the PAC if they had to. That is our primary function. When Customs and Excise allowed hundreds of millions of pounds to be lost in alcohol duty fraud in a period of just three years because of lax enforcement and inadequate controls, its chairman must account for its failure before the PAC.
We also looked at the NIRS2 information technology project and the cost of that overhaul. Tens of millions of pounds were spent because the people in charge did not anticipate changes to the welfare system; the project was not flexible enough to allow those changes to be built in without a massive sum being spent. As the hon. Member for Newbury said, by the time those people finally realised that that was problem, they had only one option, which was to stay with the existing contractor.
Those are examples of the primary function of the PAC. At the risk of creating more disunity in the Conservative party, I disagree with my hon. Friends the Member for South Norfolk and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) about looking at relatively small items of Government expenditure, as well as large
1070
items. Whatever the size of the budget that accounting officers manage, the fact that they may have to appear before the PAC has a great deterrent effect.
Mr. Bacon: I do not believe that we should not look at small items. On the contrary, important lessons about openness, transparency, accountability and the right way to go about procurement and risk management can be learned from small cases just as much as large ones. I was merely pointing out that there are huge gaping holes in government which are not getting enough attention.
Mr. Osborne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I fully support what other Members have said about Lord Sharman's recommendations. One gaping hole is the BBC; another is the Financial Services Authority. It will be interesting to see if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury says something about the Sharman report in his reply, but perhaps we shall have wait even more months for a response. However, my hon. Friend made a good point.
The PAC is less successful when we try to get to grips with broad and nebulous issues, when there are not hard facts and figures, and there is not someone who is clearly accountable. I enjoyed our recent hearing on Modern policy making in government—I enjoyed cross-examining the permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office about how many strategy units were looking at transport policy—but, nevertheless, we were not dealing with hard facts and a proper accounting officer. That was a less successful hearing. Perhaps we can look at that when we are sipping champagne and eating caviar on our away day; I hope that that away day does not come before the PAC, as we would have a bit of a constitutional crisis if it did.
There is a genuine issue at stake: how do the PAC and the National Audit Office stay on top of the Whitehall landscape, which is undoubtedly changing, with a profusion of targets, initiatives, such as the private finance initiative, strategy units, aspirations, agencies and so on? As someone said to me, it has more units than the British Army and more tsars than the Russian empire. The PAC must get to grips with that and do what we do best—concentrate ruthlessly on a certain target or agency, examine the facts and see whether the benefits outweigh the costs. We should get behind the rhetoric, find out whether public money is being well spent and pore over the accounts. We should draw general lessons from the particular, rather than trying to do it the other way round. We should bear that general point in mind when considering the future of our work.
The general lesson that has struck me most in the work of the PAC concerns the danger of arbitrary targets; I shall concentrate on that for the rest of my speech. There is a tendency in government—this is not a party political point, as this happened under previous Conservative Governments—to pluck arbitrary targets from the air and impose them on the civil service. Such targets often sound very nice—the obvious example is cutting waiting lists—but the result is often huge distortion in the way in which public services are delivered, as perverse incentives can emerge through attempts to meet them.
The Committee saw such effects during our recent consideration of air quality. The Government have a reasonable aspiration to reduce pollution in the atmosphere. No one could disagree with that aim, but in

1071
seeking to achieve it, they have produced nine arbitrary targets. They want to reduce carbon dioxide by X amount, particles by Y amount and so on. When one considers how the targets were arrived at, one sees that, in this particular case, those who were responsible for them used pretty uncertain emissions forecasts that depended on unreliable factors such as projected economic and transport growth and all sorts of things that people find difficult to predict. Using that information, they produced a forecast of emissions and fed it into a computer model that was in itself extremely complicated and prone to error.
Using that model, those involved formulated targets for air quality that depended in turn on variables such as the state of the weather. They then mish-mashed those targets with evidence of the health effects of pollution on individuals—more information that was pretty uncertain and unreliable—and suddenly produced nine targets. When they were doing that work, they had no idea about the targets' impact on society, the economy, public services, industry and so on. The one study that they carried out, which considered the cost of trying to achieve one of the targets in London alone, found that it would cost £100 million—and even then, the target would not be achieved.
That is the danger of picking arbitrary targets. As I said, we saw it most powerfully in terms of NHS waiting lists. As we all know, the waiting lists initiative imposed the arbitrary target of reducing in-patient waiting lists by 100,000. I shall not get into a party-political argument about whether that was the right thing to do. None the less, I should like to mention an anecdote of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who is a wily dog in the Committee and a great source of entertainment. He said that Tony Crosland had told him that Governments spend four years trying to cover up the mistakes that they make in the first six months in office.
It is tempting to apply that principle to the waiting list initiative, but I shall stick to the simple issue of its administration and deal with how it affected hospital admissions. The National Audit Office took a detailed look at the matter, on which the Committee has already had two hearings. The relevant report has been mentioned today. It is clear that immense pressure was exerted from the centre to ensure that the targets were met. It was probably political pressure. The targets gave rise to a range of very perverse incentives. Out-patient lists mushroomed. These so-called waiting lists for the waiting lists almost doubled to 450,000 people. Obviously, that happened because the pressure to produce the in-patient lists meant that people were pushed on to out-patient lists.
Even more seriously, the National Audit Office found that there had been a significant distortion of clinical priorities. In producing its report, it surveyed more than 550 consultants. It found that 52 per cent.—more than half of all those who were sampled—said that working to meet the NHS waiting list targets meant that they had to treat patients in a different order from that which their clinical condition properly indicated. Some 20 per cent. of consultants said that they gave such treatment regularly. Indeed, when the NAO report was published, one orthopaedic surgeon, Dr. Gordon McLellan, from Oldchurch hospital in Essex, said:
"I'm very pleased that the NAO has confirmed what consultants and patients have known for a very long time",
which was that clinical distortion was occurring.
1072
Distortion was also evident at GP level. We considered in a hearing the effect of the North Staffordshire NHS trust giving £1,000 incentives for GPs to meet out-patient referral targets. In other words, there were incentives for GPs to stop referring people to hospitals so that those hospitals would have a better chance of meeting their waiting list targets. As is widely known, in at least nine trusts, that abuse went far beyond the distortion of clinical priorities and involved deliberate fraud and manipulation of waiting lists. Patients' records were altered and patients were inappropriately suspended. Some were not added to the list until the month of their appointment. Most scandalously, people were deliberately offered admission dates when it was known that holidays had been scheduled. The NAO found that at least 6,000 patients in nine trusts had been affected.
When the chief executive of the trust came before the Committee, I did not find his answers very satisfactory. Frankly, I did not find convincing his assurance that the practice that I have described was not widespread, but was limited to the nine trusts that the NAO happened to investigate. Indeed, when I tabled a written question to the Health Secretary asking about the number of trusts in which more than 10 per cent. of patients were suspended from the in-patient list at any one time, I was told that there were 35 such trusts, including my own, the East Cheshire NHS trust. In one trust in Walsall, more than 30 per cent. of patients are suspended from the list at any one time. Although the Health Secretary says that on-the-spot inspections will now take place, I think that the Department of Health should adopt the NAO report's recommendation and conduct a proper investigation into trusts where evidence—on, for example, suspension percentages—suggests that there is a likelihood that some distortion might have taken place.
Mr. Rendel: The hon. Gentleman mentioned one of the unsatisfactory answers that we received in the hearing. Does he agree that we received another unsatisfactory answer when we asked the chief executive whether there were any cases in which clinical authority was put behind management authority in priority in order to meet the targets? The chief executive said that he thought that no such case ever arose, but it seems entirely illogical to suggest that one can try to meet a management target of shortening waiting lists without making it more important than the clinical target.
Mr. Osborne: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course, that is exactly what happened in many hospitals and with many consultants, as they freely admit. The examples are legion.
In conclusion, the setting of arbitrary targets and the creation of arbitrary incentives in the civil service will give rise to a range of perverse incentives, manipulations and distortions. That is human behaviour. It is very bad for public administration and can cause a gross breach of public trust, as the NAO found in terms of waiting lists. That has been one of the most valuable lessons that I have learned while serving on the Committee. We should continue to focus on the proliferation of Government targets. We must see how they are working in practice, how they were arrived at and the cost of trying to meet them. I look forward to doing that work and much other work on the Committee.
4.28 pm
Mr. David Lidington: It is a great pleasure to respond to the debate on behalf of the Opposition and to congratulate the Committee. In particular, I congratulate its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I also congratulate those who have spoken: the hon. Members for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) and for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), and my hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) and for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). I want to begin by reassuring them, as some of them expressed concern about whether they might have been speaking for too long. We must remember that it was the late Mr. Gladstone himself who founded the Public Accounts Committee. He would have regarded even the 60-minute speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough as a mere oratorical morsel and an introduction to some great speech that would have flown from his lips in the days when he stood in the Chamber.
I want to add to the plaudits that many hon. Members have given my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the former Chairman of the PAC, and to the Committee staff, its former Clerk, and the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff—the 750 accountants whom the hon. Member for City of Durham mentioned. Their expertise and skill enable members of the Committee, as they will be the first to acknowledge, to place senior civil servants under intense and searching scrutiny in open session.
The PAC's work could be summed up as demonstrating the true ethic of public service. The speeches that we have heard from all parts of the Chamber show a commitment to search for examples of success, but also of failure, in order to seek remedies so that the people who send us here to represent them receive better quality public services in future.
The debate revealed some interesting lessons from the PAC's experience that are relevant to the development of the Select Committee system. As several hon. Members have pointed out, the PAC is bipartisan or, indeed, tripartisan. Since taking on my current Front-Bench responsibilities, I have attended several PAC sessions. However, unlike the Financial Secretary, I have to be content with a seat in the one-and-nines at the rear. I have noticed that questions from Committee members are always courteous, but also insistent, relentless and thorough.
The reports of the Committee and of the National Audit Office are written in lucid English, and render even the most abstruse topics of public administration comprehensible to inexpert minds such as mine. Fashionable jargon, such as "synergy" and "roll-out", is thankfully absent. The Committee is always well briefed. As the hon. Member for City of Durham said, the PAC has clout because it has resources, back-up and expertise that are not available to the departmental Select Committees. Perhaps hon. Members might like to reflect on that.
The need for a partnership between the PAC and the departmental Select Committees is a theme of the Sharman report, to which several PAC members have alluded. That message was implicit in several speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton spoke of the enormous variety of inquiries that the NAO and the PAC carried out. The hon. Member for Newbury also drew
1074
attention to that. When I was asked to respond to the debate and went to pick up the relevant papers from the Vote Office, I was aghast to receive a pile of about 20 different reports. However, as my hon. Friend said, they provide a crash course in the workings of government.
The PAC cannot be expected to do everything, however, despite the undoubted importance and wide-ranging nature of its work. That suggests that there should be a method of bringing together the work of the PAC, the departmental Select Committees and, for example, the Environmental Audit Committee. When my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton mentioned arbitrary environmental targets, it occurred to me that that was being considered not only by the PAC but by the Environmental Audit Committee, albeit from a slightly different perspective.
Several hon. Members referred to the PAC's report on discharging patients from hospitals. That is standard PAC territory; good management makes a genuine difference to handling such discharges.
Geraint Davies: The NAO has a remit that covers almost everything, whereas that of the PAC is to focus on specific items that we believe to be problematic. Hence we are able to cope with a vast amount of work without support.
Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. I am the last to argue that the PAC should try to narrow its interest or inquiries. In the previous Parliament, I served with the hon. Member for City of Durham on the Education and Employment Committee, and I share some of his frustration about the way in which members of a departmental Select Committee could labour for a long time on a report but feel that the effort was, if not worthless, then ignored by the Government of the day, of whichever political colour. I contrast the Government's approach to departmental Select Committee reports with that to PAC interrogations and reports. By "Government", I do not simply mean Ministers.
Bed management can make a big difference to hospital discharging. My hon. Friends have pointed out other aspects, and the availability of care beds was the most telling example. Such considerations inevitably lead to policy; they are not confined to management. There are therefore roles for different Committees in trying to get to grips with complicated problems.
I want to tackle two or three themes that have emerged from the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough drew attention to the PAC's prime duty of trying to monitor and improve the quality of financial management throughout the public sector. I agree with the importance that he placed on that task and his strictures on the need for timeliness in providing accounts. Unless that is done, no adequate scrutiny or check can be carried out on the quality of the financial management.
Several hon. Members spoke about their belief that the civil service does not always rate project management experience as highly as policy experience. My days as a special adviser go back a few years. Then, the highest fliers in a department tended to be given jobs in policy-making, not management divisions. I hope that the Financial Secretary can say that that is no longer the case

1075
and that a mix of policy and management roles is regarded as a desirable part of the most talented civil servants' career paths.
Good management can make a real difference to the quality of service, as we have seen in the Committee's reports on hospital admissions and bed management, on hip replacements, on managing the reduction in the number of vacant family quarters in the armed services and on the administration of the Siemens partnership with the Government.
This raises a difficult question, however. When I was listening to the comments of the hon. Member for Croydon, Central about hygiene in hospitals, and the need to crack down on the problem of hospital-acquired infection, I felt—though I may have interpreted him wrongly—that he was placing a great deal of faith in central direction and centrally imposed targets. There clearly need to be proper scrutiny and audit, but any Government will need to strike the difficult balance between trying to impose targets and standards with the noble aim of driving up the quality of service that the public experience, and avoiding the risk of sapping the ability or willingness of those who manage the services locally to take initiatives to innovate and to develop a culture of responsibility down at the sharp end. There is always a risk of eroding a sense of local ownership of those responsibilities for the highest possible quality of service delivery.
Geraint Davies: I was simply trying to make the point that minimum standards of hygiene are essential to avoid a massive outbreak of infection that could kill many people. We found substantial variation in those standards, and we need to raise them. That being said, there are clearly grounds for local enterprise and innovation to push forward the best practice benchmark.
Mr. Lidington: I am all in favour of disseminating best practice. The problem is that it is not enough simply to announce national targets or standards, if people do not have the commitment and sense of ownership at local level to drive up those standards and to take pride in delivering them to those whom they are responsible for serving.
That leads me on to the way in which the Committee follows up the reports that it produces. We have heard good examples of marked improvements in the quality of public services as a result of what the Committee has said in its reports. One example was the Committee's report on hip replacement, which helped to persuade the Government to set up a national joint registry. The Government should be given credit for responding in that way.
There have, however, been other examples in which a long time has elapsed between the problems being identified and action being taken. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough referred to the Public Trust Office, in which problems were identified in 1994, and to the fact that no effective action had been taken five years later. The same criticism could be made of the inaction of the Housing Corporation after problems with the Focus housing association were identified in the early 1990s.
I hope that the Government—or, perhaps, the Committee, if it chooses to do so—will follow up issues such as the management of finances in further education
1076
colleges, and the efficiency of management in the National Blood Service. In the latter case, the crisis in the service happened in 1997, and the PAC reported in April 2001. The Government response in October last year said that the National Blood Service had, at last, agreed a time scale for negotiations with its staff on changing terms and conditions, to bring about the improvements to the standards of service that donors deserved and which the PAC had supported; but that it would take up to two years—even after agreement had been reached—to bring those changes into effect. That means that perhaps seven years will have elapsed between the crisis arising and the changes being put into effect to tackle the shortcomings identified in 1997.
I want to say a few words about the Sharman report, which is relevant to the sixth report of the Committee for 2000–01. I hope that the Financial Secretary will say something about this when he winds up the debate. It is nearly two years since the Government commissioned Lord Sharman to carry out his review, and nearly a year since he delivered the report. It is not unfair to ask the Government how much longer they intend to keep us waiting for their response. That response will be a big test of the Government's commitment to striking a fairer balance between the Executive and Parliament. At the risk of introducing a note of partisanship, I think that they have so far failed that test on issues such as the selection of members of parliamentary Select Committees, their failure to accept the report of the Liaison Committee, and the reform of the second Chamber. I hope that their response to Sharman will give them the opportunity to pull back some of the ground that they have lost.
I support the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough for the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee to have access, as of right, to non-departmental public bodies. That would sit well with the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) a few days ago, when he called for the heads of major NDPBs to be subject to interrogation and confirmation hearings by parliamentary Select Committees before taking up their appointments.
I also agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough about bringing the BBC within the scope of NAO and PAC inquiries. It seems logical that, so long as licence fee payers continue to pay what amounts to a form of poll tax, the BBC should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the way that my hon. Friend advocated.
I hope that the Minister shows us that, on this issue at least, the Government are on the side of greater accountability and greater openness. That is the right way to go and the way to secure the qualitative improvement in public services that we all want to achieve.
4.48 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): This excellent and wide-ranging debate does credit to the breadth, depth and quality that one associates with the Committee and its reports. The Committee has a proud tradition, and Gladstone has been mentioned. He often is when the traditions of the House are discussed—and with good cause, as the Public Accounts Committee is one of his great creations.
Those traditions were undoubtedly embellished by two Members who have chaired the Committee during my membership of the House: Lord Sheldon, one of my

1077
predecessors as Financial Secretary, and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). Both gave distinguished service. The task of chairing the Committee now falls to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who is, if I may say so, ably suited for the responsibility.
I say that having had considerable experience of the hon. Gentleman over a long period. In the 1980s and 1990s, he and I spent many hours in Committee with my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who sends his apologies for being absent. He must attend an urgent constituency function, so he has left for Durham. We have all had the opportunity to observe each other at close quarters and, having listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech, I am bound to say that it did not disappoint in any way.
Membership of the Committee, and certainly its chairmanship, requires an acute, sceptical, inquiring and independent mind, which the hon. Member for Gainsborough has always had. He has a further quality that is important when considering such subjects as those dealt with by the Committee—a sense of humour. Without that, one simply could not get through.
This afternoon has been an eye opener in a number of ways. I have been exposed to two of the new boys on the Committee—the hon. Members for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) and for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). Both show the qualities that I have described as being essential to Committee membership. The hon. Member for South Norfolk showed his skills as a wordsmith. Indeed, I note from "Dod's" that he founded a company dedicated to words, so his threat to detain us long was taken seriously.
The hon. Member for Tatton has hopes for the fare at the away day. Although a member of the Committee, I do not seem to have been invited. Perhaps the fare will be too rich for my taste, but not rich enough for the hon. Gentleman, as I note, again from "Dod's", that he is related to a delicatessen on his mother' s side. That might explain the nature of his appetites. By the sound of the Chairman's pre-emptive strike in terms of extending the Committee's scope to the Financial Services Authority, the royal household and the BBC, it will be an interesting away day and we look forward to the outcome of the discussions.
On a serious note, Treasury Ministers and civil servants owe the Committee and those who serve it a debt of gratitude. On behalf of my Department, I associate myself with the gratitude and respect offered to the Clerk and the staff, particularly the outgoing Clerk, who gave a great deal of service over many years to the Committee and the wider public. Liaison between the Committee, its staff and various Departments of State is vital to the success of its work.
The Committee benefits from the assistance of the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, and his staff at the National Audit Office. Their financial audit work and value for money studies are key aspects of the structure of accountability that we are all concerned to promote. Their professional approach is welcomed by all.
The Government are committed to improving the management of Departments. The Committee and the hon. Member for Gainsborough have been receptive to working with us to raise standards, and we look forward
1078
to a continuing and positive dialogue in the future. The Chairman and members of the Committee came to the Treasury a few months ago. It was an enormously helpful exercise, and I hope that we will be able to repeat it. The Government welcome opportunities to engage the Committee. We have a common agenda on public services, and a common interest in ensuring that the public get value for money, in promoting best practice and in encouraging improvements in departmental management processes and information.
This year, the Committee has inquired into a wide range of areas, which has resulted in many valuable recommendations. Its recommendations have undoubtedly helped to improve the delivery of public services, and stand as a record of the efforts of members of the Committee.
I shall deal in some detail with the report on "The Management and Control of Hospital Acquired Infection in Acute NHS Trusts in England", which is of particular importance and a tribute to the Committee's work. I was interested in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) in that regard. His speech added to our understanding of the thought processes behind that report, and cast a searching light on some of the challenges for the health service.
The Committee tellingly observed:
"Hospital hygiene is crucial to preventing hospital acquired infection, including basic practice such as handwashing. We find it inexcusable that compliance with guidance on handwashing is so poor."
Listening to my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, Central and for City of Durham, I was struck by the fact that, over the years, with the decline of the Nightingale approach—the strict, disciplinarian, nurse-led approach to ward management—there has been growing concern about the increasing number of outbreaks of infection due to something as simple as whether nurses have washed their hands. Nurses believed that they had a disciplinary role in relation to everyone on the ward, whether they were a visitor, a patient, a doctor or a consultant. I cannot help but feel that the absence of that mindset has contributed to the failures that the Committee has vividly highlighted. It is important that the questions and analysis that the Committee asked and delivered continue to be applied to such problems.
The Committee has reported on the NHS no fewer than five times in the period covered by these reports. That is a telling indication of how far the Committee shares with the Government a concern to improve that key public service.
I was particularly struck by the Committee's report following the valedictory appearance of Sir Alan Langlands, the former NHS chief executive. I had the pleasure of serving in the Department of Health as an Under-Secretary of State during his tenure. He was a dedicated public servant and, in many respects, an inspirational leader. The report strikes an excellent balance between recognition of the progress being made to improve the NHS—it is undoubtedly being made, and we should pay tribute to it, as Members have indeed been good enough to do—and the need to identify, clearly and frankly, areas that still need attention.
It goes without saying, although in fact it needs to be said, that all the Committee's recommendations are considered fully and almost all of them are implemented.

1079
As the Committee would expect, however, Departments and other public bodies do not and should not wait for its recommendations before acting, as many options for improvement will already have been identified by the preceding NAO report. A case in point is the 41st report, entitled "The Gaming Board: Better Regulation". The Gaming Board took full account of the NAO's report as soon as it was published in June 2000, and set in hand appropriate measures.
The particular power of the Committee's own hearings and subsequent reports lies in the fact that they serve as a real stimulus to Departments and other public bodies to consider and, where desirable, implement the options for improvement identified by the NAO—which has been rightly dubbed Parliament's financial watchdog. Members in all parts of the House, particularly the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), emphasised that the NAO was an instrument of Parliament. That is an important point, which ought to give the wider public a sense of the significance of the Committee's work.
The wider public will not, of course, see reports of today's debate that reflect its importance, because the press are simply not interested in debates of this kind. Both press and public, however, are interested in the Committee reports themselves, and in what the Committee's Chairman and members say while they are being published.
Mr. Bacon: I was interested in what the Financial Secretary said about the NAO being responsible to Parliament. According to the front page of the NAO's website, the NAO is totally independent of Government, and reports to Parliament. I therefore find it odd that the web address is "nao.gov.uk". That may seem a small point, but would not "nao.parliament.uk" make more sense? Will the Financial Secretary suggest the change to the CAG?
Mr. Boateng: That is an interesting point. Given the NAO's independence and its accountability to Parliament, I am not sure that it is for me to make the suggestion, but no doubt the NAO will take account of it. I must confess that I have not looked at the website; I must do so. The hon. Gentleman's point is perfectly reasonable, and will appeal to the techies and anoraks among us—not that I disparage in any way the hon. Gentleman's close attention to the details of websites.
The challenge is to ensure that the public recognise the impact of the work of the NAO and the Committee on the minds of public servants and Ministers.
We have had an interesting insight—I look forward to more—from the hon. Member for Tatton, who at the tender age of 24 had such wisdom and insight into the ways of the world that he was able to be a special adviser to a Conservative Minister. That may explain rather a lot, but he gave an insight from a political adviser's perspective of how the anticipation of an appearance before the Committee concentrated the minds of senior civil servants wonderfully. As a Minister with a rather different perspective, I share his view that the anticipation of an appearance does just that. Importantly, it gives the Department and Ministers an opportunity to think again and where necessary to make changes when it is clear that things are not going as they should.
References have been made to the probation service and to information technology. I was prisons Minister in the latter part of that period. I well recall that, in some
1080
ways, the Committee's work and the NAO report came as a great relief, because they broke what had tended to become a rather internalised cycle of denial at the Department: that things were not as bad as some outside who had to do the work on the ground—probation officers—said it was. The NAO report and the work of the Committee played an enormously important part in ensuring that the changes were made that now enable us to deliver to the probation service the sort of IT back-up that it needs. It is important that we help the public to understand that, and I put on the record my gratitude as a Minister for the work that the Committee does.
I commend the way in which the Committee comes back to check on progress in various areas where it has had concerns. That was particularly important in relation to the 13th report, entitled "The Refinancing of the Fazakerley PFI Prison Contract", in which I had particular reason to be interested as prisons Minister. I am a great believer—I make no apology for it, although I know that this view is not held by everyone—in the role that the private sector can play in the delivery of effective and humane prison services. The Committee's concern over the refinancing operation contributed to the drawing up of guidance for a more equal sharing of the gains of refinancing between the public and the private sector partners. That was to the benefit of the sort of partnership between the public and private sectors that we want.
It was recognised that a problem needed addressing. It was addressed, and as a result the credibility of those partnerships has been enhanced. That was because the Committee worked in the way that it did. Its work and the public accountability that it enhances are rightly admired across the world. Indeed, that has been reflected in the speeches this afternoon.
The role of accounting officer is pivotal to our structure of accountability and ensures that the head of each organisational hierarchy is personally accountable for its activities. This year, a number of officers have appeared before the Committee on a variety of issues. The Committee's reports have helped accounting officers to identify failings and gaps in departmental control systems. That is important, and it acts as a continuing driver for improvement. We must ensure that we learn the lessons of the past and improve the way in which the Government do business.
For example, recommendations from the Committee have contributed significantly to changes in procurement practice and guidance. Those hon. Members of all parties who spoke about procurement and its importance were absolutely spot on. I know that procurement is of particular interest to the hon. Member for South Norfolk. I agree with him that, when we look back at the past decade or so, it will be clear that Governments have had to improve their procurement strategies. It has been a learning process, and the Committee has contributed to that.
Several hon. Members referred to procurement in relation to the private finance initiative. I believe that the PH has a real role to play, but I suspect—in fact I know—that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham is more sceptical. However, it is clear that the number of NHS beds that is delivered is entirely unrelated to the method of procurement. Whatever form of decision is taken with regard to the delivery of a new hospital or

1081
facility, it is clear that there has always been a debate and a tension about the number of beds that should be provided.
That calculation can be got wrong under the PFI, but also under the old methods by which public investment was delivered. The important thing is to improve the procurement process, as a robust analysis will ensure that what is needed is delivered. We are still on a learning curve, but I am happy to say that the Government are getting better at procurement. That will benefit the public, and is likely to lead to the achievement of even greater value for money.
Mr. Bacon: The Financial Secretary spoke of the robust analysis of PFI projects. In the December 2000 debate, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said that he was in favour of mortgaging assets in certain circumstances. He said that that had enabled many people to own their homes who otherwise would not have been able to. However, does the Financial Secretary agree that, when complex financial engineering is involved, a robust analysis must ensure that matters such as the discount rate are chosen correctly? For example, the Treasury is about to reoccupy a building that has been refurbished. The discount rate for that project was ludicrously high at 6 per cent. That had a fundamental effect on the apparent public sector comparator.
Mr. Boateng: I am afraid that I am unable to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I fear that he may have shattered the happy mood of consensus that we were seeking to develop in the debate. However, there will always be a discussion, both post and ad hoc, about whether one has got it right. Time will tell. I think that the new Treasury building is great value for money. If the hon. Gentleman comes along to the opening, he will see for himself. Indeed, the whole Committee should come, but I fear that the fare will be much too simple for the hon. Member for Tatton.
I should like to say a few words about resource accounting and budgeting. In December 2000, following the commencement of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, the system of planning, controlling, monitoring and accounting public expenditure has moved on to a resource basis. That was the basis of some of the discussion when the Committee visited us in the Treasury building.
From the outset, the Committee has supported and encouraged the more commercial approach brought about by the implementation of RAB, acknowledging that it should lead to improvements in the clarity and quality of financial information available to Parliament and assist with departmental management. As we reach the end of this financial year, we are seeing an increase in the number of ways in which the benefits of RAB are starting to be realised. In particular, improvements have been seen in departmental asset management, including disposals of surplus items—a massive task that would never have been achieved without the requirements of RAB, including the need to account for assets held.
Resource budgeting is being expanded for the coming spending review—SR2002—representing a step change in the management of some £240 billion of Government-
1082
owned assets, better incentives for managers at all levels and a better measure of the full cost of providing public services.
Mr. Rendel: Since the Minister has got on to the subject of disposing of assets, I wonder whether he knows whether the Passport Office has yet disposed of the 300 umbrellas that it purchased to protect those who were having to wait outside in long queues. When we asked why it was keeping them, the reply was, "You never know, there might one day be a power cut and everyone would have to go outside and wait in the rain—if there happened to be a storm at the same time as a power cut." That seemed a slightly dubious reason for keeping the umbrellas.
Mr. Boateng: I must admit that the fate of the immigration and nationality directorate's umbrellas has not been brought to my attention. However, I promise to write to the hon. Gentleman about it—even as I speak, urgent inquiries are doubtless being made as to their whereabouts. I was in an office on the opposite side of the road at the time, and I recall that they came in very handy. One hopes and believes that they will never be needed again for that purpose, but who knows? In the scenario painted by the hon. Gentleman, they might be. We will certainly write to him about that.
There is more to do in taking resource budgeting forward. It will place the UK among world leaders in public finance reform. There is a great deal of interest, not least among our European partners, in the progress that we are making in this area. I want to pay tribute to the permanent secretary and Treasury staff who have been engaged in this process, and to the front-line staff who are delivering it.
The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and I recently visited the Customs and Excise facility at Southend. I saw the area where mail is received and the envelopes opened for VAT cheques. It was fascinating to talk to the dedicated and committed staff. Many of them had worked there for many years, man and boy—and, indeed, young woman and pensioner, because some had come back after retiring. They shared with me the complete revolution that had resulted from the introduction of a measure to deal with incoming envelopes. They were sorting out cheques that needed to be accelerated and banked immediately because of their size.
There was great attention to the imperative of getting that money into the bank as quickly as possible. So when one listens to complex and technically challenging expositions as to what resource accounts and budgeting is, one should never forget that people are doing the business on the ground to deliver the benefits that it is so demonstrably delivering.
Mr. George Osborne: I am interested in the Minister's experience in Southend. During the months that I have served on our Committee I have long felt that it would be useful to have not just the permanent secretary of the Health Department, but also a doctor and a nurse to check what was going on, or not just the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Defence, but also a soldier. Perhaps we could look at that in the away day.
Mr. Boateng: This away day gets more and more interesting. Quite how the top brass will take to a squaddie

1083
being dragged along with them to a Committee is a different matter. Joking apart, there is a serious point about following through the changes that occur at that level to their logical consequence on the ground.
There is, of course, more to do. The resource accounts for 2001–02 will be qualified for a small number of Departments and we need to work hard to achieve the timeliness of accounting information that is routine in the private sector. The remaining problems arising are being resolved and we are confident that all of the benefits of RAB will be realised. I look forward to that and to seeing the impact of increased and improved information on the work of the Committee in due course. For perhaps the first time it will be possible to hold Departments to account for items such as their management of assets and working capital movements. We are beginning to see the fruits of that, as was made clear in the course of my exchange with the hon. Member for Newbury.
I just want to say a few words about whole of Government accounts. Building on the principles adopted for resource accounts, the Government are moving rapidly towards the production of whole of Government accounts. Akin to commercial group accounts, whole of Government accounts will bring together all areas of Government work in a single account. The intention is to present a true and fair view of the Government's activities, providing a complete overview of the public finances for the first time. That will further improve accountability to Parliament and taxpayers.
The Government are introducing whole of Government accounts in two stages. Accounts bringing together the activities of central Government bodies will be published in 2003–04, following dry run presentations in this financial year and 2002–03. Whole of Government accounts with full public sector coverage are to be published from 2005–06. We look forward to the continuing contribution of the PAC and NAO to the development of whole of Government accounts and to working with them on these matters.
I shall say a few words on performance reporting. The Government have introduced significant developments in the provision of information about departmental performance. Tough, outcome-focused targets are set for each Department and are published in departmental public service agreements. The targets need to be met by Departments in return for additional investment. We had some interesting exchanges about targets this afternoon. The next spending review will build on the approach, setting targets focused on the Government's key priorities, linked to a prudent allocation of resources. We need to make sure that the information that underpins reporting on targets is reliable. We think that the introduction of independent validation would help to provide assurance on the quality and integrity of data systems. That is the importance of the working group established by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to consider arrangements for improvements in the validation of PSA data systems. The National Audit Office, the Office for National Statistics and the Audit Commission have made valuable contributions to the group and the conclusions of the work will be announced in the Government response to Lord Sharman's recommendations in his report, "Holding to Account", about which I shall say more in a moment.
Mr. Rendel: Does the Minister accept, in line with earlier remarks, that the law of unintended effect, which
1084
hits Government so often in all sorts of ways, is particularly likely to have a deleterious effect when the Government are setting targets? The Government set a target for one thing and almost invariably in order to meet that target create another problem.
Mr. Boateng: I would not say "almost invariably". There is that danger and it must be guarded against in the setting of the targets. That is why information and analysis before the targets are set is so important. That danger is there, and one would be foolish to deny it. However, I would question the suggestion that targets are plucked out of blue air—or blue sky.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Thin air.
Mr. Boateng: Thin air; I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I have been present in the course of the conception, gestation and birth of targets and sometimes it is a prettier sight than others, but they are never plucked out of thin air. They never just appear out of the blue skies. They are the products of a laboured exercise. The important thing is to ensure that we get the mechanics of that exercise right—that we feed in the right information, conduct the right analysis and ensure that the evidence that underpins the targets is fit for the purpose. That is not always the case, and it is sometimes necessary to revisit them. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point of principle and it is important to have regard to it.
I said that I would say something about Lord Sharman's report and hon. Members on both sides would be disappointed if I did not. As my predecessor—now the Minister for School Standards—and colleagues explained in debate in the House and the other place during the passage of what became the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, the Government have never objected in principle to extensions to the statutory powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to audit and access. The importance of independent audit is well recognised as a key accountability tool, and access to information associated with an audit is essential for the Comptroller and Auditor General. Our concerns focused on the practicalities of change, particularly how to avoid undue burdens for the private sector if non-statutory access rights became statutory, and the need for assurances about the quality of audit if competitive influences were removed.
The Government welcome Lord Sharman's recognition of those concerns and the need for them to be addressed through protocols between the Government and the Comptroller and Auditor General. Following publication of the report, my officials have had productive discussions with the Comptroller and Auditor General's officials on the content of those protocols. I am enormously grateful for the constructive way in which the NAO has approached those discussions. In the light of the assurances that we have received, I hope that it will be possible to make a positive response to the recommendations.
We are grateful to Lord Sharman for considering audit and access, and for his views on accountability more widely. We have taken time to consider Lord Sharman's recommendations, as they do relate to issues that were for a long time a source of intense and stimulating debate.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) will be glad to hear that our consideration of the recommendations is now nearing completion and my right hon. Friend the

1085
Chief Secretary hopes to publish the Government's response to Lord Sharman's report shortly. We hope to respond positively.
Mr. Bacon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Boateng: I think that I have given way sufficiently.
I do hope that I have given hon. Members, particularly the sceptics among them—they are members of the Committee so, by definition, they are all sceptics—the sense that we do intend to respond positively. I trust that our response will signal the end to long-running disagreements over many years, during the terms of office of many Governments of all political persuasions, between Government and Parliament.
It has been an important debate. It has not been possible in my response to cover all the arguments that hon. Members made. They made some very important points about risk management. We are glad that the Committee continues to welcome the improvement that has been made in risk management processes in Government. We are continuing to improve the management of risk and to develop statements of internal control.
A progress monitoring exercise is being planned for the spring to assess progress in developing internal control systems and to identify issues on which Departments will need further support and guidance to help them to complete the effective implementation of that policy. The Committee's role has been enormously important. It has brought to light valuable evidence of strengths and weaknesses, and it has played a similar role in the promotion of innovation. Risk management is crucial if we are to promote innovation in the delivery of public services. If everyone is risk averse, necessary improvements are not likely to occur.
Our long-term goal is to deliver world-class public services through investment and reforms that ensure that taxpayers receive good value for money. The work of the Committee and the contribution of its Chairman, members, advisers, staff and Clerk—with the NAO—is crucial to achieve those goals and, indeed, to the very purposes of Parliament. Scrutiny is absolutely central to Parliament's role; it drives improvement and helps to ensure that regard to regularity, propriety and value for money is given in all aspects of Government projects and operations.
We are enormously grateful not only to hon. Members for the contributions that they have made today and to those hon. Members who have taken the time to attend for all or part of the debate, but to the Committee for its on-going work. We look forward to continuing to work closely with the Committee, to being challenged by its scrutiny and to the public receiving an improved service as a result.
5.32 pm
Mr. Leigh: With the leave of the House, may I briefly thank, on behalf of the members of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and the Financial Secretary, who has shown his characteristic skill and humour, for summing up this debate? I apologise to the Financial Secretary for the fact that he has not been invited to our away day. I will certainly issue an invitation if he can promise to turn from gamekeeper to poacher for a day.
1086
I am reminded of a recent conversation that I had with an NAO official. I was double checking that none of the illustrative questions prepared for Members are ever given to permanent secretaries or their staff. Of course, the members of the Committee are independent; they ask their own questions. The NAO official, who used to work for the Treasury, told me with great glee that the Clerk of the Committee once made a mistake and sent the illustrative questions to the Financial Secretary, and that they were then promptly distributed all around Whitehall. Although the Financial Secretary is a member of the Committee, we have an interesting relationship with him. We have a very good dialogue.
I do not think that any hon. Member has thanked those who are currently sitting in the place to which no reference must be made. They always attend PAC meetings. Sometimes, after perhaps an hour or two when they have not had to say anything, a Member will fix an eagle eye on them and ask a question, and they immediately come up with a good response.
I thank the Financial Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury—the Opposition spokesman—and the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who feels so strongly about the NHS, and the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies), who dealt so expertly with the PFI, the NHS and the railways.
I thank my two new colleagues—my hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) and for Tatton (Mr. Osborne)—who have been so keen and determined to get to the nitty-gritty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton said, they have led the way in the charge against arbitrary targets. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk is, of course, a management consultant, so he is ideally placed in this Committee.
I also thank those hon. Members who have not spoken today—my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), who listened carefully to the debate, and the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins), who attended the earlier part of the debate. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams)—he really is a friend. His work is a tremendous tribute to the House. He has given a generation of service to what is not a bipartisan but tripartisan Committee, as shown by the welcome presence of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) in the debate. Without the work of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West, the Committee would not work in the way that it does.
I read a report in a national newspaper that is usually sceptical—indeed, downright rude—about Parliament. It said that the Committee was one part of Parliament that was deeply impressive. I hope that, in the time that I am the Committee's Chairman, I can maintain that fine tradition.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the 38th to 47th Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1999–2000, of the 1st to 16th Reports of Session 2000–01, and of the Treasury Minutes on these Reports (Cm 5021, 5071, 5078, 5127.5201 and 5261).

Fair Trade Chocolate
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger]
5.35 pm
Linda Gilroy: May I say how pleased I am to have secured this dabate and to be able to talk about my involvement with Fairtrade chocolate and cocoa, which began by chance. I had gone for a break at lunchtime in Victoria street and went to The Body Shop to purchase a few cosmetics. However, I succumbed to the temptation of what I believe is called an impulse buy. Next to the cash machine was a cleverly sited row of chocolate bars and, as I am a self-confessed chocoholic, my hand strayed towards them. I added one to my purchases.
It did not take long to investigate the contents of the bar. It was so good that I was prompted to investigate the wrapper and I then discovered that Divine chocolate was a Fairtrade product which is supported by Christian Aid and Comic Relief as well as The Body Shop and the Department for International Development. It is the product of The Day Chocolate Company, which is based in the United Kingdom and is part-owned by a co-operative of Ghanaian cocoa growers.
Later that day, while having a cup of tea—Fairtrade, of course—with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey), I asked her whether she had come across fairly traded chocolate. She knew it well, having helped to launch it in her constituency. In fact, there are "Divine cities" that co-operate with The Day Chocolate Company to market the product the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, but I am not sure whether Bristol is one. As we left a cafeteria in the House, we put a comment in its book. "We have Fairtrade tea and coffee. What about Fairtrade chocolate? Divine chocolate is yummy!" Shortly after, a note appeared to say that the brand was "being investigated" and, in February 2001, Divine chocolate arrived next to the cash tills in the House of Commons. An early-day motion on the Order Paper welcomed its advent and quickly attracted signatures from many hon. Members.
Fairtrade has a good and growing track record across a range of products sourced from countries across the world. The fair trade movement is well under way in the United Kingdom and there are currently more than 90 Fairtrade Mark products. They range from bananas to tea and chocolate. In fact, a recent survey suggests that the majority of people would prefer to buy Fairtrade Mark products.
Backed up by the Fairtrade Foundation, the Fairtrade Mark is an independent guarantee of terms and conditions. They include a guarantee of a secure price above market price for the raw material, an extra social premium, long-term trading contracts, decent health and safety conditions and a commitment to support community programmes aimed at empowering farmers to increase their abilities to be self-sufficient.
On a visit to Ghana this summer, I learned the story of Kuapa Kokoo, the farmers' co-operative that produces the cocoa used in Divine chocolate, and how it has taken the concept of fair trade a step further. Kuapa Kokoo is linked to The Day Chocolate Company in the UK and owns one third of the company's shares. This unique arrangement means that the producers are able to play an active role in
1088
decisions about how Divine is produced and sold as well as to share in the profits. Consequently, cocoa growers will receive more than the fair trade premium and very soon, when the company reaches the profit stage, the profit from the end product will start to flow back to Kuapa Kokoo and its farmers.
Cocoa is at the heart of Ghana's economy and everything has developed on the back of it—its roads, hospitals and schools. In the late 1970s, the price of cocoa plummeted by two thirds. Droughts and fires in the early 1980s caused further damage and the economy was devastated. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund intervened and advised that liberalisation of the cocoa market would be necessary to rescue the economy. Kuapa Kokoo was a response to the Ghanaian Government's policy to liberalise the internal market in 1992 in response to the advice of the World Bank and the IMF.
Farmers, led by the late Nana Frimpong Abebrese, and with help from the British non-governmental organisation, Twin, were behind the move. Abebrese was the farmers representative on the executive board of the directors of the Ghanaian cocoa marketing board. He was concerned about what would happen to the cocoa farmers after liberalisation of the cocoa market, fearing greatly the entry of the private market. He saw the need for the farmers to have their own organisation to participate in cocoa trading and set out to establish that with the help of Twin, which provided the finance for Kuapa's establishment, as well as technical support and contact with the fair trade partners in Europe.
By trading their own cocoa, the farmers are able to manage the selling process more efficiently than the Government agents, and thus receive more of the profits. Kuapa Kokoo prides itself on transparency and democracy and sets itself high standards in its business practices. It uses accurate weighing scales that can be understood by the farmers and all the decisions affecting farmers are made by elected representatives. Kuapa Kokoo trains farmers to weigh and bag their own cocoa, which not only contributes to the end result of the farmers receiving more per sack than they would from other buying agencies, but provides them with useful skills. In addition, at the end of each year farmers receive a cash bonus per sack from profits.
My visit took me on a four-hour journey from Accra to Kumasi, a large town in the Ashanti gold-mining region of Ghana, where Kuapa Kokoo's headquarters are based. Kuapa Kokoo is a thriving co-operative that is composed of five main units: the Kuapa Kokoo farmers union; Kuapa Kokoo Ltd., which is a farmer-owned private licensed cocoa buying company; Kuapa Kokoo farmers trust, which receives and disburses moneys from the fair trade premiums and other funds meant for farmers; and the Kuapa Kokoo credit union, which was established in 2000 to promote savings and enhance development. When I visited last year, the credit union already had 8,000 members. Hon. Members who have credit unions in their constituencies will know that that is a considerable achievement in such a short period of time. The fifth main unit is The Day Chocolate Company, which was set up in 1998. It arranges the manufacture and marketing of Divine and Dubble chocolate bars in supermarkets across Europe.

1089
Kuapa Kokoo's strength comes from the participation of more than 35,000 ordinary small-scale farmers at village level. There are 750 villages in the co-operative. My encounter with one such village, Fernaso Domeabra, which in the Twi language translates as "If you love me, you will come to me", was an inspiration. Thanks to the Kuapa Kokoo fair trade connection, the village has a water project. The women and children no longer have to travel miles to collect water, which took up the best part of the day and left little time for education or for diversifying productive activity.
The village is one of several societies in the union in which women have developed an additional income-generating activity, in this case extracting palm oil, which helps to keep them going in the six months of the year outside the cocoa harvesting season. It also gives the farmers an income to supplement what they receive from fair trade and diversification, although they receive only about $50 a year. It is breathtaking to consider that the children's school fees are paid from such low incomes.
At an hour-long meeting with the co-op, the members' questions to me were very pointed. Why did the international buyers dictate the price of cocoa? What could I do to help with another water project? Some farmers from a village that does not have a water project had travelled four miles to meet me. They talked about the need for better health, and their solution, a health clinic, needed my support. When I later visited the farm of one of the women cocoa growers, I could see that snake and scorpion bites and cuts from large knives could cause death if not attended to fairly quickly. I could clearly see why a clinic was a top priority, along with a palm fruit-crushing machine, for which a plea was made by the women's leader.
I should explain that palm fruits grow in a cluster, and each tiny fruit has to be taken and crushed with a stone before it can be mashed to produce oil, so it is no wonder that the women wanted a machine to do it for them. That is a daunting shopping list, but one that they now have the capacity to tackle for themselves, thanks to the vision of the four people who worked to found their co-operative, Kuapa Kokoo. Almost half the people whom I met that day must have been under the age of 12. Within their lifetime their aspirations can be achieved in a sustainable way, and by their own efforts and those of their elders.
As a Labour and Co-operative MP, I spoke to the village elders about the Rochdale pioneers, founders of the UK retail co-operative movement over 150 years ago. I told the story of how the mill workers had started with a small initiative of setting up their own shop to avoid exploitation by the mill owners, who had started to adulterate with chalk the flour that they were selling in their shops to the workers. The mill workers' initiative was greatly expanded within the lifetime of their children from its small beginnings in Toad lane. Among their achievements is what is now the Plymouth and South-West co-operative society, of which I and several hundred thousand people are members. The society drew on the advice of a Rochdale pioneer who took the trouble to visit the 10 men in Plymouth who founded it some 150 years ago.
1090
I am not sure that the people of Kuapa Kokoo believed me, but I believe that the seeds of co-operation which they have planted can produce similar dividends. The most effective thing that anyone can do to help them in their quest to improve their quality of life is to make sure that The Day Chocolate Company thrives. The people will then get not only a fair trade premium for the raw cocoa, but a share in the profit of manufacturing the end product. From little cocoa beans, bigger harvests may ripen.
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for agreeing to take an intervention, and I congratulate her on securing the debate. She has explained that the benefits of the initiatives that she describes not only apply to the chocolate producers but are potentially much wider. Will she join me in welcoming the fair trade fortnight between 4 and 17 March this year? Will she join me in urging Members of the House to support that fortnight in whatever way they can, and also in urging the Government to encourage Departments and the civil service to assist that welcome initiative?
Linda Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend for that relevant intervention. I certainly urge hon. Members and everyone who has a part to play in encouraging fair trade to take part in that event. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that two of the cocoa growers, Mary and Comfort, will be coming to Britain during that fortnight. They will visit Plymouth to meet some of the Plymouth and South-West co-operators, and go down to the Eden project in Cornwall where there is a tropical house containing, of course, a cocoa plant. I understand, although I have not yet visited it myself, that attached to the plant is a plaque referring to this project.
As a means of achieving a more balanced trade relationship between north and south, this end-to-end stakeholding by the producers of the raw material has a lot to offer. Not only does it seem set fair to increase their profits, but through having a say in how the chocolate is produced and sold, they increase their knowledge of the fiercely competitive European and western chocolate markets. A quick look at the notes of guidance as to what is involved in growing and harvesting cocoa, which I saw for myself when I visited the farm of a woman grower, shows why a cocoa grower deserves a fairer share of each bite of chocolate that we eat. It takes patience and exposure to considerable danger to establish and grow the golden pods, and harvest them for market. Waiting five years and risking snakes, scorpions and tetanus is definitely worth more than a fair trade premium in my book.
Kuapa Kokoo can get its members a better deal on all their cocoa, but they particularly benefit when their cocoa is sold to Fairtrade companies. Fair trade guarantees the farmers a minimum price for their cocoa of £1,666 a tonne and £66 a sack. That minimum price is intended to cover at least the costs of production, providing the co-operative with some security. Fairtrade companies also guarantee long-term trading contracts to the farmers. By contrast, Kuapa Kokoo farmers earn only £600 a tonne and £37 a sack when they sell their cocoa to conventional companies in other countries, and are not guaranteed long-term trading contracts.
Fairtrade companies pay an extra premium or bonus of £100 a tonne or £6 a bag to be used for community projects such as the water wells that I described or new

1091
toilets; it can also be given directly to the cocoa farmers to improve their income. When dealing with Fairtrade companies, the farmers are assured that the process for buying and selling produce is clear and fair. Unfortunately, although all its cocoa meets the required Fairtrade standard, Kuapa Kokoo can only sell a proportion of its cocoa, as little as 2 per cent., to Fairtrade companies because there is not yet enough demand. Only now are fairly traded chocolate bars becoming available in the shops on any scale.
Large international companies dominate the chocolate market in the UK, which is worth £4 billion; the European chocolate market is worth £14 billion, so it is a big market. Taken together, familiar names such as Cadbury, Mars, Nestlé, Suchard and Jacobs account for well over 80 per cent. of the retail market in chocolate confectionery. Competition between them ensures that their products remain innovative, strongly promoted and keenly priced, making it difficult for smaller companies such as Day to compete. Nevertheless, The Day Chocolate Company is doing well in integrating its product into the mainstream market. The Dubble chocolate bar is priced evenly with other similar products at 35p; the Divine chocolate bar is priced only slightly higher than comparable chocolate bars. At £1.19, Divine's newest product, Darkly Divine, with a substantially larger proportion of cocoa in the ingredients, will also be competitively priced. Because of the competitiveness of the western and European chocolate market, it is difficult for Day to maintain low prices and still return as much profit to the cocoa growers as it would like. The company is only now set to go into profit.
Despite the success achieved through advertising campaigns, competitive pricing and so on, Day still faces obstacles to assisting Kuapa Kokoo and furthering the objectives of fair trade. Certain trade tariffs make it difficult for Day to break into the western chocolate market while maintaining fair trade relations and facilitating the involvement of Kuapa Kokoo at all levels of production. Developed countries tend to maintain much higher tariffs on imports of processed commodities than of raw materials. It is therefore much easier for Ghanaians to sell cocoa to Europe than chocolate bars; in the European market, there is no tariff on cocoa, but the duty on chocolate can be as high as 27 per cent. If that tariff were reduced or removed, Day could undertake more processing of the product in Ghana, allowing the producers to be more involved and to gain more profits. Another impediment to Day's efforts to facilitate fair trade is the import duty on sugar. At present, it is not feasible for The Day Chocolate Company to use fairly traded sugar in its chocolate and bring out a mainstream-priced product. With the reduction of that tariff, Day could count fairly traded sugar, along with fairly traded cocoa, among the ingredients in its products.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) has attended the debate, because it was with his help as Chairman of the Catering Committee that we managed to get those products into the House of Commons Tea Room, the Terrace Cafeteria and Portcullis House. I also pay tribute to the Minister and his colleagues for the Department's support for fair trade in general and the work of The Day Chocolate Company and the Kuapa Kokoo project.
1092
I have a small shopping list to which I hope the Minister will respond. Fair trade arrangements are still very small in relation to such markets and I hope that he can report on positive progress from the recent Doha talks that will not only help the cocoa trade, especially in Ghana, to thrive, but will also help fair trade arrangements in general to prosper. In particular, I would welcome his comments on the chocolate tariff and the sugar duty. I hope that he will join me in recognising the value of this special project.
The company's slogan is "Pa Paa Pa", which is Twi for "Best of the best". I believe that the Kuapa Kokoo project is unique in terms of the way in which developing world producers can not only receive a fair and ethical treatment from buyers of the raw material, but have a stakeholding in the manufacture of the end product. I hope that the Minister will join me in recognising the value of the project not only in its own right, but perhaps also as a model for building a better relationship with traders in developing world countries, to whom we certainly need to give extra consideration in the wake of 11 September and if the aspirations in the plan for Africa are to be met.
Finally, I hope that in responding positively to my shopping list, the Minister will make Divine chocolate a regular feature of his own.
5.56 pm
Valerie Davey: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) on securing this debate and on highlighting the importance of fair trade. I echo the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) with regard to bringing to the attention of the House the forthcoming fair trade fortnight, in which I am sure that many hon. Members—and I hope the Minister—will be actively engaged.
I assure my hon. Friend that Bristol is indeed a divine city. It is a wonderful city, but it is quite specifically a Divine chocolate city. It is one of those cities to which The Day Chocolate Company came to launch its product—something about which I shall speak further in a moment. The city encourages fair trade in many ways, but I should like to mention two aspects that illustrate the importance of specific projects. The community of Bishopston in Bristol is linked to Kuppam in India. That community link or twinning arrangement has brought about the establishment of a shop on the Gloucester road where a wide range of Indian textiles and colourful clothing is now available. Also, one of the Oxfam shops in Bristol is designated for fair trade. A large variety of fair trade goods is available in that shop.
I think that the momentum of what my hon. Friend said relates to the importance of getting fair trade produce—in this case, the produce of The Day Chocolate Company—into the mainstream market, so that we can go into our shops and into the supermarket and pick up this most wonderful product. I have been introduced only today to the Darkly Divine chocolate bar. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), the Chairman of the Catering Committee, will recognise it as an addition to the products sold in Portcullis House and the other outlets in the Palace, and as the company's dark chocolate brand. We hope that all the products will be more widely accessible, as that is the only way in which the wider public will recognise the importance and value of fair trade.

1093
Let me turn briefly to the launch in Bristol. The Day Chocolate Company held the event at the Hotel Du Vin, which is now well known in Bristol and is newly established in a very old building—the old sugar house. As one enters the building, one is reminded that, in the olden days, looking out through the archway, one would have seen the masts of the ships coming into Bristol with sugar, which prompts thoughts of the unfair trade on the basis of which we are conscious—perhaps now more than ever—that our city developed. That unfair trade was in sugar and slavery. It was poignant to be able to launch Divine chocolate—a fairly traded product—there, knowing that the cocoa growers were part of the company's management. It felt as if things had come full circle, from unfair to fair trade.
An increasing number of people in the country are aware that that is the way forward. Working with partners throughout the world to establish fair trade, whereby growers, producers, conveyors and buyers are part of something that works to our mutual benefit, is at the core of what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and those in The Day Chocolate Company stand for. I respectfully suggest that the Minister and the Department also think along those lines. I look forward to his response to the debate.
6.1 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) on securing a debate on such an important issue. I know that she takes a strong personal interest in fair trade—that was evident from her remarks—and I greatly enjoyed reading the report that she produced on her visit. She kindly sent me a copy of it, complete with photographs, which brought it to life.
I confess that I discovered the delights of Divine fairly traded chocolate when, early in my ministerial career, I opened my Red Box to discover a couple of bars enclosed with some material about the product and the company that produces it. At that moment, I viewed my new responsibilities in a completely different and more relaxed light. At the end of last year, I attended Dubble's first anniversary celebrations. It was a happy and enjoyable occasion.
Fair trade is a small but significant part of the international trading system. Its aim is simple: to ensure that small and medium-sized producers are able to receive a fair price for their products and thus earn a living in an increasingly international market. In doing that, it tries to create a more equitable trading partnership between north and south.
The growth in sales of fairly traded products in developed countries has been dramatic, albeit from a low base. It has averaged 30 per cent. a year in recent years. Sales in the United Kingdom totalled £23 million in 1999, with chocolate, tea, coffee and, most recently, bananas accounting for most of that. I understand that Day Chocolate is stocked by all the major multiples—Tesco, Sainsbury's, Safeway, Waitrose, Asda, Somerfield, Morrisons, Boots and the Co-op—as well as Blockbuster Video, independent garage forecourts, and Shell.
Day has recently been active in promotional ties with the National Union of Students, the Nickelodeon children's cartoon channel, and the student and children's
1094
press. All that effort matters, because as my hon. Friend said, the product has to prosper in a strongly competitive market.
There is every indication of the trend continuing. As consumer demand increases, and a growing number of customers want to buy fairly traded goods, I hope that more fairly traded products can become available. Towards the end of last year, I met the Fair Trade Foundation to learn about its work. One of its initiatives is to increase the range of goods that have the Fairtrade label.
Through FLO—the European fair trade labelling organisation—a new process for assessing goods against the Fairtrade standard has been agreed. It is hoped that that will significantly increase the range of goods that can be certified. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), who is unfortunately not in his place, about the importance of the fair trade fortnight. I look forward to having the opportunity to support it.
Fair trade has yielded many benefits over the years in the UK and in developing countries. There are opportunities to achieve more, but also challenges to be faced. The story that we have been debating—that of fair trade chocolate, Kuapa Kokoo and The Day Chocolate Company—clearly illustrates the achievements and the challenges.
Ghana is justifiably famous for its high quality cocoa production. It dominated the world cocoa market in the 1960s, but despite a peak in world prices, production fell dramatically in the 1970s and early 1980s. This was largely due to the taxation rate, which resulted in a decrease in industry incentives. Cocoa accounted for more than 75 per cent. of Ghana's export earnings in the 1970s, but for just under a quarter by 1992.
At this time, the Government of Ghana began to liberalise the internal marketing of cocoa. As we have heard, a group of local farmers formed the Kuapa Kokoo farmers union to provide a way of improving the economic and social position of cocoa farmers. Technical support from the UK was provided by Twin Trading, and financial support by the Department for International Development.
Kuapa Kokoo is now 10 years old and, like the British co-operative movement, it has gone from strength to strength. I was greatly stuck by the analogy drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton between the work being done at Kuapa Kokoo and the origins of the co-operative movement in this country. Kuapa Kokoo is the only major cocoa-producing co-operative in Ghana; it now has 35,000 members and it exported more than 30,000 tonnes of cocoa last year. It is also the largest supplier of fairly traded cocoa in the world, providing almost two thirds of the international supply. It is estimated that over the eight years of its operation to 2000, Kuapa Kokoo has yielded £600,000 in extra income to its members, over and above world market prices.
The benefits of the co-operative are more than just economic, however. Last year a DFID-funded study reported on these benefits and in particular assessed the extent to which they could be attributed to fair trade. The study found that while Kuapa Kokoo fair trade sales have ranged between 2 and 9 per cent. of total sales, the support of the fair trade movement has had a disproportionately positive impact on its members. Indeed, Twin Trading

1095
played a key role in organising and developing the co-operative in its early years to take advantage of both fair trade and mainstream commercial markets.
The premiums from fair trade sales fund many of the social services provided by Kuapa Kokoo, including health, education, the credit union to which my hon. Friend referred, water and sanitation. For example, more than 100,000 people—both members and non-members of Kuapa Kokoo societies—have received free medical attention and prescriptions. My hon. Friend also mentioned other benefits in terms of new skills and involvement in decision making.
Kuapa Kokoo has not rested on those achievements, however. Ghana has yet fully to liberalise cocoa export marketing, and state control over export marketing means that prices paid to producers remain relatively low. Kuapa Kokoo was keen to increase the value added to its cocoa, as well as its understanding of global markets. To address both those objectives, it decided to produce its own branded chocolate for sale in western markets. Together with Twin Trading and The Body Shop, and with support from Comic Relief and Christian Aid, it formed The Day Chocolate Company.
The Day Chocolate Company is an ambitious and innovative venture. Unfortunately, the banks perceived it as too risky to finance it themselves. To overcome this problem, DFID provided a bank guarantee until September 2004 to enable a commercial bank to provide £400,000 of loan finance. In doing this, DFID was aiming to lower the perceived risk of similar ventures, and thereby to encourage further participation of private financial institutions in fair trade initiatives, and in development more generally.
The Day Chocolate Company is an award-winning organisational model of partnership between producers, a fair trade organisation and an ethically minded business. It has been successful in helping to promote fair trade through sales and distribution via 15,000 outlets, many of which had never stocked fairly traded items before; through highly impressive media exposure, which is important given the lack of a large budget for advertising; and through innovative development educational activities which are reaching more than 4,000 primary schools and more than 1,700 secondary schools. Kuapa Kokoo has a one-third shareholding in The Day Chocolate Company, and its two elected farmer board representatives give it a new level of involvement in, and understanding of, the global cocoa supply chain.
The case of Kuapa Kokoo and The Day Chocolate Company highlights a number of wider challenges and opportunities for growing trade in both developing and developed countries, and it is to these that I now wish to turn. First, developing country Governments must continue to improve the legal and regulatory environment for processing agricultural products, private sector development and foreign direct investment. If business is to flourish—we know what an important part economic development plays in lifting people out of poverty, which is what we are concerned about—it needs the right climate.
Secondly, the private sector in developing countries needs to enhance its international competitiveness. For example, Ghana is moving to liberalise export marketing of cocoa. By virtue of the technical and marketing capacity that Kuapa Kokoo has built up through Fairtrade
1096
and its partnership with The Day Chocolate Company, it is likely to be one of only three companies licensed to export in Ghana.
Thirdly, Ghana and other countries may export raw cocoa to Europe, but they face tariff barriers if they want to export processed chocolate. The Department and other donors are working with developing country Governments to strengthen their negotiating power in trade talks.
Fourthly, Fairtrade and other companies promoting trade with developing countries face intense competitive pressure, particularly as they tackle mainstream commercial markets rather than traditional fair trade markets. Such companies are often dwarfed by their competitors' size and advertising budgets, while consumers may not always convert a desire to support Fairtrade into purchases. The Day Chocolate Company, cafédirect and others are showing that innovative marketing and distribution can lead to success.
Fifthly, we need to recognise the link between fair trade in particular and corporate social responsibility more generally. A growing number of companies are becoming interested and involved, and the ethical trading initiative helps them to do business in a more socially responsible way. As the public become more aware of the connection between the way business is done and its impact on the livelihoods of people in developing countries who are trying to earn a living for themselves and their families, so the pressure for greater business awareness will grow, and rightly so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) spoke about the links that have been developed between the city that she represents and organisations in her community. As in a number of cities in this country, shops selling fairly traded products are opening.
The issue of fair trade shows how important trade in general is to developing countries. Compared to the UK market for Fairtrade products—the £23 million to which I referred—the total market for such products is £15 billion a year. We must therefore help developing countries to increase their trade and economic activity through international trade agreements. Here, of course, reform is of the highest importance.
That is why the everything but arms agreement is a major step in the right direction towards building fairer competitive markets for agricultural trade between Europe and developing countries, and why the Government are pushing for significant common agricultural policy reform in relation to sugar and other agricultural products, although we know that progress has been slow. To be honest, Members have been debating CAP reform in the Chamber over the past quarter of a century, owing largely to opposition from domestic agricultural interests in continental Europe.
That is why a new trade round—a development round—matters so much following November's Doha agreement. The Doha declaration is encouraging, as it commits World Trade Organisation members to the objective of duty and quota-free access for the least developed countries and puts agricultural trade firmly on the agenda for the world trade negotiations. That is why we were so keen to have a new trade round. Without a new round, there is no possibility of reform and we expect tariff reductions that favour developing country exporters.
Linda Gilroy: In common with many other Members, I have received a lot of letters from people at

1097
non-governmental organisations who suggest that the world trade round should not go ahead until the rules are changed. Will my hon. Friend say more about that? The proposal is misguided and mistaken in terms of helping people such as those we are discussing.
Hilary Benn: That is an important point. The proof of the World Trade Organisation's success will be in creating terms of trade that are fair and equal and allow economic development across the globe. Members will be only too conscious of the obstacles that are placed in the way of developing countries in trying to achieve that objective, and agricultural protection is the biggest obstacle of all. The single most significant step that we could take through the WTO talks to help developing countries would be to reduce the agricultural protectionism to which I referred. The simple truth is that, if there is no new trade round, there will be no possibility of negotiating that improvement.
The test will be the extent to which those talks produce the development round and the liberalisation in agriculture to which all hon. Members present are committed. I hope that that will allow us to make progress on tariffs on sugar and chocolate.
Last night, the House gave a Third Reading to the International Development Bill, which puts poverty reduction at the heart of what we are trying to achieve. In
1098
truth, we can do no other if we are to have a chance of reaching the millennium development goal of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015. Creating a fairer international trading system that helps to make global markets work better for the poor, so that developing countries can maximise the opportunities and minimise the threats that arise from that global market, is of the greatest importance. In doing that, supporting small and medium-sized producers to compete effectively in international markets, including the fairly traded market, will matter a great deal.
I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton, because she has done the House a service in raising this matter. She went to Ghana to find out about this problem for herself, and took the trouble to report to the House and secure this debate. In so doing, she has given us the chance to discuss an important subject.
Finally, I can honestly say that I have never participated in a debate in the House that has aroused such anticipation of gastronomic delight. It is to the eternal credit of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) that any Members present in the Chamber who find it difficult to resist such temptation will now be able to repair to a Room close by and enjoy the delights of the product that we have just debated.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Six o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Walking (Towns and Cities)
[Relevant documents: Eleventh Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee Session 2000–01, HC 167–1, and the Government's response thereto, CM 5277.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]
2.30 pm
Andrew Bennett: I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this debate on the Select Committee's report on walking in towns and cities. I record my appreciation of the hard work of the other members of the Committee, of the Clerk and all the other people in the Clerk's Department who helped us to prepare it. In particular, I thank our advisers, Tim Pharaoh and Rodney Tolley, who gave us a great deal of advice during our inquiry.
This inquiry was part of the Select Committee's continuing work in the last Parliament. We looked into all the issues around urban renaissance, such as allotments, parks, cemeteries and public spaces, and the urban White Paper. Returning to walking was another opportunity for us to look at all the issues surrounding the public environment.
A contradiction has developed in the past 40 years, in that many of us can say that we have become much more a part of a global village. We have friends and acquaintances all over the world yet many of us know little about the people who live down our street. Our lives have become more fragmented; work, shopping and leisure activities all take place increasingly further apart.
The fragmentation of our lives works perfectly well, but only up to a point, and that is the crucial issue. Such fragmentation places extreme demands on resources. Air travel guzzles up fuel, and along with car travel, it is a major cause of global warming. Furthermore, a lot of people are excluded from that global village and the fragmentation of our daily lives is inefficient.
I would argue that the key is to start reassembling the urban environment to reduce the amount of travel that people have to do. Is it really necessary that people have to travel 30 or 40 miles at the weekend to go to a country park, so that they can stroll for 15 minutes, because the local park is in such an appalling state? Do we really need to have people travelling along a traffic-snarled motorway to get to some out-of-town shopping centre because we have destroyed the local high street? Do we want to have out-of-town cemeteries or crematoriums because the space in local cemeteries has been used up? Is it logical for people to drive to a fitness centre to walk on a treadmill because the local street is covered in dog fouling and litter, and it is such a yucky place that people do not want to walk there? Once we start thinking about those issues, it is really a question of putting our
316WH
environment back together. Once we start talking about putting our environment back together, we see that walking is a central issue.
Let us face it—walking is efficient. For journeys up to half a mile, it is quicker than almost anything else, even the bicycle. If one takes into account the time that it takes to get the bicycle out and then lock it up, walking is more efficient for short journeys. Walking is very cheap. I suppose that one has to pay eventually for the shoe leather, but apart from that it costs nothing. Walking is also available the instant one wants it. There is no question of queuing for the bus or having to wait; it is right there. Walking is efficient.
Probably the most important thing for our inquiry was the reminder to everyone that walking is healthy. One of the worst public health problems in this country is the number of people who suffer from heart disease yet we are told that one of the best ways of preventing heart disease is to have two 15-minute walks a day. That is a relatively short walk, but it will do more to improve health and keep heart disease at bay than almost anything else.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I know that the hon. Gentleman sets a good example because he walks a great deal for leisure. Will he tell us how far his Committee walked during the inquiry?
Andrew Bennett: I can surprise the hon. Gentleman; the Committee visited Europe and the members were very good. They walked a substantial amount. One or two members of the Committee are not built for walking, but some of the members walked a considerable distance. Although it is easy for MPs to cast stones at others, the way in which the Palace of Westminster is laid out encourages walking. The distance that an MP walks in the building during the day is surprising. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Committee walked a substantial distance while considering the issues.
Walking is healthy, and it is educational. If one goes into the centre of London and walks about, one can see a marvellous collection of stones and rocks that have been used in the buildings. It is an opportunity to have a walking geology lesson. Couch potatoes could watch "Changing Rooms" or "Ground Force", or they could walk around the neighbourhood and stare without too much trouble into other people's front rooms and see what colour of decoration they have, look at the work that they are doing in their gardens, and talk to them as well. Walking is an enjoyable and social activity.
The Committee discovered that during recent years, walking had declined as an activity. It has decreased by 13 per cent. during the past 15 years. I have some reservations about the figures. If I travel to the local hardware shop, I will walk for about a quarter of a mile, there and back. If I tick a statistical box, that counts as a walking trip. However, if I travel to B&Q by car, that counts as a car journey. However, when I arrive at B&Q, unless I am lucky, I find a substantial number of other cars in the car park, and by the time that I have walked across the car park, and then up and down the aisles, I have probably walked further than I did to the hardware shop. I am sceptical about the figures. It is standard for a Select Committee to ask for better statistics, but it would be helpful if we had more information.

317WH
However, there is obvious evidence that walking is declining. For most parents and grandparents, it is a tremendous thrill to see their 16-month-old child making those first stuttering steps across the carpet. Most youngsters have learned to walk efficiently by the age of two. The trouble is that, by the time they are five or six, they have decided that walking is not fashionable, and that the best thing to do is to persuade parents to ferry them around in cars to school, to see their friends, to parties and everywhere else.
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: The nub of the matter is that in parents' eyes it is safer to drive the children to school than to let them walk. Is that not one of the areas that we looked at?
Andrew Bennett: It certainly is. In fact, the next point on my list is the urban environment. Too often, it is a hostile jungle for walkers—adults and, even more so, youngsters. Sadly, in this country, there are about 10 deaths from road accidents each day, and a large proportion of the victims are pedestrians. We should work much harder to make the urban environment safe for children and adults.
In far too many areas, there are narrow pavements and railings. We cannot do it this afternoon—we are not allowed to—but it would be interesting for us all to walk towards the abbey and watch people crossing the road. They have to go through a series of pens and are allowed to cross only one bit at a time, supposedly for their safety. We should also remember that, while people are corralled in pens, waiting to cross the road, they are subject to the worst of diesel and petrol fumes. Whether young children are in a pram or holding an adult's hand, their heads are almost exactly at the level of the exhaust pipes.
What can be done to encourage walkers and reclaim the urban environment for them? One of the most important initiatives is pedestrianisation. It is possible to carry out successful pedestrianisation schemes that would make the urban environment in town centres much more attractive. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked how far the Committee had walked. One of the places that we visited was Milan. On a very cold day, the Committee walked a substantial distance through the centre of Milan in a pedestrianised area. Traffic going from one side of the city to the other is completely cut out. The city also has pedestrianised areas in some local neighbourhoods.
If it is possible for a city such as Milan to have a pedestrianised core, why not London? After great fanfare, the Mayor of London's plan for a pedestrianised area from the National Gallery to Parliament has been watered down to merely removing the buses from the front of the National Gallery. Just think how it would have changed the centre of London to be able to walk in a pedestrianised area from the National Gallery, across Trafalgar square and down Whitehall to Parliament. At present, Parliament square is a barren area.
Bob Russell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such a scheme would make it very difficult for Ministers' cars to get to the Houses of Parliament?
Andrew Bennett: There is a simple solution—let Ministers walk. It would be perfectly reasonable for the Prime Minister to come out of Downing street and walk to Westminster. I suspect that it would be as efficient as using a car. Of course, there is the slight problem of Members of Parliament getting their cars into the car park, but such problems are solved in other cities. Parliament square, which is no more than a grotty roundabout, could be opened up. We could have stone paving in the centre of it.
Chris Grayling: I speak as someone who regularly commutes by rail to Westminster. In defence of the Prime Minister, there are security concerns around his walking in central Westminster. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a fascinating point, and I hope that the Minister will make a commitment to give up his car and walk between his Department and Westminster.
Andrew Bennett: I will not push the Minister. However, Parliament square could be an attractive place for people. At present, I do not think that anyone would argue that it is. We could have one or two pavement cafés. Perhaps a café on one corner could do Speaker's teas and one on the other corner could do Lord Chancellor's cream teas.
There can be some humour about these matters, but if we start to look to develop pedestrianised areas, we can make them attractive. A large number of cities across Europe have pedestrianised areas. Why not here? People tell me that one of the reasons why we cannot pedestrianise areas and have pavement cafés and such attractions is the climate in Britain; that it rains too much. That is nonsense. Some of the pavement cafés in big cities in Europe are in wetter and colder places than London, but they still thrive. It is an attitude. I suggest that pedestrianisation can work. The Select Committee heard some good evidence from Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and York that pedestrianisation schemes work, that the local population and visitors like them and that they encourage walking.
To a certain extent, we were pleased with the Government's response to the report. One of the issues is guidance on crossings. I plead with the Minister to look more carefully into giving clear guidance to local authorities on complicated zig—zag crossings. They are expensive, discouraging to walkers and they do not improve safety. We must do more about getting youngsters to use their feet and walk. There have been some successes such as walking buses, in which a group of parents collect children and bring them to school on foot, but a great deal more could be done.
We must make sure that the streets are safer. Fear of crime is part of the problem. The best way to get over it is to make sure that there is not one isolated person but lots of people walking down the street. That creates the feeling that it is safer. Apart from on very crowded streets where there may be pick-pocketing, it makes walking far safer on the whole.
We would like the Government to commit to a national walking strategy. They could edge in that direction. I know that some Ministers claim that they do not want to be known as the Minister for silly walks, but that is a defensive position—[Interruption.]
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The parrot sketch.
Andrew Bennett: I am not sure whether all these comments are going on the record and who is going to be the dead parrot.
When the Committee published its report and some of the evidence, there was some sad feeling about conflict between walkers and cyclists. It seems sad that two groups who do not do well out of the transport strategy in this country should almost be at war.
The hon. Member for Cotswold asked where the Committee went. One of the places was Ferrara—an interesting example of a city which has squeezed out the motor car. It is virtually entirely pedestrianised, with cobbled streets, and cyclists and walkers get on together perfectly well. One member of the Committee could comfortably have been riding a bicycle and would not have looked out of place. I make a plea to walkers and cyclists in urban areas in Britain to get on with each other rather than be in conflict.
One of the problems is that a lot of local authorities have given a low priority to walking so there is a lack of skilled people within local authorities to promote walker-friendly street design. I hope that the Minister can tell us something about what the Government are doing to encourage the development of skills and best practice in local authorities.
Mr. David Drew: I am not sure whether this matter was covered in the report, but it is important. We must always ensure that pedestrians are properly consulted about traffic calming schemes. There are some areas in which such schemes have become highly controversial and motorists see them as totally negative departures. In such cases, the pedestrian loses both ways. Traffic calming schemes have been changed or ripped up but, more important, we often do not consider from the outset how much safer an area should be for the pedestrian. The relevant authorities must ensure that they listen to pedestrians as well as drivers.
Andrew Bennett: Is it important for the authorities not only to listen to pedestrians but to ensure that they have people with expertise who understand walking. One problem seems to be that local authorities are pushed into big schemes. Expenditure on big bypasses or roads is seen as a priority to which staff will pay much attention, while smaller changes that would make walking more attractive are ignored. We must ensure that local authorities can examine and aggregate a series of schemes in their transport strategies and realise that improving facilities for walkers may be much better value for money than a big scheme.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman has been generous in giving way and is making a thoughtful and serious speech. Does he agree that local planning officers often pay great attention to the number of car parking spaces in new developments but completely ignore the pedestrian? Crime, particularly at night, is a problem, and there are many innovative ways involving architecture by which the risk could be reduced for walkers.
Andrew Bennett: I accept that, and it is important to consider such developments in the round and ensure that it is easy for people to walk to and from them.
320WH
I could go through the list of recommendations in the report, but it would not be helpful. I hope that the majority of hon. Members have read the report, and anyone who has not can find it on the Committee website. I commend the report and hope that we hear the Government telling us that they will give higher priority to the encouragement of walking.
2.52 pm
Chris Grayling: I apologise for being a couple of minutes late at the start.
I speak as a member of the Select Committee, but one who was appointed to it after the report was completed and it became the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee rather than the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. The report is valuable and important, and makes some salient points. I am sorry not to have been around for the inquiry, particularly as I did not have the opportunity to walk round Milan and other cities with the Committee's members.
The report is important for many reasons. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) referred to a variety of issues, including health. As we have seen from many recent reports, obesity and lack of exercise are becoming particular problems in this country, and ones to which I plead at least partially guilty. The lessons in the report are well taken by both Committee members and those outside the House.
As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to raise the issue of health and the contribution that walking can make. Recent statistics show that one in five of the population is officially classified as obese and that obesity is directly linked to several serious and life—threatening illnesses. Tackling the problem will be a fundamental part of improving the quality of health of our society as a whole, and walking is undoubtedly one way of doing that. Our time is precious, we all live in busy environments, and many people have substantial work or family commitments. In a world where sports facilities, such as a gym, are often not close to hand during the routine day, walking has a crucial role to play in improving public health. The charity Weight Concern said recently that Britons could be described as
"the fat people of Europe."
In that context the report is very welcome. It is a timely reminder to the Government and the people of this country of the role that walking can play.
I want to pick up on a number of recommendations in the report. The report is right to cite the changes that have taken place in our urban and suburban environments over the past 30 or 40 years as a significant factor in reducing the amount that people walk. If one looks at the developments that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, it is clear that communities were built around the car. One simply has to look at the way that towns such as Milton Keynes, Warrington and others have been laid out to understand what a driving force the car was in the development of those communities. In later years we have all come to realise that that cannot be the only driver of community development.
Three or four years ago, I went regularly on business to Detroit, and I was struck by the fact that it was almost impossible to cross the road on foot. To go to the shopping mall across the road from the office, one had

321WH
little choice but to drive, even though it was only a few hundred yards. In this country we would not have thought twice about making that journey on foot. There it was impossible, given the domination of the car in the environment. It would be wrong for future community development in Britain to allow the car to be as dominant as it has been. Equally, we would be wrong to develop without thought for the motor car. As in all things, a proper balance must be struck.
The realisation that the motor car cannot be the only factor in generating community development is one of the reasons why we have seen a change of emphasis over the past 15 years in a number of areas. There has been a resurgence of interest in the railways and in travelling by train, and in the early 1990s trams were reintroduced for a first time in a generation. It is also the reason why walking and access to walking has to be a priority in future developments in our society.
The ability to walk to a local centre is an important part of the development of a new area. An area of new housing has been built to the west of Epsom over the past seven years. It was planned 20 years ago. Residents are profoundly unhappy: effectively a number of linked housing estates have been built on the fringes of Epsom and they want a heart to their community. At the moment there is a debate about the construction of a primary school, but they need more than that. Communities of a substantial size—that one will eventually comprise 5,000 people—need access to a small local shopping centre, public amenities and a general practitioner's surgery. We must learn from what has been done in the past. We must build centres that people can walk to and walk around, as well as simply creating drop-in points for cars. Everyone in those new communities says that they want that and we would be foolish to ignore them.
Given all that, why are the Government taking their current approach to planning? They are enforcing the construction of up to a million new houses in the south-east over the next 15 to 20 years. Similar developments are taking place all around the country, such as an area near to where my family lives in Cheshire, and in the west country. When the plans are turned into real construction sites, the impetus for constructing houses tends to come from developers who buy parcels of land that they eventually push through for development. Local planners sometimes look around until they find the least controversial option for new housing developments. The proposals create the prospect of planning being imposed from the centre. Where is the strategy to create new communities that would support people walking around them rather than driving from centre to centre? Where is the strategy to create an environment that supports walking in small communities? The report rightly states that new housing developments have been and continue to be constructed at the edge of towns or villages at densities too low to support local services. The proposed new housing for the next 15 years will worsen that situation. I hope that the Government, even at this stage, will change their approach to planning and think more about the community implications of their proposals. I hope that the Minister takes that message back to his colleagues.
322WH
We need to encourage community development that creates an environment in which people will walk. We also need to concentrate future developments in places where development is integrated with existing communities or creates new communities. The possibility of strengthening village communities, as well as creating new ones, has always existed. Development regenerates areas of our cities; we should not simply build over green land but should bring people back into the heart of the cities, giving them communities around which they can walk and of which they can be part. Doing so will prevent the threat of green areas disappearing and being swamped by increased traffic levels. However, I fear that we will continue with the process that the Committee rightly highlighted of pock-marking new developments around the south-east without any community strategy.
The report also looked at the implications for walking of out-of-town shopping. We should not try to turn back the clock. Whether we like it or not, people do not want the shopping environments of 30 or 40 years ago. They do not want to carry heavy bags of shopping up and down high streets from shop to shop. They want to drive their car to a supermarket, fill the trolley with the week's shopping and drive home again. To believe otherwise is foolish. They want to go to substantial shopping environments, such as Bluewater and Lakeside. One need only look at the queues at such centres at sale times, bank holidays or even just on Saturdays, to know that we cannot go back to the traditional high street as the sole focus of shopping.
I entirely support the principle of encouraging walking, but we must not do so by chasing cars out of town centres; that is the surest way of killing town centres. I am concerned by what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said about pedestrianisation—not because it does not have a role to play but because it can have a devastating effect if it is done wrongly. The town centres closest to me—one in my constituency and one just outside—are Epsom and Leatherhead. Some years ago, Leatherhead pedestrianised the whole high street; since then the centre has virtually died. Indeed, the council is now looking at ways of bringing cars back into it. By contrast, Epsom has never pedestrianised its town centre. Some people complain bitterly about the volumes of traffic but Epsom is a noticeably more flourishing shopping centre than Leatherhead.
Tom Brake: I know the town centre in Epsom well because my parents live in Epsom. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment: other factors are also involved in the fact that Leatherhead is going downhill. Epsom, with its one—way system, is an unattractive environment and would benefit from a different traffic scheme, possibly pedestrianisation.
Chris Grayling: I was going to say that I believe in a well-thought-out mix of pedestrianisation. I have specific ideas about how Epsom could achieve that.
In the hon. Gentleman's borough, Sutton, the town centre integrates pedestrianisation well. However, the car is still present. The smaller centres, which endure the competition that centres such as Kingston generate, suffer when they drive the car out of the centre. I look at Leatherhead and think that that was a mistake.

323WH
When the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish says that pedestrianisation has to be the way forward, I do not fundamentally disagree, but a balance has to be struck. Pedestrianisation must give the walker greater access to town centres. The old days of walking through town centres on narrow pavements, where one falls off the edge as a bus or a flood of cars rushes past, cannot be right. To drive cars well away from the town centre would kill businesses and push the shoppers into the competing out-of-town centres.
The report is clearly critical of the Government's local transport plans, and the balance between their resourcing of those and large projects at the centre. The Select Committee said:
"The Government has opted to fund big rather than small schemes in its 10 Year Plan, but does not know which offer the best value for money. This oversight must be addressed. We recommend that the Government ensure that in future a higher proportion of funds in Local Transport Settlements, commensurate with the importance of walking as a mode of transport, be spent on the measures put forward in the National Walking Strategy we propose."
That point was reinforced by the Civic Trust in its submission:
"Unfortunately too much of the money made available through the Ten Year Transport Plan will be directed towards big infrastructure projects that benefit inter-urban travellers. Investment in the walking environment was given a low priority"
Those two contributions highlight the fact that a balance must be struck between major transport schemes that absorb substantial amounts of money, and locally generated smaller schemes that can make a difference to people's quality of life. Big plans grab headlines and create a sense of dynamism and momentum. The funding required to build Crossrail for London is about £5 billion. However, for the same amount of money, 20 light rail schemes could be built, and for a small proportion of that, hundreds of pedestrian and traffic improvements could be built. As the Government plan spending on transport, they should be mindful of the impact of smaller schemes.
Other barriers to walking are visible to those of us, such as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who represent urban constituencies. Fear of crime, as the report highlights, is a powerful driver of people off their feet and into cars. If we want people to walk into urban environments, we need tough action on major and minor crime. We must have zero tolerance in town centres because people will not walk around centres if they are constantly bumping into people who are drunk, urinating in the gutter, or behaving in a rowdy manner. That is particularly true of the older generation, who—perhaps wrongly—are intimidated by gangs of young people. Although we have to achieve a common-sense balance in the use of our streets, police officers reassure pedestrians, particularly the older generation, that they are walking in a safe environment.
It is a particular problem in town centres in urban areas that have become centres of entertainment as much as centres of shopping. That is certainly true in Wimbledon, where I lived before, and it is becoming true in Epsom. I imagine that it is also true in Sutton. More and more, centres are becoming a focal point for pubs, clubs and other entertainment facilities. For many centres, that is a necessary transition, because
324WH
competing with big shopping outlets and big centres such as Kingston is increasingly difficult. Those centres have little option other than to diversify, but they must do so thoughtfully and avoid causing undue disruption to their communities.
Diversification can work only if local people still feel free to walk in their own town centres. That is why community policing is so important, and I pay tribute to Surrey police, who have put an increased focus on getting police on to the streets. We have excellent beat officers in Epsom town centre and around the area, and their presence is extremely important in reassuring pedestrians that they can go out and walk.
It is equally important to tackle problems such as vandalism and graffiti. Whether we are talking about people walking in town centres or down alleyways, if they are in a dirty, unkempt, vandalised and graffiti-ridden environment, they will feel uncomfortable about being there and will be driven off our streets. The Committee's report rightly points that out. The fact that street crime is rising so fast in places such as London is a real concern, even in areas that are not directly affected to the same degree as some of the city's central parts.
Mr. Donohoe: Does the hon. Gentleman concede the point that was made by the Select Committee's Chairman? If more pedestrians were around, that crime would not happen.
Chris Grayling: In making a judgment, we need to consider the reasons for the crime. Clearly, there is a chicken and egg scenario. If more people are around, there is a greater disincentive to crime, but in reality some crimes take place in broad daylight in packed town centres. I am referring to the theft of mobile phones and quick bag snatching. Street crime does not always take place down dark alleyways. In that respect, the presence and visibility of police in an urban centre is particularly important.
The report rightly points out that speed is a serious problem for pedestrians:
"The proximity to fast-moving traffic is unpleasant for and intimidates pedestrians and it puts many people off walking altogether."
I hope that the Government will hear and take seriously that important and salient point. I hope that the Minister will take seriously the Committee's comments on danger reduction, because too often decisions about safety are taken after an accident instead of before. I want us to think about dangerous blackspots for pedestrians before, rather than after, someone is seriously injured or killed.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend may have raised one of the most important points in the debate. Is he aware that our pedestrian fatality rate of 2.2 per 100,000 walkers is the 10th worst record in Europe? Indeed, a recent report suggested that as many as a third of all deaths of boys between 10 and 14 could be attributed to accidents while walking. Clearly, traffic speed and dangerous driving are very serious issues.
Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend raises a significant issue, which the Select Committee will investigate

325WH
shortly. I hope that the Government will take careful note of the report and recommendations that arise from that particularly important investigation.
Traffic calming is not always the solution. I am particularly concerned because, under Government guidelines, speed cameras are to be installed after, rather than before, accidents have taken place. I am also concerned about some of the restrictions on highlighting speed limits. Next week, I shall introduce a ten-minute Bill to address the illegality of putting up repeater signs in 30 mph speed limits. That is nonsense, so I hope that the Government will support the Bill, which will give local authorities the right to put 30 mph speed limit repeater signs in areas where they feel that that is appropriate.
Walking requires the space to walk. One of the things that the Committee has learned in its more recent inquiry about the new planning guidelines, PPG17, is the importance of good management of our open spaces. We heard a number of items of evidence, not least that from the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), about the absence in many areas of open spaces. It is a matter of careful thought and planning to ensure that urban open spaces are there, that they are well looked after, and that they are well protected.
Like the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, I praise the many initiatives that have taken place to reduce the number of cars doing the school run. The walking buses in many parts of the country, which the hon. Member mentioned, are an admirable initiative to be commended. With the support of the Government, I also commend those local authorities, like my own in Surrey, that are investing in a new school bus scheme, based on the United States model.
Equally, we must remember that walking to school is not practical for all families. Often parents have children at different schools and have little option but to take the car in the mornings. That means that we must place in the hands of local authorities, adequate resources to make sure that provisions for proper pedestrian crossings close to schools are made for pupils. Recently, there was a tragic case in my constituency where a young girl was killed on a stretch of road that parents had raised concerns about for a number of years. Happily, that stretch of road will now have a pedestrian crossing, but it is tragic when an accident of that kind has to occur to generate the momentum to put one in place.
For a number of years, I have had concerns about cyclists in cities, who pay scant regard to pedestrians. They will go through pedestrian crossings at high speed and when the lights are against them. They will weave in and out of traffic where pedestrians are crossing the road. I would like to see a greater enforcement of our highways regulations for cyclists, as well as motorists.
The report also raised the issue of subsidies for local centres. Should we be providing support—in the way that we do in some places to village shops—to smaller local urban centres? I ask the Minister to look carefully at this issue. I know that it has been a matter of some debate in recent months, but it is the case, as all too many of the retailers in my constituency tell me, that
326WH
their business rates are calculated on the same principles and the same frontage basis as the giant supermarkets. That cannot be right.
The report has revealed many issues that drive to the heart of the strength and weaknesses of today's communities. It has made a number of salient and important points. I hope that the Government will listen and take stock of this valuable contribution from the Select Committee.
3.18 pm
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I welcome the report. I was a member of the Committee, and visited those wonderful European cities. One of the things that I discovered from that visit, and also from other visits that we made within the United Kingdom, was that there is no simple solution to the problem. The Urban Affairs Sub-Committee will be looking at new towns. Although I am not on that Committee, I will no doubt want to contribute at some point. Having stayed in a new town, and having stayed in the same town before it was a new town—indeed, having stayed there since I was a young boy—I can say that the new town, even with many of the engineering feats that it created in trying to improve the lot of the pedestrian, actually went back a way. I remember as a kid going for a walk around the town every Sunday with my father. This was well before any pedestrianisation. It took three or four hours to walk around the town, and we were able to do it without any great problems. I am a standing token of the fact that I was not damaged in any way, although some might argue that I was. However, I managed to get through that period.
Since the creation of the new town, there have been problems in every respect. The shopping centre in the middle of the town was well frequented when I was a boy. There was a direct road through the middle of it, but the shops were busy and well used. The high street was pedestrianised, and today the street is dead. It is full of litter and has charity shops but nothing else. They knocked down the bridge that was a focus of attention in the town before it became a new town and built a shopping centre, which I describe as the biggest toilet in Europe, across the river. The shopping centre has been disastrous for the high street. In the past two or three years, the development of a retail park on a brownfield site has drawn the centre of gravity even further away from what was the town centre when I was a boy.
Pardon the pun: people vote with their feet. They go where it is most convenient. In the main town in my constituency, the people vote with their feet and do most of their shopping in the new centre, yet a great proportion of households are without a car. The people have to walk. A clutter of buses in one street demonstrates that. I do not say anything against them, but the people in the west of Scotland and in my constituency have perhaps the greatest chance of suffering ill health. As I said, there is not a simple solution to the problem.
The town's environment has become worse as well. There is litter everywhere. If they are challenged, people have the cheek to say that it is the council's fault. They do not think that they should not drop litter but that the council should pick it up. Clearly, that is part of the problem. One of the things that gets my goat more than

327WH
anything else is chewing gum dropped in the streets. All the beautiful walkways that have been created in the pedestrianised areas are littered with chewing gum. Perhaps the Government could do something about that. Finally, the beautiful pedestrianised area has the most vandalism. There was none of that when I was a youngster, and the Government should give it far more consideration than they have.
One of the more positive aspects of the new town was the creation of cycle paths. Even though the Chairman of the Committee might not think so, I actively try to keep my weight down. One of the things that I do is cycle on the paths. However, I have had more cheek from people out walking their dogs than anyone else. They will not give way to cyclists. One day, a guy with a hawk confronted me on one of the cycle routes. He was going to release it if I did not get off my bike and walk past him. Those are the problems that we face. The Chairman mentioned the conflict between cyclists and pedestrians. I put it down to the fact that there is less courtesy between people now than when I was a youngster. It is not all doom and gloom, and this week the shopping centre has a new owner. Having talked to him, I believe that he is more likely to bring a change to the environment and a change of culture among the members of the public who use the shopping centre.
I turn to more general points. We are on the eve of the Burns night celebrations. As someone who has already attended five Burns suppers and who is attending one tomorrow and one on Saturday—
Bob Russell: What about tonight?
Mr. Donohoe: Tonight I am travelling home, and I have to say that I am not walking. It seems appropriate to mention a little competition. Members who are into the internet could key it up at www.haggishunt.com. They could win a weekend in the Gleneagles hotel if they spot the golden haggis. One of the webcams shows a picture—this is why I relate this story—of the pedestrianised area of Buchanan street in Glasgow. I have watched it all morning out of curiosity. It changes every 60 seconds. One of the greatest problems with pedestrianised areas is delivery vans. The drivers show no courtesy to people. There must be more restriction on the movement of traffic around the shopping centre. In many cases, the pedestrianised areas have been destroyed by the intrusion of buses, which have been allowed in. The Government have not considered that as they might.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), the Chairman of the Select Committee, mentioned the Parliament square crossing, which the Committee considered. It is heavily used in the evidence that we presented to the Government as an example of where pedestrians have been treated in the wrong way. There was a simple argument: to look at the flow of traffic from the pedestrian's point of view. If any hon. Members have used the crossing—I am sure that they have—they will realise that it is the wrong way round. Pedestrians could and do walk from the House over to Millbank. In that circumstance, one would imagine that the pavement would go in the opposite direction. We made great play of that in taking evidence from those responsible, yet they have done nothing about it. I wonder which organisations have actually
328WH
read the report and whether there has been any resultant activity by organisations that gave evidence and were given clear indications as to where things were wrong.
So what am I looking for from the Government? I am looking for more activity and for the necessary co-ordination between Departments, which does not exist. We mentioned children and school buses, which is a good initiative, but the Government do not seem to be putting over the message that this is something that should be created. There are problems with crime. There is no indication that the Government are taking action to address problems relating to vandalism and crime.
The topic that concerns me most is chewing gum. When the Transport Sub-Committee visited Chicago, we found that, unbelievably, the British consulate is in the Wrigley building. Outside that building is a man with an ice hammer—an ice blow thing—removing chewing gum from the pavement. Here is the corporate headquarters of the chewing gum company that has done so much to ruin the streets and the expensive stone plate pavements that have been created, and yet it has the same problem. The Minister might reflect on that, as it makes me think that the Singaporeans have got it right in banning chewing gum. The one thing that I have learned from years of negotiation is that we should try to leave the negotiating table with something. We should not ask for much, and if the Minister can do something about chewing gum, he will have made my day. I look forward to his response.
3.30 pm
Bob Russell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) on the first class and comprehensive way that he introduced his Committee's report and I commend the Committee for its various conclusions and recommendations. I regret that the Government have not taken on board all the recommendations, which were the result of considered thought. We live in hope that the Government are moving in the right direction, albeit slowly, and we look forward to further progress.
I am not anti-car and those who want to be pro-walking and cycling must stress that all forms of transport have their place. What is shocking is that successive Governments of all political parties have been guilty of decades of over-emphasis on the motor car to the exclusion of any other form of transport, including public transport—buses, rail, light railway or tram systems. Cycling and walking are very much at the bottom of the pile when it comes to central Government and local government thinking. I speak as someone who had many years' experience as a local councillor, and it seems that money for road schemes is more easily available than for cycle paths or pavements. That is surprising when we are told that walking accounts for more than a quarter of all trips and 80 per cent. of trips are under one mile.
Many hon. Members will know of other people—it is always others, not ourselves—who get in their car to travel just a few hundred yards. Although I made a relatively cheap point earlier, I believe nevertheless that leadership by example would do more than any number of Committee reports and presentations. On one famous occasion in May 1997 the Prime Minister walked from Downing street to the Palace of Westminster, but I

329WH
have no recollection of a repeat trip being made. I invite the Minister to encourage his ministerial colleagues and civic leaders throughout the country to lead by example. Walking accounts for three times as many trips as all forms of public transport combined and 18 times as many trips as cycling. I am grateful to Living Streets, the new name for the Pedestrians Association, because it has been in the vanguard of promoting walking.
Walking is an excellent means of maintaining physical fitness. I am greatly amused, as we all are, by the fact that it tends to be young men who will travel in fast cars to a leisure centre, spend about an hour in the torture room and then head up to the bar for a drink and a few fags before driving home. They would save more money and their health would be better if they took a brisk two-hour walk instead.
Successive Governments have not helped by their attitude towards education. The freedom to go to whichever school one chooses has dramatically undermined the neighbourhood school. We know when it is school half term or holidays, as the number of vehicles on the road reduces by between 10 and 25 per cent., depending on the area, because many pupils are not being driven to schools on the other side of town by their parents. In the good old days, when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) was a young lad, most people went and walked to their local school. In the spirit of joined—up government, I invite the Minister to have a friendly word with his colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills and inquire whether education policy, particularly at secondary school level, is helpful to the concept of people keeping fit and walking to school. If they are being driven several miles past several other schools, it adds to congestion on the roads and ensures that they will be less fit.
Chris Grayling: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that to promote walking we should remove parental choice, which has been such an important part of improving standards in education in the past 20 years?
Bob Russell: I invite parents to consider the consequences. They must decide whether invoking parental choice to drive their child five miles to a so-called better school because they perceive that they will receive a better academic education is in the long-term life interests of their child if, as a consequence, they get breathing, mobility and heart problems at an earlier age than they would if they were fit. I would prefer that all of my children—all of whom went to their local state schools—walked or cycled to the local neighbourhood school and were fit than were driven five miles to a school that was perceived to be better and were less healthy as a result. That is parental choice, but central Government should put it on the line that perceived higher academic achievement may be at the cost of their children's health. I leave it at that.
Regular walking is a highly effective way to tackle the health problems that I mentioned. Obesity and coronary heart disease are on the increase—20 per cent. of four-year-olds are already too fat and the figure has been increasing year on year by one percentage point. No one has to be much of a rocket scientist to realise that if that continues, today's young people will hit health problems at an earlier age.
330WH
Streets and public space perform a vital role in community life and we have heard some lovely examples of how walking enhances people's quality of life. I recognise that shopping trends cannot be reversed in this generation, but equally it is up to central Government to give fiscal encouragement to the neighbourhood shops in residential suburbs and villages. We are talking today about walking in towns and cities and the Government would greatly help the survival of neighbourhood shopping areas, as well as those in town centres, if there was a fiscal encouragement to the shops. The Government should revisit their bold plan of a few years' ago, which they quickly dropped, to put some form of tax on out-of-town shopping centre car parks to subsidise the public transport network. I will leave the Minister with that thought because I suspect that he privately agrees, although he may not be allowed to say so publicly.
We have heard about speeding traffic, cracked flagstones, litter, graffiti, vandalism and the fear of crime, which all blight our streets. What has not been mentioned is street lighting. We must not assume that walking is a daylight activity only. I am not suggesting that people walk the streets at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning in Colchester, and those who do may be up to other activities, but the point is that on dark mornings and evenings, we need improved street lighting for pedestrian safety, but local authorities are strapped for cash, successive Governments have underfunded local authorities, and additional street lights in pedestrian areas do not feature highly on lists of priorities. Whenever my local council wants to rearrange the roundabout or move a pedestrian crossing 20 yd, central Government can apparently find money to pass down to Essex county council.
There is strong public dissatisfaction at the state of the street environment. If we want more people to walk, we have to make the streets more user friendly. We have to create communities where it is possible to walk. That involves several Government Departments, other public agencies, the private sector, the chambers of commerce and so on. A holistic approach must be adopted. We must also take account of the non-traffic function of the streets: street cafes, dare I say it, morris-dancing in the summer, street theatre or whatever are part and parcel of making our town centre streets more user friendly. People from the residential neighbourhood have to be got into the towns, however. That can be done by car—no one disputes that—but it can also be done by cycling and, wherever possible, by attractive pedestrian routes, either safely along main road arteries into the town, through suburban streets, or through parkland settings.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) touched briefly on light railways and trams. I urge the Minister to look at this. The Victorians got it right, but we lost the plot in the 20th century. I hope that in the 21st century we can realise the value of trams and light railways in our towns and cities. The Minister should see whether a tram or a light railway route is the answer to various problems in the relatively smaller towns with a population of about 100,000. Just to stick more buses on to congested roads and to say that it is public transport is not the answer. There must be another way.

331WH
It is disappointing that the Government have not taken on board some of the recommendations in the report. I am sure that the Committee will return to those and will continue to push for them. Why, in a 100-page, 10-year plan were only 10 paragraphs devoted to walking when it accounts for more than a quarter of all trips? I welcome the report. I welcome what has happened so far. Will the Minister confirm that this is merely the first step of the great march?
3.42 pm
Mrs. Louise Ellman: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) for suggesting this important issue for consideration by the Select Committee and for the way in which he chaired the inquiry. We often ignore the simplest things. We take walking for granted or simply do not think about it at all. During the inquiry we came to appreciate how important walking in urban areas is for urban regeneration and as something that is both enjoyable and healthy. I hope that the publication of the report will contribute to the process whereby walking is recognised as increasingly essential for health, good living and enjoyment and a significant part of urban renaissance and city renewal.
That renaissance must tackle social exclusion and promote sustainable development, making our surroundings more visually satisfying and more accessible and raising the standard and quality of living for all our citizens. That means that we need co-ordination in planning and implementation. Government, local and regional authorities have to work together to promote civic pride and respond to the needs and wishes of local communities. Those authorities must work closely with the voluntary sector and community groups, which often know the issues and can propose improvements to local environments. If the Minister assures us that the Government will do all that they can to secure co—ordination and encourage local and voluntary groups to suggest ideas and develop them wherever possible, we will have taken great strides forward.
Liverpool is an excellent example—[HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear]—of a city in the process of renaissance and regeneration. I find it encouraging that my hon. Friends and the Minister are aware of the renewal of Liverpool and its importance as a city of great pride and strengths. Part of that regeneration is related to making the city attractive to those walking. The importance of walking in Liverpool is known to those promoting tourism and education. Liverpool's tourist guides have made a great contribution to the importance of walking by showing the fine attributes of Liverpool to visitors. The heritage trail, developed by the late and very lamented Sir Richard Foster and instigated by the national museums and galleries on Merseyside, has played an important part in increasing social awareness in Liverpool. The sculpture trails conducted by eminent sculptor Robin Riley, have shown residents and visitors the importance of artistic developments and public design on the streets of Liverpool.
Much of the excitement of Liverpool can be appreciated only through walking. I draw particular attention to the Hope street quarter, promoted by the Hope street association. Its significance was not recognised in the past, but today it is seen as an
332WH
important place. If people walk the short distance along Hope street, between the Roman Catholic and the Anglican cathedrals, much of the splendour and many of the achievements of Liverpool can be seen and enjoyed.
The Royal Philharmonic hall is home to the splendid Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. That orchestra performs excellently in its city centre premises, but it also reaches out to local communities, conducts workshops for local children, and conducts concerts and workshops in Toxteth and other local areas, thus ensuring that young people from areas where they often do not realise their opportunities are encouraged to develop their musical abilities. In the same area, in Mount street, lies the home of the late poet Adrian Henri. There are refurbished buildings, such as Blackburn house, a national leader in promoting women's training, and the Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts, supported by Sir Paul McCartney, which is now a European centre for excellence in training for the performing arts. There is also the city farm, the Unity theatre, the Everyman theatre, the Liverpool School of Art and Design, Liverpool university and Liverpool John Moores university. Rodney street nearby is the home of the eminent photographer, the late Edward Chambre Hardman, whose photographic work was set to leave Liverpool until the National Trust stepped in. The trust will regenerate his home as part of the heritage centre in Liverpool with, I hope, the support of the heritage lottery fund. It will then be a centre that people can visit.
That half-mile walk in the city centre would show Liverpool's excellence in art, music, learning and enterprise. Walking there is enjoyable for what can be seen and experienced. I hope that that will contribute to the city's bid to become the capital of culture, to which hon. Members will hopefully lend their support. The bid is for the whole of the north-west, not just for the city of Liverpool. The north-west now recognises Liverpool's pre-eminence in the arts and other areas.
There is one flaw in the excellence of that area—the safe access of pedestrians to the facilities. There is no pedestrian crossing at the busy corner of Hardman street and Hope street. It is difficult to understand why the city council has not seen fit to provide a crossing there, in spite of repeated representations. Given the vastly increased funding that the Liberal Democrat—led city council received from the Government, I would hope that it could see fit to use some of the money to provide that pedestrian crossing. I wonder if the Minister could prevail on it to do so? That is an important example of the significance of crossings to allow people to circulate easily in areas of great importance.
Walking is important in city centres, but ease of access also matters for local neighbourhoods. I hope that walking will be seen as a priority in the local neighbourhoods in Liverpool such as Dingle, Smithdown, Kensington and Everton, where the work of regeneration companies and other initiatives—including Government-inspired initiatives—is under way. Local amenities in those areas should be encouraged and supported, so that people can shop in their area and find the facilities that they need without having to travel a long way. We also need to encourage the development of safety initiatives.

333WH
I welcome the increased funding that was given to the Merseyside police and the introduction of the crime-fighting fund, which has meant that about 200 extra officers can be on the beat in Liverpool. I hope that there will be a continual concentration on neighbourhood policing to make local areas safer and make people feel safer. I also hope that the initiative taken by the Eldonian Group in Vauxhall to promote neighbourhood wardens will be taken up in other parts of the city.
As I said, walking in Liverpool city centre is enjoyable and shows the city's fine buildings, squares and achievements. However, it is marred by the number of formerly fine buildings that have been allowed to fall into disrepair as a result of blatant neglect. I praise the "Stop the Rot" campaign initiated by the Liverpool Echo for the example of civic leadership that that local newspaper has shown in drawing attention to the unacceptable dereliction of formerly fine buildings in the city centre. The paper has held meetings at which it has tried to hold the property developers and the city council to account and to secure action. I am pleased that the Rope Walks area is undergoing regeneration with Government support and European funding.
The biggest scandal concerns the Casartelli building, which fell down because of years of neglect. It was shameful that the city council allowed that to happen. I am also sad about the continued neglect of St. Andrew's church in Rodney street, which has been allowed to fall into dereliction and decay and now blights the local business area as well as the local environment. Again, Iurge Liverpool city council to act.
Perhaps, above all Iurge that action be taken about the empty post office site in the city centre, which has been virtually abandoned by the Walton group. It bought the site more than 10 years ago, but can only show us a list of broken promises. It stated that it would redevelop the site, but there has been no action. Indeed, my experience is that every time attention is drawn to the matter, a vehicle appears on the site but disappears a few days later. That site in the middle of the city centre, which is undergoing fast regeneration, still remains vacant. I call on the city council to act, through a compulsory purchase order if there is no other way. I ask the Minister to ensure that, as the Government review the criteria for compulsory purchase orders, some of the proposals made in the consultation process that is taking place are followed up. In particular, I ask them to recognise the importance of regeneration as a reason for seeking such an order when all other means have failed.
Liverpool Vision, the regeneration company set up by the Government, has a great opportunity to redesign the city centre, which has been identified as an engine of growth for the city and the sub-region. It is imperative that the city centre is accessible to all, that the magnificence of its old buildings and squares is preserved, that public spaces are expanded and that public transport links people to amenities. I hope that the light rail system for Liverpool, which was proposed somewhat belatedly, will be a successful part of the public transport network that links people to amenities and the city centre.
334WH
I ask the Minister to consider our planning policies and the recommendations in the Select Committee's report, in particular, our suggestion of a national walking strategy and local walking strategies. When assessments are made of planning issues, accessibility to amenities for pedestrians and ease of walking should be among the criteria against which judgments are made.
The Government have provided a lot of funds to Liverpool for regeneration purposes—£356 million in the past four years—and it is time for the city council to provide civic leadership, working with local voluntary groups, to ensure that the money is used to best effect.
I hope that the report and the Minister's response will help to give a higher profile throughout the country to the importance of walking for health, enjoyment and regeneration. I hope that that will contribute to renewing the city of Liverpool to bring enjoyment of its past, present and future to those who are enabled and encouraged to walk around the city.
3.59 pm
Tom Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) on ensuring that this matter is debated. I echo many of his points, particularly the one about the pathological hatred of cyclists that some people seem to have. They forget that pedestrians are at much greater risk of injury from car drivers than from cyclists. Such hatred was best demonstrated by the incident that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) referred to, in which a man with a hawk encouraged him to get off his bike while he was using a cycle route.
I also agree with his point about reducing crime and the fear of crime by increasing the number of people who walk. However, it is not as simple as that. We must ensure that people use appropriate walking routes. For example, the shortest routes through the areas of Bramblewood close and Buckhurst avenue in my constituency are down small alleys at the back of people's houses. Unfortunately, there is a lot of graffiti along those routes, many garages are burgled and houses can be accessed from the back. We must enable people to use the shortest walking routes whenever possible, but some of them may not always be appropriate.
In other cases, the walking routes will be the most suitable and will be a significant improvement on what exists. The Roundshaw estate in my constituency is undergoing major renovations to change the 1960s system of streets in the sky—which means that there are no pavements beside the roads—to a more natural system of roads with pavements. People will be able to walk with a much greater degree of safety along the routes that they want to use, rather than being forced along routes that they do not want to take.
Perhaps I might commiserate with the Minister briefly, as he has been nominated by hon. Members here today as the Minister for silly walks and chewing gum. I do not know which of those he is demonstrating at the moment by leaving the Chamber. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) made some sensible comments, but he lost me when he started talking about the chicken and the egg; it is a pity that he is not here to explain that. The hon. Member for Cunninghame,

335WH
South referred to chewing gum. Perhaps we should consider a levy on chewing gum manufacturers so that they contribute financially towards the substantial costs of clean-up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) made several telling points, including one about the consequences of parental choice in education. Incidentally, choice is more often than not the school choosing the pupil, rather than the parent choosing the school. However, there are health consequences for children if distances are too great to walk; for example, children who commute 20 or 30 miles by car from the south coast.
I welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) about the renaissance of Liverpool. I will draw that to the attention of the members of that authority. It seemed as though a substantial proportion of the comments made by the hon. Lady focused on attacking the city council, rather than on improving pedestrian facilities or commenting on the Select Committee report.
As I was coming to the House this morning, I decided that I would make a case study of my journey. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish referred to pens. There are pens on the corner of Stafford road and Woodcock road, and I always try to avoid them if the traffic is not too heavy by taking the shortest but riskier route along the so-called "desire lines". That sounds exciting, but it is not.
Andrew Bennett: The hon. Gentleman should push the traffic lights button so that he stops the traffic, even though he takes the desire line.
Tom Brake: I would be happy to push the button, but unfortunately there are no traffic lights. I follow the desire lines, which, for hon. Members who may not know, are the shortest line that the pedestrian would like to take between two points rather than being forced through sheep pens. The shortest route to Wallington station involves a steep flight of steps, which is not encouraging for pedestrians. One can always guarantee that one, two or three drivers will jump the red lights at the Vauxhall Bridge road and Victoria street junction not far from Victoria station. That happens every time I come home in the evening. The same tends to happen at the junction on St. Margaret's street. One or two drivers think that they are entitled to drive straight through a red light, because it has been red for only a couple of seconds. Those are some of the obstacles that are put in the way of pedestrians and the Government when they seek to increase the number of people who take trips on foot.
There are few signs that the Government will be in a position to tackle those problems. The signs in London are not good, as some of the police involved in controlling traffic speed will be posted elsewhere, thereby increasing the risk of speeding, which works against pedestrians. We have heard figures confirming that the issue needs to be addressed. A significant number of people walk, and many more journeys are made on foot than most people realise; as has been said, some 25 per cent. of journeys are made on foot. There is a need to assist them, and to promote walking for health and environmental reasons.
336WH
The Government's response has been welcomed reasonably warmly in different quarters. Living Streets said that the Government's reply included several positive commitments. Intelligent Space is a planning consultancy that specialises in pedestrian movement and safety issues, and I am grateful to its representatives for briefing me about their views on the proposal. They also welcomed the Government's response. However, that does not mean that there is no scope for improvement.
We need to address certain obstacles so that we can maximise the number of pedestrians. We need to tackle the increase in traffic and the underfunding of local authorities. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside that everything is fine and dandy and that local authorities throughout the country have received a bonanza of grants. That is not the view up and down the country.
Mrs. Ellman: I want to emphasise that Liverpool city council has received vastly more funding under this Government than it did under the previous Government. I do not suggest, however, that what it has is adequate to meet all needs. I continue to press for more funding.
Tom Brake: The hon. Lady did not make that point earlier in the debate. I welcome the fact that she does not consider the funding to be adequate and that she will continue to press for more funds for the city council and the Liverpool area. We need to address the almost exclusive focus on large transport projects and the ill-health implications of reduced walking, although that is clearly a vicious circle. We need to address the lack of strategy, and, more fundamentally, the lack of data on pedestrian movements on which a strategy can be built, and the failure to disseminate best practice.
Intelligent Space is in favour of a national walking strategy provided there is an associated budget. The Government are in favour of providing advice to encourage walking. Perhaps the Minister could say when they intend to reissue their document, as I understand that a new version is to be issued. They are broadly in favour of a strategy, but not of one with targets. According to "Encouraging walking: advice to local authorities",
"The Government has decided not to adopt national targets, which are difficult for any of us to relate to our everyday behaviour".
However, the Government have adopted a plethora of targets in relation to many other areas where one could equally argue that it is difficult to relate them to our everyday behaviour. I am not sure why targets cannot be applicable in this instance.
Andrew Bennett: The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Select Committee. Sadly, he has left us. He will now know that one of the main targets for the Department is to reduce the number of targets.
Tom Brake: Indeed. I regret that I am no longer a member of the Select Committee. I would be happy if we introduced a target for walking and got rid of, say, 10 other targets in its place. There does not seem to be a satisfactory explanation as to why, for instance, a target for increasing rail journeys by 50 per cent. is one that we

337WH
can relate to our everyday behaviour, but a target to increase the number of pedestrian trips is not. That does not seem to make sense. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain.
The Select Committee's report states that it supports national targets, but only if it can be demonstrated that they can be measured with sufficient accuracy. Intelligent Space, which specialises in this work, says that there is no problem with the ability to measure targets. The only problem is that no one is carrying out any measuring and monitoring. According to Intelligent Space, in regeneration schemes there is little, if any, measuring of what happened before and after or of the impact on pedestrian journeys. If that work is carried out, it will be much easier for the Government to measure trips and possibly to implement targets and measure progress against them.
The Government state on page 4 of their response that they are putting together a research strategy. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what progress is being made. Intelligent Space pointed out that, because we do not have monitoring or the body of research, and because planners are not attuned to the idea of measuring pedestrian movements, we are probably missing out on significant quick gains in town centres where relatively small and inexpensive changes could be made to increase the number of people going to them. Benefits for local businesses could soon be demonstrated in terms of more people using the shops.
The Government say that they favour a national walking forum to disseminate best practice. I certainly support that. As the Government suggested, a website could be ideally suited to providing that forum. I want to know from the Minister whether a budget has been identified to set up such a website, because even a website will require money to get it up and running.
We need to tackle traffic and encourage more people to take trips on foot. One of the key recommendations from the Select Committee was to declassify some roads to give greater priority to pedestrians. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain why the Government do not see a case for the wholesale reclassification of urban roads or for a review of the criteria for determining their status.
The Government need to answer a number of other questions, particularly in relation to the small schemes. Are the Government in a position to demonstrate that small schemes can provide better value for money than the larger schemes? The Government are saying that they cannot look at the small schemes in the same way as the large schemes. Therefore, they are not able to demonstrate that the small schemes represent the same value for money as the larger schemes.
I hope that the Minister will look at that again. I suspect that, if there were a system for measuring the small schemes and making a direct value-for-money comparison, he would probably find that the addition of 1,000 pedestrian crossings, the removal of 1,000 sheep pens, or the creation of 1,000 cycle routes would probably contribute more economically, environmentally and from the point of view of health than one large project. However, we are not in a position
338WH
to demonstrate that because there does not seem to be a system to make those comparisons. The Government need to address this as a matter of some urgency.
Is there any scope for allowing the small schemes to be bundled together in a large package of over £5 million? Are the Government encouraging local authorities to do that? Once the Government have looked at the local transport plans, will they attempt to provide any analysis of what they think will be the total benefit in terms of pedestrian schemes? Is that something that they are considering?
To demonstrate the Government's commitment, it would be useful if the Minister could comment on how the staffing levels have changed—clearly he will have to do this in writing—in the charging and local transport section of the Department for Transport, Local Government and Regions since 1995. I understand that the DTLR is specifically responsible for the National Cycling Forum, the National Walking Strategy Steering Group and the development of home zones. To see how the numbers within that Department have changed over the past seven years would demonstrate what level of commitment has been made to walking, cycling and home zones. It would give us a feel for where the Government are going.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester used the phrase, "One step in the great march." I invite the Minister to put his best foot forward and demonstrate personally and politically that he is committed to the pedestrian's cause.
4.20pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is great to see you in the Chair Mr. Conway, for this wide-ranging debate this afternoon. In a short speech, it will be impossible to cover everything that has been raised.
I recommend walking with dogs as an excellent way of losing weight. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Grayling) pointed out that one in five of the population is obese. I am sure that we would all benefit from walking a little more. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett). He and I started as ordinary members of the Committee some 10 years ago: he is now the Chairman and I am now the Opposition spokesman. He made an excellent and wide-ranging speech. I will cover many of the things that he covered such as safe crossing, walking buses, the national walking strategy and greater priority for walking from local authorities.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) quoted from Living Streets, formerly the Pedestrian Association, and that is the best point to start in summarising the debate. It states:
"Speeding traffic, cracked flagstones, litter, graffiti, vandalism and the fear of crime blight streets and public spaces in communities throughout the UK."
That is a fair summary of why people do not walk more. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish alluded to the raw statistics and said that the Committee was sceptical about them. Nevertheless, they are on the Department's website and are perhaps worth putting on the record. The website states:
"According to the 1993/95 national travel survey, walking accounts for 29 per cent. of journeys, including 82 per cent. of journeys under I mile"

339WH
It goes on to give some of the more alarming statistics to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
"Main drivers of cars walk half the distance of adults living in households without a car."
It adds that there was a 12 per cent. drop between 1985–86 and 1993 to 1996 and, perhaps more alarmingly:
"The fall in the average distances walked fell by even more (18 per cent.) largely reflecting that it was the longer walk journeys that have declined most steeply in recent years. The fall was largest for those aged 11 to 15."
That is particularly worrying. Our adolescents are becoming more susceptible to the problem of obesity. That will set the pattern for the rest of their lives. I see the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) nodding. I shall come on to speak about walking buses and reducing reliance on transport to take children to school.
Other hon. Members referred to the briefing that we received from Intelligent Space, which is an independent research consultancy specialising in pedestrian movements. We live in an age where it is possible to analyse these problems in greater depth than ever before. It makes five key points. It says that it is now possible to model pedestrian flows for new developments. Many people, including me in an intervention, said that the planning authorities could design new developments with walking much more in mind and also design urban regeneration schemes to give a greater primacy to walking.
The hon. Member for Colchester mentioned modern design techniques, and there are other innovative ways of making straight walkways through estates rather than having blind alleys. There are a number of other ways to reduce crime and make walking safer. The Government should look at that and consider whether it should be made part of the planning policy guidance so that all planning authorities have to consider those aspects, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell pointed out.
The briefing goes on to say that research shows that pedestrian movement is strongly influenced by desire lines-dreadful jargon, which the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned. It says that
"walkers prefer to use simple, direct journeys. Desire lines analysis can be used to provide an objective basis for design guidance".
It goes on to say that segregation of pedestrians away from normal streets in most infrastructure works in the past 50 years would reduce pedestrian accidents and casualties—for which I have quoted the appalling figures. We could consider cycle and pedestrian lanes that are separated from busy roads by high kerbs to remove the risk of pedestrians and cyclists being inadvertently involved in an accident by cars straying into a cycle lane or on to a pavement. We should perhaps make parking on pavements and mounting pavements more serious offences—driving in London, one sees people mounting the pavement every day to avoid traffic jams. The law enforcement agencies should take such actions more seriously.
I recently visited my local branch of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which told me that parking on pavements is a major problem for blind
340WH
people because when they come across those huge objects, they do not know whether they are in the road or still on the pavement. We need to consider that problem far more seriously. Intelligent Space goes on to say:
"Accident risk is greater if road crossings facilities are not located on 'desire lines' for pedestrian movement. Hindrances to crossing such as barriers are often of limited value in reducing risk in this respect".
It says finally:
"Part of the social problems on many Council Estates may be attributed to their very unusual layouts".
I have commented on that.
We need new thinking on policies that encourage walking in our cities, incorporating better quality city parks, city centres and main highways so that people can walk more easily in cities and towns. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) mentioned urban renaissance. The former right hon. Member for Henley, Michael Heseltine, started the urban renaissance in many of our big cities. Indeed, some of the most successful urban regeneration schemes, such as the London Docklands scheme, were major renaissance schemes. I have seen such schemes in Glasgow and Leeds. Where we have successfully pedestrianised, we can encourage people to walk more because there is no other way of travelling in pedestrianised areas.
We have debated whether pedestrianisation is the right way forward. As a chartered surveyor, I declare an interest. I have studied town centre management schemes in detail and am keen on town centre management schemes, whereby the local authority, voluntary groups and, above all, businesses, become involved in drawing up schemes for the regeneration of our towns and cities. Getting all the stakeholders involved means that every interest, particularly business, feels ownership of those schemes and encourages others to make best use of them so that they work.
In case anyone thinks that such schemes do not work, I commend hon. Members to look at the scheme that was successfully launched in New York, which completely transformed the centre of the city. Litter was cleaned up, crime considerably reduced and more people encouraged to walk because large areas were pedestrianised. The Minister and the Government should consider such 21st-century innovative schemes. We need to examine how the schemes can be more easily funded because if they are going to work they need a small amount of funding.
I have already said that the quality of our public and municipal parks needs to be improved. Some local authorities take a proactive role. One need only look at Wandsworth to see some well kept parks, but some areas in our cities, including London, are not so well kept. When I did a three-week stint at the by-election in Leeds city centre, the main park was in an appalling state. Many schoolchildren used to walk through the park to get to school, and one could see hypodermic syringes every day. I walked through the park many times each day, and there did not seem to be any effort by any official to clear away those highly dangerous objects. It is no wonder that people find it unattractive to walk in parks when they see such rubbish being left around.

341WH
We should examine how we can restore our parks. The Victorians and Edwardians laid out the parks that are the vital green lungs of our cities and the essence of what walkers should be able to enjoy in our city centres. They set out the parks, and we in the 20th and 21st centuries have let them decay. I hope that the Minister will encourage local authorities to ensure that the parks are regenerated, because it would benefit the general feeling and well-being in all our citizens. Features such as bandstands, lakes, pavilions, tea shops and, dare I say it, public conveniences should be smartened up so that they can be used and enjoyed.
Many hon. Members mentioned the planning and infrastructure of our country. I should declare that I am a chartered surveyor and deal with the planning department of my two local authorities almost every day. When I get complaints from my constituents about the design of developments, it is usually because the developments are too dense. The local planning authority pays great attention to the number of car parking spaces, but rarely does it insist on any section to deal with walking. Even walking to the local shop, school or surgery can provide beneficial exercise, and for many older people in our society who, for one reason or another, cannot drive, those walks are an absolute necessity. We should make it easy for our elderly people to walk.
Putting proper ramps for the disabled in our residential estates would be a start. How often do we see people struggling with a wheelchair because there is no drop kerb to allow them to get up and down? Other innovative changes could make our walkways and roads safer. We could make much greater use of closed circuit television cameras, and with digitalisation and mass production, CCTV cameras have become much smaller and cheaper. We use them in our city centres to protect shops and roadways, but not often in alleyways and walkways. Why not? That would be a major method of reassuring people and encouraging them to walk in the higher-crime areas.
Another step would be to have more free telephones, so that any incident could be reported and someone could respond more quickly. All too often in this country, we find dimly lit alleyways in which we cannot see from one end to the other. They are a long way from anywhere and exactly the sort of place at which someone gets mugged. Such changes would be a major incentive to reduce crime and encourage people to walk more, and we should make our urban streets and walkways more attractive.
Andrew Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the evidence shows that the numbers of street muggings of people out walking is low? The problem is the fear of crime, and if he is not careful, some of his suggestions will simply make people feel that the streets are less safe than they really are.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, and we must reassure people that it is safe to walk on our streets. If they are not walking and are frightened of crime, we must consider other methods to reassure them, and some of my suggestions would do that. I have
342WH
a constant dialogue with my local police authority, and I tell them that policemen do not provide the same level of reassurance sitting in cars as they do walking on the beat. The authority says that it can use the men sitting in cars more productively because they can watch not only for traffic offences, but who is moving about. I believe that we need to get more police back on the beat, to provide precisely the reassurance about which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish spoke.
Chris Grayling: Given the comments of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, will my hon. Friend consider that as there is a clear need for reassuring those who use cut-through alleyways, there would be practical benefit in the use of systems such as CCTV? The incidents that take place in those corners are often not serious crimes but gangs of kids writing graffiti on the walls. That is less likely to happen if cameras are there, and it is the presence of such graffiti and a dingy environment that makes such places unattractive to walk through.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has, as usual, been prescient. The attractiveness of our streets, alleys and pavements is important. If people feel that areas are unsightly and insalubrious, they will not walk in them.
We should have a major drive against litter and graffiti. In preparation for this debate yesterday, I walked not three minutes from here to Leake court. I have a little picture that I should like show to the Chamber. It shows a nice old Georgian building that is now empty, boarded up and in a serious state of decay, and it shows me kneeling down with some litter. That is not the worst of it, as about 10 yd away, there was some nasty and unpleasant litter, including human excreta. Interestingly, the picture also shows a little notice, which says:
"The West Lambeth Health Authority excludes liability for loss or damage to property. Removed vehicles may be reclaimed".
That notice is partially obscured by graffiti, which shows how often Lambeth health authority must have been round to check.
We should take a little more pride in our cities. It may have been the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) who said that if people did not drop litter in the first place, the council would not have the problem of collecting it. Just around the corner from Leake court, I found that where Lambeth council had provided litter bins, everything was spotlessly clean. There is a lesson to be learned—we need more litter bins, and they need to be emptied regularly. One goes around London and sees litter bins overflowing, particularly from fast food takeaway shops, and the litter going miles down the street. If they were emptied regularly, that would not happen. If we took pride, it would encourage more people to think that it was safe and salubrious to walk in such areas.
Other hon. Members mentioned the problem of school runs. The problem is a serious one, and the solution proposed by the Committee of encouraging schoolchildren to walk, where it is safe to do so and having provided the reassurances and mechanisms that I outlined, is a win-win situation. The so-called walking buses system described by the hon. Member for Colchester, whereby groups of children get together and

343WH
walk to and from school, is an admirable idea. That is preferable to a parent driving one child to school in a big four-wheel drive vehicle, belching out fumes of every description. If we could encourage fewer parents to drive children to school, and more children to walk to school—perhaps under parental supervision—that would be a win-win situation. The children would be healthier, there would be fewer emissions from cars and less congestion, and those cars that need to be on the road would be able to travel more freely.
In certain places in London—Chelsea or Lewisham, for example—at 8.30 am and 3.30 pm, traffic comes to a standstill because people drive their children to school, and often commit the heinous crime of parking on the pavement. They block both traffic and pedestrians trying to get to the school.
We have covered much ground in the debate, and I want to allow the Minister plenty of time to wind up. The report made several recommendations, which have not all been taken up. I would like to ask the Minister questions about his intentions concerning those recommendations. The Government were criticised for their failure to publish a national strategy for walking, a point made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. We have already discussed targets, but realistic targets have a part to play. They were also criticised for their failure to set up a national walking forum or a mechanism to judge the value for money of small transport investments compared with larger ones. Why do the Government think that it would be impractical to assess the costs and benefits of small walking and road safety schemes, using the same criteria applied to major road schemes?
What plans do the Government have to develop their appraisal techniques? I have referred to some of the new computer-generated analytical schemes. How will they develop their techniques to allow the value for money of small schemes to be allow with larger ones? How will the Government allow or encourage local authorities to bundle up small schemes so that they pass the £5 million threshold for major schemes in the local transport plan guidance? Why were only 10 paragraphs of the 100 page, 10-year-plan devoted to walking, when it accounts for a quarter of all trips? That is a lacuna in the plan.
Do the Government plan to publish their analysis of the total spending in local transport plans on schemes that benefit pedestrians? What plans do they have for revising the standard design guidance, such as the design manuals for roads and bridges, to take greater account of pedestrians? Planning policy guidance might be amended to oblige local planning authorities to pay greater attention to walking. Why have the staffing levels in the charging and local transport section of the DTLR not changed since 1995, a period covering the publication of the national cycling strategy? If officials in his Department thought about that strategy in more depth, we might make progress.
The debate has been wide-ranging and interesting. It covers many Departments, and the Minister answers for only one, albeit the lead one. I end where I started: we could all walk a little more. I mean everyone, including MPs, which is why I jocularly asked the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish how many miles the Select Committee had walked during its study. When I was a member of a Select Committee, we did not walk all that
344WH
far. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South laughs. I meant to ask him about his study of www.haggishunt.com. It seems that he has spent all morning looking at this little creature running one way and then going in the opposite direction. I wonder how he had time to prepare his speech. That may be a subject for another day; no, he is going to intervene to tell us.
Mr. Donohoe: While watching the screen, it is still possible to work. The hon. Gentleman should know that.
Bob Russell: He can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Indeed, and work at the same time, too. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South is obviously of a very dextrous mind and able to do many things at once.
Chris Grayling: Not chew gum, though; he wants to scrap that.
Mr. Derek Conway (in the Chair): Order.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I think we are getting too jocular, Mr. Conway. This is an important debate.
There are many things that the Government and, as the representative of the lead Department, the Minister could do to encourage walking. Our grandparents used to do far more of it. These days it is too easy to get into the car to go five miles up the road—or 500 yd up the road in many instances—to do the shopping. Before we get in the car in future, we should all think would it not be better to walk?
4.45 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on securing this debate on behalf of the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions. I also congratulate him on the quiet, calm and measured way in which he introduced the subject. The debate has been helpful and well considered, and the Government welcome the publication of "Walking in Towns and Cities", the report produced by the former Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. I thank the Committee for that important contribution to the debate.
Creating the conditions that encourage people to walk more is a vital part of our integrated transport policy. We want to make walking safe, easy and convenient, and we want more people to feel able to make walking, in combination with public transport, a first choice for both short journeys and longer distances. The percentage of journeys made on foot has fallen from 35 per cent. in 1985–86 to 27 per cent. in the period 1997 to 1999. The proportion of journeys of less then a mile made on foot fell by less, from 83 per cent. to 80 per cent.
In introducing this debate, my hon. Friend made some important points. One of the first dealt with the contribution to health that can be made by walking. That is an important underlying message for us all. The

345WH
hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) also mentioned it. My lissome form is evidence that I do a little walking myself. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's diameter indicates the same—perhaps he will tell us more about it.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I take great pleasure in taking my dogs for a walk—the trouble is that they live in my constituency, so I can only take them out at the weekend. However, I walk to and from the Palace of Westminster every day.
Mr. Jamieson: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to say that he likes exercise so much that he could watch it all day.
The hon. Gentleman made the point that walking on the streets can sometimes be a very educational exercise. I like walking in urban areas, particularly the more attractive ones. It can be as nice an experience as walking in the countryside. I am not sure about his suggestion that one might walk around the streets looking in the windows. In parts of my constituency, one might end up with broken legs rather than exercised legs if one spent too long looking in windows.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish emphasised the importance of cleaner air and cleaning up the environment along our roads so that people can enjoy walking. We have had considerable success in that respect, especially through working with our European colleagues to clean up emissions from engines, especially those of large vehicles. The new fuels that have come on to the market in the last few years, and the even cleaner fuels that we will have in future, will help to ensure that the urban environment in particular will become much cleaner.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) is obsessed with how Ministers travel and asked about ministerial cars. Of course, being a Liberal Democrat, he will never know the inconvenience of travelling by ministerial car, but I assure him that I sometimes go on foot, even if my red boxes go by car. He has tabled written questions about whether Ministers travel by tube, and I can tell him that I travelled by tube today.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) is becoming quite a major player for the Opposition on transport issues. He regularly contributes to these debates and makes sound points. The hon. Member for Cotswold should watch out: someone behind him is coming up strongly.
Mr. Clifton-Brown indicated assent.
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman seems to agree.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell asked questions similar to those asked by the hon. Member for Colchester. He made a strong point about the contribution that walking could make to improving health and appearance and to reducing obesity. That is particularly true for children, many of whom become very overweight early on. It is disappointing that so many children are overweight. I recently visited Japan, where many more children walk to school and look far healthier than some children in this country. That is
346WH
partly due to their diet and the type of exercise that they take. In addition, parents in Japan feel that their children are safe walking on the streets even in the evening and in busy and congested parts of cities. That perception has contributed to making their children healthier.
Out-of-town shops and people's ability to use their cars were mentioned. The constituency of the hon. Member for Cotswold may be better heeled than mine and perhaps some of my hon. Friends', but I ask him to bear in mind the fact that 40 per cent. of people in my constituency do not have access to a car. Often, walking to the local shops is the only choice, especially for some elderly people, younger people with families, and poorer people. For them, going by car is not an option. Simply to encourage out-of-town shopping without thinking about quality of life and local shops would be nonsensical.
We must find a balance between car use, public transport and pedestrianisation. I believe that that is possible. I had the pleasure of walking around Solihull in the west midlands; there is a large pedestrianised area, which is excellent and a pleasure to walk round. The town is clean and inviting, but there is also substantial car parking. Those who want to come into town by car can do so, but there are good bus and rail links as well, and people travel long distances into town by those forms of transport. In such ways, a compromise can be reached and a good environment for walking created.
Chris Grayling: I am delighted that, for once, the Minister has the opportunity to make a full speech; normally he ends up with a 10-minute run-through of the important points.
I endorse the need to protect local centres. My constituency, like his, has many people without cars, especially elderly people. Will he consider talking to his colleagues in the Department about the rating of small shops? A perennial issue facing small shopkeepers in my constituency is the fact that their rateable value is based on the same principles of shop frontage as that of Sainsbury's; they feel that they lose out as a result. If the Minister's Department addressed that issue, it would make a real difference to small local centres.
Mr. Jamieson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I shall not respond directly because it is outside my brief, but the point is well made and I will ensure that he receives a response.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) spoke graphically about the need for a quality environment in which people can walk. He drew on his childhood experiences, and as he went down memory lane, I remembered my own childhood. He made important points about health, but then got onto the sticky issue of chewing gum on pavements.
Bob Russell: Oh!
Mr. Jamieson: There is more. I should declare an interest: most of the chewing gum in this country is made at Wrigley's in my constituency. My constituents are major contributors to the manufacture of chewing gum, but the antisocial behaviour of people who discard chewing gum on pavements is not the fault of the people who make it.

347WH
I am sure that news of this debate will reach The Herald, the local newspaper of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South. I can see the headline now: "Chewing Gum on Pavement: MP Steps In."
Bob Russell: Oh!
Mr. Jamieson: I said it would get worse. Now the Liberal Democrats are going to step in.
Tom Brake: I said earlier in the debate that the hon. Gentleman was the Minister for silly walks and chewing gum. He has now confirmed that he is merely the Minister for chewing gum.
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman has made another well-considered contribution to the debate, for which we are grateful.
Mr. Donohoe: My hon. Friend is concerned about the headline in only one newspaper, but there are at least four local newspapers on my patch: the Ardrossan and Saltcoats Herald, The Irvine Herald and Kilwinning Chronicle, the Irvine Times and the Ayrshire Leader.
Mr. Jamieson: I am certain that all those newspapers will report in considerable detail my hon. Friend's excellent comments about chewing gum and other matters.
The hon. Member for Colchester followed the usual Liberal Democrat line. He spoke about the need for more money for various road schemes, not for walking. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) did in her area, I suggest that he go to his local authority and find out how much of the extra funding provided by the Government for local transport plans has been used to address the needs that he raised. So many hon. Members say that the Government should be doing this, the Government should be doing that; I suggest that they find out about their local authority's transport plans and the contribution it makes to the projects for which they have ambitions in their area.
Bob Russell: Is the Minister aware that in the shire counties the highways authority is the county council, not the district council, as in Basildon or Colchester? My point was that the highways authority finds funds to spend on road schemes but not on alternatives. If he checks the record, he will find that that was what I said.
Mr. Jamieson: I do not need to check the record; that was his point. However, there is a fallacy in his remarks. The aim of creating better space for walking can be included in local transport plans. It is up to councillors and Members of Parliament to ensure not only that such objectives appear in the local transport plan but that the generous amounts of money that have been allocated by the Government are spent to achieve them. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman holds his highways authority to account and ensure that it is spending money on the projects that he supports.
Bob Russell: The authority may reply that the Government's priorities are illustrated by the fact that
348WH
they had only 10 paragraphs on walking in a 100-page document; in other words, it is following the Government's line.
Mr. Jamieson: The local authority must consider its priorities and include them in its transport plan. Councillors consult their electorate and develop priorities. Members of Parliament may make a contribution as well. The number of paragraphs in our document is irrelevant. The hon. Gentleman should examine his local council's transport plan and ensure that it is carried out.
The hon. Members for Colchester and for Cotswold criticise our 10-year transport plan, but at least we have a plan. There is no hope of the Liberal Democrats ever being in government, but the last Conservative Government did not even have one paragraph, let alone 10. At least we now have 10 paragraphs about walking, which is more desirable than none at all.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr. Jamieson: In a moment. I an not quite done with the hon. Member for Colchester. He advanced a most extraordinary argument about restricting choice in secondary schools so that children would walk to their local school. Recently, I read in a national newspaper that the Liberal Democrats' leader had abandoned the penny on tax ambition for education. It is not the job of the Government to lecture parents or tell them where they should send their children to school. What is important is that we must create the right environment, so that parents feel able to send their children to a school that they can walk to. For a Government to start restricting people's choices about where they send their children—[Interruption]. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I got the strong impression—the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell agrees with me—that it is now Liberal Democrat policy to restrict parents' choice of secondary schools so that their children can walk to their local school. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats' education spokesman will provide some clarity on that matter.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Under the last Conservative Government, we had a road-building programme, but under the Labour Government, hardly any money is being spent on new road projects. If the Minister were to come to my constituency and ask highways authority officials about how much money they have to spend in the local transport plan, they would tell him that they do not have enough money to carry out the minor road schemes they want. Things may be different in the inner cities, but if the Minister wants to encourage more walking in the shire counties, he will have to provide some mechanism to encourage local authorities to consider walking, just as the local planning authorities need more encouragement to consider walking when making planning decisions.
Mr. Jamieson: I am staggered by what I have just heard. The Labour Government have a plan, not only for rail, but for roads, for creating better access to buses, for walking and for all the other issues that we have discussed today.

349WH
I have travelled around this country opening or digging the first turf on new bypasses and roads. I often hear Conservative MPs express their pleasure about local developments. When I was up in Norfolk recently, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), along with many Conservative local councillors, was full of praise for the amount of money that the Government, through the Highways Agency, are spending on many of that area's roads.
I return to the hon. Member for Colchester—I have still not finished with him. He complained that there is insufficient money for repairing or improving local roads. He should go back and look at what is being provided in the local transport plans. I challenge him to do that. Does he know how much is being provided in his local transport plan?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have looked at the local transport plan, and it is a very small sum compared to what is needed. If the Minister thinks that the settlement is generous, why did he, when considering the local transport plans, not give the go-ahead for the eastern spine road—an important scheme sponsored by the Wiltshire and Gloucestershire highways authorities? When he was lobbied and he was sympathetic, yet when it came down to a decision, he ruled it out of the local transport plan saying that there was not enough money.
Mr. Jamieson: I will not walk down that road. Instead, I will stroll on to other matters of importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside took us for a nice walk around Liverpool, which she called a city of renaissance. An excellent city, it also has some excellent MPs, one of whom is in the Chamber today. I know Liverpool very well and I recognise that it has had particular and special problems over the years, so I am delighted to hear of the renaissance. My hon. Friend said that much of Liverpool's environment can be appreciated by walking around it. I was also interested to hear her use the expression "the capital of culture". Liverpool has a long and fine record of cultural activity, so I was pleased to hear what she said, and I have some sympathy with it. She spoke of what is needed in the area, such as road crossings and other improvements for walking.
I listened to my hon. Friend with pleasure. However, listening to the hon. Member for Colchester, I thought how different are the ambitions of Liberal Democrats in Parliament to the ambitions of Liberal Democrats in charge in local government. Liberal Democrat Members are often embarrassed when they hear what Liberal Democrat councils are doing and how pitifully little they contribute to some of the issues that they raise.
Chris Grayling: I was going to help the Minister by reminding him that a Liberal Democrat council said recently that it had two policies—one local, the other national.
Mr. Jamieson: I thought that the Liberal Democrats had a different policy for every doorstep. I remember that the roads policy of Somerset county council, a Liberal council, was described as "benign neglect", but
350WH
that is not what we hear from Liberal Democrat Members. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has touched a nerve.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) asked about the walking strategy document. The revised version will be published later this year. I am curious about the idea of a quota or target for walking. It sounds like an Albanian system under which so many million miles have to be walked and if they are not walked people are conscripted to do it. More important is creating an environment and places where people feel able to walk, and giving them opportunities to do so. That is more important than what the hon. Gentleman seems to want.
Tom Brake: I agree that it is important to create the environment for walking, but how will the hon. Gentleman, as Minister, know that he has been successful in his endeavours? On what will he focus if he has no targets?
Mr. Jamieson: We shall look out of the window and see more people walking.
Mr. Donohoe: You could try a dot.com.
Mr. Jamieson: Yes, we could look at the haggis website to see what is going on in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about research. The answer is in the Government's response. The hon. Gentleman asks many questions, which are written out meticulously by his excellent researchers. Perhaps I should refer them to the documents, in the hope that they find the answers that the Government have already given.
The hon. Member for Cotswold raised several issues, and encouraged us to undertake various schemes, such as pedestrianisation, but those are things that the Conservative Government never did. It is rather curious—he must have undergone a process that made him change his mind. Perhaps he should contribute to his party's policies. He might then be able to tell us what those polices are.
Having tried to answer some of the specific points raised today, I shall try to flesh out our approach on walking in cities. Improving conditions for walking will help to increase the number of journeys made on foot, the many benefits of which have been mentioned today. Making it easier to walk safely can reduce social exclusion and improve access to jobs, schools and health care. Improving the walking environment can also revitalise many of our communities and make residential areas safer, better places. If more people walk in an area, crime and vandalism may be deterred. Walking can also play an important role in enhancing fitness and health, as hon. Members explained so well.
Our policies on planning, good urban environments, reallocation of road space, the establishment of home zones, traffic calming and ease of access to public transport tackle physical issues and enable people to choose to walk more. The important point is to create an environment in which people can actively make that choice, which is the point that I was trying to make to the hon. Member for Cotswold. Links with health and education policies, the road safety strategy, the speed

351WH
policy review, developments in personal security and mobility issues, and policies on air and environmental quality also help to establish the conditions in which people may choose to make journeys on foot.
We want to tackle the issues that prevent people from feeling that they can walk: crime and the fear of crime, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, concerns about speeding vehicles, and the poor quality of walking routes which prevents easy access. We are having some success in that respect, although the number of people killed on our roads is still distressingly high. I am pleased to say that that number is the lowest in the world, and we should be proud of that, but we must drive it down further still.
My hon. Friend mentioned getting children to walk to school, which is about creating safer environments around schools and improving road safety. However, there is a vicious circle: journeys to school are often made more dangerous by parents taking their children in the car—evidence shows that children on foot are often injured by parents driving their children to school. We must break that vicious circle, and several measures have been mentioned. Making journeys to school safer is vital not only to improving health, but to creating better environments for children.
We recognise that more needs to be done. We have created a policy framework to allow local authorities to take positive action to improve the walking environment in their area. I was surprised to hear some Opposition Members suggest that big Government could solve all the problems. In fact, it is often local people who must act, because they know best what is required in their area. We must get local authorities to come up with solutions. Gloucester is a good example: our funding helped to create a much better environment for walking and general road use, but only because local people used it to come up with local solutions. We can all learn from that example.
Under our integrated transport policy, we have encouraged local authorities, as part of their local transport plans, to develop walking strategies and encourage walking, both on short journeys and when accessing public transport. Local plans should include clear, measurable targets; it is up to the local authorities to include them and to determine what they should be.
Andrew Bennett: May I be a little mischievous? How many local transport strategies has my hon. Friend examined and how many contain local targets?
Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend is not being mischievous at all. I have looked at a lot of strategies and most contain plans for walking. Many authorities include such measures, but we must tackle those that do not and ensure that our funding is used to better effect. Members of Parliament and local councillors should monitor such issues in their areas.
Mr. Donohoe: Will my hon. Friend give a commitment to write to local authorities that do not mention walking policy to insist that they give some thought to what they are about?
Mr. Jamieson: Such thoughts were going through my mind. Perhaps other hon. Members should look at their
352WH
own local transport plans and see what is in them. It is up to local people to determine what their priorities are; it is not for us to do so.
Bob Russell: When the Minister goes back to his Department, will he inquire into the definition of "local people" and "local authorities"? If the highways authority is the county council, in a huge county like Essex, whose population exceeds 1 million, decisions are made, in effect, at county hall and not in the towns around the county.
Mr. Jamieson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that there are no local councillors to represent each part of the area? There must be councillors in Colchester who represent the people there. If they are not doing their job, I suggest that he goes out and campaigns to get them replaced. I do not know whether they are Liberal Democrats; perhaps he should look into that. Furthermore, it is for district councils to make representations as to what they want in their area.
Bob Russell indicated assent.
Mr. Jamieson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me about that.
If we are to make walking a more attractive option in our towns and cities, we must ensure that we have a network of attractive and safe pedestrian routes. In their annual progress reports, local authorities highlighted the steps that they have taken to create facilities to encourage walking. In 2000–01, authorities established 91 km of new footways and footway improvements. Examples include the millennium bridge in Lancaster, which provides a link for cyclists and pedestrians between the city centre and the urban area to the north of the river Lune; a new pedestrian route from Newark to Peterborough; and a new three-mile pedestrian and cycle route along the banks of the Thames at Thurrock. Those developments have been made by local authorities using the excellent and generous grants that the Government have given them.
In April last year, the Prime Minister set out the Government's proposals for improving the quality of life in our towns and cities. The Government aim to tackle the minor nuisances that make our towns and cities unattractive places to live in. We are currently undertaking a cross-cutting review to examine what policies and funding are required to ensure improvements in the quality of public spaces. That review is due to be completed in March and will feed into the forthcoming spending review.
We are doing a lot to make people safer on our streets—that has been mentioned throughout the debate. The visibility of police on the street is being increased, and we are supporting a new neighbourhood warden programme that will help to prevent the antisocial behaviour which was mentioned by a number of speakers and which deters people from using the streets. We are also providing support for more CCTV projects across the country.

353WH
One of the clearest lessons that we can learn from successful towns and cities is to design spaces that suit the needs of people, not of traffic. Well designed streets and squares encourage people to use them and make walking a safe and pleasant experience. Places designed solely for the movement and parking of vehicles fail people, making walking an inconvenient and uncomfortable experience. Such places do not stand the test of time.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Listening to the Minister, one would think that everything to do with walking was absolutely wonderful under the present Government, but—whatever the statistics say—there has been a decline in the number of people walking in the past 10 years. When do the Government think that that trend will be reversed by the marvellous policies that the Minister is expounding?
Mr. Jamieson: I am not saying that everything is wonderful, but things are much better than they were when his party was in power. We are introducing measures to enable local authorities to tackle some of their problems. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that I am hard on Conservative Governments? He probably subscribes to the idea that there should be a great national act of amnesia. I can assure him that I shall not allow that to happen: we shall constantly remind people of how little his party did in government on some of the issues that he has mentioned. A debate on this subject would have been wholly different five years ago. We would not have talked about improvements, but about the sterile wasteland of cuts and neglect that typified the Conservatives' period in government.
Questions have been asked today about planning. We are reconfiguring our planning policies to deliver places for people. PPG3, planning for housing, is a good example, as is PPG13, in which we set out our transport planning policies. We have supported our policies with good practice guidance on design and better places to live, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside made graphically clear.
Our planning policies are designed to encourage walking in many ways. For example, in town centres we expect greater priority to be given to the needs of pedestrians, both in getting to town centres and getting around when they arrive. Our aim is attractive town centres: they should be places to be, not merely places to pass through in the car. We want day-to-day facilities to be located in local centres so that they are accessible by walking. We expect local councils to pay attention to the design of new development, wherever it is located, so that it helps to promote walking rather than hindering it.
We want an environment that values and encourages walking as a method of travel by integrating it with cycling and motorised modes. In some cases, that will mean a different allocation of road space. It can be reallocated by making physical changes to the layout of the carriageway and footway, and by adjusting the timing of traffic signals and pedestrian crossings. We cannot simply say that walking should be given the
354WH
highest priority in all cases, as we must allocate road space in accordance with local needs and uses. In some cases, that will mean more space for pedestrians and slower vehicle speeds. It is also important to recognise that some routes will need to have higher vehicle priority to allow them to function effectively.
Tom Brake: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jamieson: I will, but briefly, as I am mindful of the time.
Tom Brake: The Minister touched on small projects. I asked about that and I hope that he will now answer my question, which was about whether the Government were trying to assess the value-for-money nature of small projects as opposed to large ones. If they can develop a methodology that compares the two, they might find that they want to redirect money to small projects from large ones.
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point. Given the time restrictions, perhaps my Department will send him a note. I am sure that he will appreciate that, and he can then tick that question off the list that he makes of questions that we do not answer.
Tom Brake: One down; 300 to go.
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman often contributes far more than I do to such debates. He talks on, and I have little time to answer. I have had more time than usual today to answer questions.
Tom Brake: You've had 45 minutes.
Mr. Jamieson: Yes, but I have given way many times to several hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, who is now falling asleep.
The Department's local transport notes 1/95 and 2/95 provide guidance on assessing the need for a crossing, and deciding the type of crossing and the detailed design. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish raised such issues. We believe that the advice is sound: it does not advocate any specific form of crossing, but provides a decision framework and advice that should lead to good, safe and consistent pedestrian crossing design.
Some of the supplementary advice explains how puffin crossings can provide a straight crossing with a central island, rather than the staggered arrangement that was mentioned in connection with pelican crossings. Pedestrian crossings are only part of the walking environment. We believe that policy and technical advice for planners and engineers is needed to emphasise the importance of creating and maintaining complete walking routes and networks. We intend to develop such guidance.

355WH
The Government are committed to the development of home zones throughout England. Home zones are residential streets in which the road space is shared between drivers of motor vehicles and other road users, bearing in mind the wider needs of residents, including children and people who walk and cycle. I was delighted when earlier this month we announced that we would fund 61 schemes through the home zone challenge.
Despite all the work that has been done to create conditions that will allow an increase in walking, more action is needed. We agree with the Committee's recommendation that there is a need for a national walking strategy. We have begun to consider the content of that document and hope to publish it later in the year.
I am aware that my hon. Friend the. Member for Denton and Reddish wants to speak, but I shall conclude my remarks first. We also agree with the Select Committee that a forum to share good practice on walking and provide outside advice on policy should be established. We believe that an interactive website would be more useful than the traditional regular meeting of interest groups. We will explore that idea with other bodies that we know are interested. As a Government, we are committed to increasing levels of walking throughout the country. We have set in place the policy framework to allow that to happen. We will work with local authorities and other bodies, so that action is taken and we put the right conditions in place to enable people to choose to walk.
I am grateful for having been able to listen to hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber. There have been some excellent speeches. I am also grateful for the privilege and opportunity to present some of the Government's ideas on such an important subject.
5.25 pm
Andrew Bennett: I thank all hon. Members who have participated, especially my colleagues from the Select Committee, for whose support I am grateful. I want to make three brief points.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) was concerned about the number of staff in the walking section of the Department. The Committee was concerned about that as well, and we pressed the permanent secretary on the subject when he appeared before us 10 days ago. He assured us that if the people involved in that section felt that they needed extra staff, he could at least find those staff for them. I hope that the message has reached them; it reassured the Committee.
I was impressed by the description that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) gave of private affluence and public decay in this country, but I am not sure that his leader has the same message. Tackling public decay involves public expenditure, and the money has to come from somewhere.
I was grateful for the full response from my hon. Friend the Minister. On the chewing gum issue, perhaps he might persuade Wrigley to create more jobs in his constituency to clear up the mess that it creates.
The Committee will return to the report later in the year. We look forward to what the Minister has promised—the guidance, the strategy, the website—being up and running, perhaps for Easter.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Five o'clock.

TREASURY

  Housing Market
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total equity in domestic homes in aggregate market values(a) now, (b) five years ago and (c) ten years ago. [27564]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The market value of households' total equity in domestic homes has risen by over 75 per cent. in the past five years. It was:

  (a) £1,535 billion in 2001—Q3;

  (b) £860 billion in 1996—Q3;

  (c) £935 billion in 1991—Q3.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on the climate change levy. [27565]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have received representations from a variety of businesses, trade bodies, environmental organisations and other interested parties. They are being considered as part of the Budget process.

  Business Regulation
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from business leaders about the administrative burden on businesses. [27566]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor receives many representations from businesses and others on a range of issues, including administrative burdens. He receives a number of representations leading up to each Budget and in response to consultation documents and draft legislation that we publish to ensure that all those affected can have their say. Business leaders are represented on a number of consultative committees that discuss the implementation of new policies.

  The Government welcome these representations and value their contribution to policy development.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the seizure of motor vehicles by Customs and Excise in the last three years. [27567]

  Mr. Boateng
  Vehicle seizure is proving an effective weapon in tackling smuggling as evidenced by real reductions in levels of cross-channel passenger smuggling and its use has been recommended by two major, independent evaluations in the last three years. Customs have, in response to these recommendations, put in place 980W
  a robust vehicle seizure policy which hits the smugglers hard. They have gone to great lengths to publicise their policy and ensure that people are aware of the penalties smugglers face.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he will introduce to reduce child poverty in the next four years. [27570]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This Government are committed to abolishing child poverty within a generation and halving it by 2010. As part of this commitment, we recently published a strategy document entitled "Tackling child poverty: giving every child the best possible start in life", which will inform the Budget and Spending Review 2002. As a result of tax and benefit changes announced in the last Parliament, there are now 1.2 million fewer children in poverty than there would otherwise have been.

  During this Parliament, the Government will continue to make progress towards their goals with the introduction of two new tax credits—the child tax credit and the working tax credit. The Government are also making substantial new investments in services for children. Over the four years to 2004, average real-terms annual growth in spending on education and training in England will be over 5 ½ per cent. In addition, extra funds have been made available for SureStart, Neighbourhood Renewal and the Children's Fund.

  Self-employment
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with organisations representing the self-employed on levels of their taxation. [27571]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government meet a number of organisations throughout the year to discuss taxation issues.

  Inner Cities
  John Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he has taken to tackle poverty in inner city areas. [27572]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are committed to tackling poverty and ensuring a just society with opportunity for all.

  As a result of personal tax and benefit measures this Government have introduced since 1997, there are now 1.2 million fewer children in poverty than there otherwise would have been, while the poorest third of all pensioners will receive an extra £2.5 billion this year.

  The working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit, along with the first ever national minimum wage, are helping to make work pay, while prudent management of the economy is helping to achieve high levels of employment.

  To increase investment in deprived areas, an exemption from stamp duty for all property transfers up to £150,000 became available in the UK's most deprived areas from 30 November 2001
  981W
  To further stimulate business investment in England the Government have committed £20 million in match funding to a £40 million Community Development Venture Fund. This fund will provide finance for firms operating in disadvantaged areas and the Government hope to see it up and running by the end of this financial year.

  The National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, meanwhile, sets out how the Government will go about narrowing the gap between the most deprived areas and the rest. Key to the strategy is harnessing the mainstream resources of Government Departments, but a £900 million Neighbourhood Renewal Fund is also in place to kick start the renewal process in the 88 most deprived local authority areas.

  The National Strategy and Neighbourhood Renewal Fund are specific to England.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee's interest rate decision of 10 January on manufacturing industry. [27573]

  Ruth Kelly
  Decisions on interest rates are a matter for the Monetary Policy Committee. When forming its judgment, the MPC takes into account sectoral and regional information, as required by the Bank of England Act.

  Euro
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent analysis he has conducted into the economic implications of euro membership for the United Kingdom. [27575]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have said that they will complete an assessment of the five economic tests within two years of the start of this Parliament.

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what mechanisms he has put in place to monitor the impact of the euro-zone economies on the UK economy. [27576]

  Ruth Kelly
  The impact of the euro-zone economies on the UK economy is monitored as part of the Treasury's regular forecast rounds. Further information can be found in the Treasury's pre-Budget and Budget reports.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last discussed convergence criteria with the Governor of the Bank of England. [27583]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor meets regularly with the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss a range of issues.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take action to ensure a downward revision of the exchange rate of sterling against the euro. [27585]
  982W
  Ruth Kelly
  While the Government do not have an exchange rate target, a stable and competitive pound is sought over the medium-term. The key to a stable and competitive pound is low and stable inflation, backed up by sound public finances.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on his five economic tests for joining the euro. [27590]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor has discussions with Cabinet colleagues on a regular basis, and on a wide range of issues.

  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of euro notes and coins on the British economy. [27568]

  Ruth Kelly
  UK businesses that have trading links with the euro area, not just those who export or import, will be affected. The Government are therefore committed to working with business to secure the right level of euro preparations in the UK for working with the euro now.

  International Development
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the Government will reach the UN 0.7 per cent. of gross national product target for international aid. [27577]

  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.

  Taxation
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the proportion of revenue raised by(a) direct and (b) indirect means. [27578]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  No such estimates are available, however a detailed breakdown of current receipts is published in Table B11 of the November 2001 pre-Budget report.

  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to relieve the burden of taxation on the poorest families. [27582]
  983W
  Dawn Primarolo
  As a result of personal tax and benefit measures introduced since 1997, families with children in the poorest fifth of the population are on average £1,700 a year better off. The new working tax credit and child tax credit, the rates and thresholds of which will be announced in the Budget, will do more to help families on low incomes.

  Low-income Families
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to support families on low income. [27579]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Over the course of the last Parliament, the Government introduced a number of changes to help provide decent family incomes, including:

  increasing child benefit;

  introducing the children's tax credit;

  introducing the working families' tax credit; and

  increasing the children's allowances in income support.

  WFTC now benefits nearly 1.3 million families and on average these families are receiving £35 a week more than they did under family credit.

  Building on success of WFTC, the Government will be introducing from 2003 a new credit for families with children, the child tax credit. We will provide a seamless stream of support for families, paid direct to the main carer, building on the foundations of universal child benefit. The child tax credit will be complemented by the working tax credit, which aims to improve work incentives and make work pay.

  Deprived Areas
  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to increase the levels of public expenditure on public services in areas of deprivation. [27580]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government are committed to narrowing the gap in outcomes between the most deprived parts of the country and the rest. The National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, published last year, sets out the Government's approach to renewing poor neighbourhoods.

  Central to that approach is the harnessing of mainstream spending by Government Departments, to ensure improved basic standards of service provision in all areas of the country. Supporting this mainstream spending are a number of additional programmes, targeted toward helping the poorest off.

  Aggregates Levy
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the aggregates producers and construction industries in(a) Scotland and (b) the rest of the UK on the implementation of the aggregates levy. [27584]

  Mr. Boateng
  A number of discussions have recently been held at both ministerial and official level with representatives of the aggregates industries throughout the UK, including Scotland, about the implementation of the aggregates levy.
  984W
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of(a) the benefit of the proposed reduction in national insurance contributions as a result of the introduction of the aggregates levy in Scotland and (b) the yield of the levy. [29361]

  Mr. Boateng
  The reduction in employers' national insurance contributions associated with the introduction of the aggregates levy, along with the new sustainability fund, is designed to ensure that the aggregates levy does not result in an increased burden to business as a whole. The expected yield from the aggregates levy was published in November 2001 in the pre-Budget report.

  Heavily Indebted Countries
  Roger Casale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further steps he is taking to reduce the foreign debt of the world's poorest countries and to eliminate global poverty. [27586]

  Mr. Boateng
  The UK continues to work hard to ensure that the Heavily Indebted Country (HIPC) initiative delivers a sustainable relief from debt for eligible countries. We also call on other countries to follow our leads on bilateral policies, such as 100 per cent. relief at Decision Point, and in holding payments in trust for those countries yet to receive debt relief. Already 24 countries have qualified for debt relief, and they will benefit from over $56 billion in debt reduction, which will bring their debts to below the average of developing countries.

  The objective of the UK's development assistance programme is to help reduce global poverty. We recognise the need to increase the overall level of finance for development in order to achieve this and have been active in mobilising increased international resources. In his speech to the Federal Reserve bank on 16 November, the Chancellor proposed the creation of an international development trust fund and called upon donor nations to substantially increase their development assistance budgets.

  Tourism
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the level of value added tax applied to tourism services; and if he will make a statement. [27587]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have received various representations about the level and impact of VAT on the tourism industry, generally from businesses affected by the foot and mouth outbreak. The Government are aware of the serious financial difficulties some of these businesses are facing and have put in place a package of measures specifically aimed at helping them. This includes flexible VAT payment arrangements for all those experiencing genuine difficulties and a joint helpline, set up by Customs and the Inland Revenue, to help resolve tax matters.

  Budget
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with business leaders in advance of his forthcoming Budget. [27588]
  985W
  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor and his Ministers have numerous meetings with business leaders on a wide range of issues.

  Internet Use
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the information in the National Statistics Omnibus for(a) 2000 and (b) 2001 on internet use, broken down by (i) age and (ii) gender, in each region and nation of the United Kingdom. [29695]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 24 January 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question regarding data from the National Statistics Omnibus on internet use, for 2000 and 2001, broken down by (i) age and (ii) gender in each region and nation of the United Kingdom. (29695)
  Since July 2000, the National Statistics Omnibus Survey has provided information on internet use for individuals in Great Britain based on a month's data gathered four times a year. These data are published along with household level data from the Expenditure and Food Survey, each quarter in the National Statistics First Release on Internet Access. These releases include background information on the National Statistics Omnibus Survey and the Expenditure and Food Survey.
  The internet access first releases presenting the latest figures on internet access are available in the House of Commons Library. The release dated December 2001 presented data from the Expenditure and Food Survey for households with home access to the internet broken down by region.
  Currently regional breakdowns of the individual level data from the Omnibus Survey are not published by age and gender in the internet access first releases as they are not reliable at that level of detail due to small sample sizes. We are currently investigating combining the four months of data to produce annual estimates which will increase the sample size and reliability of the information. If the results are then sufficiently robust we will publish this information and make it available in the House of Commons Library. We will inform you of the outcome.

  Private Sector Capital
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the private sector net capital flow to and from the United Kingdom in each of last five years, indicating flows to(a) the USA, (b) South and Central America, (c) sub-Saharan Africa and (d) India and Pakistan. [29700]

  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. Jim Cousins, dated 24 January 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on private sector net capital flows between the United Kingdom and (a) the USA, (b) South and Central America, (c) sub-Saharan Africa and (d) India and Pakistan. (29700)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) does not compile a full geographical breakdown of the United Kingdom's financial account (previously known as the capital account) flows, although some information is available for the direct investment component. A limited geographical breakdown of UK foreign direct investment, both abroad and in the UK is published annually in the Foreign
  986W
  Direct Investment first release. This first release was published on 13th December 2001 and is available in pdf file format from the ONS website in the press release facility:
  http://www.statistics/gov.uk/pressrelease/Archive.asp
  More country information is available directly from the FDI inquiry itself. The contact details of the statistician responsible are printed on the front page of the first release.

  Nuclear Industry
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for(a) fiscal measures and (b) other charges on the nuclear industry to take account of risks of nuclear accidents that are not met by the industry's own insurance. [27552]

  Mr. Boateng
  None. The third-party liability of nuclear installations is governed by international agreement. This is set at £140 million. In the UK, we require installations to purchase insurance for third-party cover for each incident up to this limit. The Department for Trade and Industry is currently negotiating with international partners to triple this limit. The nuclear industry will need to pay for additional commercial cover up to this limit; but we have no plans for fiscal or other charges.

  Overseas Development
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the timetable for the achievement of the UN target for overseas development assistance and on steps taken to encourage other nations to increase aid budgets. [27569]

  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, the Chancellor emphasised his commitment to ensuring further substantial increases in development assistance. In his speech in New York in November, he called on all rich nations to commit further substantial increases to development assistance.

  Pre-Budget Report
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend table 4.3 on the pre-Budget report by showing comparable figures for marginal deduction rates of(a) 50 per cent. or more and (b) 40 per cent. or more. [19649]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: Before Budget 1998, an estimated 760,000 households faced marginal deduction rates (MDRs) of 50 per cent. or more, while 800,000 faced MDRs of 40 per cent. or more. After Budget 2001, an estimated 1.1 million households faced MDRs of 50 per cent. or more while 1.12 million faced MDRs of 40 per cent. or more. These figures, which cover the number of households in receipt of either income related benefits or WFTC where at least one person works 16 hours or more, include the effects of income tax and national insurance contributions, and the withdrawal of housing benefit and council tax benefit. The effect of tax and benefit changes introduced since Budget 1998, including the working families tax credit (WFTC), has reduced the number of

  987W
  households facing MDRs in excess of 70 per cent. by around half a million. As the WFTC is more generous than the family credit that it replaced, more families benefit from it, hence the larger numbers of households now facing MDRs at 40 and 50 per cent.

  Tax Credits Fraud
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many penalties have been imposed on claimants for(a) working families tax credit and (b) disabled persons tax credit in each year since the credits commenced; how many of these penalties were imposed as a result of fraud; and what the total value of the penalties was. [25027]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The tables show the number of penalties imposed on applicants for working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit (WFTC and DPTC) for the periods in question. Since WFTC and DPTC were introduced in October 1999 up to 31 December 2001, 645 penalties have been imposed against WFTC and DPTC applicants. The total value of these penalties is £596,863.13.

  Number of penalties

  WFTC

  1 October 1999–30 September 2000

  106

  1 October 2000–30 September 2001

  401

  1 October 2001–31 December 2001

  128

  DPTC

  1 October 1999–30 September 2000

  1

  1 October 2000–30 September 2001

  8

  1 October 2001–31 December 2001

  1

  Footballers' Testimonials
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will treat the proceeds from footballers' testimonials as taxable income. [29257]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The proceeds from footballers' testimonial events may already be chargeable to tax under present law. However, whether they are or not depends on the circumstances of each particular case.

  Poverty
  John Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to reduce poverty in inner city areas. [29278]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are committed to tackling poverty and ensuring a just society with opportunity for all.

  As a result of personal tax and benefit measures this Government have introduced since 1997, there are now 1.2 million fewer children in poverty than there otherwise would have been, while the poorest third of all pensioners will receive an extra £2.5 billion this year.

  The working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit, along with the first ever national minimum wage, are helping to make work pay, while prudent management of the economy is helping to achieve high levels of employment.
  988W
  To increase investment in deprived areas, an exemption from stamp duty for all property transfers up to £150,000 became available in the UK's most deprived areas from 30 November 2001.

  To further stimulate business investment in England, the Government have committed £20 million in match funding to a £40 million Community Development Venture Fund. This fund will provide finance for firms operating in disadvantaged areas and the Government hope to see it up and running by the end of this financial year.

  The National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal meanwhile, sets out how the Government will go about narrowing the gap between the most deprived areas and the rest. Key to the strategy is harnessing the mainstream resources of Government Departments, but a £900 million Neighbourhood Renewal Fund is also in place to kick start the renewal process in the 88 most deprived local authority areas.

  The National Strategy and Neighbourhood Renewal Fund are specific to England.

  Self-Assessment (Tax)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many fines were levied for the late return of self-assessment tax forms from people resident in the Buckingham constituency in the last 12 months; and how much was raised. [30065]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not hold local figures of this nature.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people(a) in total and (b) living in the Buckingham constituency were fined for late filing of self-assessment forms in each year since 1997; and how much revenue was raised in each year. [30062]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not hold local figures of this nature. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers I gave him on 15 January 2002,Official Report, columns 226–27W, for the national figures requested.

  Aggregates Tax
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to exempt small rural quarries from the proposed aggregates tax. [28717]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have no such plans.

  Small Businesses (Insurance)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make an assessment of changes to the cost and availability of insurance for small businesses since 11 September; and if he will make a statement. [27549]

  Ruth Kelly
  Insurance companies themselves remain responsible for determining the terms, conditions, and price of their products. Costs and availability change constantly in response to market conditions
  989W
  I am not aware of any greater changes since 11 September, except in the case of insurance against terrorism risk. Nor am I aware of any special impact on small businesses.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the reply of 19 December 2001,Official Report, columns 323–34W, how many of the working families tax credit applications investigated by the Inland Revenue involved co-operation between the Inland Revenue and (a) the investigative organisations of the Benefits Agency, (b) the National Intelligence Unit and (c) local authorities; and what proceedings are in place for facilitating such co-operation. [26473]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Exact figures are not available in the format requested. However, the nature of such investigations often means that information is shared and passed on between the Inland Revenue, other Government Departments and local authorities, as allowed by statutory regulations.

DEFENCE

  C130K
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 26 November 2001,Official Report, column 662W, how many C130Ks he plans to decommission in each year over the next 10 years; and when he plans to have completed its phasing out. [26623]

  Mr. Ingram
  Current plans for the last element of the rolling programme to replace part of the Hercules C130K fleet with C130Js are for two of the C130K aircraft based at RAF Lyneham to be retired by 30 April 2002 and one aircraft to be retired towards the end of 2002. There are currently no detailed plans for the decommissioning of the remaining 26 C 130K Hercules, which is predicted to occur by around the end of this decade.

  Service Applicants (Fitness)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what percentage of applicants to the(a) Army, (b) RAF, (c) Royal Navy and (d) Royal Marines were turned down on medical grounds in each quarter of the last seven years, broken down by gender. [26136]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 339W. The information that is available is shown in the table, which includes some corrected and updated figures for Royal Marine Other Ranks. A breakdown by gender is only available for the Army. The principal reason for the significant variation in failure rates between the RAF other ranks and those of the other services is that the medical examination is undertaken at a much later stage in the selection process, by which time many of the applicants have already withdrawn for other reasons.
  990W

  Medical rejections

  Service

  Number

  Percentage of applicants

  Royal Navy Officers

  1996–97

  32

  2.7

  1997–98

  16

  1.1

  1998–99

  32

  2.3

  1999–2000

  39

  2.7

  2000–01

  43

  3.0

  2001–021

  35

  3.2

  Royal Navy Ratings

  1996–97

  544

  6.7

  1997–98

  764

  8.9

  1998–99

  813

  8.2

  1999–2000

  821

  8.7

  2000–01

  923

  9.8

  2001–021

  626

  10.2

  Royal Marines Officers

  1996–97

  3

  0.9

  1997–98

  1

  0.4

  1998–99

  3

  0.9

  1999–2000

  18

  5.7

  2000–01

  21

  4.9

  2001–021

  7

  2.7

  Royal Marines Other Ranks2

  1996–97

  55

  2.0

  1997–98

  91

  2.8

  1998–99

  126

  3.7

  1999–2000

  189

  4.9

  2000–01

  200

  5.5

  2001–021

  140

  6.3

  Army Officers

  1995–96

  30

  2.0 (80%m, 20%f)

  1996–97

  38

  2.4 (79%m, 21%f)

  1997–98

  41

  2.6 (78%m, 22%f)

  1998–99

  42

  3.7 (81%m, 19%f)

  1999–2000

  60

  4.9 (80%m, 20%f)

  2000–01

  33

  2.9 (76%m, 24%f)

  2001–021

  43

  7.2 (77%m, 23%f)

  Army Other Ranks

  1997–98

  1,880

  10.3 (81%m. 19%f)

  1998–99

  2,304

  11.1 (81%m, 19%f)

  1999–2000

  1,660

  8.0 (84%m, 16%f)

  2000–01

  1,132

  5.5 (87%m, 13%0

  2001–021

  —3

  —3

  Royal Air Force Officers

  1996–97

  184

  3.5

  1997–98

  183

  3.8

  1998–99

  215

  4.2

  1999–2000

  215

  4.0

  2000–01

  255

  5.4

  2001–021

  107

  14.2

  Royal Air Force Airmen/Airwomen

  1996–97

  56

  1.3

  1997–98

  88

  0.9

  1998–99

  105

  0.6

  1999–2000

  126

  0.8

  2000–01

  193

  1.2

  2001–021

  184

  1.8

  1 The figures for 2001–02 are as at 7 December 2001

  2 Women are currently only permitted to join the Royal Marine Band Service

  3 Army Other Rank figures unavailable for 2001–02

  Newspaper Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the expenditure of his
  991W
  (a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title in each year since 1997. [26988]

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

  However, since 1999–2000, the Ministry of Defence's total public relations expenditure has been published in the annual departmental performance report.

  Legislation
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he plans to introduce a similar measure to the US Montgomery GI Enhancement Act in the UK. [27720]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have no such plans.

  Trident
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the studies sponsored by his Department in each of the last three years concerning future options for Trident. [28260]

  Mr. Ingram
  We said in the Strategic Defence Review of 1998 that we need to ensure that Trident can remain an effective deterrent for up to 30 years. As with other key military capabilities, we routinely undertake studies into options for achieving the optimum operational life and value for money.

  Service Deployment
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries in which British troops are(a) stationed and (b) active. [28080]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on 16 January 2002,Office Report, column 316. A copy of this letter was sent on 19 January 2002, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. British troops are deployed on active service in 18 countries and overseas territories in the Balkans, the middle east, Cyprus, the Falkland Islands, Georgia, the United States of America, Africa and Asia, as well as at sea.

  Royal Navy Vessels
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy vessels have been brought into service since 1997; and for how long they are estimated to remain in service. [28349]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Navy has brought 16 vessels into service since 1997. On current plans their estimated remaining service lives are as shown in the table.

  Vessels brought into service since 1997

  Estimated remaining service life (years)

  HMS Ocean

  16

  HMS Grafton

  18

  HMS Kent

  19

  HMS Portland

  19

  HMS Sutherland

  18

  HMS Penzance

  21

  HMS Pembroke

  21

  992W

  Vessels brought into service since 1997

  Estimated remaining service life (years)

  HMS Grimsby

  22

  HMS Bangor

  22

  HMS Ramsey

  23

  HMS Blyth

  24

  HMS Vigilant

  1—

  HMS Vengeance

  1—

  HMS Scott

  20

  HMS Raider

  21

  HMS Tracker

  20

  1 Information withheld under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, relating to defence, security and international relations.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy vessels have been decommissioned since 1997; and what the age of each of the vessels was. [28348]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since 1997 21 Royal Navy Vessels have been decommissioned. The age of each vessel when decommissioned is shown in the table.

  Vessels decommissioned since 1997

  Age of vessel when decommissioned (years)

  HMS Peacock

  14

  HMS Plover

  14

  HMS Starling

  13

  HMS Birmingham

  26

  HMS Boxer

  18

  HMS Beaver

  16

  HMS Brave

  17

  HMS London

  14

  HMS Bicester

  15

  HMS Berkeley

  14

  HMS Orwell

  15

  HMS Orkney

  22

  HMS Blackwater

  13

  HMS Spey

  13

  HMS Arun

  12

  HMS Itchen

  13

  HMS Herald

  28

  HMS Intrepid

  37

  HMS Bulldog

  34

  HMS Cromer

  11

  HMS Coventry

  15

  Warships
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to complete the Review of Warship Maintenance and Support; and if he will make a statement. [28929]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence is seeking to Modernise arrangements for warship support and achieve savings to the defence budget. We have received proposals from the dockyard companies for potential partnering arrangements at the naval bases at Portsmouth, Devonport and the Clyde. We have also received alternative proposals from our trade unions for the pursuit of efficiencies at the naval bases. All options are currently being compared for value for money, together with their technical, commercial and human resource implications, for a decision in the near future.

  Royal Armoured Corps
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is(a) the establishment and (b) the actual strength, excluding attached troops, of the regiments of the Royal Armoured Corps. [28833]

  Mr. Ingram
  The establishment and strength of the regiments of the Royal Armoured Corps as at 1 December 2001 is detailed in the table:

  Regiment

  Establishment

  Strength

  Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment

  324

  312

  Queens Dragoon Guards

  358

  383

  Scots Dragoon Guards

  451

  386

  9th/12th Royal Lancers

  358

  353

  2 Royal Tank Regiment

  460

  447

  Royal Dragoon Guards

  451

  459

  Household Cavalry Regiment

  421

  412

  Queen's Royal Hussars

  451

  300

  King's Royal Hussars

  451

  417

  Light Dragoons

  429

  391

  Queen's Royal Lancers

  451

  253

  Joint Nuclear Biological and Chemical Regiment

  200

  196

  Pensions
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration the Armed Forces Pension Scheme review has given to using additional voluntary contributions as a means of making specialist pay pensionable; and if he will make a statement. [29237]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence plans to introduce a facility to enable all serving personnel to make additional voluntary contributions (AVCs) through deductions from pay, to enable them to "top up" their pension benefits where they have scope to do so under Inland Revenue rules. This would also be available for those on specialist pay. As we made clear in our consultation document on the current review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, published in March of last year, we are also considering the option that MOD, as employer, might fund part of the costs of AVCs in respect of specialist pay. The decision will depend on whether or not this is judged to be a reasonable and cost-effective way of improving recruitment and retention. A decision on the review is expected later this year.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for an education campaign to enable armed forces personnel to make informed judgments on the Armed Forces Pension Review Body's conclusions. [29495]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence is in the process of developing a multi-media communications package which we plan will comprise booklets, letters, factsheets, internet material, personal forecasts, presentations and roadshows designed to enable all serving military personnel to make a timely and informed judgment about the relative merits of the current Armed Forces Pension Scheme and the anticipated new scheme.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment the Armed Forces Pension Review Body has made of proposals to uplift for inflation the best of 994W
  the three final years of a serviceman or woman's service when determining pensionable pay; and if he will make a statement. [29496]

  Mr. Ingram
  In the Ministry of Defence's consultation document on the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) Review, the MOD indicated the intention to move to a final salary scheme and the possibility of basing the pension on the best year's salary in the three years before retirement. In response to views expressed during the consultation, we are currently considering whether we might introduce a mechanism to provide an uplift for inflation under the new AFPS.

  Welbeck Army College
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future use of Welbeck Army College. [29297]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Army sixth form college will remain at its current Welbeck home until at least September 2005. Following detailed examination during the Defence Training Review, it has been decided to expand the college to include students from the RAF, Royal Navy and the civil service. A public-private partnership (PPP) project is currently under way to deliver the requirements of the Defence sixth form college, and this will be judged against a benchmark site at a former Army Barracks at Garats Hay near Loughborough. I must stress that the private sector is not constrained by this benchmark, and tenderers will be given the opportunity of selecting an alternative site to provide the facilities and services. It is too early to say where the college will ultimately be sited.

  Army Complement
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the change in the shortfall in the official complement of the Army was between(a) 1 May 1997, (b) 1 May 2001 and (c) the latest date for which the figure is available. [29469]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table shows the shortfall in whole Army strength figures against the in-year requirement as at 1 May 1997, 1 May 2001 and 1 December 2001 which are the latest data available.

  Shortfall

  (a) 1 May 1997

  4,933

  (b) 1 May 2001

  6,761

  (c) 1 December 2001

  6,169

  US Forces
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he takes to ensure that activities undertaken by US forces operating in the UK are consistent with the terms of the European convention on human rights; and if he will make a statement. [28708]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: US forces operating in the UK are a visiting force, and as such are subject to the NATO Status of Forces agreement of 1951, which requires a visiting force to respect the law of the host nation. Our legislation recognises the European convention on human rights.

  EU/NATO Capabilities
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those non-EU European NATO member countries and other EU applicant countries who have offered contributions for improving European military capability and (b) those countries whose offer has been (i) accepted and (ii) rejected; and if he will make a statement. [29636]

  Mr. Hoon
  The countries are:

  Bulgaria

  Republic of Cyprus

  Czech Republic

  Estonia

  Hungary

  Iceland

  Latvia

  Lithuania

  Malta

  Norway

  Poland

  Romania

  Slovak Republic

  Slovenia

  Turkey.

  The EU has welcomed all these contributions.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress made by the EU/NATO working groups on(a) the preparation of an EU/NATO security agreement, (b) the setting of capability goals, (c) the preparation of an agreement on the modalities for EU access to NATO assets and capabilities and (d) the definition of permanent arrangements for future EU/NATO consultations in times of crisis and non-crisis; and if he will make a statement. [29635]

  Mr. Hoon
  Work between the EU and NATO continues in all the areas mentioned. An interim security agreement is in place. Discussions continue on details of a permanent arrangement. NATO experts have been closely involved with EU colleagues in work to elaborate and identify the capabilities required for the Headline Goal. The EU' s capability action plan will be implemented in close co-operation with relevant NATO initiatives. We have made good progress towards agreement on EU access to NATO assets and capabilities, although arrangements are not yet finalised. Permanent consultation arrangements between NATO and the EU were defined at Nice and have been implemented satisfactorily. Consultation and transparency between the two organisations have been very good.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to take an initiative within the European Union to improve the arrangements for the participation of non-EU allied countries in the ESDP in order to create an associate status for the countries concerned; and if he will make a statement. [29632]

  Mr. Hoon
  The EU is committed to the fullest possible involvement of both the non-EU European allies and the EU accession partners in the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP).
  996W
  The Nice European Council agreed a substantial set of provisions governing consultation with these countries and arrangements for their participation in EU-led operations. These arrangements already provide for a high level of participation by our non-EU European allies in ESDP.

  Operation Fingal
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he anticipates that the UK numbers of ground troops in Operation Fingal will be substantially reduced. [29608]

  Mr. Ingram
  I anticipate that the number of UK forces involved in Operation Fingal, the UK contribution to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), will reduce substantially when the UK command of the ISAF ends in mid-April 2002.

  International Terrorism
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his European counterparts regarding the Belgian initiative of drawing up a White Paper on European security by submitting a WEU contribution on the repercussions of countering the threat that international terrorism poses for collective defence; and if he will make a statement. [29631]

  Mr. Hoon
  Discussions were held during the Belgian Presidency of the EU with a view to commissioning the EU Institute for Security Studies to produce an academic overview of member states' defence policies. This work will be taken forward under the Spanish Presidency.

  European Crisis Management
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are for the EU Council to establish an intergovernmental council fund for European military and non-military crisis-management operations outside the control of the Commission and the European Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [29633]

  Mr. Hoon
  Discussions are continuing between EU member states over the financial arrangements to be put in place for European military and any non-military crisis management operations under the Common Foreign and Security Policy. No decisions have yet been reached.

  European Defence
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to transform the informal meeting of EU defence ministers into a formal defence council meeting; and if he will make a statement. [29637]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 736W. There are no plans to transform informal Defence Ministers' meetings into a formal council.

  We expect informal meetings of EU Defence Ministers to continue, and the General Affairs Council provides a forum for formal decision-making as and when required.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the EU military exercise programme covering the period 2001 to 2006. [29634]
  997W
  Mr. Hoon
  The exercise programme is confined to political/military decision making procedures. There are no plans to hold separate EU field exercises.

  European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) procedures will be exercised for the first time in May 2002. This exercise will test top level co-ordination and the decision-making procedures of the ESDP bodies, including the Political and Security Committee, the EU Military Committee and the EU Military Staff. In 2003 there are plans to hold another exercise at this higher strategic level with EU and NATO bodies, and a workshop to examine the role of deployable force headquarters at the operational level.

  Beyond that, the EU envisages further exercises, expanded to include testing of the linkages and procedures between the higher strategic level structures and potential operational headquarters for EU-led operations, such as SHAPE or national headquarters like the UK's Permanent Joint Headquarters at Northwood. However, no detailed exercise planning beyond 2002 has been carried out.

  EU troop exercises are unnecessary, as current programmes of national, NATO and bi or multi-lateral exercises are already sufficient to generate the capabilities that the EU is likely to require.

  Armed Forces (Marital Status)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what programmes are run by the RAF, the Army and the Royal Navy to assist service men and women who are experiencing relationship breakdown; and if he will make a statement. [27676]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: The services rarely interfere or become directly involved in matrimonial or relationship disputes, unless requested to do so by the parties concerned, as these are essentially a private matter. Nevertheless, each service places great importance on the welfare of service families, recognising the significant contribution they make as well as the deleterious effects of mobility and separation aspects of service life. Consequently, there is a range of welfare facilities able to provide help and support on a wide range of issues, including relationship breakdown if requested. The service welfare organisations liaise with Relate at local level and provide those service personnel seeking professional marriage guidance counselling with an early referral.

  With the naval service personnel are able to meet with a professional from one of the Navy's caring organisations: the Naval Personal and Family Service (NPFS) or the Naval Chaplaincy Service (NCS). The NPFS employs qualified social workers able to offer direct advice, counselling, support (practical and emotional) and advocacy on behalf of clients.

  Within the Army, the main source of help is through the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association—Forces Help (SSAFA-FH), a charity contracted to provide a range of professional welfare services, particularly overseas. Army personnel also have access to other
  998W
  welfare organisations, available at most garrisons, as follows: the Army Welfare Service (AWS), the Army Families Federation (AFF) and the Army Families Advice Bureau (AFAB). In Germany, the Army also provides funding for dependants to return to the UK to be trained in marriage guidance counselling by Relate; this then provides an additional resource in theatre.

  As with the other two services, the RAF has no programmes in place specifically to provide assistance to those experiencing relationship problems. However, there are a number of networks and organisations available to individuals or couples able to provide support and guidance if requested. These include the SSAFA-FH RAF (UK) Social Work Service which has staff based on 32 Stations in the UK. The RAF has recently launched a community support website that gives practical information and links to organisations which may be able to provide the necessary help and guidance. The website, www.rafcom.co.uk, is designed to tackle issues that may contribute to relationship problems.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to apply for funds, in order to assist UK service men, from the seized assets of Saddam Hussein made available by the US Government for anybody affected by the Gulf war. [29379]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have no such plans. The Ministry of Defence cannot use frozen Iraqi funds to pay compensation to individuals who have suffered as a result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Only a small percentage of the Iraqi funds frozen by the UK authorities under UN resolutions actually belong to the Iraqi Government, the bulk belonging either to businesses or private individuals who are resident in Iraq. UN resolutions do not allow the use of these funds in this way.

  Claims against Iraq were handled by the UN Compensation Commission (UNCC). The UNCC imposed a deadline for the submission of claims of 1 January 1995. Claims from UK claimants to the UNCC were submitted via the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Claims Section.

  I cannot comment on the policy of the US Government towards their own personnel.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 9 January 2002,Official Report, column 828–29W, on the Territorial Army, when he will write to the hon. Member for New Forest West. [29839]

  Dr. Moonie
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 23 January.

  Public Relations Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much was spent by(a) his Department and (b) bodies for which it is responsible on external public relations consultants in each of the last four years. [27396]
  999W
  Mr. MacShane
  The total expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on external public relations consultants in the last four years was:

  £

  2001–02

  160,904

  2000–01

  347,857

  1999–2000

  0

  1998–99

  59,337

  1 Financial year to date

  The bulk of the expenditure in 2000–01 relates to the "Know Before You Go" public awareness campaign aimed at encouraging UK travellers to be better prepared when travelling overseas.

  Among the FCO' s executive non-departmental public bodies, only the British Council has engaged such consultants in the same period. The costs were:

  £

  2001–02

  120,925

  2000–01

  4,650

  1999–2000

  3,256

  1998–99

  214,901

  1 Taking December 2001 as the last month

  The figure for 1998–99 includes costs connected with the British Council's "Vision" project. The project looked at re-defining the Council's purpose and strategic direction and examining its visual identity.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [29589]

  Peter Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has incurred no direct costs in connection with the Bloody Sunday inquiry.

  A few staff spend a small amount of time dealing with issues relating to the inquiry, but they absorb this task into their normal duties, so staff time costs are not separately calculated.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to co-operate with the European Parliament's inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak. [29771]

  Peter Hain
  The Government are ready to co-operate with the Temporary Committee that has been appointed by the European Parliament to inquire into the recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. We await news of how the committee intends to proceed.

  Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which cases the Charter of Fundamental Rights has been cited in the European Court of Justice in the Advocate-General's opinion or the judges' decision. [29768]
  1000W
  Peter Hain
  Providing the full list would incur disproportionate cost.

  We are aware of the following cases in the European Court of Justice where the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights has been referred to in the Advocate General's opinion or the judge's decision:

  The Opinion, delivered on 8 February 2001, of Advocate General Tizzano: Case C173/99: Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematographic and Theatre Union (BECTU) v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  The Opinion, delivered on 22 March 2001, of Advocate General Jacobs: Case 270/99: Z v. European Parliament.

  The Opinion, delivered on 14 June 2001, of Advocate General Jacobs: Case C-377/98: Kingdom of the Netherlands v. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

  The Opinion, delivered on 10 July 2001, of Advocate General Leger: Case C-353/99 P: Council of the European Union v. Heidi Hautala MEP.

  The Opinion, delivered on 20 September 2001, of Advocate General Mischo: Joined Cases C20/00 and C64/00: Booker Agriculture Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers and Hydro Seafood.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which member state Governments have stated that they(a) wish and (b) do not wish to see the Charter of Fundamental Rights incorporated into European Union law. [29769]

  Peter Hain
  The European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights was proclaimed as a political declaration at the Nice European Council in December 1999.

  At the same time Heads of State or Government agreed to a review of the Charter's status at the next intergovernmental conference in 2004 as to whether, and if so how, the Charter should be integrated into the treaties.

  A Convention on the Future of Europe, whose membership includes the representatives of the Heads of State or Government of the member states, and which will hold its inaugural meeting on 28 February 2002, has been convened to prepare the 2004 intergovernmental conference. One of the issues it will consider will be the charter's status.

  European Union
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the accession process of the candidate countries for accession to the European Union under the Treaty of Nice; and what plans the Government have to ensure enlargement if the Republic of Ireland does not ratify the treaty. [29767]

  Peter Hain
  The Government believe that the Treaty of Nice is necessary to make enlargement a success. We understand that the Irish Government are considering how to address the concerns of the Irish people regarding the treaty. In the meantime, as agreed by all EU Governments, including the Irish Government, other member states are proceeding with their ratification processes. The Laeken
  1001W
  European Council in December 2001 confirmed the EU's determination to complete negotiations with those candidates that are ready by the end of 2002 so that they can join the EU in time to participate in the 2004 European Parliament elections. The UK is fully committed to this goal.

  European Council
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's objectives are for the European Council's meeting at Barcelona; and if he will make a statement. [29765]

  Peter Hain
  At the European Council in Barcelona, Heads of Government will review progress on economic and social reform undertaken as a result of proposals agreed at the Lisbon and Stockholm European Councils. The Government are committed to this reform process, with its strategic aim of making the European Union the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world with full employment by 2010.

  The Government's objective for Barcelona is to take stock of progress made, and to focus member states' efforts on making concrete progress on the further reforms necessary. We would particularly like to see progress in the five areas identified by the Spanish presidency as priorities: transport and communication networks; energy; education and training; labour markets; and financial services. We support the Spanish approach and will be working closely with them throughout their presidency.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in achieving the goals of economic and social reform set out at the European Council's meeting at Lisbon; and if he will make a statement. [29766]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Economic Secretary to the Treasury gave to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on 26 November 2001,Official Report, column 640W.

  The hon. Member may also be interested to read the recent Communication by the European Commission "The Lisbon Strategy—Making Change Happen". The Government welcome the Commission's Communication, which will feed into discussion at the European Council in Barcelona, 15–16 March. This document is available at www.europa.eu.int/comm/press_room/presspacks/Barcelona/com_en.pdf.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in deciding the methods by which Gibraltarian voters will vote in European parliamentary elections; and if he will make a statement. [29770]

  Peter Hain
  We are seeking legislative time in order to introduce primary legislation to extend the European parliamentary franchise to Gibraltar. The detail of the legislative and practical arrangements is currently being considered by both HMG and the Government of Gibraltar and consultations between us are already under way.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Clocks (Portcullis House)
  John Austin
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee how many clocks have been(a) ordered and (b) supplied for installation in Portcullis House; when the order was placed; when the installation is planned to take place; and if he will make a statement. [28331]

  Derek Conway
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: No clocks have been ordered or installed in Portcullis House.

  When Portcullis House was being planned no provision was made for a master and slave clock system or individual clocks to be provided because the time would be available on other equipment in the offices: the annunciator, telephones and personal computers.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  HIV
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funds her Department made available for educating children and young people in African nations on methods of HIV prevention in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [29329]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is not available as DFID activities in this area usually represent only part of wider projects and as such cannot be separately identified within our statistics.

  Tanzania
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of Tanzania's debt has been written off as part of the enhanced HIPC initiative; and what assessment she has made of the effect on annual debt repayments of the purchase of an air traffic control system. [29705]

  Hilary Benn
  Under the enhanced HIPC initiative, 54 per cent. of Tanzania's debt in real terms was written off. This does not include the full value of Paris Club debt prior to the enhanced HIPC initiative or the additional bilateral relief beyond the enhanced HIPC initiative. Additional relief beyond the enhanced HIPC initiative will reduce Tanzania's debt by a further 9 per cent.

  It is difficult to assess the impact of individual projects on Tanzania's overall debt servicing obligations. However we recognise that debt management is a key part of maintaining longer-term debt sustainability. DFID is working closely with the World bank, International Monetary Fund, other development partners and the Government of Tanzania to ensure that such investments, and the resulting impact on annual debt repayments, are fully scrutinised as part of the public expenditure review and debt management processes.

  GATS
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she
  1003W
  has made of the effects of GATS—General Agreement on Trade in Services—on developing countries; and if she will make a statement. [29508]

  Hilary Benn
  It is not yet possible to make a full assessment as so few commitments have been made under the GATS. The Government support on-going assessment of trade in services, as do all WTO members. DFID is funding both the World bank and UNCTAD to help build capacity in developing countries to identify areas of interest to them.

  Afghanistan
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what commitment the Government plan to make at the Tokyo conference on reconstruction in Afghanistan. [29274]

  Hilary Benn
  At the conference in Tokyo on Afghan reconstruction from 20 to 21 January, the UK announced a significant contribution of £200 million over the next five years for both reconstruction and humanitarian assistance. This pledge is in addition to the significant sums that DFID contributes to the World bank, European Union and Asian development banks who will also be channelling funds into Afghanistan over coming years. DFID's share of the European Union pledge alone will be 20 per cent.

  Belize
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the relations between her Department and the Government of Belize. [29276]

  Hilary Benn
  We remain engaged in dialogue with the Government of Belize on a range of issues aimed at supporting and promoting a pro-poor Government agenda. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met with Prime Minister Musa in October 2001 as part of this engagement and DFID officials also continue to have regular contact.

PRIME MINISTER

  PIU Energy Report
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Prime Minister if the finding of the PIU report on Energy will be made public; and if he will make a statement. [30188]

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

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Civil Servants
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which Government Departments are reviewing the mandatory retirement age for civil servants. [29761]
  1004W
  Mr. Leslie
  All Departments have reviewed mandatory retirement age for their staff in the light of the "Winning the Generation Game" report from the Performance and Innovation Unit.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the(a) time scale and (b) terms of reference for the review of the mandatory retirement age for senior civil servants in his Department. [29760]

  Mr. Leslie
  The normal retirement age for members of the senior civil service is 60. The main objective of the review currently being undertaken is to produce a model which will provide Departments with a range of options for managing their senior civil servants. These could include opportunities for moving to flexible working patterns as part of a phased retirement process, and mechanisms for retaining staff with strong potential beyond age 60, particularly those with key skills in such areas as project management. The time scale for implementation has not been finalised but will take account of the differing circumstances and staffing structures of Departments.

WALES

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many regulatory impact assessments have been produced by his Department since August 2001; and if he will list those produced(a) following initial consultation with affected parties about the most appropriate methodology for assessing costs and other impacts and (b) which set out full commercial impacts, including profitability, employment, consumer prices and competitiveness, as recommended in "Good Policy Making". [28413]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department has produced no regulatory impact assessments since August 2001.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, by date and subject, the representations he has received in(a) writing and (b) person from (i) the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales, (ii) the Welsh Assembly Government and (iii) committees of the National Assembly for Wales regarding the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review. [30673]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular meetings with the First Minister and periodic meetings with the Minister for Finance, Local Government and Communities. We discuss a range of matters, including the Spending Review.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, by date and subject, representations he has made in(a) writing and (b) person to the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review. [30672]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I am in regular contact with my Cabinet colleagues on the Spending Review.

  Regional Regeneration
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what his estimate is of per capita Government public expenditure on regeneration in each of the Welsh regions in financial years (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02; [26868]

  (2) if he will list the regeneration projects (a) wholly and (b) partly funded by the Government in the Cynon Valley for the financial years (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02 with the expenditure to date on each project. [26867]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The National Assembly for Wales has responsibility for the allocation and distribution of funds aimed at regenerating areas of Wales, including the Cynon Valley.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans his Department has to appraise the environmental implications of its Spending Review submission to the Treasury. [29036]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The existence of the Barnett formula means that I am not required to make a full Spending Review submission.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what equipment has been stolen from his Department since 1 May 1997; and what the approximate value of each item was. [26828]

  Dr. John Reid
  The information is as follows:Two portable computers, a printer and a camcorder to the value of £8,000.

  In addition, computer components were reported stolen from official premises. These components were old and of negligible value.

  Lost/Stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [28004]

  Dr. John Reid
  On 4 December 1998, a portable computer, valued at £3,000 was reported stolen from an officer's home.

  On 7 May 1999, a portable computer and printer valued at £4,500 were reported stolen from official premises.

  On 26 May 1999, a camcorder, valued at £500, was reported stolen from departmental offices.

  Ministerial Transport
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [28105]
  1006W
  Dr. John Reid
  I last used the railway service on official duties in late November 2001.

  Details of the travel arrangements of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are by convention not published.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Literacy and Numeracy Test Results
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement about her Department's inquiry into the premature disclosure of the literacy and numeracy test results in September 2001. [30933]

  Mr. Timms
  An inquiry into the premature disclosure of the literacy and numeracy test results has been carried out by the Department's security officer, in conjunction with the Department's head of statistics and a representative of the National Statistician.

  The inquiry has been unable to establish the source or nature of the leak of the 2001 Key Stage 2 test results. The main reasons for this are:

  (a) There appears to have been no leak of a paper or document; the Evening Standard article on 14 September seems to have been based on one or more casual conversations from which the story was constructed; and

  (b) Given the significant number of people in the Department for Education and Skills, Ofsted, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the associated contractors and those elsewhere who had access to the information, there is no prospect of identifying the person who provided the relevant information, unless the journalist concerned is prepared to reveal his source or sources.

  The inquiry concludes that there is no evidence of a deliberate disclosure from Ministers, officials or advisers in the Department. Indeed, on the limited evidence available, the disclosure seems unlikely to have come from any departmental source.

  The inquiry makes a number of recommendations for strengthening the control and management of sensitive information in advance of the advertised day of its disclosure. These are being taken forward.

  Temporary Classrooms
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the number of temporary classrooms in each English local education authority. [29333]

  John Healey
  As part of the data collected through the appraisal of Asset Management Plans, the Department has some information on the overall floor area of temporary accommodation at schools, but it is not possible from these data to identify with any precision the actual number of temporary classrooms.

  The data we have on temporary buildings will be appraised with a view to publishing analysis to support benchmarking later this year.
  1007W
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many private finance initiatives there have been which have involved replacing temporary classrooms with permanent buildings; if she will list each of these; and if she will make a statement. [29334]

  John Healey
  This information is not held centrally, and there would be a disproportionate cost involved in obtaining it from local education authorities and voluntary aided schools.

  Scotland
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many of the staff members of her Department located in London have been involved in matters pertaining to Scotland since the inception of her Department in its present form. [29517]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: This Department is broadly responsible for matters pertaining to England, with some responsibilities for Wales, and for representing UK education and skills policy to audiences outside the UK. Officials of this Department liaise with their counterparts in the Scottish Executive on matters of mutual interest. Details of the number of staff located in London who have been involved in matters pertaining to Scotland could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Hackney Borough Council
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what intervention powers her Department has used in respect of Hackney borough council since May 1997. [29732]

  Mr. Timms
  In July 1999 the Secretary of State directed the council to outsource its school improvement service and ethnic minority service to Nord Anglia plc under powers set out in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.

  In October 2001 the Secretary of State directed the council to implement arrangements to establish a new body to run the education services in Hackney from August 2002 under powers set out in the Local Government Act 1999.

  Remuneration
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will estimate the number of individuals in her(a) Department, (b) related agencies and (c) related non-departmental public bodies whose annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeded (i) £100,000 and (ii) £200,000 in each of the last four years. [26325]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The number of people in DfES, (and before June 2001 in DfEE) and related agencies whose annual remuneration including benefits exceeded(a) £ 100,000 and (b) £200,000 in each of the last four years is as follows:

  Year

  Over £100,000

  Over £200,000

  1998

  3

  0

  1999

  3

  0

  2000

  6

  0

  2001

  7

  0

  1008W
  Information relating to staff for non-departmental public bodies is available in the annual Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 2000" copies are available in the Library.

  School Expulsions
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children from(a) primary and (b) secondary schools were expelled from their school in each year since 1997. [28340]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information on how many children have been excluded from primary and secondary schools since 1997 are set out in the National Statistics publication "Permanent Exclusions from Maintained Schools in England, Issue 10/01", published in November 2001. Information from this publication can be viewed at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/DB/SBU/b0298/index.html. Figures for 2000–01 are not yet available.

  Number of permanent exclusions

  Year

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  1996–97

  1,573

  10,463

  1997–98

  1,539

  10,087

  1998–99

  1,366

  8,636

  1999–2000

  1,226

  6,713

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of children expelled from school were(a) boys and (b) girls in each year since 1997. [28341]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information on the proportion of permanent exclusions from maintained schools since 1997 are set out in the National Statistics publication "Permanent Exclusions from Maintained Schools in England, Issue 10–01", published in November 2001. Information from this publication can be viewed at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/DB/SBU/b0298/index.html. Figures for 2000–01 are not yet available.

  Percentage of permanent exclusions

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Boys

  83

  84

  83

  84

  Girls

  17

  16

  17

  16

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what process is to be followed if a child is to be expelled from school. [28342]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The law governing exclusions is set out in sections 64 to 68 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The DfES guidance on the procedures for excluding pupils is set out in Circular 10/99, Chapter 6, Annexe D. Head teachers, governors, LEAs and appeal panels must have regard to this guidance in discharging their functions in relation to pupil exclusion. I have attached a copy of Circular 10/99 to this reply and will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library shortly.
  1009W
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the most common reason was for expulsion for(a) boys and (b) girls in each of the last five years. [28343]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: The Department does not collect data on the specific reasons for expulsion from schools.

  Pupil: Teacher ratio in maintained secondary schools by local education authority area, position in January each year

  2001

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  1996

  1994

  1989

  1984

  1979

  Avon1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16.3

  16.2

  16.1

  16.4

  17.0

  Barking and Dagenham

  16.8

  16.3

  16.0

  15.8

  15.7

  16.1

  17.1

  14.1

  15.8

  15.5

  Barnet

  15.9

  15.4

  15.3

  15.2

  14.8

  14.8

  15.0

  14.6

  14.3

  15.4

  Barnsley

  18.1

  18.3

  18.0

  18.1

  17.8

  17.9

  17.1

  15.5

  16.3

  16.8

  Bath and North East Somerset

  16.9

  16.8

  16.6

  16.9

  16.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17.8

  17.8

  17.2

  16.6

  17.5

  17.1

  Bedfordshire2

  18.8

  18.7

  18.5

  18.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Berkshire1

  —

  —

  —

  16.5

  16.6

  16.3

  16.0

  15.5

  16.2

  16.8

  Bexley

  17.8

  17.6

  17.2

  17.4

  17.4

  16.6

  16.5

  16.2

  16.7

  17.2

  Birmingham

  16.2

  16.1

  16.2

  16.1

  16.1

  15.9

  16.3

  16.4

  16.4

  16.5

  Blackburn with Darwen

  16.2

  16.5

  16.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Blackpool

  17.3

  17.3

  17.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bolton

  16.6

  16.7

  16.7

  16.8

  16.8

  16.5

  16.1

  14.6

  16.0

  16.5

  Bournemouth

  17.6

  18.2

  17.5

  17.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bracknell Forest

  17.0

  16.9

  17.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bradford

  17.1

  17.3

  18.6

  18.5

  18.1

  17.7

  17.3

  14.6

  17.4

  17.6

  Brent

  16.0

  15.8

  15.0

  15.0

  15.2

  15.4

  15.9

  13.7

  12.8

  13.9

  Brighton and Hove

  16.5

  16.5

  16.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bristol, City of

  15.7

  15.7

  16.0

  16.1

  15.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bromley

  17.1

  17.2

  16.6

  16.4

  16.3

  15.7

  16.2

  15.6

  16.2

  16.7

  Buckinghamshire1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17.3

  17.1

  16.8

  16.1

  16.5

  16.8

  Buckinghamshire2

  18.3

  18.4

  18.1

  17.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bury

  17.6

  17.7

  17.7

  17.6

  17.2

  17.2

  17.1

  14.4

  15.6

  16.5

  Calderdale

  17.1

  17.1

  16.5

  16.6

  16.9

  16.9

  16.3

  15.1

  17.1

  17.6

  Cambridgeshire1

  —

  —

  —

  17.5

  17.4

  17.2

  17.1

  15.9

  16.8

  16.5

  Cambridgeshire2

  18.7

  18.7

  18.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Camden

  15.3

  15.6

  15.2

  14.6

  14.3

  14.9

  15.3

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire1

  —

  —

  —

  17.2

  17.0

  17.0

  16.8

  15.8

  16.9

  16.9

  Cheshire2

  16.9

  17.1

  17.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  City of London3

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16.8

  17.0

  14.8

  16.2

  17.6

  Cornwall

  18.0

  18.3

  18.1

  17.8

  17.4

  17.5

  17.3

  16.2

  16.9

  16.8

  Coventry

  17.0

  17.1

  16.8

  16.9

  16.6

  16.1

  15.8

  13.9

  15.9

  16.0

  Croydon

  17.3

  16.9

  16.4

  16.4

  16.2

  16.3

  16.9

  15.3

  15.7

  16.3

  Cumbria

  16.8

  17.0

  16.7

  16.9

  16.9

  16.9

  16.0

  15.0

  15.9

  16.5

  Darlington

  16.9

  17.4

  17.2

  17.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derby

  17.1

  16.9

  16.9

  16.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17.4

  17.0

  15.7

  14.1

  16.9

  17.5

  Derbyshire2

  17.5

  17.8

  17.8

  17.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon1

  —

  —

  —

  17.3

  17.1

  17.0

  16.4

  16.4

  16.9

  17.9

  Devon2

  17.7

  17.8

  17.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Doncaster

  17.2

  17.3

  16.9

  16.9

  16.6

  16.8

  16.3

  15.2

  16.2

  16.6

  Dorset1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17.7

  17.5

  17.2

  16.2

  17.1

  17.5

  Dorset2

  18.5

  18.4

  18.0

  18.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dudley

  16.8

  16.4

  16.4

  16.5

  16.5

  16.5

  16.7

  13.8

  16.1

  17.7

  Durham1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17.4

  17.5

  16.6

  15.9

  16.8

  16.8

  Durham2

  17.2

  17.4

  17.3

  17.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ealing

  17.6

  17.1

  16.7

  16.9

  16.4

  16.5

  16.3

  13.4

  14.9

  15.6

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  17.9

  17.9

  18.0

  17.5

  17.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Sussex1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16.2

  16.0

  16.1

  15.7

  17.1

  17.1

  East Sussex2

  17.1

  17.1

  16.9

  16.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Enfield

  16.3

  16.3

  15.9

  15.8

  15.9

  16.3

  16.6

  15.3

  15.4

  16.8

  Essex1

  —

  —

  —

  16.7

  16.6

  16.7

  17.1

  16.3

  17.1

  17.7

  Essex2

  17.5

  17.2

  16.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gateshead

  16.2

  17.1

  16.7

  16.3

  16.0

  15.9

  15.7

  14.1

  16.1

  16.5

  Gloucestershire

  17.2

  17.4

  17.4

  17.2

  17.3

  17.6

  17.7

  15.8

  17.0

  17.4

  Greenwich

  16.0

  16.6

  16.3

  16.3

  16.0

  15.6

  16.4

  —

  —

  —

  Hackney

  17.1

  15.5

  15.7

  14.5

  14.9

  14.7

  14.6

  —

  —

  —

  Halton

  16.3

  16.6

  16.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  17.5

  18.1

  17.5

  17.5

  17.4

  16.8

  15.2

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16.6

  16.6

  16.4

  15.8

  17.1

  16.7

  Hampshire2

  17.6

  17.4

  17.1

  16.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pupil:Teacher Ratio
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the pupil: teacher ratio was in maintained secondary schools in each education authority in each year since 1979. [28848]

  Mr. Timms
  The table provides information for 1979, 1984, 1989, 1994 and each year from 1996 to 2001.
  1011W

  Pupil: Teacher ratio in maintained secondary schools by local education authority area, position in January each year

  2001

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  1996

  1994

  1989

  1984

  1979

  Haringey

  15.8

  15.4

  15.4

  14.7

  14.6

  14.6

  13.9

  12.8

  13.5

  16.0

  Harrow

  17.0

  16.8

  15.9

  15.9

  15.5

  15.6

  15.7

  15.3

  14.1

  14.9

  Hartlepool

  17.5

  17.9

  17.8

  18.0

  17.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Havering

  17.2

  16.6

  16.6

  16.4

  16.3

  16.2

  16.5

  15.2

  15.7

  17.0

  Hereford and Worcester1

  —

  —

  —

  18.0

  17.8

  17.7

  17.3

  16.6

  17.5

  17.6

  Herefordshire2

  17.1

  17.0

  17.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  16.7

  16.6

  16.3

  16.1

  15.9

  15.7

  15.7

  15.1

  16.1

  15.9

  Hillingdon

  17.0

  16.4

  16.3

  15.8

  16.2

  16.4

  16.4

  15.4

  15.7

  16.5

  Hounslow

  16.9

  17.2

  16.5

  16.2

  15.8

  15.8

  16.2

  14.4

  15.0

  15.9

  Humberside1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17.2

  17.5

  15.5

  16.2

  16.7

  Inner London Education Authority2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14.4

  13.3

  14.9

  Isle of Wight

  17.8

  18.1

  18.1

  18.5

  18.2

  18.1

  17.6

  16.4

  18.0

  18.6

  Isles of Scilly

  10.0

  8.8

  8.8

  8.4

  9.3

  8.1

  8.8

  7.8

  11.7

  11.3

  Islington

  15.9

  15.9

  16.0

  16.0

  15.7

  15.7

  15.4

  —

  —

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  15.2

  14.0

  14.3

  13.4

  12.9

  13.3

  12.5

  —

  —

  —

  Kent1

  —

  —

  —

  16.7

  16.3

  16.4

  16.7

  16.2

  17.1

  17.7

  Kent2

  17.4

  17.3

  16.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  18.7

  18.9

  18.6

  18.6

  18.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  16.9

  17.1

  16.7

  16.4

  16.6

  16.2

  16.0

  13.8

  16.2

  16.1

  Kirklees

  17.2

  17.4

  17.4

  17.5

  17.4

  16.8

  15.8

  14.7

  17.1

  17.7

  Knowsley

  16.2

  16.5

  16.6

  17.0

  16.6

  16.6

  16.9

  13.7

  15.3

  16.3

  Lambeth

  15.4

  15.2

  15.5

  14.7

  15.0

  14.4

  14.8

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire1

  —

  —

  —

  16.7

  16.7

  17.0

  16.1

  15.4

  16.4

  16.5

  Lancashire2

  16.9

  17.0

  16.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leeds

  16.8

  17.0

  16.9

  16.8

  16.9

  16.6

  16.0

  14.7

  16.4

  17.8

  Leicester

  16.7

  16.4

  16.3

  16.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17.2

  17.1

  16.4

  14.7

  16.0

  16.2

  Leicestershire2

  17.8

  17.9

  17.6

  17.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lewisham

  15.8

  15.6

  15.7

  15.6

  15.2

  15.2

  16.2

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  17.2

  17.1

  16.6

  16.2

  15.9

  15.9

  15.8

  16.2

  17.0

  17.0

  Liverpool

  16.2

  16.7

  16.8

  16.7

  16.7

  16.2

  15.9

  14.1

  16.3

  16.1

  Luton

  17.9

  17.3

  16.9

  16.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Manchester

  16.0

  16.0

  16.1

  16.1

  15.9

  15.5

  15.7

  13.4

  14.8

  14.9

  Medway

  17.3

  17.4

  17.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merton

  18.0

  17.8

  17.6

  17.0

  17.2

  17.2

  16.1

  15.7

  17.5

  17.6

  Middlesbrough

  16.2

  16.4

  16.5

  16.4

  16.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Milton Keynes

  17.3

  17.1

  16.7

  17.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  16.6

  17.0

  17.0

  17.1

  16.8

  16.9

  16.5

  14.3

  14.2

  14.7

  Newham

  15.8

  16.6

  16.4

  16.3

  16.3

  16.5

  17.1

  13.6

  14.1

  16.1

  Norfolk

  16.9

  16.6

  16.2

  16.1

  15.7

  15.6

  15.7

  15.4

  16.6

  17.6

  North East Lincolnshire

  18.8

  18.5

  18.2

  19.1

  17.9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Lincolnshire

  18.2

  18.7

  18.2

  18.1

  17.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Somerset

  17.6

  17.3

  17.0

  17.1

  16.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Tyneside

  16.5

  16.8

  17.2

  17.5

  17.2

  17.1

  17.0

  13.8

  14.5

  16.0

  North Yorkshire1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16.3

  16.0

  15.5

  16.4

  17.0

  North Yorkshire2

  16.6

  16.6

  16.7

  16.6

  16.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  17.4

  17.5

  17.4

  17.2

  16.8

  17.0

  16.6

  15.9

  16.5

  17.0

  Northumberland

  18.6

  19.0

  19.0

  19.2

  18.6

  18.5

  18.1

  16.2

  17.3

  17.5

  Nottingham

  16.1

  16.7

  16.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire1

  —

  —

  —

  17.4

  17.3

  16.7

  15.8

  14.6

  15.8

  16.8

  Nottinghamshire2

  17.5

  17.9

  17.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Oldham

  15.7

  15.9

  16.0

  16.1

  16.0

  15.9

  15.6

  14.9

  17.0

  17.6

  Oxfordshire

  17.8

  18.1

  18.3

  18.0

  18.1

  17.9

  16.8

  16.1

  17.2

  17.9

  Peterborough

  17.2

  17.1

  16.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Plymouth

  17.1

  17.5

  —7.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Poole

  16.8

  17.1

  16.9

  16.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Portsmouth

  17.9

  17.8

  17.8

  17.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Reading

  16.0

  16.2

  16.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Redbridge

  16.7

  16.8

  16.7

  16.7

  16.5

  16.2

  16.6

  15.4

  16.0

  17.1

  Redcar and Cleveland

  16.5

  17.2

  17.5

  17.4

  17.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Richmond upon Thames

  18.4

  17.9

  16.2

  16.6

  17.0

  16.5

  16.9

  15.6

  16.3

  17.0

  Rochdale

  17.1

  17.2

  16.9

  16.9

  16.7

  16.9

  16.9

  14.0

  15.0

  15.4

  Rotherham

  16.6

  17.1

  17.2

  17.4

  17.2

  17.0

  15.8

  14.8

  16.7

  17.2

  Rutland

  17.1

  17.0

  16.8

  17.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Salford

  16.3

  16.8

  16.7

  16.3

  16.4

  16.5

  16.6

  13.3

  15.5

  15.8

  Sandwell

  16.7

  16.6

  16.5

  16.6

  16.8

  16.5

  15.9

  13.7

  15.4

  15.8

  Sefton

  16.3

  16.7

  16.7

  16.4

  16.3

  16.4

  16.4

  16.0

  16.4

  17.2

  Sheffield

  17.3

  17.6

  17.6

  17.7

  17.3

  17.5

  16.5

  14.8

  15.6

  16.4

  Shropshire

  17.3

  17.0

  16.8

  16.6

  16.5

  16.5

  16.1

  15.1

  16.2

  16.8

  Slough

  16.5

  16.4

  16.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Solihull

  17.7

  17.9

  17.5

  17.4

  16.8

  16.6

  16.4

  15.4

  16.8

  16.1

  Somerset

  18.5

  18.6

  18.4

  18.1

  18.0

  18.0

  16.6

  15.8

  17.6

  18.5

  South Gloucestershire

  16.7

  17.0

  17.0

  16.9

  16.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1012W 1013W

  Pupil: Teacher ratio in maintained secondary schools by local education authority area, position in January each year

  2001

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  1996

  1994

  1989

  1984

  1979

  South Tyneside

  17.7

  17.3

  17.4

  17.5

  16.9

  16.8

  17.0

  14.0

  14.9

  16.0

  Southampton

  16.3

  16.7

  16.5

  16.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southend-on-Sea

  16.8

  16.9

  16.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southwark

  16.4

  16.2

  15.8

  15.9

  15.8

  16.2

  17.0

  —

  —

  —

  St. Helens

  16.1

  16.1

  15.9

  16.0

  15.6

  15.6

  15.3

  13.5

  15.6

  16.2

  Staffordshire1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17.7

  17.6

  17.5

  15.9

  16.3

  16.7

  Staffordshire2

  17.6

  17.9

  17.9

  18.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stockport

  16.7

  17.2

  17.5

  17.3

  16.9

  16.6

  16.4

  14.7

  16.4

  17.3

  Stockton-on-Tees

  17.3

  17.2

  17.5

  17.3

  17.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stoke-on-Trent

  17.4

  17.6

  17.5

  17.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  17.1

  16.9

  16.6

  16.5

  16.6

  16.5

  16.2

  16.6

  16.9

  18.1

  Sunderland

  16.1

  16.4

  16.5

  16.5

  16.3

  16.1

  16.1

  14.5

  16.2

  16.7

  Surrey

  17.6

  17.3

  17.1

  16.9

  16.9

  16.6

  16.8

  15.2

  16.4

  16.2

  Sutton

  17.6

  17.6

  17.0

  17.0

  16.8

  16.6

  16.9

  16.0

  17.1

  17.3

  Swindon

  17.2

  17.8

  18.0

  17.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tameside

  17.5

  17.4

  17.6

  17.6

  17.8

  17.8

  17.4

  15.3

  15.9

  16.5

  Telford and Wrekin

  16.8

  17.0

  16.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thurrock

  18.9

  18.5

  18.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Torbay

  17.0

  17.0

  17.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  16.1

  16.3

  16.0

  15.8

  15.9

  15.2

  14.2

  —

  —

  —

  Trafford

  16.7

  16.9

  16.3

  16.4

  16.7

  16.6

  16.2

  14.5

  16.6

  16.5

  Wakefield

  18.1

  18.4

  18.1

  17.4

  16.9

  16.4

  16.3

  15.1

  17.3

  18.0

  Walsall

  16.7

  16.6

  16.6

  16.5

  16.3

  16.2

  15.8

  13.6

  14.9

  15.8

  Waltham Forest

  15.8

  16.0

  15.7

  15.6

  15.6

  15.8

  15.9

  12.5

  13.7

  14.7

  Wandsworth

  15.8

  16.1

  16.1

  15.7

  15.5

  15.9

  14.7

  —

  —

  —

  Warrington

  17.0

  17.4

  17.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  17.2

  17.2

  17.2

  17.4

  17.4

  16.8

  16.1

  15.7

  17.1

  16.9

  West Berkshire

  16.6

  16.5

  16.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Sussex

  17.0

  17.2

  16.9

  16.9

  16.8

  16.6

  16.5

  16.1

  17.0

  18.1

  Westminster

  15.0

  15.1

  15.0

  15.2

  14.9

  15.2

  15.5

  —

  —

  —

  Wigan

  16.5

  16.5

  16.5

  16.3

  16.0

  16.0

  15.8

  13.5

  15.3

  15.8

  Wiltshire1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17.0

  16.8

  16.7

  15.6

  17.0

  17.7

  Wiltshire2

  17.5

  17.9

  17.7

  17.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  17.5

  17.3

  17.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wirral

  16.1

  16.5

  16.4

  16.4

  16.2

  16.2

  16.3

  15.4

  16.1

  17.1

  Wokingham

  16.6

  16.9

  17.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wolverhampton

  16.4

  16.6

  16.4

  16.1

  15.9

  16.1

  15.4

  13.6

  14.8

  15.6

  Worcestershire

  18.3

  18.5

  18.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  York

  16.6

  16.9

  16.7

  16.2

  16.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ENGLAND

  17.1

  17.2

  17.0

  16.9

  16.7

  16.6

  16.4

  15.3

  16.2

  16.7

  1 Before local government reorganisation

  2 After local government reorganisation

  3 No schools of this type

  Information cannot be provided for all the years requested in the time available.

  PFI
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the costs and benefits of using private finance initiatives to improve and upgrade the school buildings in each local education authority in England; and if she will make a statement. [29197]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: Local education authorities (LEAs) are responsible for the local strategic management of the school estate. This responsibility includes the need to ensure best value when making investment decisions. When considering major investment in school buildings, one of the options that authorities should consider is the private finance initiative. Where an LEA decides, following an options appraisal, that it wishes to pursue the use of PH, it will submit an outline proposal to my Department. If, following evaluation against published criteria, provisional support is received to develop an outline business case, the
  1014W
  authority must demonstrate that PFI represents a better value for money solution than a conventionally procured alternative.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many local education authorities have put in place private finance initiative capital projects since May 1997; if she will list each such local education authority and the size of each capital project; and if she will make a statement. [29199]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the list of current projects, regularly published by my Department, via the Teachernet website at www.teachernet.gov.uk/schoolsprivatefinanceinitiative. This provides details of the numbers and PH credit allocations for private finance initiative capital projects undertaken by local education authorities.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her policy is on encouraging local education authorities to use PH contracts to upgrade school buildings; and if she will make a statement. [29200]
  1015W
  John Healey
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: The use of PFI contracts to upgrade school buildings is one of a number of funding options available to local education authorities. If an authority wishes to develop a PFI project, it must first make preliminary proposals to the Department, which are assessed against published criteria. Although the Department currently allocates each year around £850 million PM credits, we are not able to support all of the proposals put forward. The proposals which best match the published criteria receive provisional support at this stage.

  Projects are not formally approved until a full Outline Business Case (OBC) has been submitted to the Treasury-chaired Project Review Group. This OBC must include a public sector comparator (PSC). It is a condition of approval that the proposed PFI solution must

  Specialist schools—selection by aptitude

  School

  LEA

  Specialism

  School's status

  Percentage of pupils selected on aptitude

  Archbishop Blanch School

  Liverpool

  Technology

  Voluntary Aided

  5.6

  Archbishop Temple School

  Lancashire

  Technology

  Voluntary Aided

  10.0

  Bohunt School

  Hampshire

  Language

  Foundation

  10.0

  Brentwood Ursuline Convent School

  Essex

  Arts

  Voluntary Aided

  10.0

  Chaucer Technical School

  Kent

  Technology

  Foundation

  1100.0

  Chestnut Grove School

  Wandsworth

  Arts

  Community

  16.0

  Cornwallis School

  Kent

  Technology

  Foundation

  10.0

  Deacon's School

  Peterborough, City

  Technology

  Foundation

  15.0

  George Spencer GM School

  Nottinghamshire

  Technology

  Foundation

  10.0

  Heathside School

  Surrey

  Technology

  Foundation

  4.0

  Hockerill Anglo European School

  Hertfordshire

  Language

  Foundation

  10.0

  Intake High School

  Leeds

  Arts

  Community

  10.0

  Lodge Park School

  Northamptonshire

  Technology

  Foundation

  10.0

  Lynn Grove VA High School

  Norfolk

  Technology

  Voluntary Aided

  15.0

  Mill Hill County High School

  Barnet, LB of

  Technology

  Foundation

  10.0

  Ninestiles School

  Birmingham

  Technology

  Foundation

  10.0

  Oakbank School

  Bradford

  Sports

  Foundation

  10.0

  Oldfield School

  Bath and NE Somerset

  Sports

  Foundation

  10.0

  Philip Morant School

  Essex

  Technology

  Foundation

  15.0

  Sandwich Technology School

  Kent

  Technology

  Foundation

  10.0

  Small Heath School

  Birmingham

  Technology

  Foundation

  10.0

  St. Margaret's C of E High School

  Liverpool

  Technology

  Voluntary Aided

  15.0

  St. Martin's School

  Essex

  Technology

  Foundation

  10.0

  St. Marylebone School (The)

  Westminster

  Arts

  Voluntary Aided

  10.0

  Wye Valley School (The)

  Buckinghamshire

  Sports

  Community

  10.0

  1 Up to

  Notes:

  1. This information was taken from progress reports submitted by 403 schools in December 2000. Progress reports for schools operational as of September 2000 have been received but the information from these has not yet been collated.

  2. The 1998 School Standards and Framework Act provides for schools with a specialism to select up to 10 per cent. of their intake on the basis of aptitude for a specialist subject prescribed in regulations. Prior to the 1998 Act schools had greater discretion over aptitude selection and this accounts for the percentages above 10 per cent.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assistance the Technology Colleges Trust is giving to schools seeking specialist status; how many grants have been facilitated by the trust in order to help schools to meet the £50,000 threshold of specialist status since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [29198]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: The Technology Colleges Trust is an independent charitable trust grant-aided by the Department to advise schools in drawing up applications, and through its work in promoting the Specialist Schools Programme attracts sponsorship to support individual school's applications.
  1016W
  demonstrate better value for money than the PSC, as well as satisfy various other criteria necessary to demonstrate the viability of the project.

  Selection
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many specialist schools are exercising the provision in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to select up to 10 per cent. of pupils by aptitude in relevant subjects; if she will list such schools; and if she will make a statement. [29205]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: On the basis of the latest collated information, 25 specialist schools are selecting a proportion of their pupils by aptitude in the relevant subjects. Details are given in the following table. Most of these schools were selecting by aptitude prior to the 1998 Act.

  Detailed information on grants facilitated by the Technology Colleges Trust is not readily available and can be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, we do have an analysis of applications for Arts, Technology and Language status in June and October 1999, and March 2000, which shows that of the 238 applications submitted 88 applicants included sponsorship facilitated through the Technology Colleges Trust.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what further research she has commissioned in order to evaluate the effects on school performance of specialist school status; and if she will make a statement. [29206]
  1017W
  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: For Excellence in Cities (EiC) areas there is an element of work about specialist schools within the research about the impact of EiC policies being carried out by the National Foundation for Educational Research. Research on the impact of specialist schools was commissioned by the then DfEE from Leeds university and the London school of economics and was published in 2000. Last October Ofsted published a report on the progress of specialist schools. Professor David Jesson will shortly be preparing an analysis of educational outcomes of specialist schools in 2001 on behalf of the Technology Colleges Trust and I expect this to be published in the spring.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the members she has appointed to public bodies in the last 12 months. [27885]

  Tessa Jowell
  In the last 12 months, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and I made 121 public appointments and reappointments to public bodies as detailed. This does not include appointments to bodies sponsored by my Department where my role is to advise on appointments made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or, through him, by Her Majesty the Queen.

  Advisory Committee on the Government Art Collection

  Dr. Richard Dorment

  Advisory Committee on Historic Wrecks Sites

  Dr. Mark Redknap

  Alcohol Education and Research Council

  Professor Ilana Crome

  Peter Harraway

  Angela Gaye Pedlow

  John Bennett

  Robin Davidson

  Henry Fairweather

  William Rae

  Elizabeth Thom

  Richard Velleman

  Arts Council of England

  Gerry Robinson

  Deborah Bull CBE

  Hilary Strong

  Anish Kapoor

  Joanne MacGregor

  British Library

  Lord Eatwell

  Ian Millar

  John Ritblat

  Simon Olswang

  1018W
  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Lord Dubs

  Lady Warner

  David Boulton

  Strachan Heppell CB

  Sally O'Sullivan

  Kathleen Worrall

  CABE

  Sophie Andreae

  The Community Fund

  Richard Martineau

  Elaine Appelbee

  Paul Cavanagh

  Lorne MacLeod

  James Strachan

  Jeff Carroll

  English Heritage

  Andrew Fane

  Professor David Cannadine

  Jane Grenville

  Leslie Sparks OBE

  Professor Lola Young OBE

  Film Council

  Tim Bevan

  Sarah Radcyffe

  James Lee

  Professor John Hill

  Ian Smith

  Football Licensing Authority

  Clive Sherling

  Kenneth Culley

  Dr. Judith Fisher

  Trevor Hobday

  Professor Jan Wright

  Gaming Board for Great Britain

  Peter Dean CBE

  Roy Penrose OBE, QPM

  Historic Royal Palace

  General Sir Roger Wheeler

  Angela Heylin OBE

  Jane Sharman OBE

  Dr. Simon Jones LVO

  Horserace Betting Levy Appeals Tribunal for England and Wales

  Brian Waters

  Horserace Betting Levy Board

  Robert Hughes CBE

  Horserace Totalisator

  Lord Lipsey

  Horniman Museum

  Professor Kenneth Gregory

  Independent Television Commission

  Sir Robin Biggam

  Baroness Janet Whitaker

  Alistair Balls CB

  Sir Michael Checkland

  Chitra Bharucha

  Dr. Michael Shea CVO

  1019W
  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester

  Professor Laurie Wood

  National Lottery Commission

  Harriet Spicer

  Timothy Hornsby

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  Christopher Green

  Professor Gordon McGregor Reid

  Gillian Reynolds

  Professor John Tam

  Earl of Derby

  Viscountess Mersey

  NESTA

  Lord David Puttnam CBE

  Dr. Yvonne Barnett

  Professor Sir Chris Evans OBE

  Dame Bridget Ogilvie

  Yasmin Anwar

  Graham Ross Russell

  Francois Matarasso

  Baroness Genista McIntosh

  Paul Daniel

  Professor Janice Kirkpatrick

  New Opportunity Fund

  Baroness Pitkeathley

  Professor Eric James Bolton CB

  Barbara Stephens

  David Carrington

  Professor John Patmore CBE

  Dugald Mackie

  Sian Griffiths

  Polly Hudson

  Geoffrey Thompson MBE

  Jill Barrow

  Breidge Gadd CBE

  David Campbell

  Public Lending Right Advisory Committee

  Dr. James Parker

  Public Lending Right Registrar

  Dr. James Parker

  Radio Authority

  Thomas Prag

  Geraint Talfan Davies

  Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art

  Sir John Guinness CB

  Johnny Van Haeften

  Royal Armouries

  Ann Green

  S4C

  Christopher Llewellyn

  Eira Davies

  Sport England

  Tessa Sanderson OBE

  Brigid Simmonds

  1020W
  Treasure Valuation Committee

  Professor Norman Palmer

  Thomas Curtis

  Mary Sinclair

  Dr. Arthur MacGregor

  Dr. Jack Ogden

  Theatres Trust

  Sir John Drummond CBE

  Sir Stephen Waley-Cohen

  John Muir

  Martyn Heighton

  UK Sport

  Sir Rodney Walker

  Tanni Grey-Thompson OBE

  Zahara Hyde Peters

  Adrian Metcalfe OBE

  Gavin Stewart

  Yorkshire and Humber Regional Cultural Consortium

  Clive Leach CBE.

  ITC/BBC Appointments
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many names were on the shortlist she received from the panel from which she had to propose a deputy-chairman of the ITC; if she will make a statement on the process by which she chose a name to propose following her receipt of the shortlist; and if she took into account the political views of the people on the shortlist received from the panel; [29412]

  (2) how many names were on the shortlist she received from the panel from which she had to propose a vice-chairman of the BBC; if she will make a statement on the process by which she chose a name to propose following her receipt of the shortlist; and if she took into account the political views of the people on the shortlist received from the panel. [29413]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: Both the process for the appointment of the BBC Vice-Chair and the process for the appointment of the ITC Deputy-Chair complied with the guidance issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. This provides that all public appointments should be governed by the overriding principle of selection based on merit and that political activity is not a criterion for appointment. In the interests of confidentiality, it is not our policy to release information about individual shortlists.

  Horse Racing
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if it is her policy to ensure that the racing industry is not financially disadvantaged by the end of the current levy scheme for racing; [30030]

  (2) if it is her policy that the determination of the future of a racing levy scheme will establish a long term commercial relationship between racing and the betting industry. [30031]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on 21 January 2002,Official Report, columns 625–26W.

  Redgrave-Pinsent Lake
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the projected completion date is for the Redgrave-Pinsent lake at Caversham; and when the athletes will be able to use the training water at the lake. [29820]

  Mr. Caborn
  The 2,200 metre rowing course at Caversham is expected to be completed in time for Amateur Rowing Association (ARA) training in autumn 2003.

  Sport England has offered the ARA the opportunity to train on approximately 1,000 metres of the lake in the winter 2002, during construction.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what targets she intends to set to reduce underspend of National Lottery proceeds. [29838]

  Mr. Caborn
  Around 92 per cent. of the National Lottery Distribution Fund balance is already committed to projects, and money is drawn down from the fund when it is needed and not before. The Department is working closely with the distributing bodies to reduce the distribution fund balance, so that more projects will benefit more quickly from the money the lottery raises for good causes. Distributors are collectively expecting a decline in the balance to £1.6 billion by March 2004.

  Football
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what agreement she has reached with the Football Association on the appointment of new directors to WNSL. [29836]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Football Association and Sport England announced on 15 January 2002 that they are to reconstitute and restructure the board of WNSL. This is in line with the way forward identified in the interim report of Patrick Carter's review of the English National Stadium (HC479).

  Tourism
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she intends to restore a marketing role to the English Tourism Council. [29837]

  Dr. Howells
  Tomorrow's Tourism did not give English Tourism Council a role to market England. However, in the light of events last year and consultations my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had with senior industry representatives, we are reviewing the options for stimulating better co-ordination of the public and private sector funds currently spent on marketing tourism in England.

  Public Service Broadcasting
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list(a) broadcasting companies and (b) other organisations to which her Department has recently written consulting about the definition of public service broadcasting; and if she will place a copy of the consultation letter in the Library. [30010]
  1022W
  Dr. Howells
  My officials had informal discussions with ITV Network Ltd., SMG Television, Granada Media Group, Carlton Television, Channel 4 Television Corporation and Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd., as the leading commercially funded public service broadcasting organisations and companies, about implementation of the proposals on self regulation and backstop powers set out in Chapter 5 of a New Future for Communications. I shall develop my proposals on these matters, to be published in the forthcoming draft Communications Bill, in the light of these and other discussions. I am arranging for copies of the letters to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses in advance of these discussions.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 180W, if he will place the Action Plan referred to in the Library. [26563]

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

  Letter from Mike Isaac to Mr. Mark Todd, dated 23 January 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply.
  Mr. Smith is unavailable, therefore I am writing to you on his behalf.
  You have asked pursuant to his Answer of 19 December 2001, Official Report, column 180W if the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will place the Action Plan referred to in the Library.
  I have arranged for a copy of the Child Support Agency Audit Assurance Action Plan to he placed in the Library.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Benefit Payments (Lewes)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in the Lewes constituency on income support claimed this benefit for(a) less than three months, (b) three to six months, (c) six to 12 months, (d) one to two years and (e) more than two years, in (i) May 1997 and (ii) May 2001. [27520]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: The available information is in the table. The data are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are subject to a degree of sampling error. Figures of less than 500 are subject to a high degree of sampling variation and should only be taken as a guide.

  Income support recipients in the Lewes parliamentary constituency by duration—May 1997 and Mar 2001

  Duration of claim

  May 1997

  May 2001

  Under 3 months

  200

  300

  3 to under 6 months

  200

  100

  6 months to under 1 year

  300

  300

  1 year to under 2 years

  400

  500

  2 years and over

  2,400

  2,300

  All cases

  3,500

  3,500

  1023W
  Note:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are subject to a degree of sampling variation. Figures of less than 500 are subject to a high degree of sampling variation and should only be used as a guide.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 100.

  3. Based on constituency boundaries as at May 1997.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, May 1997 and May 2001.

  Benefits (Disabled People)
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has had on developing a system of benefits easily accessible to those with mental as well as physical disabilities; and if he will make a statement. [28134]

  Maria Eagle
  Disability living allowance and attendance allowance provide a contribution towards the extra costs faced by severely disabled people. Entitlement to these benefits is not based on specific mental or physical disabilities, but depends upon the need for help with personal care, supervision and (in the case of disability living allowance) mobility difficulties which arise from such disabilities. This means that the benefits are already accessible to people with mental or physical disabilities, or a combination of both.

  We are exploring, with the help of representatives from disability organisations, whether extra-costs disability benefits could be based on a range of activities of daily living rather than just the care and mobility tests. We are currently in the process of testing a model based on daily living activities with the help of volunteers who a have recently claimed disability living allowance or attendance allowance.

  CFS/ME
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans the Benefits Agency has to review procedures for assessing applicants for disability benefits for sufferers of CFS/ME. [29917]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department for Work and Pensions recognises the chronic fatigue syndromes (including ME) as potentially debilitating illnesses. The rules of disability benefits, and the guidance given to those who make decisions on entitlement, as well as those doctors who assist in gathering evidence and interpreting it, already take account of this.

  We have no plans to review current procedures for handling claims for disability benefits specifically for applicants who suffer from chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalitis.

  Housing Benefit
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how current spending on housing benefit is divided between(a) local authority, (b) housing association, (c) privately rented and (d) other categories of accommodation. [29918]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the table.
  1024W

  Forecast housing benefit expenditure, 2001–02

  £ million

  Rent rebates (local authority tenants)

  5,361

  Rent allowance—registered social landlord tenants

  3,385

  Rent allowance—private tenants

  2,932

  Total

  11,677

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest £ million and are consistent with, and underlie, the forecasts published in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report, November 2001.

  2. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  3. The figure for rent allowance paid to social landlord tenants includes housing association and non-housing association accommodation. Separate data on rent allowance paid to housing association tenants only are not collected.

  Source:

  Estimated out-turn expenditure calculated using actual caseload information

  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many households are in receipt of housing benefit. [29932]

  Malcolm Wicks
  3,854,000 households in Great Britain were in receipt of housing benefit at August 2001, the latest date for which information is available.

  Notes:

  1. The data refer to households claiming housing benefit which may be a single person, a couple or a family. More than one benefit household can live in one property, for example two or more adults in a flat or house share arrangement.

  2. Figures for any non-responding authorities have been estimated.

  3. The figures exclude any extended payment cases.

  4. Figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload count taken in August 2001.

  Job Seeker's Allowance
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people claimed job seeker's allowance in the Uxbridge constituency in each September since 1997. [28533]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Randall, dated 18 January 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question regarding the number of people claiming job seeker's allowance (JSA) in the Uxbridge constituency in each September since 1997. (28533).
  The claimant count consists of all people claiming JSA or NI credits at Employment Service local offices. They must declare that they are out of work, capable of, available for and actively seeking work during the week in which their claim is made.
  The information is given in the table below.
  1025W

  Claimant count level (not seasonally adjusted)—in the Uxbridge Parliamentary Constituency

  Date

  Number

  September 1997

  1,321

  September 1998

  1,021

  September 1999

  968

  September 2000

  749

  September 2001

  679

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Access to Children
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what amendments the Government are seeking to the September 2001 text of the draft Council regulations on the mutual enforcement of judgments on rights of access to children; and if it is the Government's policy that this Council regulation should take legal effect. [29532]

  Mr. Wills
  The proposal referred to was an initiative of the French presidency in July 2000, to which substantial amendments were made during the Belgian presidency, and it is expected that it will be subsumed into the recent Commission proposal on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matters of parental responsibility.

  Parental Responsibility
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what amendments the Government are seeking to the September 2001 proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matters of parental responsibility; and if it is the Government's policy that this Council regulation should take legal effect. [29531]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government support the underlying aim of this proposal—namely, to extend the principle of mutual recognition to all decisions on parental responsibility by establishing a clear and coherent set of rules for attributing jurisdiction, and putting in place arrangements for co-operation between the courts and central authorities of the member states. The Government are concerned to ensure that negotiations take full account of the operation of the 1980 Hague Convention on Child Abduction. Negotiations are still at an early stage, and it is too early to assess whether the proposal should be adopted by Ministers and incorporated into national legislation.

  Child Abduction (Hague Convention)
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the actions that the Government may take to further the implementation and financing of the conclusions and recommendations of the March 2001 Meeting of the Special Commission to Review the Operation of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. [29530]
  1026W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We will continue to work with the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference and with other States Parties to the Convention in order to take forward the work resulting from the Special Commission. The Final Report on the Special Commission is expected shortly, and the Permanent Bureau is planning to complete its Final Report on Transfrontier Access/Contact in May 2002.

  In addition to our standard contribution to the Hague Conference, which this year amounts to £70,514, we have made a grant of £14,452.85 to the Permanent Bureau in the current financial year, in order to assist them in carrying forward their work on children conventions. We have also subscribed a further £5,000 towards the costs of maintaining and developing the International Child Abduction Database (INCADAT).

  The UK sent a delegation of senior judges and officials to a conference arranged by the Permanent Bureau at De Ruwenberg in October 2001 at which judicial co-operation and good practice in central authorities were discussed. France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United States were also represented. The Permanent Bureau has begun work on producing a Good Practice Guide, and we will continue to support this.

  The Permanent Bureau is currently considering whether to recommend the convening of a follow-up Special Commission later this year, in order to continue work on good practice, on transfrontier contact and on judicial co-operation. If the Special Commission takes place, the United Kingdom will send a delegation.

  The Permanent Bureau also now issues questionnaires to newly acceding member states and we will take this into account in considering whether to accept their accessions in relation to the United Kingdom.

  We are also providing encouragement and support to countries considering whether to join the convention. My officials have taken part in a conference of southern African countries considering child abduction and other child protection issues in London this week, and I attended and addressed the conference on 23 January.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the level of arrears of payments of fines imposed by magistrates courts in England and Wales. [28966]

  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.

  Arrears is described as the total of missed lump sums or missed instalments on impositions where deferred payment was allowed. The total amount of money owed to the courts at the end of September 2001 which was in arrears was £224,694,570.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Urban Regeneration
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what schemes targeting urban regeneration needs are managed by her Department; how much each scheme has available to invest; what issues each scheme aims to tackle; and how much has been spent annually since 1997(a) in the United Kingdom, (b) in Teesside, (c) in Redcar and Cleveland and Middlesbrough councils and (d) in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency. [25477]

  Alun Michael
  Regional development agencies, in partnership with the Countryside Agency, have been given the task of managing a programme aimed at the regeneration of small rural towns. Expenditure details are not yet available but £37 million was allocated to the programme for the period 2001–02 to 2003–04.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will respond to the letter of 6 July 2001 from the hon. Member for Sunderland, South concerning the Environmental Protection Act 1990. [26121]

  Mr. Morley
  A response to my hon. Friend's letter of 6 July was sent on 3 January 2002. I apologise for the delay in replying.

  Foot and Mouth
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the approximate total market value of animals killed because of foot and mouth disease; and what the total paid in compensation was; [24392]

  (2) what was the total cost of valuations for animals culled in the foot and mouth epidemic that were in excess of perceived market value. [26023]

  Mr. Morley
  The levels of compensation paid to farmers whose animals were culled as a result of foot and mouth was determined in accordance with schedule 3 to the Animal Health Act 1981. Most valuations were made by independent valuers appointed by DEFRA who were instructed to determine the market value of culled livestock and the remainder were based on standard values published by the Department. The total paid in statutory compensation for slaughtered animals is £1,079,500,000.

  The Department has not published an assessment of the total market value of animals killed because of FMD. The statistics which the Department will publish in "Agriculture in the UK" in March 2002 will show the impact of FMD on the value of the industry's assets.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many sheep have been slaughtered since the last case of foot and mouth was diagnosed in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [27621]

  Mr. Morley
  5,780 sheep have been slaughtered since the last case of foot and mouth was diagnosed in the United Kingdom on 30 September 2001. These sheep 1028W
  came from 21 flocks (2,067 from one premises) and were culled as dangerous contacts as a result of returning sero-positive blood samples.

  Note:

  Figures subject to revision as more data become available.

  Source:

  DCS database as at 16 January 2002.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much meat from countries where foot and mouth disease is present was imported into the United Kingdom in 2001; and if she will list the countries involved. [27892]

  Mr. Morley
  The table details UK imports of meat from FMD susceptible species1 between January and November 2001 from countries where FMD is present.

  1 Cattle, sheep, pigs, goats and reindeer

  Product/country

  Total (tonnes)

  Meat of bovine animals and sheep1

  Argentina

  5,453

  Botswana

  10,258

  Brazil

  75,680

  Namibia

  7,538

  South Africa

  282

  Swaziland

  15

  Zimbabwe

  4,581

  Total—meat and meat products (bovine and sheep)

  103,807

  1 There were no imports of pigmeat, goatmeat or reindeer meat from the specified countries between January and November 2001

  European Community legislation permits the importation of meat from certain countries where FMD is present but only where the disease is restricted to specific areas. Imports are permitted either from parts of the country that are free of disease or under strict conditions that ensure the meat does not come from any animal that may have come in contact with FMD before, during or after slaughter.

  All meat imported from third countries must be accompanied by veterinary certification. This must confirm that the meat is derived from animals which have been subjected to a veterinary inspection during the 24 hours prior to slaughter and showed no signs of FMD.

  All meat imported into the UK from third countries must enter at designated UK border inspection posts (BIPs) where it is subject to veterinary inspections.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will ensure that extra costs associated with the showing of animals, and precautions against foot and mouth disease, will not be passed on to county shows. [28812]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 January 20021: Responsibility for taking the necessary biosecurity measures, to ensure that shows can be conducted without increased risk of disease spread, will rest with the organisers and participants.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if agricultural shows will remain exempt from the 20 day standstill period imposed as a result of foot and mouth disease unless the foot and mouth disease situation deteriorates. [28811]
  1029W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: Detailed arrangements for agricultural shows are currently being drawn up. Essentially the 20 day standstill will not be triggered provided that the animals attending shows are individually identified and kept in isolation before and after each one.

  Farmers Compensation
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what compensation is paid to farmers whose applications are wrongly assessed by her Department. [28365]

  Mr. Morley
  Compensation in the form of interest may be paid to applicants where three criteria are met. These are that the Department was entirely at fault, it was entirely due to an administrative error and it could have been avoided.

  Tenant and Hill Farmers
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to concentrate financial support to help tenant and hill farmers. [28360]

  Alun Michael
  Within the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP), the hill farm allowance provides specific support to hill farmers. The hill farm allowance will be reviewed this year in the context of the mid-term evaluation of the ERDP. Ministers are keeping the position of tenant farmers under review.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the cost of installing(a) detectors and (b) staff to eliminate the illegal import of meat into the United Kingdom. [28114]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: We are considering a number of initiatives aimed at improving our ability to prevent and detect illegal imports of meat into the UK. No decisions have been taken to install new X-ray machines, although this is one of the options we are examining. We are also looking at improved intelligence to better target enforcement activity. Detailed costings will depend on what measures are decided, how they are to be targeted and what use can be made of existing resources.

  Inland Waters
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the difficulties facing councils in getting access to inland waters in England and Wales. [27715]

  Alun Michael
  We have made no such assessment. Last month we published the findings of research establishing the facts about water-based sport and recreation. The report "Water-based Sport and Recreation" identified the powers available to local authorities to give people greater access to inland water for open-air recreation. We are looking at what action we may need to take in the light of the research report. Copies of the report are available in the Library.

  Combinable Crops
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of combinable crops are grown from farm saved seed in the UK, broken down by crop. [28253]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department does not collect information on the use of farm saved seed.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government will take to ensure that conventional seeds grown in the UK will remain free of GM contamination if GM crops are added to the National Seed List. [28252]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are participating in discussions in Brussels on Commission proposals to amend the EU seed marketing directives to control the adventitious presence of GM events in conventional seeds. When EU measures are adopted, these will be implemented in the UK. Meanwhile, the Central Science Laboratory continues to audit seed companies. The audits check that companies have taken appropriate precautions against the adventitious presence of GM events in conventional seeds that will be sold to farmers and growers.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government will take to ensure that non-GM and organic crops will remain below the proposed 1 per cent. threshold if GM crops are included on the National Seed List. [29504]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are exploring with interested parties the terms on which GM and non-GM crops might co-exist, recognising that this needs to be resolved before there is any possibility of GM crops being grown here commercially. Commercialisation will not occur before the farm scale evaluations have been completed, even if GM varieties are included on the National Seed List.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what factors were taken into account in the siting of a GM trial at Lower Hordley, Shropshire. [27743]

  Mr. Meacher
  A site in Hordley, Shropshire was selected last year to take part in the farm scale evaluations of autumn-sown GM herbicide tolerant oil seed rape. The evaluations are being conducted under an agreement between the farming and biotechnology industry body (SCIMAC) and the Government. The progress of the evaluations is being overseen by the independent Scientific Steering Committee (SSC), which includes experts from academia and conservation organisations. SCIMAC finds locations for the evaluations programme. These are then checked, assessed and selected against scientific criteria, which includes crop history, agronomy and measures of biodiversity, by the independent researchers undertaking the field study. The distribution of locations is finally approved, on scientific grounds alone, by the SSC. They have recommended that a geographical spread of sites be obtained that is representative of regional differences in crop distribution and the range of current farming methods, biodiversity
  1031W
  and production intensities throughout Britain. The Government are not involved in the process of selecting FSE sites.

  GM Trials
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much the Government have spent on GM trials in the past five years. [27741]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are funding two research programmes which aim to provide information on the consequences, if any, for agriculture and the environment of growing certain genetically modified herbicide tolerant (GMHT) crops. The Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs) programme is a three-year programme allowing independent researchers to study the effect that the management practices associated with GMHT crops might have on farmland wildlife, when compared with weed control used with non-GM crops. The Botanical and Rotational Implications of Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerance (BRIGHT) project aims to determine the agricultural implications of GMHT crops and produce management information for their sustainable production.

  The costs of the FSE programme and BRIGHT project met by Government are:

  Project

  £

  FSEs1

  5,123,265

  BRIGHT2

  235,521

  Total

  5,358,786

  1 To end March 2002

  2 To end March 2002

  IACS Payments
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason the IACS payment due to be paid by 31 January is being withheld; and if she will make a statement. [27954]

  Mr. Morley
  The RPA expects to be able to pay the vast majority of Arable Area Payment Scheme (AAPS) claims within the regulatory time frame, which ends on 31 January. However, because of the processing time that has been lost due to industrial action, (which was suspended on 11 January), it is likely that more claims than usual will be carried over into February. Every effort will be made to keep this to the absolute minimum. As at 16 January 81 per cent. of AAPS claims have been passed for payment.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers in Wiltshire applied for assistance under the IACS scheme in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001; and of these how many have been paid. [28834]

  Mr. Morley
  989 IACS (Arable Area Payment Scheme) applications were received from farmers in Wiltshire in 2000 and 983 have been paid.

  The figures for 2001 are 979 IACS applications of which 562 have been paid. 2001 applications are still being processed.

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to bring into force section 57 and schedule 6 to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. [28581]

  Alun Michael
  Section 57 introduces schedule 6 to the Countryside and Rights of way 2000, which contains a wide range of provisions relating to the creation, stopping-up and diversion of highways. These provisions require the enactment of detailed secondary legislation to bring them into effect.

  I intend to implement those new measures that relate to the closure or diversion of rights of way on the basis of crime prevention and pupil and teacher safety ahead of the other provisions in schedule 6. I will be issuing a consultation paper on these shortly. The crime prevention measures will be restricted to areas designated by the Secretary of State for this specific purpose.

  Public consultation on the other schedule 6 provisions is planned for early next year.

  Radioactive Waste
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) levels and (b) amount of stock piled radioactive waste is held in the UK from (i) civilian and (ii) military establishments. [28755]

  Mr. Meacher
  Using data from the 1998 UK Radioactive Waste Inventory the amounts of waste (expressed in conditioned form) are as follows:

  Units = m3

  Civil

  Military

  HLW

  700

  —

  ILW

  70,000

  2,700

  LLW

  4,700

  1,200

  Organic Fruit Growers
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much the Government have spent in assistance to organic fruit growers in the past five years. [27742]

  Mr. Morley
  Aid is available for the conversion of land to organic farming and free advice is available to farmers through the Organic Conversion Information Service. Statistics are not available specifically on payments to organic fruit growers as the data are collected by reference to general land type.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 21 and 22 January; what the Government's position was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [30374]

  Margaret Beckett
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture Council meeting on 21 January in Brussels. The council held initial debates on commission
  1033W
  proposals concerning potato starch quotas and animal health requirements governing the movement of pet animals. I welcomed both proposals and, on the latter, stressed the importance of having rules safeguarding against the risk of importing rabies that were fully based on scientific advice.

  The council agreed unanimously to permit Portugal to pay a state aid to pig producers to offset the repayment of aids paid illegally in 1994 and 1998. In consenting to this I expressed grave concern at the council's increasing tendency to approve aids which, particularly in sensitive sectors such as pigmeat, could undermine the integrity of the Single Market.

  The council also received a report from Commissioner Byrne on the commission's progress in negotiating veterinary and phytosanitary equivalence agreements with third countries, notably in relation to the Mercosur countries and Chile. I welcomed this but called upon the Commission to ensure all Mercosur countries complied with existing obligations to permit imports of milk products and bovine semen from all EU countries.

  Community Vibrancy
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which organisation initiated the idea of an indicator of community vibrancy; whose decision it was to publish a list of communities' vibrancy; and if she will make a statement. [29681]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Agency worked with the Rural White Paper team during development of the set of headline indicators published in the Rural White Paper. Indicator 15 Community vibrancy, under the theme A Vibrant Countryside was to measure"% of parishes in four categories (vibrant, active, barely active, sleeping) assessed on numbers of meeting places, voluntary and cultural activities, contested parish elections."

  The purpose of the indicator is to measure on a national basis the trend over time.

  The list of communities' vibrancies was made available to Members of Parliament through the House of Commons Library after the information was requested in a parliamentary question by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on 28 November 2001, Official Report, column 1018W. The list had not been previously published as it represents work in progress for the headline indicator as simply a broad measure at the national level.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which organisation devised the criteria for an indicator of community vibrancy; what consultation there was with individual communities in advance of the publication of this information; and what opportunity there is for communities to dispute their classification after publication. [29682]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Agency published interim results from its own interpretation of community vibrancy based on three 'classes' in its State of the Countryside Report 2001. The indicator was based on interim findings of the 2000 Rural Services Survey and 1034W
  the State of the Countryside report recognised some limitations with the indicator, stating that these findings largely reflect the 'critical' mass of population needed to enable the community activity opportunity to become viable or functional. The indicator does not reveal the extent to which smaller settlements and parishes are able to take up community activities in neighbouring parishes. Further, communities in all size of parish may exhibit community vibrancy in other ways than those assessed here.

  Consultation was not done directly with individual communities. However the scoring system used for the sub-set of parishes analysed was contained in the State of the Countryside Report 2001. Following this publication, the Countryside Agency received no comments on the components of the scoring system. The indicator is still in development and the scoring was adapted to meet the four classes used in the RWP headline indicator.

  Individual parish scores were not intended to be published, but used within an overall indicator based on returns submitted through the Rural Services Survey parish questionnaire to all rural parish clerks during autumn 2000. Some forms were interpreted differently or inadequately completed and, to date, the indicator has used these returns as the sole basis. The indicator is thus based on a standard national measure for 2000. For future work, the Countryside Agency is looking at ways of improving the collection and robustness of data to inform our indicator. This will include working with DEFRA, National Association of Local Councils and bodies such as rural community councils.

  The Countryside Agency recognises some shortcomings in the data and it is not intended for any listing of parishes to be used for targeting funding or similar policy initiatives. The Countryside Agency intends to look at the whole issue again through consultation on the methodology, rather than amending individual classifications. Differing views over individual classifications are inevitable but the Countryside Agency would prefer to address these in a review of the indicator rather than on a case-by-case basis. In particular, the naming convention of the groups may be reconsidered to more accurately reflect the underlying information.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the survey results of the questionnaire sent out to parish and town council clerks by the Countryside Agency in advance of its classification of communities according to the indicator of community vibrancy. [29683]

  Alun Michael
  The survey results of the questionnaire sent to parish and town council clerks has been published on the Countryside Agency's website at www.countryside.gov.uk/ruralservices/index.htm

  Community Energy Programme
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when bids will be invited under the Government's new Community Energy programme. [30735]

  Mr. Meacher
  The opening 'Pathfinder' bidding round for the £50 million Community Energy programme is being launched today. We expect to allocate around
  1035W
  £5 million under this initial round for schemes that will provide carbon savings; help to alleviate fuel poverty among householders, and reduce fuel costs for hospitals, universities and other community buildings.

  I am placing copies of the programme documentation in the House Library.

  PIU Energy Review
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what format a1036W
  further period of consultation following the publication of the PIU energy review will take. [128981]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The PIU have yet to publish their report and may make recommendations for taking the report forward. As such, Ministers have not yet decided the format of any consultation follow up to the report.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Advertising
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the advertising campaigns which he and his predecessors have commissioned since May 1997, showing for each(a) its objectives, (b) its beginning and end dates, (c) the media used, (d) criteria adopted to judge its effectiveness, (e) the extent to which effectiveness criteria were met, (f) agency involvement and (g) its cost. [26660]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: For details of the costs of my Department's advertising campaigns, the media used and effectiveness, I refer the hon. Member to the reply by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 20 December 2000, Official Report, columns 168–69W.

  Final outturn figures for 2000–01 and provisional outturn figures for major advertising campaigns in 2001–02 and advertising agencies involved are:

  £ million

  Expenditure

  Campaign

  Agencies

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Road Safety

  AMV/BDDO; D'Arcy

  7.8

  9.5

  Fire Safety

  Euro

  2—

  2.9

  traveline

  RKCR/Y&R

  0

  1.7

  Foot and mouth public information

  Ogilvy

  0

  1.2

  Are you doing your hit?

  AMV/BBDO

  5.6

  3—

  1 Provisional

  2 Home Office responsibility

  3 DEFRA responsibility

  Activity on road and fire safety is ongoing and objectives are to reduce deaths and injuries. Advertising to support traveline commences in March 2002. Objectives are to increase awareness and promote use of the line. The foot and mouth public information campaign ran during March/April 2001 and provided guidance for visitors to the countryside. "Are you doing your bit?", launched in March 1998, was designed to motivate individuals to take simple actions to protect the environment.

  Number Plates
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the new Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) regulations will allow European number plates with a national identifier in the UK. [27411]

  Mr. Spellar
  Motorists will be able to make a choice. They will be able to display either the European circle of stars with GB as the UK national identifier or they will be able to display one of the four flags, (Union Jack, Cross of St. George, Saltaire or Welsh Dragon) with any one of a number of identifiers, for example UK or GB, "Eng" for England, "Sco" for Scotland or "Cym" for Wales.

  Starter Home Initiative (Probation Officers)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if probation officers are counted as key workers for schemes set up under the Starter Home Initiative in London. [27859]

  Ms Keeble
  A wide range of workers, including probation officers, are eligible for help under the Starter Home Initiative, although priority is being given to teachers, police, nurses and other essential health workers. Among those benefiting from round one of the initiative in London are social workers, fire fighters and transport workers. None of the successful bids in London targeted probation officers. The second round of funding of £20 million is being allocated to housing hot spots outside London.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many regulatory impact assessments have been produced by his Department since August 2001; and if he will list those produced(a) following initial consultation with affected parties about the most appropriate methodology for assessing costs and other impacts and (b) which set out full commercial impacts, including profitability, employment, consumer prices and competitiveness, as recommended in "Good Policy Making". [28411]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) on 17 January 2002,Official Report, column 483W.

  Slam-door Trains
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which he would delay the phasing out of slam-door trains. [28556]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the provisions of the Railway Safety Regulations 1999. These require the removal of Mark I rolling stock unless the Health and Safety Executive make an exemption. Under section 6(2) of the regulations there is a requirement on the HSE to consult on any exemptions they propose.

  Council Tenants
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage real terms increase in each year he predicts for formula rents for council tenants in each individual local authority until 2011. [28368]

  Ms Keeble
  In 2002–03, we predict that the average rate of increase in real terms for formula rents for council tenants will be 1 per cent. Taking into account the policy that Registered Social Landlord rents increases should be limited to RPI plus 0.5 per cent. a year, it is likely that average council rents will have to rise by about an average of about 1.5 per cent. a year in real terms over the next 10 years to achieve Ministers' intention that similar rents should be charged for similar council and housing association properties by 2012. This is about half the average rate of council rent increases over the last 10 years.
  1039W
  However, the precise path of social rents over the next 10 years will depend, among other things, on the outcomes of future Spending Reviews and the decisions taken by individual landlords who retain responsibility for rent setting.

  Clean Fuels
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number and percentage of(a) cars, (b) buses and (c) lorries which (i) run on LPG or similar clean fuels and (ii) are adapted to run on conventional and clean fuels. [28579]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are estimated to be around 50,000 LPG cars in the UK. Motorists are converting to LPG at an increasing rate, with the number expected to increase by about 25,000 over the next year, prompted by the Government grants available, and the fact that low-cost LPG fuel is now available in all areas of the country.

  DVLA data provide more disaggregated information on alternative fuel use as follows:

  Vehicle class

  Dedicated gas

  Percentage of total fleet

  Bi-fuel

  Percentage of total fleet

  Cars/LGVs

  1,375

  0.005

  23,622

  0.01

  Buses

  74

  0.08

  66

  0.07

  Trucks

  202

  0.05

  25

  0.006

  But this understates the number of vehicles because not all conversions to alternative fuelling are notified to DVLA.

  DVLA statistics do not distinguish between liquified petroleum gas (LPG) and natural gas vehicles. However, cars and light commercial vehicles tend to use LPG, while heavier vehicles use natural gas.

  Although DVLA does not keep statistics on the number of battery electric cars, my Department estimates that

  Housing benefit and council tax benefit best value performance indicators

  Indicator1

  Average

  Top quartile

  Median

  Bottom quartile

  76 Security—whether authority has written and pro-active strategy for combating fraud and error (Yes/No)

  89% Yes

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  77 Average cost of handling HB/CTB claim

  £82.39

  £102.00

  £75.25

  £51.00

  78a Average time for processing new claims

  50 days

  35 days

  45 days

  60 days

  78b Average time for processing notifications for changes of circumstance

  23 days

  10 days

  18 days

  31 days

  78c Percentage of renewal claims processed on time

  71

  90

  75

  57

  79a Percentage of case for which the benefit calculation was accurate

  93

  97

  95

  92

  79b The Percentage of recoverable overpayments (excluding council tax benefit) that were recovered in the year

  95

  70

  61

  48

  1 Numbers refer to the BVPIs published in Best Value and Audit Commission Performance Indicators for 2000–01 available on www.local-regions/dtlr.gov.uk//bestvalue/indicators/indicatorsindex/htm

  Note:

  Details of the final outturn performance data for 2000–01 will be available shortly on the same website.
  1040W
  there are approximately 400 of these in the UK. In addition, DVLA statistics show that there are 484 hybrid petrol/electric cars.

  Train Overcrowding
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he last discussed with the SRA overcrowding on trains. [28662]

  Mr. Spellar
  Ministers and officials from my Department have regular meetings with the Strategic Rail Authority to discuss all aspects of service provision.

  London Underground
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many and what percentage of(a) Metropolitan and (b) Piccadilly line trains departed at least five minutes late from Uxbridge in each month in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2001. [28478]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is an operational matter for London Underground, who inform me that they do not hold the information requested in a readily available form and that it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Housing and Council Tax Benefits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how each local authority performed against the local government performance indicators on housing benefit and council tax benefit in the most recent year for which figures are available. [28393]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Details of the estimated outturn performance on housing benefit and council tax benefit for individual English authorities at 31 March 2001 is available on the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions website at: www.local-regions.dtlr.gov.uk/bestvalue/indicators/indicatorsindex.htm.

  The estimated overall performance of local authorities in England against each relevant best value indicator in 2000–01 was as follows:

  Trans-European Rail Networks
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with his European colleagues regarding retention of the identified trans-European rail networks within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [28747]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There have been no discussions about the TEN rail network in the UK. The Commission has published proposals to amend the guidelines governing the development of the TEN (Decision No. 1692/96), and we are about to publish a consultation document to consider the draft revisions. However, no substantial changes to the network in the UK are proposed.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many written representations he has received in the last 12 months expressing support for an elected regional assembly in the(a) South East, (b) Eastern region, (c) South West, (d) West Midlands, (e) East Midlands, (f) Yorkshire and Humberside, (g) North West and (h) North East, broken down by constituency. [29109]

  Mr. Byers
  The information is in the table:

  Region

  Number of written representations

  Number attributable to constituencies

  South East

  2

  Winchester

  1

  Fareham

  1

  East of England

  1

  Hitchin and Harpenden

  1

  South West

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  1

  0

  East Midlands

  0

  0

  Yorkshire and Humber

  1

  0

  North West

  5

  Salford

  1

  Burnley

  1

  North East

  13

  Wansbeck

  1

  It is not possible to give a definitive breakdown of constituencies as a number of these representations were from organisations as opposed to individuals.

  We have also received five written representations in favour of directly elected assemblies generally.

  Special Advisers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 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. [28911]

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

  Speed Cameras
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many speed cameras the Government have part-funded in the last two years; and how many lives are estimated to have been saved as a consequence. [29392]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government do not fund speed cameras. The cost of purchasing and operating cameras falls to the local authorities and police. Eight police force areas have been trailing a new funding system that allows some fixed penalty fine revenue to be netted-off and re-invested in speed camera operation. It is estimated that 109 fewer people were killed or seriously injured as a result of the increased enforcement in the trial areas. The new funding system is now available nationally and I fully expect, as more areas join, the numbers of those killed or seriously injured to decrease still further.

  Bus and Rail Journeys
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) bus and (b) rail journeys there were in each year since 1995; and if he will express the figures as an index using 1997 as the base. [29697]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Figures for bus journeys are collected by financial year. The table provides statistics from 1995–96 to 2000–01 and index numbers based on 1997–98 = 100.

  Bus and rail journeys in Great Britain

  Million

  Financial year

  Local bus

  Index

  National rail

  Index

  1995–96

  4,383

  101.2

  761

  90.0

  1996–97

  4,350

  100.5

  801

  94.7

  1997–98

  4,330

  100.0

  846

  100.0

  1998–99

  4,248

  98.1

  892

  105.4

  1999–2000

  4,281

  98.9

  931

  110.0

  2000–01

  4,309

  99.5

  957

  113.1

  Road/Rail Interface Risks
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made on the report from the Health and Safety Commission's working group on risks associated with road/rail interface since December 2001; if he will give a date for its publication; and if he will make a statement. [29580]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The report is progressing to schedule and I understand from the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) that it will be discussed by them on 12 February. It remains the hope of the HSC that its report will be available in the first quarter of 2002. I look forward to receiving the report when Ministers will consider any recommendations contained therein.

  Shenfield-Colchester Transport Links
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the costs and viability of(a) constructing an additional railway track between Shenfield and Colchester and (b) upgrading the equivalent stretch of the A12 to dual 3. [29624]
  1043W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The London to Ipswich Multi-Modal study will recommend a plan for transport in the London to Ipswich corridor over the next generation.

  Traffic Signs
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 January 2002,Official Report, column 204W, on traffic signs, (1) whether the conditions under which the 1989 Guildford Direction Signs Demonstration Project were conducted met the standards that are required for similar research undertaken by his Department today; [29719]

  (2) what lessons were learned from the Guildford Direction Signs Demonstration Project of 1989; [29718]

  (3) whether the Guildford Direction Signs Demonstration Project was conducted in a car park; [29720]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the academic rigour with which the 1989 Guildford Direction Signs Demonstration Project was conducted; and if he will publish it. [29721]

  Ms Keeble
  The Guildford Direction Signs Demonstration Project was used to trial a number of recommendations made in the report on the Direction Signs Review, published by the Stationery Office in 1987. The project was jointly administered by Surrey county council, Guildford borough council and the Department. It entailed the replacement of 420 directional signs across the town and its approaches with new versions. None of the work was carried out in car parks.

  A number of ideas were tested, including improvements to the system of colour-coding routes to emphasise their status. This and other features illustrating good practice were incorporated in the revised Traffic Signs Regulations that followed in 1994 and in departmental guidance to highway authorities.

  The project was carried out to standards similar to those which would apply to a comparable project today, with close involvement of the Department's own specialists. I have no reason to question the rigour with which the work was conducted. Descriptions of the project written by some of the individuals who took part were published in the technical press (Highways and Transportation Journal July 1989 and February 1990).

  Housing Associations (Right to Buy)
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to extend the right to buy scheme to housing associations. [29651]

  Ms Keeble
  We have no plans to extend the right to buy scheme further to housing association tenants.

  Pre-1988 secure tenants of non-charitable housing associations already have a right to buy and tenants of former local authority stock which has transferred to registered social landlords have a preserved right to buy. In addition, under the Housing Act 1996, eligible tenants of registered social landlords have a right to acquire their rented home.

  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) of 16 January 2002,Official Report, columns 336–37W, if he will require UK airline companies to supply copies of the Government's pamphlet, "Advice on Travel Related Deep Vein Thrombosis", to passengers on long distance flights. [29805]

  Mr. Jamieson
  UK airlines are aware of the health advice recently published by the Government and I understand they are using a variety of means to communicate that information to their passengers. At present the Government have no plans to require the airlines to provide health information in a specific format, but we are in contact with them to ensure that they provide their passengers with relevant advice in the most appropriate form, particularly that relating to deep vein thrombosis.

  Railway Signals
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many signals on railways in(a) Britain and (b) Oxfordshire are illuminated by oil lamps; and if he will make a statement. [29738]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not held centrally.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what sterling to euro exchange rate applies on tolls at the(a) Severn bridges, (b) Dartford crossing, (c) Humber crossing, (d) Mersey tunnels, (e) Tamar bridge and (f) Tyne tunnels. [29910]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are currently no legal requirements for any of the mentioned undertakings to accept any currency other than sterling. Therefore, exchange rates are not fixed and are subject to change at the operators' discretion.

  Where they do accept payment in euros, each of the undertakings has a different method for working out the toll charged. Our calculation of the equivalent charges is:

  Euro to £1

  (a) Severn bridges

  1.67

  (b) Dartford crossings

  1.85

  (c) Humber bridge

  1.88

  (d) Mersey tunnels

  1—

  (e) Tamar bridge

  1.6

  (f) Tyne tunnel

  1.67

  1 Euros currently not accepted.

  Rail Incident (Abergavenny)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what investigations are to be undertaken into the incident on the railway line between Abergavenny and Cwmbran on 17 January; and if he will make a statement. [30160]
  1045W
  Mr. Jamieson
  A Railway Inspector from the Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) is investigating the circumstances of the rail incident at Abergavenny on 18 January.

  Transport Provision
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what effort he has made to ensure that service providers, employers and public transport users are involved in determining what constitutes adequate transport provision(a) in the UK and (b) in Teesside. [29972]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department issues many draft policy documents, consultation papers, revisions to regulations and guidance on transport, inviting comments and suggestions from all interested parties. For example, the Department is currently consulting on "Powering Future Vehicles: Draft Government Strategy" with responses due by 1 March 2002.

  In addition, local authorities have produced five-year local transport plans in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary of State. This guidance provides for full consultation at the local level. This applies equally to Teesside as it does to all English local authorities.

  In accordance with Planning Policy Guidance No. 11, regional planning bodies are required to produce regional transport strategies, again with full participation and consultation with all interested parties.

  The Department complies with the Cabinet Office code of practice on written consultation, which came into effect in January 2001. The code aims to increase the involvement of people and groups in public consultations, minimising the burden it imposes on them, and giving them a proper time—a standard minimum period of 12 weeks—to respond.

  Housing (Solihull)
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the anticipated density of the Cala Homes development in Solihull (appeal reference: APP/Q4625/AOI/1065304) exceeds the density recommended in PPG 3. [29902]

  Ms Keeble
  The appeal by Cala Homes (Reference APP/Q4625/A/01/1065304) related to an application for 78 apartments on a site of about one hectare at Church Hill road and Whitefields road, close to the town centre of Solihull. Paragraph 57 of PPG3 stresses that local planning authorities should avoid the inefficient use of land. The second bullet point of paragraph 58 states that local planning authorities should encourage development which makes more efficient use of land (between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare net) and the third bullet point advises authorities to seek greater intensity of development at places with good public transport accessibility such as city, town, district and local centres or around major nodes along good quality public transport corridors.

  The inspector allowing the appeal by a decision dated 31 December 2001 judged the site to be one to which the third bullet point applies. Consequently, the density would not exceed that recommended in PPG3.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many appeals have been received by the DSA over the past two years against the refusal to grant second trainee licences; how many of these have been(a) successful, (b) unsuccessful and (c) are still pending; and of those appeals which have been unsuccessful, if he will place in the Library a list of grounds on which appeals have been rejected. [30187]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In the two years ending 31 December 2001, there were 387 appeals made against the registrar's decision to refuse a second trainee licence; 282 cases were withdrawn by the appellant before the appeal was determined, generally because the appellant had completed the qualifying process before the appeal was considered; and 24 cases are still pending.

  In the remaining 81 cases, independent Appeals Boards recommended to the Secretary of State refusing the applications, citing one of two grounds for dismissing appeals. These were accepted by the Secretary of State.

  The first ground was that the purpose of a trainee licence was to afford a reasonable opportunity—normally six months—to prepare for the third part of the qualifying examination via experience working as an instructor. A trainee licence was not an alternative to registration, and must not be allowed to become so.

  The second ground was that the appellant had failed a third attempt at the third part of the qualifying examination, therefore the person would need to start the qualifying process from the beginning, and was not eligible to hold a trainee licence.

  Agriculture Industry
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps his Department is taking to improve health and safety within the agricultural industry; and if he will make a statement. [29998]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government and the Health and Safety Commission have set national targets for reducing work-related deaths, injury and ill health in Great Britain. The Commission has selected the agricultural industry as a priority programme where improvements are needed if the national targets are to be met.

  Details of the agriculture priority programme and the Health and Safety Commission and Executive's Programme of Work for improving health and safety in the agricultural sector are set out in the Commission's Strategic Plan 2001–04. Copies can be found in the Library of the House.

  Widford Bridge (Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the space to allow cars access that are under the weight restriction on the Widford Bridge in Chelmsford with respect to avoiding(a) undue hazard to motorists and (b) possible damage to vehicles; [29666]

  1047W
  (2) for what reason advance warning signs of (a) weight restrictions and (b) roadworks at the Widford Viaduct in Chelmsford on the (i) A12, (ii) A414 (formerly the A1016) and (iii) A414 from Harlow were not erected prior to the work commencing; [29670]

  (3) who has responsibility for posting advance warning signs about the (a) weight restrictions and (b) traffic works on the Widford Viaduct in Chelmsford; [29668]

  (4) what the earliest date is that work can commence on replacing the Widford Bridge; and if he will bring that date forward; [29672]

  (5) for what reason early advance warning signs at (a) weight restrictions and (b) roadworks at the Widford Viaduct in Chelmsford have not been erected on roads carrying traffic from (i) Ingatestone, (ii) Ongar, (iii) Witham and (iv) Boreham; [29671]

  (6) when advance warning signs of (a) weight restrictions and (b) road works at the Widford Viaduct in Chelmsford will be posted on the (i) A12, (ii) A414 (formerly the A1016) and (iii) A414 from Harlow; [29669]

  (7) what the total cost is of replacing the Widford Bridge in Chelmsford; and who will bear responsibility for the cost of the replacement work. [29673]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Widford Bridge is situated on the old A12 (now A1114) through Chelmsford. Chelmsford borough council manage the road on behalf of the Highway Authority, Essex county council, although pending its replacement, the bridge remains the responsibility of the Highways Agency.

  Because the bridge's condition has deteriorated, the agency has had to restrict to three tonnes the weight of vehicles using it. To achieve this, vehicle widths are restricted to 6 ft 6 in. The signing arrangements were designed for the borough council by the agency's design agents. The programming of the work to implement the width restriction and the installation of advance and permanent signing on the local road network are being organised by the borough council. All work is being carried out by the borough council's contractors although the Highways Agency is paying for it.

  A scheme to replace the bridge is currently expected to start in autumn 2003. The cost, which will be borne by the agency, is expected to be about £4.5 million. Given the large amount of detailed design and preparation work that needs to take place, and also taking into account the long lead in time necessary to carry out work over a busy railway line, this is the earliest date work can start.

  Housing (Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to make a decision on the transfer of Chelmsford borough council's housing stock to Chelmer Housing Partnership; and if he will make a statement. [29667]

  Ms Keeble
  The transfer of Chelmsford borough council's housing stock to Chelmer Housing Partnership is scheduled for Monday 11 March. The Secretary of State expects to decide whether to give consent to the transfer during the preceding week.

  Departmental Press Office
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what plans he has to reorganise the Press Office at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; and if he will make a statement; [29983]

  (2) what civil service procedures were followed in the interviewing and appointment of a new Head of Media at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; [29984]

  (3) when he expects to announce the appointment of a new Head of Media at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; [29985]

  (4) if he will list each meeting he has had since 1 December 2001 with the Director of Communications of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; and what was the subject of each meeting. [29982]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The appointment was announced on 21 January. It was made following an open competition for the post under the procedures in the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code.

  My right hon. Friend meets his Director of Communication on a regular basis to discuss relevant issues. Organisational matters within the Department are a matter for the permanent secretary, who consults my right hon. Friend in accordance with the practice of successive Administrations.

  Transport Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what the(a) public investment expenditure, (b) public resource expenditure and (c) private investment is for each year 2001–02 to 2010–11 broken down by (i) strategic roads, (ii) rail, (iii) local transport, (iv) London, (v) other transport areas and (vi) unallocated at (A) outturn prices and (B) 2000–01 prices; [29936]

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown of the (a) public investment expenditure, (b) public resource expenditure, (c) private investment, (d) public expenditure supporting private investment and (e) public spending from local charging revenue planned for each year 2001–02 to 2010–11 as allocated in the 10 year transport plan of July 2000, subdivided between (i) strategic roads, (ii) rail, (iii) local transport, (iv) London, (v) other transport areas and (vi) unallocated at (A) outturn prices and (B) 2000–01 prices; [30345]

  (3) if he will list the total public expenditure supporting private investment spent and planned for each year from 1997–78 to 2010–11 broken down by (a) strategic roads, (b) rail, (c) local transport, (d) London and (e) other transport areas at (i) outturn prices and (ii) 2000–01 prices. [29937]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information expressed in outturn prices requested in questions(b) and (c) is contained in Table A3 (page 99) of "Transport 2010: the 10-Year Plan". A copy of this was placed in the House Library when the plan was published in July 2000.

  All the other requested information is provided in tables A to E as follows.
  1049W

  10-Year Plan: Revenue support for private investment—Table A: Outturn prices

  £ million

  Strategic roads

  Railways

  Local transport

  London

  Other transport areas

  Total

  1997–98

  88

  1—

  0

  1—

  1—

  88

  1998–99

  131

  1—

  0

  1—

  1—

  131

  1999–2000

  205

  1—

  1

  1—

  1—

  206

  2000–01

  202

  1—

  0

  0

  0

  205

  2001–02

  206

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2002–03

  220

  12

  0

  0

  0

  232

  2003–04

  239

  50

  8

  0

  0

  297

  2004–05

  261

  101

  27

  28

  0

  417

  2005–06

  353

  187

  57

  29

  0

  626

  2006–07

  447

  337

  102

  29

  0

  915

  2007–08

  454

  430

  162

  30

  0

  1,076

  2008–09

  517

  531

  237

  33

  0

  1,318

  2009–10

  604

  633

  312

  48

  0

  1,597

  2010–11

  609

  726

  387

  50

  0

  1,772

  1997–98 to 2010–11

  4,536

  3,007

  1,296

  246

  0

  9,085

  Table B:2000–01 prices

  £ million

  Strategic roads

  Railways

  Local transport

  London

  Other transport areas

  Total

  1997–98

  94

  1—

  0

  1—

  1—

  94

  1998–99

  137

  1—

  0

  1—

  1—

  137

  1999–2000

  209

  1—

  1

  1—

  1—

  210

  2000–01

  202

  1—

  3

  1—

  1—

  205

  2001–02

  201

  0

  0

  0

  0

  201

  2002–03

  209

  11

  0

  0

  0

  221

  2003–04

  222

  46

  8

  0

  0

  276

  2004–05

  236

  92

  24

  26

  0

  378

  2005–06

  312

  165

  50

  25

  0

  553

  2006–07

  385

  291

  88

  25

  0

  789

  2007–08

  382

  362

  136

  25

  0

  905

  2008–09

  424

  436

  195

  27

  0

  1,081

  2009–10

  484

  507

  250

  38

  0

  1,279

  2010–11

  476

  567

  302

  39

  0

  1,384

  1997–98 to 2010–11

  3,973

  2,477

  1,057

  205

  0

  7,712

  1 Data not available

  10-Year Plan public expenditure and private investment—Table C: Public investments

  £million (2000–01 prices)

  Strategic roads

  Rail

  Local transport

  London

  Other

  Unallocated

  Total

  2001–02

  972

  245

  1,300

  591

  71

  0

  3,179

  2002–03

  1,073

  955

  1,469

  736

  70

  0

  4,302

  2003–04

  1,099

  2,106

  1,575

  881

  78

  0

  5,739

  2004–05

  1,122

  1,922

  1,742

  825

  56

  99

  5,766

  2005–06

  1,000

  2,343

  1,686

  661

  55

  116

  5,861

  2006–07

  1,113

  2,101

  1,798

  600

  54

  237

  5,903

  2007–08

  1,230

  1,016

  1,834

  589

  53

  1,393

  6,115

  2008–09

  1,380

  746

  1,797

  564

  51

  1,595

  6,133

  2009–10

  1,381

  749

  1,763

  559

  50

  1,807

  6,310

  2010–11

  1,363

  749

  1,743

  559

  49

  2,016

  6,478

  2001–02 to 2010–11

  11,733

  12,931

  16,706

  6,565

  587

  7,264

  55,786

  Table D: Public resource1

  £ million (2000–01 prices)

  Strategic roads

  Rail

  Local transport

  London

  Local charging revenue

  Other

  Unallocated

  Total

  2001–02

  420

  1,323

  2,719

  598

  0

  128

  0

  5,187

  2002–03

  434

  1,244

  2,736

  657

  0

  145

  0

  5,216

  2003–04

  466

  1,163

  2,735

  677

  0

  137

  0

  5,178

  2004–05

  485

  1,150

  2,717

  686

  123

  135

  0

  5,296

  2005–06

  486

  1,059

  2,693

  672

  239

  133

  0

  5,282

  2006–07

  430

  1,012

  2,671

  661

  260

  132

  0

  5,166

  2007–08

  439

  865

  2,640

  650

  275

  130

  0

  4,999

  2008–09

  421

  868

  2,621

  641

  297

  129

  0

  4,977

  2009–10

  404

  705

  2,596

  631

  314

  127

  0

  4,777

  2010–11

  410

  633

  2,575

  607

  302

  126

  0

  4,653

  2001–02 to 2010–11

  4,395

  10,023

  26,702

  6,478

  1,811

  1,322

  0

  50,731

  1 Excluding revenue support for private investment

  1050W 1051W

  Table E: Private investment

  £ million (2000–01 prices)

  Strategic roads

  Rail

  Local transport

  London

  Other

  Unallocated

  Total

  2001–02

  169

  3,566

  546

  704

  0

  0

  4,985

  2002–03

  212

  3,566

  642

  670

  0

  0

  5,091

  2003–04

  225

  3,517

  725

  610

  0

  0

  5,077

  2004–05

  136

  3,584

  781

  553

  0

  0

  5,053

  2005–06

  287

  2,791

  842

  926

  0

  32

  4,846

  2006–07

  366

  2,714

  905

  1,242

  0

  38

  5,226

  2007–08

  337

  2,621

  890

  1,373

  0

  77

  5,220

  2008–09

  246

  2,600

  858

  1,211

  0

  453

  4,915

  2009–10

  160

  2,606

  797

  1,002

  0

  519

  4,564

  2010–11

  156

  2,624

  777

  644

  0

  588

  4,202

  2001–02 to 2010–11

  2,294

  30,189

  7,762

  8,935

  0

  1,707

  49,180

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the public spending from local charging revenue planned for each year 2001–02 to 2010–11 is at(a) outturn prices and (b) 2000–01 prices. [29938]

  Dr. Whitehead
  English local authorities have reported receiving £6.5 billion in income from sales, fees and charges in 1999–2000 excluding the amounts paid into the housing revenue account and the capital account. More recent information is not yet available, and projections have not been made for future years.

  Planning Consents
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many planning consents have been granted on green belt land in each of the past 10 years. [30243]

  Ms Keeble
  The information requested is not held centrally by the Department and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  School Buses
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement about pilot studies being carried out into requiring traffic to stop for school buses. [29914]

  Ms Keeble
  As far as we are aware, there are no pilot studies being carried out into requiring traffic to stop for school buses. FirstGroup plc will shortly be starting pilots of American-style yellow school buses, but the pilots will not involve traffic being required to stop for the buses as it is required to do in the United States.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the liability of people in hospital to pay council tax. [29933]

  Dr. Whitehead
  During temporary stays in hospital, people remain liable for council tax at their normal addresses. However, when someone's main residence is a hospital, their previous home will be exempt from council tax if it is unoccupied.

  Railways (South-West)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement about the provision of extra resources for the improvement of railway facilities in the south-west. [29913]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Each individual rail project and improvements negotiated through franchise agreements will usually benefit more than one part of Britain. The SRA has therefore not attempted to break down its planned expenditure on a regional basis.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he plans to issue guidance on the environmental objectives which the Civil Aviation Authority must follow in exercising its air navigation functions. [30736]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I am today giving guidance to the CAA under section 70(2) of the Transport Act 2000 on environmental objectives for the authority in exercising its air navigation functions. While safety must always remain the paramount consideration, for the first time guidance is being given to the CAA on the Government's sustainable development strategy and environmental policies and how these relate to the authority's air navigation functions. It includes guidance on environmental problems commonly associated with aviation, including advice on best practice, noise mitigation procedures, and steps the authority should ensure are followed, including consultation, when changes to air navigation procedures become necessary that might have a significant effect on the environment. Links are made to the substantial body of guidance to regional and local planning authorities where there is a read across with air navigation procedures and the design of controlled airspace around larger airports. I have placed copies of the guidance in the Library.

  Planning Green Paper
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish his consultation document on the Use Classes Order that was promised in the Planning Green Paper. [30819]

  Ms Keeble
  We are today publishing a consultation document entitled "Consultation on possible changes to the Use Classes Order and temporary uses provisions"
  1053W
  This completes the series of consultation papers that together are designed to deliver a radical reform of the planning system.

  Planning permission is required for a material change of use. However, certain uses are so similar, for example in terms of noise, traffic, appearance and parking, that there is no obvious reason why planning permission for change of use from one to the other should be required. The Use Classes Order (UCO) excludes from planning control any change of use where both the existing and proposed use fall within the same class. The General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) provides further flexibility by classifying certain moves between the Use Classes as permitted development, so that a developer does not need to apply for planning permission.

  It is important that the Use Classes Order should be up to date and relevant and reflect current policy priorities. In our view, the order and related GPDO provisions should be constructed in a way which allows the maximum possible freedom from planning control consistent with delivering planning policy and wider objectives, including protecting amenity.

  The consultation document sets out a range of options for changes to the use class provisions and temporary use provisions. We will consider responses carefully before deciding on the most appropriate way forward.

  Copies of the consultation document will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Regional Planning Guidance
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when Regional Planning Guidance for the east midlands will be published. [30820]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Regional Planning Guidance for the east midlands (RPG8) is being published today.

  The RPG sets out the spatial development strategy that encompasses proposals for the development of the region's economy, infrastructure, housing and other land uses. The guiding principle is that the main urban areas and previously developed land should be the preferred locations for most development. RPG also sets out proposals for the conservation, management and enhancement of the region's natural and cultural environment.

  I am pleased that much of the format and content of RPG8, including the vision, objectives and core strategy, carries forward much of what was proposed in the original draft RPG prepared by the East Midlands Regional Local Government Association (EMRLGA). RPG8 reflects very effective working between EMRLGA, local authorities and other stakeholders, all of whom have made valuable contributions to refine and enhance the original draft strategy. It builds on the new inclusive process for preparing RPG that the Government have put in place. The RPG was prepared before our planning Green Paper proposals were announced in December. I look to the Regional Planning Body to take strategy forward and to monitor and review it in line with the regional planning principles set out in the Green Paper.

  Lord Birt
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many times he has met Lord Birt to discuss transport; [29314]

  (2) if Lord Birt will be considering the role of the taxi as part of his transport analysis; [29312]

  (3) what access to civil servants in his Department has been afforded to Lord Birt; [29316]

  (4) if he will arrange for Lord Birt, as part of his transport work, to make an extended study of the operation of the Circle Line. [29311]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Unitary Local Authorities
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage of the population is covered by unitary local authorities. [29299]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Mann, dated 24 January 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the percentage of the population who live within unitary authorities.
  The percentage of the population of England at mid-2000 who lived within unitary local authorities created under the Local Government Act of 1992 is 16.6%. All local authorities in Wales are unitary authorities.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people live within the recommended safe distance from nuclear power plants in the UK. [25251]

  Mr. Wilson
  There is no official recommendation relating to safe distances at which to live from nuclear power plants. All operators of civil nuclear installations in the UK are required to have emergency plans, as a condition of their site licences. These plans include a Detailed Emergency Planning Zone (DEPZ) around each site, defined in relation to the potential release of radiation from a reasonably foreseeable accident. The operators of UK civil nuclear power station sites have estimated that a total of 4,030 people are permanently resident within these DEPZs.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the potential future liabilities that the Government will incur owing to decommissioning in the nuclear industry; and if she will make a statement. [28920]

  Mr. Wilson
  At 31 March 2001 public sector civil nuclear liabilities—i.e. those liabilities for which UKAEA and BNFL are responsible—were estimated to be over
  1055W
  £42 billion. Liabilities estimates are reviewed annually by UKAEA and BNFL. Information is published in their annual reports and accounts.

  In her statement to the House on 28 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry outlined the nature the Government's plans for improving management arrangements and ensuring that the nuclear legacy is dealt with safely, efficiently and cost effectively. A White Paper will be published in the spring

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total level of Government financial support to the nuclear industry was in each year between 1980 and 1990, broken down by(a) research grants, (b) non-fossil fuel levy, (c) investment in BNFL facilities, (d) running costs of UKAEA and Ninex and (e) other sources. [27455]

  Mr. Wilson
  Funding to the UK nuclear industry in this period was provided primarily in the form of grant and grant in aid to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA). The funding enabled UKAEA to undertake civil nuclear research programmes and to discharge liabilities arising from past programmes.

  The sums provided were as follows:

  £ million

  Grant, and grant in aid

  1980–81

  158

  1981–82

  164

  1982–83

  215

  1983–84

  204

  1984–85

  196

  1985–86

  169

  1986–87

  163

  1987–88

  148

  1988–89

  247

  1989–90

  196

  Notes:

  Figures are taken from Government Expenditure Plans Reports, which until 1991 did not list separate funding for fusion.

  The non fossil fuel obligation and fossil fuel levy were first put in place in 1990 and therefore did not exist in the period in question. BNFL, like other companies, made various applications for and received funding under the first of the Government's Regional Development Grants schemes (RDG I) established under the Industry Act 1972 and the Industrial Development Act 1982. This scheme ended in 1984 and was replaced by a successor scheme (RDG II). BNFL did not receive any payments under the RDG II scheme. The Government's and BNFL's records relating to grants paid to BNFL under the RDG I scheme are no longer available.

  Government grants were reported in the source and application of funds statement (which, in accordance with the accounting conventions of the time, did not necessarily disclose actual cash flows) in BNFL's annual report and accounts as follows:

  £ million

  1980–81

  24.5

  1981–82

  30.6

  1982–83

  36.4

  1983–84

  40.7

  1984–85

  32.1

  1056W

  £ million

  1985–86

  18.5

  1986–87

  1

  1987–88

  Nil

  1988–89

  Nil

  1989–90

  Nil

  The costs of UK NIREX were met by subscriptions from its members (UKAEA, the Central Electricity Generating Board, South of Scotland Electricity Board and BNFL.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the status of the dismantling and decommissioning programme for the Windscale Number One Pile at Sellafield. [28522]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 168W.

  Nuclear Decommissioning
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will estimate the costs of(a) managing civil nuclear waste and (b) decommissioning civil nuclear facilities in each year since 1995; and if she will estimate the costs this year and in the remaining years of the current expenditure plan. [29699]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) on 17 December 2001,Official Report, columns 25–26W.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the cost to BNFL of decommissioning nuclear plants for which it has responsibility. [28740]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: BNFL's annual report and accounts state that decommissioning expenditure charged against provisions since financial year 1993–94 was as follows:

  £ million

  2001

  82

  2000

  76

  1999

  80

  1998

  10

  1997

  1

  1996

  1

  1995

  1

  1994

  7

  Prior to this date no decommissioning expenditure charged against provisions was disclosed in BNFL's annual report and accounts. Information on any such expenditure is not readily available and would require disproportionate time and cost to bring together.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the source of the figures for the number of fuel poor households which are not connected to the gas network given in paragraph 9.12 of the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy; what the definition is of fuel poverty used in this paragraph; what verification
  1057W
  of the figure has been carried out by (a) her Department and (b) independent bodies; and if she will make a statement. [25280]

  Mr. Wilson
  Paragraph 9.12 of the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy states that around 1.3 million people without a gas supply in Great Britain are thought to be in fuel poverty. This figure is a broad estimate derived from estimates for England (0.9 million), Scotland (0.3 million) and Wales (0.05 million) based on official data sources. The production of these figures, and the overall estimate, have been overseen by members of the Government Statistical Service.

  England

  It is estimated that in 1998 there were approximately 0.9 million households in England which were fuel poor and did not have mains gas in the home (the householder stated that there was no gas supply in the home). The source of this information was the 1998 Energy Follow Up Survey which was carried out by the Building Research Establishment on behalf of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. This figure has been derived under both main definitions of fuel poverty used in the Government's UK Fuel Poverty Strategy, set out as follows. There is a small difference (0.08 million) between the figures under these two definitions; however, both figures round to 0.9 million.
  (1) Fuel poverty defined as when a household needs to spend more than 10 per cent. of its income (including housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest) on fuel in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime;
  (2) Fuel poverty defined as when a household needs to spend more than 10 per cent. of its income (excluding housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest) on fuel in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime.

  A summary of the fuel poverty results from this survey is available at www.dti.gov.uk/energy/fuelpoverty/index.htm

  Scotland

  It is estimated that in 1996 there were approximately 320,000 households in Scotland which were fuel poor and did not have a mains gas supply in the home (i.e. there was neither a gas meter, nor a mains gas pipe in the home). This is the latest information available for Scotland. The source of this information is the 1996 Scottish House Condition Survey which is carried out on behalf of the Scottish Executive.

  The definition of fuel poverty which was used is that a household needs to spend 10 per cent. or more of income (including housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest) on all fuel use.

  Wales

  It is estimated that in 1997–98 there were approximately 50,000 households in Wales which were fuel poor and did not have a mains gas supply in the home. This is derived from information from the 1998 Welsh House Condition Survey which was carried out on behalf of the National Assembly for Wales. The estimate of fuel poverty in Wales is based on the number of households eligible for assistance through the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (222,000 in 1997–98). Figures are not currently available under definitions of fuel poverty, and this "eligibility measure" is used as a proxy.

  Electricity
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to ensure that Ofgem has adequate financial services expertise to monitor and prevent any collapse in the new electricity trading arrangements. [26600]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have asked Callum McCarthy, the chairman of Ofgem, to respond directly to the hon. Member on the issue. I will ensure that copies of the letter are placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the Energy Regulator's statement in favour of small generators and transmission losses from large remote power stations. [29491]

  Mr. Wilson
  The treatment of losses through transmission has been a long running issue in the electricity industry, the general consensus within the industry is that the current arrangements are not ideal. It will be important that any proposed change to the system carefully considers the effect on both small and large-scale generation, including remote sites.

  Icelandic Water Trawlermen's Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claimants under the Icelandic water trawlermen's compensation scheme have had payments reduced to take account of previously paid exgratia payments. [27629]

  Ms Hewitt
  Up to 11 January 2002 there were 2,606.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total amount is which has been deducted from the compensation paid under the Icelandic water trawlermen's compensation scheme as a result of previously paid exgratia payments. [27628]

  Ms Hewitt
  Up to 11 January 2002 the total amount was £5,887,609.

  Launch Aid
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason the conditions attached to the grant of launch aid are deemed commercially confidential. [28046]

  Mr. Wilson
  The conditions of Launch Investment are commercially confidential under exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The disclosure of the terms and conditions of Launch Investment would harm the commercial interests of the companies concerned.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the level of debt owing to the United Kingdom by overseas Governments as a result of arms sales for the years 1997 to 2002. [27216]

  Ms Hewitt
  The table shows future amounts due on guarantees, and unrecovered claims in respect of ECGD guarantees issued in support of defence business during
  1059W
  the financial years shown. The year of ECGD guarantee issue does not necessarily reflect the year that the equipment was sold.

  £ million

  Year

  Future amounts due on guarantees

  Unrecovered claims

  1997–98

  118

  5

  1998–99

  284

  0

  1999–2000

  508

  0

  2000–01

  1,893

  0

  2001–021

  10

  0

  Total2

  2,814

  5

  1 Pre 1 January 2002

  2 1 April 1997 to 1 January 2002

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by her Department in each of the last four years. [27955]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department has not carried out a full refurbishment of any buildings during the last four years. The capital costs of minor works, redecorations, maintenance and partial refurbishments in these years has been as follows:

  Financial year

  £ million

  1997–98

  2.28

  1998–99

  2.17

  1999–2000

  2.85

  2000–01

  2.70

  Wind Power
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what landscape criteria she applies in determining applications for wind power stations with an output greater than 50 MW. [28388]

  Mr. Wilson
  All relevant criteria set out in planning guidance and environmental assessment guidance are taken into account. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry also has a duty under Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act 1989 to have regard to the extent to which a person who formulates a proposal has complied with his duty of having regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty and do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect the proposal would have on the natural beauty of the countryside. In addition the views of the relevant local planning authority which will be familiar with the local terrain are also taken into account.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what approvals she has given to wind power stations with an output greater than 50 MW in the last 12 months; and what public consultation was undertaken in each case. [28389]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has approved in principle the application for a windfarm at Cefn Croes. Formal approval will be issued once the necessary planning conditions and planning obligations have been agreed.1060W
  The public were consulted on the application and their views were taken into account. There have been no other windfarm approvals.

  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the criteria used when deciding whether to erect wind farms apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. [29273]

  Mr. Wilson
  Decisions on wind farms or any other type of power station over 50 megawatts in England and Wales are handled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. In reaching her decision my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for will consider all relevant criteria set out in planning guidance and environmental assessment guidance. Other competent authorities responsible for authorising smaller power stations can be expected to apply similar criteria.

  Applications for power stations in Scotland and Northern Ireland are devolved matters. As a consequence the criteria are a matter for them.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the money paid out in industrial injuries compensation to former coal miners in the Easington constituency relating to chronic bronchitis and emphysema has been taken back by the compensation recovery scheme. [28351]

  Mr. Wilson
  There are 4,763 claims registered for compensation for respiratory disease in the constituency of Easington, to date. 1,227 interim payments have been made and 288 claims have been settled in full. £6.0 million has been paid in damages in this area.

  Compensation recovery legislation ensures that personal injury victims are not compensated twice for the same loss—once by the state and once by the compensator. So far, £82,635.82 has been paid to the Compensation Recovery Unit by the Department of Trade and Industry in respect of claims from Easington. None of this has been reclaimed from claimants' awards.

  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the Government have paid in lawyers' fees in respect of miners' compensation in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland since 1997. [28492]

  Mr. Wilson
  Since the Department assumed responsibility for British Coal's liabilities in January 1998, payments to solicitors, excluding trial costs, and disbursements total £64.2 million in England, £16.8 million in Wales and £6.3 million in Scotland.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many former miners in(a) St. Helens, South, (b) Merseyside and (c) England who have submitted compensation claims for (a) vibration white finger and (b) respiratory diseases have attended a medical assessment. [28701]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: In the time given, the Department is unable to provide a breakdown of claimants in St. Helens, South and Merseyside who have attended medical assessment. However, former miners with respiratory disease in these areas will be advised to go to centres at Wigan, Wrexham

  1061W
  and Manchester. Former miners with vibration white finger, VWF, will be advised to go to the centre at Manchester.

  The number of former miners who have undergone medical assessments at the centres mentioned is as follows:

  Number of former miners who have been medically assessed

  Centre location

  Number

  Respiratory disease

  Wigan

  923

  Wrexham

  237

  Manchester

  403

  England total

  16,841

  Vibration white finger, VWF

  Manchester

  2,318

  England total

  59,628

  Note:

  In addition, 23,508 claims by the estates of former miners have also been assessed. It is not possible to break down these figures by region.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average waiting time for former miners for a medical assessment appointment is in(a) St. Helens, South, (b) Merseyside and (c) England in connection with a claim for (i) vibration white finger and (ii) respiratory diseases. [28702]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: In relation to vibration white finger, VWF, the occupation group must first be identified before medical assessment can be made. The time from confirmation of occupation group to MAP appointment is as follows:

  Region

  Time to MAP as defined (days)

  (a) St. Helens, South

  38

  (b) Merseyside

  40

  (c) England

  67

  Before a claimant can attend an appointment to undergo the Medical Assessment Process, MAP, for compensation for respiratory disease, the recovery of the claimant's medical records must first be completed. Appointments are then made, with the most elderly and ill claimants receiving priority. Low priority claimants will not have an appointment booked if a higher priority claimant is available. In the time given, the Department is unable to provide an average timescale for the time from completion of records recovery to MAP appointment for England, but, given the comparatively small numbers of claims in these areas, a breakdown for St. Helens, South and Merseyside has been possible and is given in the table. The claims have been split into two categories for purpose of analysis:

  Merseyside

  St. Helens, South

  Category 1 claimants1

  Number of claimants

  430

  186

  Average waiting time (days)

  63

  66

  1062W

  Merseyside

  St. Helens, South

  Category 2 claimants2

  Number of claimants

  16

  5

  Average waiting time (days)

  38

  39

  1 Claims which have been assessed

  2 Claims which are un-assessed but with a future booked appointment

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and industry which solicitors are charging both the client and the Government for their services in dealing with the claims from miners suffering from respiratory diseases and vibration white finger. [29381]

  Mr. Wilson
  Solicitors are under strict professional and legal duties to inform their clients of the basis on which work is carried out, including the fee structure (Solicitors' Practice Rules 1990 and Solicitors' Costs Information and Client Care Code 1999). The Department has no sight of, or influence over, terms and conditions that claimants enter into with solicitors. It is the Department's view that, because it is covering solicitors' costs, the claimants should not be asked to make any payment towards costs.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice is being given to ex-miners about Government's payments to solicitors for each miner's compensation claim. [29391]

  Mr. Wilson
  Solicitors are under strict professional and legal duties to inform their clients of the basis on which work is carried out, including the fee structure (Solicitors' Practice Rules 1990 and Solicitors' Costs Information and Client Care Code 1999). The mining unions are also well aware that the Department covers solicitors' costs and will no doubt advise their members accordingly. The Department has made public on many occasions that claimants should not have to make a payment towards solicitors costs.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which 12 solicitors handle the largest number of compensation claims for miners suffering from respiratory disorders and vibration white finger. [29382]

  Mr. Wilson
  The 12 firms dealing with the largest numbers of respiratory disease and vibration white finger claims listed alphabetically are:

  1. Browell Smith and Co.

  2. Furley Page Fielding

  3. Graysons

  4. Hugh James

  5. Irwin Mitchells

  6. Mark Gilbert Morse

  7. O. H. Parsons

  8. Raleys

  9. Thompsons

  10. Towells

  11. Watson Burton

  12. Randell Saunders.

  These solicitors and their contact details are listed on the Department's website at www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth.
  1063W
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what statutory requirement there is for(a) claims handling companies and (b) solicitors to advise clients that the Government have an agreed handling fee for miners' compensation claims. [29359]

  Mr. Wilson
  Claims handling companies are unregulated and are not subject to the same duties as solicitors. Solicitors are under strict professional and legal duties to inform their clients of the basis on which work is carried out, including the fee structure (Solicitors; practice Rules 1990 and Solicitors; Costs Information and Client Care Code 1999). This would include the liability of any other party, in this case the Department, to meet the claimants' costs.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many solicitors are dealing with miners' compensation claims for respiratory diseases and vibration white finger. [29383]

  Mr. Wilson
  In relation to respiratory disease, there are approximately 270 firms dealing with compensation claims and about 210 firms processing vibration white finger claims. These are listed with contact details on the Department's website at www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth.

  Miners' Pension Fund
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of former miners who were working in Staffordshire in the 1980s lost their jobs but were not entitled payments from the pension fund. [29401]

  Mr. Wilson
  None. All former British Coal miners when reaching pensionable age, whether dismissed or not, are entitled to the pension benefits they have accrued whilst in employment.

  I announced on 11 December that certain miners dismissed during the 1984–85 strike, would receive an enhancement to their pension in recognition of the years of further service they lost as a result of British Coal's decision not to re-employ them.

  Hawk Jets
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Indian Government concerning the BAE Systems bid to supply Hawk jets; and if she will make a statement. [28302]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has had no discussions with the Indian Government concerning the BAE Systems bid to supply Hawk jets.

  Landscape Industry
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she supports the aims of the British Association of Landscape Industries to get their registration of landscape operatives affiliated to the Construction Industry Certification Scheme. [28012]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 18 January 2002]: The question of possible affiliation between the two schemes is one for the Board of the Construction Skills
  1064W
  Certification Scheme Ltd. to consider, together with managers of the British Association of Landscape Industries' scheme.

  However, given my ministerial responsibility for construction, I do welcome all efforts aimed at achieving greater collaboration in the industry with a view to improving standards of health and safety, and training standards generally. I am also keen that, wherever possible, the industry improves its working practices to allow greater flexibility for those that move between different sectors in the industry.

  I understand that discussions are taking place between the Chairman of CSCS Ltd., Anthony W. Merricks CBE, and the Vice Chair of BALI, David Spencer. If a satisfactory solution can be reached, and I understand that discussions are proceeding in a positive way, this would be welcomed.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the progress made on the roll-out of "Your Guide" to sub-post offices. [28679]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 18 January 2002]: My Department has provided £25 million funding for the pilot of "Your Guide" currently operating in Leicestershire and Rutland. The pilot was fully up and running by the end of August last year and will finish on 1 March this year. The results of the pilot will be fully evaluated and decisions on national roll-out will be based on the findings of the evaluation and on further work on funding and service design. Among other things the evaluation and associated work will establish the costs of implementing a "Your Guide" scheme nationally and will compare these with the benefits. Work on evaluating the pilot has already begun and a full evaluation should be completed by the end of June. Work on funding and the design of a national service will be progressed as far as possible in parallel with evaluation of the pilot so that firm decisions on a national scheme can be taken next autumn.

  Oil and Gas Directorate Posts
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of her Department's Oil and Gas Directorate posts were in(a) Aberdeen, (b) Glasgow, (c) London and (d) elsewhere, in 2001. [29478]

  Mr. Wilson
  The number of Oil and Gas Directorate posts located in(a) Aberdeen, (b) Glasgow, (c) London and (d) elsewhere, in 2001 is as follows:

  2001

  Aberdeen—84.5

  Glasgow—0

  London—96.6

  Elsewhere—0.

  This represents an increase of 12.2 posts in Aberdeen, and a decrease of 7.2 posts in London compared with the previous year.

  Overhead Transmission Lines
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent changes she has made to her policy on overhead transmission lines. [29576]
  1065W
  Mr. Wilson
  None.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she has taken to ensure that contractors working on the Lackenby to Shipton overhead transmission line will comply with legal and safety requirements. [29492]

  Mr. Wilson
  The relevant local planning authority is responsible for seeing that planning conditions are complied with. The enforcement of other statutory requirements falls to the relevant agencies.

  Electromagnetic Fields
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the World Health Organisation's policy of prudent avoidance to exposure to electromagnetic fields; and if she will make a statement. [29256]

  Mr. Wilson
  The World Health Organisation, in its publication "Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health—Extremely low frequency fields and cancer", Fact Sheet No. 263, October 2001, refers to certain precautionary measures that can be taken by Government, industry and individuals. Several of these measures are already in place in the UK.

  Regional Development Agencies (Partnership)
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-regional partnerships of regional development agencies are being established; and how many are business led. [29300]

  Alan Johnson
  Sixty-one sub-regional economic partnerships are either already in existence or are currently being established with the help of the regional development agencies. The RDAs will be working closely with the partnerships to deliver the regions' economic strategies. The majority are chaired by business people or have substantial business involvement in their boards, but all are expected to be fully representative of the public and private sectors.

  Energy Sources
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's targets are for(a) the proportion of the national energy portfolio that will be met by renewable sources by 2010 and (b) the proportion of nationally generated renewable energy sources that will be derived from onshore wind power generation by the same date. [29287]

  Mr. Wilson
  Our target is that, by 2010, 10 per cent. of UK electricity sales by licensed suppliers will come from sources eligible for the Renewables Obligation. This is subject to the cost to consumers being acceptable.

  While wind energy at both onshore and offshore installation can be expected to contribute significantly to the achievement of this overall target, the Government do not set targets for growth in each type of renewable energy generation. How each type will contribute to overall targets for renewable energy will be a matter for the market.

  Your Guide Scheme
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the expected time scale is for implementing the "Your Guide" scheme throughout the post office and sub-post office network; what the cost will be of implementing the scheme throughout the network; and what the average cost to each sub-post office business of introducing terminals to the "Your Guide" system will be. [28430]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: My Department has provided £25 million funding for the pilot of "Your Guide" currently operating in Leicestershire and Rutland. The pilot was fully up and running by the end of August last year and is not due to finish until 1 March this year. The results of the pilot will be fully evaluated and decisions on national roll-out will be based on the findings of the evaluation and on further work on funding and service design. Among other things the evaluation and associated work will establish the costs of implementing a "Your Guide" scheme nationally and will compare these with the benefits. Until work on the design of a national service is further advanced it will not be possible to estimate the cost of providing the necessary equipment to individual sub-post offices.

  A full evaluation of the pilot should be completed by the end of June. Work on funding and the design of a national service will be progressed alongside evaluation of the pilot so that firm decisions on a national scheme can be taken next autumn.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many officials from her Department have attended the Environmental Appraisal and Integration into Policy training course run by the Civil Service College. [28998]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: None.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many environmental appraisals have been published by her Department since 1 January 2001; and if she will list the last four. [28994]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: None.

  The last four self-standing environmental appraisals published by DTI are as follows:
  Enterprise, Skills and Innovation White Paper (February 2001)
  UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme (December 2000)
  Modernising the Framework of Utility Regulation (January and April 2000)
  The New Electricity Trading Arrangements (October 1999).

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what procedures her Department has to ensure environmental appraisals are undertaken prior to(a) administrative and (b) policy decisions being made. [28996]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: DTI's aim is to mainstream the environment—within the wider context of promoting sustainable development—into the Department's operational management and policy-making.

  To this end, DTI's Estates and Management Facilities Directorate run an Environmental Managements System accredited to ISO 14001 covering DTI's HQ buildings

  1067W
  This incorporates monitoring, control and regular audits to ensure the continued effectiveness of the system and to track progress towards targets.

  The effectiveness of DTI's procedures for environmental screening and appraisal of policies were reviewed last year by a member of the Foresight Environmental Appraisal Task Force and the Department's Internal Audit. Revised guidelines are being finalised which will be published on DTI's website.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the last occasion was on which she requested an environmental appraisal before making a policy decision. [28995]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: Where environmental considerations are relevant they form an integral part of policy advice to Ministers.

  Departmental Spending Review
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans her Department has to appraise the environmental implications of its spending review submission to the Treasury. [28997]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: In line with HM Treasury's guidelines, DTI will submit a Sustainable Development report (SDR) in which the Department will explain the sustainable development implications of the Department's proposals. As part of the spending review, the Department will also consider how its PSA targets relate to sustainable development and summarise how sustainable development has influenced the Department's priorities.

  Export Credits
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 103W, on the Export Credits Guarantees Department, what estimate she has made of the savings produced by refinancing; over what period of time she expects these to be realised and under which Vote; and if she will make a statement. [29692]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 18 January 2002,Official Report, column 508W.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the objections made by the Export Credits Guarantee Department to US proposals

  Market

  Exporter

  Buyer/airline/operating lessor

  Project

  Austria

  Airbus Industrie

  Austrian Airlines

  Airbus Aircraft

  Azerbaijan

  Rolls Royce

  Azerbaijan Hava Yollari

  Aero Engines

  Bahrain

  Airbus Industrie

  Gulf Air Company GSC

  Airbus Aircraft

  Barbados

  Angloco Ltd.

  Ministry of Finance & Economic Affairs, Barbados

  Fire Engines

  Barbados

  NSG Exports Ltd.

  Government of Barbados

  Public Service Vehicles

  Brazil

  Airbus Industrie

  TAM

  Airbus Aircraft

  Brazil

  Fairbank Brearley Ltd.

  Metallugica Tuzzi Ltda.

  Hydraulic Machinery

  Brazil

  VAI Industries (UK) Ltd.

  CIA Siderurgica Tubaro (CST)

  Steel Mill

  Brazil

  VAI Industries (UK) Ltd.

  Companahia Siderugica National (CSN)

  Rebuild of Blast Furnace

  Canada

  Airbus Industrie

  Air Canada

  Airbus Aircraft

  Chile

  Airbus Industrie

  Lanchile

  Airbus Aircraft

  China

  Airbus Industrie

  China Eastern Airlines

  Airbus Aircraft

  Croatia

  Aeromatic-Fielder Ltd.

  Pliva DD

  Pharmaceutical Production Line

  Croatia

  Airbus Industrie

  Croatia Airlines

  Airbus Aircraft

  1068W
  on greater transparency at the recently concluded OECD negotiations on common approaches to officially supported export credits and the environment. [29408]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: At the June 2001 meeting of the OECD Export Credit Group the USA rejected latest proposals of the common approaches recommendation as they did not "require" Export Credit Agencies (ECAs) to make public environmental impact information relating to projects being reviewed by ECAs before the ECA reaches its decision on supporting a project.

  ECGD would have been content to discuss this issue further and was successful with its proposal that the following wording should be included:
  "Members are expected to encourage project sponsors to make environmental impact information publicly available".

  Several of the country representatives stated that their domestic legislation prevented their ECA from making publicly available any information concerning applications for support. Several more made it clear that, at this stage, they could not consider publishing any information "prior" to making their decision on support. It was therefore apparent that a consensus could not have been achieved.

  Given the significance of the issues that could be agreed and the commitment to review the agreement by the end of 2003
  "to enhance it in the light of experience",
  ECGD concluded that this agreement was a good first step in order to cement the progress made.

  ECGD will be consulting about the timing of the publication of EIAs in early 2002 as part of its review of its "Impact Questionnaire" and associated case impact analysis process.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place in the Library a list of the(a) projects and (b) companies supported by the Export Credits Guarantee Department since 1 January 2001. [29410]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: A list of guarantees issued in the financial year 2000–01 was provided in ECGD's annual report and resource Accounts 2000–01 and is shown in the table. Details of overseas investment insurance and other insurances are treated as commercial-in-confidence by ECGD and are thus not given here. ECGD requires exporters' consent to publish guarantee details and will be writing after the end of this financial year to seek this consent for guarantees issued in 2001–02.
  1069W

  Market

  Exporter

  Buyer/airline/operating lessor

  Project

  Dominica

  Carillion Construction (West Indies) Ltd.

  Ministry of Finance, Dominica

  Construction of Building

  Dominican Rep

  Motherwell Bridge Engineering Ltd.

  CESPM

  San Pedro Power Project

  El Salvador

  Airbus Industrie

  TACA International Airlines

  Airbus Aircraft

  Finland

  Airbus Industrie

  Finnair

  Airbus Aircraft

  Hong Kong

  Airbus Industrie

  Dragonair

  Airbus Aircraft

  Hong Kong

  Airbus Industrie

  Cathay Pacific Aiways Ltd.

  Airbus Aircraft

  Hong Kong

  Dennis Specialist Vehicles Ltd.

  Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1993) Ltd.

  Buses

  Hong Kong

  Volvo Bus Exports (UK) Ltd.

  Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1993) Ltd.

  Buses

  Iceland

  Rolls Royce

  Icelandair

  Aero Engines

  India

  Kier International Ltd.

  Dabhol Power Company

  Port Development

  Iran

  Cementation Skanska

  National Iranian Steel Corporation Ltd.

  Coal Mine

  Jamaica

  Kier/Mabey (Kingston) Joint Venture

  Ministry of Transport and Works, Jamaica

  Flyover Bridges

  Kazakhstan

  Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd.

  Agency for Health Care

  Hospital

  Malaysia

  Air Products plc

  Petroliam Nasional Berhad

  Supplies for Gas Plants

  Malaysia

  Air Products plc

  Petroliam Nasional Berhad

  Supplies for Gas Plants

  Mexico

  Alstom Power UK Ltd.

  PEMEX

  Gas Turbines & Associated Equipment

  Mexico

  European Marine Contractors Ltd.

  PEMEX

  Pipeline Installation

  Mexico

  Gall Thomson Environmental plc

  PEMEX

  Anti-Pollution Couplings

  Mexico

  Howden Power Ltd.

  Comision Federal de Electricdad

  Power Station Air Pre-Heater Enhancements

  Netherlands

  Airbus Industrie

  Aerfi

  Airbus Aircraft

  Netherlands

  Airbus Industrie

  Premiair A/S

  Airbus Aircraft

  Oman

  Weir Westgarth Ltd.

  Ministry of Electricity and Water, Oman

  Desalination Plant

  Philippines

  The Balfour-Cleveland Consortium

  Department of Public Works and Highways, Philippines

  Bridging Components

  Philippines

  Mabey & Johnson

  Government of the Republic of the Philippines

  Steel Bridging

  Republic of Korea

  Airbus Industrie

  Korean Airlines

  Airbus Aircraft

  Singapore

  Airbus Industrie

  SALE

  Airbus Aircraft

  South Africa

  BAE Systems

  Government of South Africa

  Trainer/Fighter Aircraft

  Sri Lanka

  Airbus Industrie

  Sri Lankan Airlines Ltd.

  Airbus Aircraft

  Switzerland

  Airbus Industrie

  Flightlease

  Airbus Aircraft

  Turkey

  Airbus Industrie

  Turkish Airlines

  Airbus Aircraft

  Turkey

  Alstom Power UK Ltd.

  AK Enerji

  Gas Turbine Generators

  Turkey

  Battenfield Gloucester Europe Ltd.

  Onur Kimya AS

  Food Packaging Plant

  Turkey

  Corus UK Ltd.

  Turkey Electricity Generation & Transmission Crop.

  Steel Products for Thermal Power Plant

  Turkey

  Gateway (Textiles) Ltd.

  Alkan Yatak Yorgan ve San Tic STL

  Mattress Machinery

  Turkey

  Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd.

  Tubitak-Bilten

  Micro Satellite

  Turkey

  York International Ltd.

  Ulusal Finansal Kiralma AS

  Airconditioning Equipment

  United Arab Emirates

  Airbus Industrie

  Emirates

  Airbus Aircraft

  United States

  Airbus Industrie

  ILFC

  Airbus Aircraft

  United States

  Airbus Industrie

  GECAS

  Airbus Aircraft

  United States

  Airbus Industrie

  CIT

  Airbus Aircraft

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make environmental and social impact assessments of the Yusefeli Dam available for public discussion before a final decision is taken on extending export credit support to Amec. [29407]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: An Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) has been conducted and we expect that a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) will also be produced. Prior to making any final decision for ECGD support, the Government would need to be satisfied that such reports have taken into account best international practice.

  The EIAR is not the property of the UK Government, and its release by ECGD would require the consent of the party who has supplied it to ECGD. Such considerations would also apply to the RAP when that document is produced in due course.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Export Credits Guarantee Department will take to implement the recommendation for public discussion contained in the OECD agreement on common approaches to officially supported export credits and the environment. [29427]
  1070W
  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The recommendations for public discussion in the Common Approaches on Environment and Officially Supported Export Credits are:
  "Members are expected to:
  Publish national ECA environmental statements/principles and procedural guidance. ECGD published its "Statement of Business Principles" in December 2000. A "Case Handling Process—Information Note" and the "Impact Questionnaire" were placed on ECGD's website in January 2001.
  When appropriate, exchange views with stakeholders. ECGD consulted stakeholders during the development of the "Statement of Business Principles" and is about to launch a formal review of the "Impact Questionnaire" and the case impact analysis process.
  Encourage project sponsors to make environmental impact information publicly available. For greenfield projects in sensitive sectors or locations ECGD normally expects an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be carried out. Best practice for EIAs includes consultation with the affected communities and in many counties the EIA legislation requires this. ECGD expects project developers to take account of best practice in the preparation of EIAs.
  Make available to the public at least annually, subject to legal provisions on public disclosure in members' countries, information on projects classified in Categories A and B. ECGD's latest annual report contains details of all the guarantees issued, irrespective of environmental category, during the financial year 2000–01. It is intended to provide this information, on a quarterly basis, on the ECGD website during 2002".

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what equipment has been stolen from her Department since 1 May 1997; and what the approximate value of each item was. [26826]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The Department of Trade and Industry holds this information in respect of IT equipment only. Other stolen items are recorded on its log of missing items and to extract and list only those items which have been stolen would incur disproportionate costs. The list of stolen IT equipment is as follows:

  Date

  Description

  Value (£)

  20 May 1997

  Laptop

  2,000

  22 May 1997

  Laptop

  3,000

  6 June 1997

  Laptop

  2,000

  16 June 1997

  Laptop

  2,000

  21 August 1997

  Modem

  300

  2 September 1997

  Modem

  250

  27 September 1997

  Laptop

  1,500

  14 November 19971

  Network analyser

  2,500

  8 December 19971

  Laptop

  1,500

  15 December 1997

  Video projector

  6,000

  18 December 1997

  Psion

  300

  9 January 1998

  Monitor

  300

  19 January 1998

  PC base unit

  1,000

  10 February 1998

  Laptop

  1,000

  31 March 1998

  PC base unit

  1,000

  1 May 1998

  Server

  1,500

  13 May 1998

  Two printers

  267

  9 June 1998

  Laptop, printer

  3.000

  9 October 1998

  Laptop

  1,500

  13 November 1998

  Laptop

  1,500

  16 November 1998

  Answerphone

  50

  1 February 1999

  Answerphone

  50

  23 February 1999

  Laptop

  300

  16 March 1999

  Laptop

  1,810

  22 March 1999

  Printer

  167

  22 March 1999

  Printer

  300

  25 March 1999

  Video camera

  172

  24 June 1999

  PC

  600

  8 July 1999

  Psion

  300

  10 August 1999

  PC

  1,200

  21 October 1999

  Laptop

  2,356

  1 November 1999

  Laptop

  700

  3 November 1999

  Modem

  250

  29 November 1999

  Ethernet hub

  300

  13 December 1999

  PC

  1,700

  10 January 2000

  Laptop

  2,300

  26 July 2000

  Two laptops

  2,800

  19 February 2001

  Mobile phone

  50

  14 March 2001

  Laptop

  1,400

  10 December 2001

  Flat screen

  536

  21 December 2001

  Flat screen

  536

  27 December 2001

  Flat screen

  734

  1 Estimated value

  Unitas report for 1 April 2001 to date

  £

  Five MURA laptops

  9,315

  One other laptop

  1,700

  Three PCs

  3,450

  Flat screen

  361

  Computer Usage
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what controls exist in respect of(a) the placement of cookies on websites and (b) the use of such cookies to monitor the computer usage of individuals. [28329]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: Where the use of cookies by website operators involves the processing of personal data, they are subject to control under the Data Protection Act 1998. Website operators are required to ensure that users are aware who is processing such data and why, and give them an opportunity to refuse.

  There are proposals for further regulation of the placement and use of cookies in the proposed communications data protection and privacy directive, which is currently under negotiation. A draft provision agreed by member states at the Telecoms Council on 6 December would extend the requirement to provide information and an opportunity to refuse to cookies which do not involve the processing of personal data.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of net changes in manufacturing employment in the UK over the last 12 months; and what projection her Department has made of expected changes in manufacturing employment between January and December 2002. [30147]

  Mr. Wilson
  The number of manufacturing employee jobs stood at 3,760,000 in November 2001, a fall of 153,000 jobs on a year earlier. The Government do not forecast levels of employment.

  Cashpoints
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many ATMs were installed in sub-post offices in each month from July 2001 to date; what the take up rate by sub-post offices is of offers to install ATMs; what percentage of the total number of ATMs installed at sub-post offices are accessible outside trading hours; and what the scale of charges levied on customers using ATMs is at(a) sub-post offices and (b) Crown post offices. [29377]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: Decisions relating to ATMs are a commercial matter for Post Office Ltd. who tell me that the number of ATMs installed were:

  Number of ATMs

  July 2001

  9

  August 2001

  17

  September 2001

  11

  October 2001

  59

  November 2001

  121

  December 2001

  212

  There are 858 ATMs operating in the network and machine providers have indicated an interest in installation at some 7,500 further outlets, subject to survey.
  1073W
  The majority of ATMs are being installed at sub-post offices which are convenience stores or newsagents with extended trading hours from early morning to 10 pm.

  Wherever possible Post Office Ltd. prefer to install a machine without transaction charges but, particularly in small and remote locations, installation is not viable for the machine provider unless a convenience fee is levied. In these cases the customer is advised of the charge and has the ability not to proceed with the transaction should they so decide.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements have been made for maintaining, servicing and stocking ATMs installed at sub-post offices and at whose cost; what payment is made to sub-post masters per ATM transaction; and what assessment has been made of the additional net income generated by ATMs to sub-post masters as a proportion of average income. [29376]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: Decisions relating to ATMs are a commercial matter for Post Office Ltd. who tell me that maintenance arrangements vary according to the type of ATM machine and the provider of the machine. However, all technical servicing is undertaken by the machine's provider. In the more remote locations some maintenance and stocking of cash is carried out by the sub-postmaster. Payment for sub-postmasters is based on transaction volumes and in some cases a fixed sum up to a transaction volume threshold. No assessment has been made of additional income generated for sub-postmasters by ATM machines; Post Office Ltd. is not party to the retail trading performance of individual sub-postmasters.

  Coal Health Claims Schemes
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the procedure is for establishing a compensation claimant under the coal health claims schemes as being a priority case. [29378]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department and claimants' solicitors have agreed a priority points system which is set out in the Handling Agreement. Claimants with higher points will have greater priority.

  There are predominantly two stages of prioritisation in respect of living former miners claiming compensation for respiratory disease:

  A. Claimants undergoing screening spirometry;

  B. Claimants proceeding through the medical assessment process, MAP, after lung function testing.

  A. Screening Spirometry

  Three factors are taken into account as follows:

  (1) age of claimant;

  (2) date of receipt of claim;

  (3) short life expectancy (as recorded by the GP).

  Points are allocated for short life expectancy if IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, receive written confirmation from the claimant's GP that the claimant has a life expectancy of less than two years. The age of the claimant and any short life expectancy are considered to be more important factors than the date of claim and, accordingly, are weighted more heavily in the points system.
  1074W
  B. Claimants proceeding through the medical assessment process, MAP, after lung function testing

  Further points are awarded on the basis of a claimant's spirometry test result to a maximum of 150. Claimants who are unable, for medical reasons, to produce a spirometry result, will receive points in lieu of those that would otherwise have been awarded after spirometry testing.

  Deceased mineworkers

  With regard to deceased mineworkers, these claims will be processed by a paper-based assessment with priority being given to widows. Points are awarded according to the age of claim and any short life expectancy of the widow.

  Presently, the Department is processing claims as set out in the Handling Agreement with the most elderly and ill being dealt with first. Widows are also being dealt with as a priority.

  It should be noted that prioritisation does not override geographical variations in the availability of resources for live claims. All available resources will be used to the maximum even though claimants based in one area may be tested or examined ahead of someone with a higher priority score in another.

  Miners Pension Surpluses
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made on her Department's review of the distribution of miners' pension surpluses. [27574]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to nay hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on 17 January 2002,Official Report, column 403W.

  Land Rover
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement about the employment situation in the west midlands, with special reference to Land Rover. [29447]

  Alan Johnson
  The latest labour force survey data shows that there were 2,505,000 people resident in the west midlands who were in employment in the period September to November 2001. This represented an increase of 30,000 or 1.2 per cent. on the previous three-month period and an increase of 42,000 or 1.6 per cent. on the equivalent period a year earlier.

  Land Rover employ a total of around 12,000 people in the west midlands. With regard to the current situation between Land Rover and KPMG (administrative receivers to UPF Group) both parties are in urgent negotiations to resolve their differences. We hope that a satisfactory solution is found that safeguards security of supply to Land Rover and also enables the UPF business to be sold

  1075W
  as a going concern. DTI continues to remain in contact with all the key players but essentially this is a commercial matter for Land Rover and KPMG.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and industry if she will make a statement on the security of nuclear materials stored at the Sellafield reprocessing plant. [29831]

  Ms Hewitt
  All aspects of required security arrangements for nuclear materials stored at the Sellafield reprocessing plant are kept under continuing review by the Director of Civil Nuclear Security, the security regulator. Stringent security measures apply at all civil nuclear sites including Sellafield. It is not Government policy to disclose details of security measures taken at civil nuclear sites.

  Post Offices
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what discussions she has held with Consignia concerning the possible closure of post offices; and if she will make a statement; [30006]

  (2) what recent guidance she has given Consignia concerning the closure of urban post offices. [30008]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have agreed in principle to support the compensation package negotiated between Post Office Ltd. and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters for a restructuring of the urban post office network. Where appropriate, compensation will be made available to sub-postmasters affected. Detailed discussions continue on the programme.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will ensure that Consignia's proposals for possible post office closures are made public. [30007]

  Ms Hewitt
  The programme to restructure the urban post office network will be taken forward in consultation with individual sub-postmasters, the local community and Postwatch. To ensure that post offices meet the high expectations of customers and are in the right locations for their communities, the programme will be carefully tailored to the circumstances of each locality.

  Gas Transportation Tariffs
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether she raised the effect of gas transportation tariffs on Northern Ireland when she met representatives of Centrica on 6 December 2001; and if she will make a statement. [29474]

  Mr. Wilson
  I met representatives of Centrica on 6 December 2001 when we discussed a number of issues in confidence and, under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it would be inappropriate to go into detail.

  Gas is transported to Northern Ireland under the terms of a commercial contract. This contract is a matter for the parties involved.

HEALTH

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to increase the availability of digital hearing aids. [10002]

  Jacqui Smith
  We announced the Modernising hearing aids services project in October 2000. Since then, to the end of December 2001, 19,368 digital aids had been fitted, 19,353 adult patients had been assessed and 14,856 adult patients fitted. By the end of March, we expect to have fitted over 18,000 patients.

  I announced on 24 December 2001 that a further £20 million would be made available in 2002–03 so that a further 30 national health service sites can join the Modernising hearing aids project during that year. Decisions on which sites will become involved in the project next year will be made shortly.

  The Institute of Hearing Research is evaluating the project, and its findings will help planning of the wider availability of changes in hearing aid services, which include the provision of digital hearing aids, to all NHS audiology departments.

  In the meantime, all NHS trusts with the ability, in terms of staff, training, equipment and experience, to provide digital hearing aids, are able to apply for access to a favourable contract for supply of digital hearing aids.

  Hospital Admissions
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were waiting for admission to hospitals, including suspended patients but not including self-deferred cases, in(a) England and (b) each NHS trust in England in the year ending 31 March. [13621]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of in-patients waiting for treatment and the number of patients suspended from the waiting list at end March 2001 is given in the table, which has been placed in the Library.

  Patient Choice
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to impose(a) geographical and (b) financial limits on the ability of patients to have greater choice over the location of their hospital treatment; [15412]

  (2) what elements of provision he envisaged constituting plurality of provision; and what proportion of each of those elements he envisaged in the final state of plurality he is aiming for as referred to in his speech to the Fabian Society; [15413]

  (3) what expansion of capacity is required to enable patients to have a choice of hospital for treatment; [15324]

  (4) how he intends to enable patients to have the choice of access to a local hospital as referred to in his speech to the Fabian Society; and what definition of local he uses in this context. [15414]

  Mr. Hutton
  On 6 December 2001, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced proposals to give patients choice over where they are treated in the national health service.
  1077W
  From July 2002, all patients who have been waiting more than six months for heart surgery will be offered a choice of treatment at another NHS hospital; a hospital in the private sector; or possibly a hospital abroad. Patients opting to stay with their current hospital will do so on the basis that they will wait no more than 12 months in total there.

  By 2005, all patients and their general practitioners will be able to book hospital appointments at both a time and place that is convenient to the patient.

  Proposals to increase the capacity of the NHS are set out in the NHS Plan. The proposals to increase choice are set out in the discussion paper "Extending Choice for Patients", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what IT changes will be required to enable patients to have information about the choices open to them described in the Secretary of State's speech to the Fabian Society; [15415]

  (2) what IT changes will be required to enable general practitioners to act as the navigators referred to in the Secretary of State's speech to the Fabian Society; [15416]

  (3) what IT investment will be required to allow general practitioners to offer patients hospital treatment at a time and place convenient to them. [24604]

  Mr. Hutton
  An outline business case (OBC) has been developed, proposing a framework for implementing electronic booking systems. The OBC can be found at: www.doh.gov.uk/nhsplanbookingsystems/.

  The framework was developed in consultation with stakeholders. It is based around local health communities and will allow them to implement locally based solutions within a consistent common national framework. It builds on the national information and information technology infrastructure.

  Information on the estimated IT investment to implement electronic booking systems is in the OBC.

  East Cheshire Hospice
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was provided by the NHS to the East Cheshire Hospice in each of the last 10 years. [18449]

  Yvette Cooper
  South Cheshire health authority funding for East Cheshire Hospice for the past six years (since the creation of the health authority) is as follows:

  £000

  1995–96

  279

  1996–97

  248

  1997–98

  253

  1998–99

  262

  1999–2000

  272

  2000–01

  282

  The figures exclude the cost of drugs, which is also funded by South Cheshire health authority. Last year this was approximately £50,000 but the amount can vary year to year depending on requirements.

  NHS Magazine Website
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost is of maintaining the NHS Magazine website per annum. [24578]

  Ms Blears
  The NHS Magazine online was started in February 2001. It had set-up costs of £5,875 and has running costs of £51,000 a year. NHS Magazine online carries all the content of NHS Magazine plus two extra features and twice-weekly news updates for NHS staff.

  Redwood Unit
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the ratio of public to private staff is for work carried out at the Redwood unit on behalf of the NHS; [24587]

  (2) if NHS patients treated at the Redwood hospital in Redhill will be given the same level of facilities as private patients treated there. [24605]

  Mr. Hutton
  The detailed arrangements for operation of the BUPA Redwood facility as a diagnostic and treatment centre for national health service patients are currently in development between BUPA and the Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust. It is not possible to say at this stage what the ratio of public to private staff will be or how the facilities will be used for NHS patients. This information will be made available prior to commencement of the new arrangements. Human Resource issues are of paramount importance in the development of this concept, and the trust will be working closely with the Department to ensure that the most appropriate arrangements are agreed.

  We are also committed to ensuring that NHS patients treated at BUPA Redwood receive a high standard of treatment.

  GPs
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on expenditure on reviewing of out-patient appointments by general practitioners in the last 12 months. [24602]

  Mr. Hutton
  Out-patient appointments are routinely reviewed to ensure that all patients on the waiting list still require appointments. Some general practitioners, in partnership with national health service trusts, assist in validating out-patient lists in this way. Arrangements for doing this are made at local level.

  Data are not collected on the cost to GPs of carrying out this validation.

  Departmental Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission and publish an independent report on the reasons for the level of sickness absence in his Department. [26970]

  Ms Blears
  The Cabinet Office already commissions and publishes an independent annual report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service". The report includes details of the causes of absenteeism. The report for the year 2000 will be published shortly.
  1079W
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many days were lost through sickness absence in his Department in each of the last four years. [26945]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Average1 days lost per employee through sickness

  (per staff year)

  Number

  1997

  7.8

  1998

  29.2

  1999

  6.6

  2000

  not yet published

  1 Working days absences exclude weekends and bank holidays for staff working a 'Monday to Friday' week.

  2 Based on pre-audit data and methodology. In 1998 Civil Service departments and agencies undertook an audit of their monitoring systems following the "Working Well Together" report. The re-worked figures were not submitted in time for publication of the 1998 report and unadjusted figures were published in this year.

  Source:

  Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service BMI Health Services report (1997 Table I, 1998 Table K) and Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service BIOSS report Table H (1999)

  Family Pharmacies
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department is doing to safeguard local family pharmacies; and if he will make a statement. [26931]

  Ms Blears
  Our programme for pharmacy in the national health service is set out in "Pharmacy in the Future—Implementing the NHS Plan", a copy of which is available in the Library. We are committed to continuing to ensure ready access to community pharmacies throughout the country. Special arrangements are in place to support pharmacies which dispense relatively few prescriptions, but which are more than one kilometre from the next pharmacy. These may qualify for subsidy payments under the Essential Small Pharmacies Scheme to bring their income from NHS services up to a target level.

  Patient Telephone System
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of privately provided patient telephone systems charge premium rates for incoming calls; and what guidance has been given on the provision of these services to trusts. [27229]

  Ms Blears
  Of the 59 schemes currently installed and operating in the national health service, 56 are with the two firms that charge full premium rate.

  The model concession agreement includes an agreed pricing structure covering all the services provided. All the licensees have declared their policy structure over the period of the contract and the patient power steering group, led by NHS Estates, has agreed the proposals. These represent the maximum the licensee can charge. There are provisions within the agreement for local negotiation.

  We are working with suppliers to continually improve the service, including incoming call charges.

  Infertility Treatment
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the review of infertility treatment available across the NHS will be published by NICE; and how long the review has taken to date. [27616]

  Yvette Cooper
  Following an announcement of a new clinical guideline work programme, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence draws up a timetable for each guideline. The commencement of work on individual guidelines is staged according to available capacity in the institute's collaborating centres. The collaborating centre on women's and children's health is about to begin the development of the infertility guideline. I understand that the development of a clinical guideline usually takes up to two years.

  Blood Donors
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) for what reason identity cards given to blood donors are not recognised in areas other than where they are issued; [27281]

  (2) what measures his Department will implement to introduce a national blood donor register that enables blood donor identity cards to be recognised throughout the UK. [27280]

  Yvette Cooper
  Three National Blood Service (NBS) databases of blood donor details covering London and the south east, the midlands and the south west and the north and north Wales were established reflecting the original NBS zonal structure. Donors are currently unable to use their identity card outside the region served by their database. However, they can still give blood in another region if they register as a new donor.

  The NBS plan to introduce a national donor register from April 2004. This will enable donors to use their identity card in any NBS session in England and north Wales. There are no plans to integrate the registers for the four United Kingdom blood services.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of(a) deaths of vulnerable people, (b) hospital admissions and (c) readmissions in the Buckinghamshire health authority area in the last 12 months, which may be associated with (i) short and (ii) long term air pollution. [27783]

  Ms Blears
  The Buckinghamshire health authority have no patients classified on admission or death under the International Classification of Diseases code z58.1 (exposure to air pollution).

  Two Shires Ambulance NHS Trust
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether Two Shires Ambulance NHS trust met its performance targets for responding to(a) Category A and (b) Category B/C emergency calls in each year since 1997; [27786]

  (2) how many emergency calls were received (a) in the UK and (b) in Two Shires Ambulance NHS trust area in each year since 1997. [27787]
  1081W
  Ms Blears
  Information about the number of emergency calls and the proportion of emergency calls resulting in an ambulance arriving at the scene of a reported incident within the Government's target response time, for both the Two Shires Ambulance national health service trust and all other ambulance trusts in England, is 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.

  Following a review of standards in 1996 ambulance services were required to introduce systems to prioritise emergency calls. Two Shires Ambulance NHS trust moved to the new system from 1 April 1998. In 1998–99 and each year since then Two Shires has met and exceeded the target for Category B calls—95 per cent. within 19 minutes (rural service target).

  On Category A calls the trust has been making steady progress towards the target of 75 per cent. within eight minutes. Details of performance are in the statistical bulletin.

  The Two Shires Ambulance NHS trust is expected to achieve the 75 per cent. target for Category A this year.

  Macular Degeneration
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned in each of the last five years into the causes and treatments of age-related macular degeneration; what further research he intends to commission; and how much his Department has spent on this research in each of the last five years. [26812]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: The main Government agency for research into the causes and treatment of disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which is funded through the Department of Trade and Industry. MRC expenditure on research since 1997 that is directly relevant to macular degeneration is estimated as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  300,000

  1998–99

  82,000

  1999–2000

  78,000

  2000–01

  140,000

  The MRC has funded a number of projects looking at macular degeneration. Projects include:
  Radiotherapy in the treatment of subfoveal neovascular membranes (CNVM) in age related macular degeneration of the eye: a randomised controlled trial.
  Dr. G. Silvestri Queen's University of Belfast: Refining phenotypic variation in age related macular degeneration.
  Professor R. D. Lund: Schwann and schwann cell line transplantation to prevent photoreceptor loss.
  Professor U. Chakravarthy: Optical coherence tomography scanning of diseases of the macular of the eye.
  Dr. R. W. Yates: Genetic Susceptibility to Age Related Macular Degeneration

  The MRC always welcomes high quality applications for support into any aspect of human health and these are judged in open competition with other demands on
  1082W
  funding. Awards are made according to their scientific quality and importance to human health. The Department has supported, through national and regional programmes, research on macular degeneration. Projects include an on-going project due to complete in July 2002 on "A clinical technique for measuring macular pigment optical density in patients with macular degeneration".

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the number of people treated in the last year with photodynamic therapy in the private sector following a diagnosis of wet age-related macular degeneration in an NHS hospital. [27033]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: As the Department does not routinely collect information on operations carried out privately, we are unable to make an estimate.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the therapies licensed in the UK for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration; when they were licensed; how much the NHS has spent on them; and how many people have benefited from them in each of the last three years. [26814]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: Currently the only product licensed for the indication age-related macular degeneration is Visudyne. A European-wide licence was granted by the European Commission on 27 July 2000. We do not hold information on the number of patients treated with Visudyne or the amount of the product that the national health service has purchased.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether photodynamic therapy of age-related macular degeneration is generally available within the NHS. [26813]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: The treatment is not generally available under the national health service. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is carrying out an appraisal of the use of photodynamic therapy in the treatment of macular disease which they expect to complete in July. The Department has asked NHS bodies to continue with local arrangements for the managed introduction of new technologies where guidance from NICE is not available at the time the technology first became available. These arrangements should involve an assessment of all relevant factors including the available evidence on effect.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the number of people diagnosed each year with age-related macular degeneration. [26815]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: A recent study sponsored by the Macular Disease Society estimated that there are currently 182,000 people suffering from age-related macular degeneration with a best eye visual acuity below that judged appropriate for certification as blind or partially sighted. The study forecast that this number would increase to 194,000 by 2008.

  NHS Appointments
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that hon. Members are
  1083W
  notified of appointments to new health authorities and trusts covering their constituencies; and if he will make a statement. [26819]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: This is a matter for the National Health Service Appointments Commission. At present, all appointments to NHS boards are publicised locally by press release. I have also asked the commission to ensure that hon. Members are informed of all of appointments made to trusts, health authorities and primary care trusts which serve their constituencies.

  NHS Prescriptions
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from community pharmacists based in Teesside concerning the cut in the fee paid for dispensing NHS prescriptions. [27867]

  Ms Blears
  We have received a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) enclosing representations on this matter from a community pharmacist based in his constituency.

  Westmorland General Hospital
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to extend services at the Westmorland General Hospital's emergency and minor accident department; [28276]

  (2) what change in service levels has taken place at the Westmorland General Hospital's emergency and minor accident department in each of the last five years; [28275]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the merits of operating a 24-hour minor accident department at the Westmorland General Hospital; [28273]

  (4) how many ambulance emergency cases were taken to the Westmorland General Hospital's emergency and minor accident department in each of the last five years; and how many of these were then taken to Lancaster Royal Infirmary; [28277]

  (5) what his plans are for the future of Westmorland General Hospital; and if he will make a statement; [28271]

  (6) what assistance he provides to recruit extra staff to work at the Westmorland General Hospital's emergency and minor accident department; [28274]

  (7) how many people have been treated at the Westmorland General Hospital's emergency and minor accident department in each of the last five years; and how many of these were treated between the hours of 11.00 pm and 6.00 am; [28270]

  (8) if he will ensure that the Westmorland General Hospital's emergency and minor accident department continues to operate on a 24-hour basis; [28278]

  (9) what the recommended manpower level is for doctors in an emergency and minor accident department. [28272]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 17 January 2001]: Morecambe Bay Hospitals National Health Service Trust and Morecambe Bay Primary Care Trust intend to review the delivery of emergency and out-of-hours services for residents of South Lakeland. This work will take place with full public involvement and in the context of existing and developing national guidelines, the local
  1084W
  Modernisation review process and relevant staffing considerations. It is anticipated that detailed information of the nature requested will emerge as part of that exercise. A report, with recommendations, will be produced by 31 May 2002, to be considered by the boards of the trust, primary care trust and Cumbria ambulance service. Any proposals for significant variations in existing service provision would, of course, be subject to full public consultation at a later stage.

  Health Authorities
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent guidance he has issued on the balance of representation from different parliamentary constituencies in cases where several constituencies are covered by the same health authority or NHS trust. [28047]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 17 January 2001]: No such guidance has been issued. Appointments to the boards of national health service trusts, health authorities and primary care trusts are now a matter for the NHS Appointments Commission. The commission always aims to ensure that board membership properly reflects the geographical area served by the NHS body.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent guidance he has issued on increasing the representation of(a) women, (b) members of ethnic minority communities and (c) other under-represented groups on NHS trusts and health authorities. [28049]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issues equal opportunities goals and objectives on an annual basis for all public appointments to national health service boards, special health authorities and non-departmental public bodies. The goals and objectives set in July 2001 for achievement by December 2004 are available in the Library.

  We have made huge strides over recent years in increasing the proportion of women and black and ethnic minority candidates appointed NHS boards. 49 per cent. of all NHS board members and 41 per cent. of chairs are now women, and 12 per cent. of members are black or from ethnic minorities. This compares with figures of only 39 per cent. and 5 per cent. at the time of the 1997 general election. The proportion of disabled candidates appointed over the last five years has also more than doubled. As a result, the boards of these bodies are now much more representative of the communities they serve.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being taken to seek applications from those living in communities with the greatest health needs for non-executive appointments on health authorities and NHS trusts. [28048]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: All vacancies for national health service boards are now widely advertised within the communities they serve. Candidates who apply are all assessed on their merits against criteria laid down by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The criteria require among other things that, to be appointed, candidates must be able to demonstrate a commitment to the needs of the local community and have a strong personal commitment to the NHS.

  West Midlands South Strategic Health Authority
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many candidates(a) applied and (b) were interviewed for (i) the chairmanship and (ii) the post of chief executive of the new west midlands, south strategic health authority. [28593]

  Yvette Cooper
  I understand from the National Health Service Appointments Commission that there were six applications for the chair post, and three candidates were interviewed.

  91 individuals applied in response to the advertisement to recruit chief executives designate to all strategic health authorities. 52 candidates were interviewed for all posts. Appointments were made to each authority from a shortlist of successful candidates.

  Candidates were asked to indicate their preference in their applications in terms of the geographical location they wish to work based on the current NHS regional boundaries. 26 applicants expressed an interest in being a chief executive of a strategic health authority in the west midlands, either exclusively or as a multiple choice. 11 were interviewed.

  NHS Trusts (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many candidates(a) applied and (b) were interviewed for the chairmanship of the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust after the resignation of Mr. Harold Musgrove. [28592]

  Yvette Cooper
  I understand from the National Health Service Appointments Commission that there were 17 applications for the post, and four candidates were interviewed.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria were used to select the Chairman of the South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust. [28591]

  Yvette Cooper
  The criteria are set out in the National Health Service Appointments Commission guidance on the appointments process for NHS chairs and non-executives, a copy of which is in the Library. The Appointments Commission will shortly be sending copies of the guidance to all hon. Members.

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS)—health care assistants and unqualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff1employed by acute hospital trusts and PCTs in England as at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  All England

  Health care assistants and unqualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  134,720

  138,600

  141,820

  146,440

  151,550

  of which:

  Health care assistants

  20,220

  21,500

  24,630

  25,470

  27,500

  Unqualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  114,500

  117,110

  117,190

  120,960

  124,060

  Acute hospital trusts

  Health care assistants and unqualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  45,150

  45,780

  40,290

  40,290

  43,670

  of which:

  Health care assistants

  10,000

  11,130

  9,980

  10,830

  11,300

  Unqualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  35,150

  34,650

  30,320

  29,460

  32,360

  1086W
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many candidates(a) applied and (b) were interviewed for the chairmanship of the South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust. [28594]

  Yvette Cooper
  I understand from the National Health Service Appointments Commission that there were 11 applications for the post, and three candidates were interviewed.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were treated for food poisoning arising from food prepared and consumed(a) at home and (b) by others outside the home, in each year since 1990. [28043]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally. The source of illness can generally be determined only when two or more cases are linked (an outbreak). The great majority of cases of food poisoning cannot be linked in this way.

  Health Care Assistants
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many health care assistants were employed in(a) acute hospital trusts and (b) primary care trusts in England in each of the last five years; [28224]

  (2) what measures he is taking to increase the recruitment of health care assistants in the (a) acute and (b) primary care sectors; and if he will make a statement. [28225]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested for the number of health care assistants is in the table.

  We aim to increase recruitment of health care assistants by developing career paths to encourage unqualified staff to work in the national health service across general practice and acute care. Dedicated investment in NVQ training will allow NHS staff to gain transferable skills to recognised national standards and enable more staff to gain qualifications to enter professional training and progress their careers further. In 2001–02 we expect over 2,000 health care assistants to start nurse training courses.

  Investing in staff who do not have a professional qualification supports the goal of increasing career opportunities and qualifications for the support work force, while improving the quality of direct care for patients and freeing up professionals to make better use of their skills.
  1087W

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS)—health care assistants and unqualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff1employed by acute hospital trusts and PCTs in England as at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  PCTs

  Health care assistants and unqualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  500

  of which:

  Health care assistants

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  40

  Unqualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  460

  1 Unqualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff includes unclassifiable staff

  2 Not applicable

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non Medical Workforce Census

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the maximum number of casualties the Isle of Wight ambulance service could cope with in one incident; and what additional resources are required to meet a major incident. [28234]

  Ms Blears
  It is not possible to define the number of casualties that the Isle of Wight could cope with in one incident. That would depend on the nature of the incident.

  Each incident is assessed by a duty officer, and if there were insufficient resources available locally to deal with the incident, we would instigate the escalation procedure in our major incident plan. This would involve calling upon the neighbouring ambulance services (Hampshire ambulance national health service) for assistance.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average number of attendances is per year in district general hospital accident and emergency departments in(a) England, (b) south-west England and (c) south-east England. [28226]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not collect this information in the form requested.

  Accident and emergency attendance is collected by national health service trusts.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis primary care trusts will be funded from 2003–04. [29221]

  Mr. Hutton
  We currently allocate funding to health authorities, and they allocate funding to primary care trusts, on the basis of the relative needs of their populations. A weighted capitation formula is used to determine each health authority and primary care trust's fair share of available resources, to enable them to commission similar levels of services for populations in equal need.

  In future the intention is that allocations will be made direct to primary care trusts. This is subject to the passage of legislation through Parliament. Allocations will continue to be based on the principle of weighted capitation.

  MMR
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of Dr. Elizabeth Miller(a) in the designing of safety studies into MMR, (b) in clearing the original UK trial cohort of 10,000 children and (c) in advising his Department on the safety of MMR. [28788]

  Yvette Cooper
  Dr. Elizabeth Miller is currently head of the Immunisation Division of the Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre of the Public Health Laboratory Services (PHLS). With PHLS colleagues Dr. Miller has conducted a number of studies designed to investigate possible adverse effects of measles, mumps and rubella vaccines. The results of these studies have been subjected to independent peer review and published as follows:

  1. Miller C., Miller E., Rowe K., Bowie C., Judd M., Walker D. Surveillance of Symptoms following MMR Vaccine in Children. The Practitioner, 1989; 233: 69–75.

  2. Miller E., Goldacre M., Pugh S., Colville A., Farrington P., Flower A., Nash J., Macfarlane L., Tettmar R. Risk of aseptic meningitis after Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine in UK children. Lancet 1993;341:979–982.

  3. Farrington P., Pugh S., Colville A., Flower A., Nash J., Morgan-Capner P., Rush M., Miller E. A new method for active surveillance of adverse events from Diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis and Measles/mumps/rubella vaccines. Lancet 1995; 345:567–569.

  4. Nash J.Q., Chandrakumar M., Farrington C.P., Williamson S., Miller E. Feasibility study for identifying adverse events attributable to vaccination by record linkage. Epidemiology and Infection 1995; 114: 475–480.

  5. Farrington C.P., Nash J., Miller E. Case Series Analysis of adverse reactions to vaccines: A comparative evaluation. American Journal of Epidemiology 1996;143:1165–73.

  6. Taylor B., Miller E., Farrington P., Petropoulos M.C., Favot-Mayaud I., Li J., Waight P.A. Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet 1999; 353:2026–2029.

  7. Miller E., Waight P., Farrington P., Andrews N., Stowe J., Taylor B. Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and MMR vaccine (short report). Archives of Disease in Childhood 2001;84:227–229.

  8. Farrington C.P., Miller E., Taylor B. MMR and autism: further evidence against a causal association. Vaccine 2001; 19:3632–3635.

  Dr. Elizabeth Miller, under the direction of the then head of the immunisation division, Dr. Christine Miller, assisted in the design and analysis of the study in 10,000

  1089W
  children that was carried out in 1987–88. The results of that study were not used for licensure of MMR vaccine in the United Kingdom. The responsibility for licensure resides with the Medicines Control Agency and is based on the evidence of vaccine safety, efficacy and quality provided by the manufacturer.

  The Department would expect the head of the immunisation division to provide advice to the Department on all aspects of immunisation. Dr. Miller would also provide advice to the Department's independent advisory committee, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, and, as required to the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

  Coronary Surgery (West Midlands)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on waiting times for coronary surgery in the west midlands. [28898]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are committed to improving waiting times for cardiac surgery, and in the west midlands initiatives include a new £13 million purpose built cardiac surgery critical care unit which recently opened at the University Hospitals Birmingham national health service trust.

  A new purpose built cardiac surgery centre is being developed at the Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS trust, which is due to open in 2004, and is the first new specialist cardiac centre to be built in the west midlands for 30 years. The cardiac surgery unit at Stoke-on-Trent is also being expanded in 2002.

  In the interim, private capacity is also being purchased at Leicester BUPA Hospital and the Priory Hospital, Birmingham to ensure no patient waits longer than 15 months.

  In order to facilitate the treatment of urgent patients within the region, a cardiac services capacity manager has been appointed to ensure that urgent patients in the west midlands are treated quickly.

  Renal Transplants
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the reasons are for his proposed transfer of renal transplant operations from St. Helier to St. George's; and if he will make a statement. [28746]

  Mr. Hutton
  Any decision to transfer renal transplant operations from St. Helier to St. George's hospitals will be decided locally. St. George's, Epsom and St. Helier national health service trusts, Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority, Merton and Sutton community health council and patient groups are all working to ensure that any proposals put forward are in the best interests of the patients and staff of the renal service. A final decision will not be made until the health authority has conducted a formal public consultation which will commence in March 2002.

  Haywood Hospital
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what remedial action is planned following the clean hospitals programme report into Haywood hospital, Stoke-on-Trent. [28917]
  1090W
  Yvette Cooper
  I am advised that the action plan agreed by the North Staffordshire Hospital National Health Service Trust following the clean hospitals programme report into Haywood hospital following the inspection in March is progressing well and includes:a large redecoration programme including the entrance, main reception areas, wards and common areas;
  improvements to internal and external signage;
  improvements to visitors' toilet facilities;
  investment in new furniture—improving the overall quality of the furniture stock;
  improvements to catering services;
  implementation of in-house support services staff performance monitoring scheme;
  improvements to hospital grounds and gardens.

  We believe that infection control and basic hygiene should be at the heart of good management and clinical practice in the NHS which is why we have a £60 million clean hospitals programme.

  The clean hospitals programme is intended to introduce and restore standards in cleanliness and the patient environment. Delivery progress under the clean hospitals programme is showing tangible improvements in every hospital.

  Spending Review
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to appraise the environmental implications of its Spending Review submission to the Treasury. [29026]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: Environmental implications are considered as part of the normal policy making process, which includes spending review proposals.

  Contact Lenses
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on, and what assessments he has made of, the health implications of the sale of cosmetic patterned contact lenses. [27143]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: The General Optical Council (GOC) has proposed to the Department that the sale of cosmetic contact lenses, which do not have a corrective refractory power, be subject to tighter regulation because of the risk to eye health from the misuse of contact lenses. Views differed when we consulted on this proposal and, to inform our policy considerations, we are collaborating with the GOC on an assessment of the extent of the risks.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to bring forward changes to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to allow a child of a deceased father to include his or her father's name on their birth certificate. [29296]

  Yvette Cooper
  We supported a private Members Bill on this last year, which unfortunately had not completed all its stages when the general election was called. We are committed to bring forward this legislation as soon as parliamentary time is found.

  NHS
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the discussions taking place on the new pay structure for the NHS involving a nation-wide job evaluation exercise. [29331]

  Mr. Hutton
  Considerable progress is being made in the "Agenda for Change" pay Modernisation talks. In particular the job evaluation scheme has been developed further so that it is now generating credible and consistent results over the range of jobs covered by the United Kingdom-wide national health service. It has now been used to carry out evaluations on around 400 examples of the most common NHS jobs, which provides the basic data needed for negotiating the new pay structure. The central negotiating group has prepared negotiating documents covering all areas of the new pay system, with remaining differences between the Health Department's proposals and the views of staff representative organisations highlighted.

  We have decided to leave final decisions on the new system until after the 2002 Spending Review is announced. Until then all parties have agreed that the job evaluation scheme and models of a new pay structure should continue to be developed. The aim will be to

  Trust

  Project description

  Capital value1

  Constructor

  Cornwall Health Care NHS Trust

  Bodmin Community Hospital

  10.20

  Grosvenor House Group plc

  Redbridge Health Care NHS Trust

  Mental Health Reprovision and Geriatric Day

  10.80

  Ryhurst (Redbridge) Ltd.

  East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust

  Centre Mental Health Reprovision

  12.08

  Allenbuild (South East)

  Royston Buntingford and Bishop's Stortford Primary

  Herts and Essex Hospital

  14.70

  Rydon Construction

  Care NHS Trust Luton and Dunstable Hospitals NHS Trust

  St. Mary's Wing

  14.70

  MJ Gleeson Group

  Oxleas NHS Trust

  Reprovision of Mental Health

  15.00

  Ryhurst (Bexley) Ltd.

  Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University

  ENT/Ophthalmology

  16.60

  Glugston PE Ltd.

  Hospital NHS Trust Northumbria Health Care NHS Trust

  Phase 11 Development of Wansbeck General

  17.82

  MJ Gleeson Group

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Maternity and Acute Development. Hull Royal

  18.19

  Bilfinger and Berger/Haden Young

  Sussex Weald and Downs NHS Trust

  Infirmary Graylingwell Hospital Reprovision

  22.00

  James Longley/Kier Regional

  Northumbria Health Care NHS Trust

  Redevelopment of Hexham General Hospital

  29.10

  Bovis Group

  West Berkshire Priority Care Services NHS Trust

  Prospect Park mental health redevelopment

  29.70

  Kier Group

  West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust

  Acute Rationalisation

  33.00

  Bougyes UK

  1 £ million

  Children's Commissioner
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the benchmark criteria his Department uses to evaluate the performance of the children's commissioner for Wales for the purpose of considering and evaluating the need for the creation of a children's commissioner for England. [29330]

  Jacqui Smith
  All parts of the United Kingdom are united in a common aim to improve safeguards for children. However, devolution means that we can each take different paths to achieve that common goal.

  We are committed to learning the lessons from the Welsh experience of appointing a children's commissioner that prove relevant to England. To this end, departmental officials will continue to liaise with officials in the National Assembly for Wales, in order specifically
  1092W
  complete this work as early as possible this year to enable swift agreement with a view to starting implementation at the earliest possible opportunity.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the order of costs incurred by private sector PFI partners in securing contracts for community hospital building projects; and if he will make a statement. [27343]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not held centrally of costs incurred by private sector firms in bidding for community hospital projects. Such costs are incorporated into a bidder's best and final offer which national health service bodies compare to their public sector comparator to determine which option offers better value for money.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private sector PFI partners are available for community hospital building projects of the order of £25 to £35 million; which are acceptable to his Department; and if he will make a statement. [27344]

  Mr. Hutton
  Listed are private finance initiative projects with a capital value of between £10 million and £35 million which have been signed with private sector partners. This captures the private sector constructors which are involved in delivering medium size hospital schemes, including community hospitals.

  to learn more about how the commissioner in Wales may be adding value to children's lives in Wales and improving outcomes for Welsh children.

  Here in England, we have made major advances through the creation of the children and young people's unit, the children's rights director and the national clinical director for children.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Intrusive Surveillance
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many intrusive surveillance operations were authorised by(a) chief officers of police and (b) customs officials in the United Kingdom in each year from 1995. [28326]
  1093W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: No records are centrally held of the number of intrusive surveillance operations authorised by chief officers of police or customs officials from I January 1995 to 22 February 1999. The number of intrusive surveillance operations authorised by the chief officers of police and customs officials since 22 February 1999 are as follows:

  Chief officers of police

  Customs officials

  22 February to 31 December 1999

  1,432

  346

  1 January to 31 December 2000

  1,609

  523

  1 January to 31 December 2001

  458

  38

  1 January to 17 January 2002

  20

  7

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what controls govern the monitoring of conversations by equipment which picks up vibrations in window panes. [28625]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000 provides a statutory basis for the authorisation of intrusive surveillance. RIPA also provides for independent oversight of such authorisations by the Office of the Surveillance Commissioner and the Intelligence Services Commissioner.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if use by the law enforcement agencies of technology which remotely takes a phone off the hook and thereby allows the monitoring of conversations close to that phone requires authorisation as if it were a telephone intercept; and whether the use by others of such technology constitutes a criminal offence. [28328]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The monitoring of conversations by law enforcement agencies which are not conducted on a public or private telecommunication system fall within the surveillance provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000. RIPA provides a statutory basis for the authorisation of intrusive surveillance. RIPA also provides for independent oversight of such authorisations by the Office of the Surveillance Commissioner.

  Schengen Information System
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 84–85W, if she will list (a) the areas in which the Justice and Home Affairs Council is examining the scope for SIS II to have an increased range of functions and (b) the authorities being considered eligible for access to SIS data. [28321]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: This work is at a very early stage. Officials in the relevant council working group are examining the possible future requirements for SIS II and proposals will be submitted to the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council at key stages in the process. A first discussion of this work was held by the Mixed Committee with Norway and Iceland, meeting at ministerial level in the margins of the JHA Council on 6–7 December 2001 and reported to the House in my reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on 14 January 2002, Official Report, column 89W. The authorities which
  1094W
  would be considered eligible for access to SIS data will be determined according to the purpose for which it is agreed that data will be stored. This work will require amendment to the Schengen acquis and will thus be the subject of formal decisions at European Union level; these will be subject to United Kingdom parliamentary scrutiny in the normal way.

  Asylum Seekers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken from receipt of an asylum appeal by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and to(a) the ending of the appeal to the Immigration Appellate Authority, (b) determination of the appeal by an adjudicator and (c) where leave to appeal is granted final determination of the appeal by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. [28778]

  Angela Eagle
  For the 12 months ending 30 September 2001, data from the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) for those cases where data are available indicate that the cumulative average times taken from the receipt of an asylum appeal by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to:

  (a) the receipt of an appeal by the IAA is nine weeks;

  (b) the determination by an adjudicator is 25 weeks;

  (c) the final determination by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal is 45 weeks.

  Crime Reduction Violence Against Women Initiative
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the projects financed under the Crime Reduction Violence Against Women Initiative until March. [28905]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is as follows:

  Standing Together—Civil (Hammersmith and Fulham. London)

  West Somerset Polaroid Cameras (Taunton)

  Brighton and Hove Intimidated Witness Support Scheme

  Gloucestershire Co-ordinated Community Response

  Zero Tolerance/South Essex Rape and Incest Crisis Centre (Thurrock)

  Southampton Rape Crisis Star project

  NSPCC (National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children)

  Patchwork Domestic Violence project (North Yorkshire)

  Bridgend Education

  Hastings and Rother Rapid Response Crisis Intervention Team

  Buxton Women's Aid

  St. Austell Support Workers

  Warwickshire Domestic Violence Support Services (Stratford-upon-Avon)

  Thurrock Police Co-ordinator

  Rhondda Cynon Taff. South Wales Alarms

  Birmingham Reducing Domestic Violence project

  Tower Hamlets Stop the Violence project

  Croydon Domestic Violence Advocacy project

  Birmingham Health Development (south west Birmingham)

  1095W

  North Devon and Torridge Early Intervention project

  Salford GP Evidence Gathering

  Wakefield Primary Health Care project

  Standing Together—Health (Hammersmith and Fulham, London)

  Cheshire Multiple Interventions

  Northampton Domestic Violence Action Centre

  Camden Safety Net

  Bradford Staying Put

  St. Mary's Rape and Sexual Assault Centre—Training of a Forensic Nurse (Manchester)

  STAR (Surviving Trauma After Rape) (West Yorkshire)

  REACH (Rape Examination, Advice, Counselling, Help) (Newcastle upon Tyne)

  Understanding attrition, decreasing early withdrawals and developing best practice for reported rape (research project)

  Rape Crisis development of data systems

  Sex offenders: an exploration of discriminatory factors, repeat victimisation and risk (research project)

  National evaluation of sexual assault centres

  Rape perpetrator programme

  Young male perpetrator programme and witness support (Hull).

  Child Curfew Orders
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many child curfew orders have been issued in Essex in each of the last five years for which records exist. [28418]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 18 January 2002]: No applications have been received to impose child curfew schemes under section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Sections 48 and 49 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which took effect on 1 August 2001, extended the upper age limit to 15 and allowed the police, as well as local authorities, to initiate schemes. Local areas are assessing the implications of these changes and we know that local consultation is taking place.

  Community Sentence Orders
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the practice of the Probation Service not to exercise arrest warrants for those breaking the terms of community sentence orders if they have been outstanding for more than a year; and if he will make a statement. [30117]

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is the practice of the Probation Service not to exercise arrest warrants for those breaking the terms of community sentence orders if they have been outstanding for more than a year; and if he will make a statement. [29824]

  Beverley Hughes
  Each case is dealt with on it merits. There is no general policy that a warrant outstanding for a year, or indeed any particular period of time, should be returned to the court to consider withdrawal.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many outstanding arrest warrants issued for those breaking the terms of community sentences there are; and if he will make a statement. [29829]

  Mr. Wills
  I have been asked to reply.
  1096W
  Lead responsibility for execution of community penalty breach warrants was transferred from the police to magistrates courts committees on 1 April 2001. Prior to the transfer, statistics on community penalty breach warrants were not routinely kept. The Lord Chancellor's Department is now collecting data but complete figures are not yet available. Of the community penalty breach warrants issued since the transfer 8,014 were outstanding as at 28 December 2001.

  Prison Sales
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to sell Holloway Prison; and if he will make a statement; [29828]

  (2) what plans he has to sell Wormwood Scrubs Prison. [29827]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are no current plans to sell Holloway or Wormwood Scrubs prisons.

  Trial by Jury
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the future of trial by jury; [29825]

  (2) what plans he has to introduce legislation to allow the overturning of perverse verdicts returned by juries as recommended by the Auld report; and if he will make a statement. [29826]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Sir Robin Auld's review of the criminal courts, the report of which was published last October, made a number of recommendations with major implications for trial by jury. The report is currently the subject of public consultation, and the Government will consider their response in the light of the views received.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are employed by the Department under the new deal for young people; and at what cost to public funds. [21319]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office currently employs a total of 11 people under the new deal for young people.

  New deal recruits take up existing vacancies so extra costs are limited to the subsidy, where appropriate, and any additional training and development which may be needed. The costs of the latter cannot be readily identified.

  Crime (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been taken in Coventry to improve the protection of pensioners in their homes from burglary. [28882]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: Coventry is covered by our home security scheme for low-income pensioners living in areas with burglary rates above the national average. This provides security checks and additional security measures where needed for eligible pensioners, including better door locks, window locks, door chains and viewers.
  1097W
  In addition, a total of over £320,000 funding has been provided for five projects in Coventry under the reducing burglary initiative. These projects, while not specifically aimed at the elderly, target local burglary problems and are of benefit to the community as a whole.

  Locally, the Coventry Crime and Disorder Partnership is undertaking work on crime against older people (particularly distraction burglary) as part of its wider community safety plans and strategies.

  Mobile Phone Theft
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will introduce guidelines for the mobile telephony companies to share the international mobile equipment identity code when mobiles are stolen. [28949]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: As part of the on-going work of the Home Secretary's Mobile Phone Steering Group, we are currently in discussion with the mobile phone industry and the police about the feasibility of setting up and implementing a shared database of stolen handset IMEI numbers.

  Mr. Robert Clark
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has received on the handling by the Police Complaints Authority of a complaint by Mr. Leslie Clark into the case of Mr. Robert Clark; [28872]

  (2) what representations he has received regarding the handling by the Metropolitan police service of a complaint by Mr. Leslie Clark into the case of Mr. Robert Clark. [28871]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), in his former capacity as a Minister of State, Home Department received representations on this subject from the hon. Member and replied to his correspondence in February and April of last year.

  Police (Complaints)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints received by the Metropolitan police service from members of the public during 2000 were(a) forwarded to the Police Complaints Authority and (b) recorded initially as complaints and then reclassified and cancelled. [28875]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: From 1 January to 31 December 2000 there were 6,211 public allegations against the Metropolitan police service, making up 3,887 cases. Of these, 3,050 allegations (49 per cent.) have so far been referred to the Police Complaints Authority. There are 60 allegations (1 per cent.) that are shown as 'Not Resolved' or 'De-Recorded'.

  Commercial Sexual Exploitation
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to implement recommendation 49 of Setting the Boundaries to introduce 1098W
  into UK domestic law a specific offence of people trafficking for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation. [29676]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Home Office Ministers are currently considering this and all of the other recommendations made to Government by the Sex Offences Review, in the light of responses to a public consultation process. The Government have indicated their intention to introduce new legislation to target the evils of trafficking in human beings. They are considering how that legislation should be framed and are examining suitable legislative vehicles.

  The new legislation will also implement our international obligation in respect of trafficking, contained in the United Nations (UN) Protocol on Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children for Sexual Purposes, the UN Convention on Transnational Organised Crime, and a European Union (EU) Framework Decision on Trafficking currently under negotiation.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received to amend section 22 of the Sex Offences Act 1956 to make it an offence for a person to procure under 18s for the purposes detailed in sections 22(1),(a)(b) and (c) of the legislation. [29675]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Sex Offences Review recommended to Government that section 22 of the Sex Offences Act 1956 should be replaced with a range of gender neutral offences relating to the commercial sexual exploitation of a child under 18 and the trafficking of a person for the purposes of sexual exploitation.

  Home Office Ministers are considering this recommendation and the responses received during the consultation period in light of the Government's intention to introduce new legislation to target the evils of trafficking in human beings and the United Kingdom's international obligations in this regard.

  Police Custody (Deaths)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deaths in police custody there were in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by force; what is being done to reduce the number of recorded deaths in police custody; what action he will take as a result of responses received to the recent consultation document concerning deaths in police custody; and if he will publish, following the conclusion of the consultation, a list of those who responded to it. [27854]

  Mr. Denham
  Statistics for deaths in police custody for 2000–01 were published on 29 November 2001. Copies can be found in the Library. The total number of deaths in custody fell from 70 in 1999–2000 to 52 in 2000–01. Police forces are taking a range of actions to reduce the number of deaths. These include safer custody facilities, close circuit television (CCTV) monitoring and an emphasis on better care, assessment and monitoring of detainees. Work is also in hand to develop a national protocol to cover health care professionals working within the custody environment.
  1099W
  The responses received to our recent consultation document concerning the definition of deaths in police custody will be fully considered before changes are introduced. I will publish a list of those who responded.

  Tetra Communications System
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Tetra communications system is to be introduced in police forces nationwide; what recent discussions he has had with the Police Federation and others concerning its safety; and if he will make a statement. [28576]

  Mr. Denham
  Airwave, the new national communications service for the police forces, is being introduced throughout England, Wales and Scotland. It is already operational in Leicestershire, Lancashire and Greater Manchester and will be ready for service in North Yorkshire, Suffolk and West Mercia by the end of February 2002. It is planned to complete the roll-out in England and Wales by 2004, and in Scotland during 2005.

  In November 2001 the Home Secretary and I met with representatives of the Police Federation to discuss their concerns on health and safety aspects of the Tetra technology used by Airwave. The Home Office has provided answers to the questions raised by the Police Federation. These can be found on the website of the Police Information Technology Organisation (www.pito.org.uk).

  Crime Statistics (Midlothian)
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the figures are for crime against the person in the Midlothian constituency in the most recent 12 months for which figures are available; what percentage of this figure was related to mobile phone crime; and what the Government are doing to(a) help reduce crime and (b) improve community safety in the Midlothian constituency. [27181]

  Mr. Denham
  This detailed information on Midlothian is a matter for the Scottish Executive. But Scotland should benefit from work undertaken in England and Wales in researching the problem of mobile phone theft, and in working with the industry. Although other measures are important, more needs to be done by the industry to enhance the security of their product, and we are pressing them to do more to prevent their customers from becoming the victims of crime.

  We have succeeded in gaining the commitment of United Kingdom phone operators to some early measures to test ways of putting stolen phones out of action. In particular, we are exploring with the police and the operators a Dutch initiative which disables stolen phones by "bombing" them with teletext messages every few minutes. The operators have also agreed to improve security as investment takes place in new systems, and we are seeking similar commitments from manufacturers.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of animal experimentation and animal welfare in universities. [28846]
  1100W
  Angela Eagle
  Some 40 per cent. of regulated scientific procedures using live animals in Great Britain are conducted in universities and medical schools. They form part of a wide range of programmes of fundamental and applied medical research.

  All such procedures in the United Kingdom are regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Act provides for a three-tier licensing system covering the establishments concerned, the research programmes undertaken, and the individuals carrying out the work.

  Under the Act the procedures can be licensed for only a limited number of permitted purposes, and then only if there is no alternative to the use of animals. Moreover, use of animals will not be permitted unless the benefits of the proposed research are deemed to outweigh the welfare costs to the animals. The number of animals then used, and the suffering they are caused, must be minimised. This reflects the application of the "three Rs" in relation to animal experimentation; replacing the use of animals with alternative methods, reducing the number of animals needed for a particular purpose and refining the procedures to minimise suffering.

  The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate assesses all licence applications and monitors compliance with licence authorities to ensure appropriate standards of animal welfare. Required minimum standards for the housing and care of the animals are set out in detail in published codes of practice.

  Hertfordshire Police Force
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were serving in the Hertsmere Division of the Hertfordshire Police Force on(a) 1 July 2001, (b) 1 October 2001 and (c) 1 January 2002. [25990]

  Mr. Denham
  The information in the table has been provided by the chief constable of Hertfordshire constabulary. On 1 October 2001 Hertsmere division joined with two other divisions to become part of the 'Central Area'. To provide a proper comparison, the table shows the total officers on 1 July 2001 deployed on the three divisions which now make up the Central Area; and totals for the Central Area on 1 October 2001 and 1 January 2002.

  Date

  Police officers

  1 July 2001

  420

  1 October 2001

  419

  1 January 2002

  417

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how (1) many officers were recruited by the Hertfordshire constabulary in each year since 1983; [25246]

  (2) how many officers left the Hertfordshire constabulary in each year since 1983. [25245]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  1101W

  Year

  Officers recruited

  Total officer leaving

  1982–831

  62

  4—

  1983–841

  62

  4—

  1984–851

  74

  4—

  1985–861

  72

  52

  1986–871

  95

  85

  1987–881

  114

  97

  1988–891

  107

  79

  1989–901

  101

  100

  19902

  74

  69

  19913

  96

  62

  19923

  73

  73

  19933

  54

  59

  19943

  72

  55

  1995–963

  109

  80

  1996–973

  148

  90

  1997–983

  78

  95

  1998–993

  79

  91

  1999–20003

  167

  115

  2000–013

  110

  117

  1 Source:

  Hertfordshire constabulary records 1982–990 Hertfordshire constabulary records are kept by financial year (April to March). The force does not have wastage figures for before 1984–85.

  2 1990 only represents nine months from April to December 1990 due to changes in Home Office collection and collation arrangements (April-June from Hertfordshire constabulary records, July-December from Home Office records.

  3 Source:

  Home Office Statistics 1990–2001. Home Office data was kept by calendar year until 1995 when this was changed to financial year. The data for 1995–96 therefore represents 15 months from January 1995 to March 1996.

  4 Not available

  Driving Offences
  Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drivers were successfully prosecuted in 2001 for a driving offence; and how many of these offences involved the use of a hand-held mobile phone. [28352]

  Mr. Denham
  Statistics on prosecutions for motoring offences in 2001 will be published in the autumn.

  There is no separate offence of driving a vehicle using a hand-held mobile telephone, and any prosecution is likely to be for driving without due care and attention or for not being in proper control of a vehicle.

  Foreign Armed Forces
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department further to his answer of 2 November 2001,Official Report, column 862W, on foreign armed forces, what protections under international instruments are available for individuals (a) serving under the command of and (b) associated with the armed forces of the former Government of Afghanistan. [29251]

  Peter Hain
  I have been asked to reply.

  Categories of persons who are prisoners of war (POWs), or who are to be treated as POWs, are set out in Geneva Convention III and, where applicable, Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. The legal status of a detainee has to be determined by reference to these
  1102W
  provisions in each individual case. Those detainees who do not enjoy prisoner of war status must in any event be treated humanely.

  Protection of Children
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average prison term is for a person convicted of child abuse. [26608]

  Beverley Hughes
  'Child Abuse' is not a specific offence but actions of this nature can be prosecuted under a number of offences. Recorded crime statistics show the categories of offence with the largest numbers of offences specifically against children are: cruelty or neglect to a child (2,558 offences in 2000–01) and gross indecency with a child (1,336 offences in 2000–01).

  In the year 2000, 616 prisoners were received for the offence of gross indecency with a child. They had been given, on average, a sentence of 27.5 months. In the same year, 124 prisoners were received for the offence of cruelty to a child. They had been given, on average, a sentence of 16.4 months.

  Other offenders imprisoned for actions against children would have been included in offence categories that do not separately identify children, eg rape, incest, homicide, etc. It is not possible to identify the sentence lengths given for these cases from central records, although all those convicted of murder would have received a mandatory life sentence.

  Under the broad review of sentencing that began in July, the Government are looking at tougher determinate sentences for sex offenders that will ensure they stay in prison, up to the full term if necessary, so long as they continue to present a risk of harm to our communities and that they are subject to strict and extended supervision on release. The Government are also looking at a requirement that where a life sentence is an option judges should not shy away from using it if the professional evidence shows that there is a clear risk that the offender will commit further sex offences.

  Child Asylum Seekers
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on (i) the numbers of and (ii) factors leading to unaccompanied children seeking asylum in the UK. [28513]

  Angela Eagle
  We have not commissioned any research or evaluation into the factors which lead unaccompanied minors to seek asylum in the United Kingdom. However, the Research Development Statistics (RDS) Directorate is currently in discussion with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to identify any possible research needs in this area.

  Information on the numbers of unaccompanied minors seeking asylum in the United Kingdom is already available (up to August 2001).

  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 RDS website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1.html.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bradford): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Zimbabwe: Presidential Election
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made by international bodies of which the United Kingdom is a member to ensure that the forthcoming presidential elections in Zimbabwe are free and fair.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, on 11th January, the European Union insisted on invitations to and accreditation of elect ion observers at least six weeks before the Zimbabwean presidential election. It asked the Government of Zimbabwe to respond to those concerns by 18th January.
In their reply, the Government of Zimbabwe did not give specific answers on a range of issues of concern. The EU has therefore requested further clarification from the Government of Zimbabwe. EU Ministers will consider the outcome of those representations at their meeting in Brussels on 28th January.
On 20th December, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) expressed the expectation that formal invitations would be issued to Commonwealth election observers well before the election. The next CMAG meeting, on 30th January, will assess progress.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I welcome what the European Union and the Commonwealth are doing, so far as it goes. However, does the Minister recall that, in 2000, almost all the international observers appointed then reported adversely, saying that the elections to the Parliament were not free and fair? That was not followed by any action by the world community, only by expressions of concern. May that have led President Mugabe to believe that he could get away with action in connection with the presidential elections, which are only just over six weeks away, similar to the action that he got away with in relation to the parliamentary election, only worse? That is what is now happening.
Is it not important that the Commonwealth, the European Union, the Southern African Development Community and the United Nations make it clear now that if the forthcoming elections are not free and fair, they will take action and not simply say, "Tut, tut"?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the matter has been discussed in the House several times. The international community, including ourselves, has made it
1566
absolutely clear that we want to see free and fair elections in Zimbabwe. We have made that absolutely clear to the Government of Zimbabwe through our representations through the European Union, but also through the Commonwealth. We have worked with our partners in Africa, particularly in southern Africa, who have made that absolutely clear through the Southern African Development Community.
This is not about allowing President Mugabe or the Government of Zimbabwe to get away with anything. We are interested in making absolutely clear the concern of the international community and in pushing the Government of Zimbabwe to take action. However, I must say to the noble Lord, as I have said in the House before, that in the case of a government who have been elected but do not put the concerns of their own people at the top of their agenda and refuse to take on board the concerns of the international community, there is a limit to what the international community can achieve.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, seven Movement for Democratic Change activists were murdered in December and gangs of ZANU-PF thugs are going round areas that are presumed to be MDC-supporting beating people up, destroying property and intimidating anyone presumed to belong to the MDC. There have been attacks on the press and on freedom of assembly. Is the Minister now in a position to say that there cannot be free and fair elections in Zimbabwe? Would it not be useful for the international community to admit that, at this stag, and to try to do everything possible to ensure that ZANU-PF does not get away with the atrocities that it is committing against its own people?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, in the representations that were made by the European Union to the Government of Zimbabwe in the dialogue process, the European Union insisted on international election observers and insisted that those observers should be in Zimbabwe six weeks before the election. We are, of course, mindful of the need for observers not only to be there on the day of the election but to be able to see what happens in the run-up to the process itself. We are entirely clear about the need for observers to be on the ground and monitoring events in plenty of time. That is one the issues that will be taken up by the General Affairs Council on Monday, as the Government of Zimbabwe have not given us the assurances in that regard.
I would also say to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that we have made the strongest possible representations to the Government of Zimbabwe about the violence, harassment and intimidation that we have seen. We will continue to do that.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is it not crystal clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out, that the elections are already being seriously distorted, that opposition rallies are being broken up by police thugs and that every effort is being made to see that the election is not free and fair? In the past year, there have

1567
been 48 political murders, 329 abductions, 2,245 cases of torture and 992 cases of unlawful detention in that country. Foreign journalists have been labelled as terrorists.
Is it not already too late—far beyond the right time—to take serious action? Far from waiting any longer, the Government should move off their snail's pace and put real effort behind bringing the EU's targeted sanctions against the élites to fruition quickly, encourage the Commonwealth quickly to remove Zimbabwe from that body and take all other actions with SADC and other countries to stop this turning into a major tragedy and a new rogue state that will threaten all of southern Africa.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is really important that we listen to all the key stakeholders. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, the concerns that he expressed. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister yesterday described the situation in Zimbabwe as a disgrace. I said categorically that we have made representations about the kind of violence and intimidation that we have seen. However, it is important that we listen to what the people of Zimbabwe say, to what the opposition parties say and to what civil society says about the nature of their election in March and take that into consideration, when we make decisions about the point at which we can determine whether we feel, as the EU, that elections can be free and fair.
We have said clearly to the Government of Zimbabwe what we expect. They have said back, in no uncertain terms, that they have not met the terms presented by the EU. That will be discussed on Monday. It is important that the process that we have gone through in bringing together the international community is recognised.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, Mr Mugabe himself said at the meeting in Malawi that he would welcome observers. As far as I know, that is the only time that he has said it, as distinct from his Ministers. Is there no possibility of planning with the African countries and other members of the United Nations, who cannot be described as colonialists, for them to send observers, accompanied by the press, to Zimbabwe? They should go in as ordinary travellers but be observers. That could surely be organised. It would be entirely proper and would be welcomed by the people of Zimbabwe.
We must call Mr Mugabe's bluff sensibly. We should take him at his word and behave very surprised if he does not want those observers, now that he has said that he would have them.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. At the recent meeting of the Southern African Development Community, President Mugabe made several commitments to his SADC partners. They were set out clearly in the communiqué that was issued after the meeting.
1568
We have been talking to our southern African partners about the timetable for SADC election observers to go into Zimbabwe. They have the matter in hand. The noble Baroness will recall that the SADC Parliamentary Forum has published norms and standards which set a very high standard indeed with respect to the issue of free and fair elections. Indeed, they are the norms and standards that we are discussing with our EU colleagues so that, as part of the European Union, we can judge whether we consider the elections to be free and fair.

Diabetes and Coronary Heart Disease
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they view the inter-relationship between treatment of diabetes and coronary heart disease.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, there is a close association between diabetes and cardiovascular disease, including coronary heart disease. The Diabetes National Service Framework Standards for England, published last month, highlight the importance of common strategies for prevention and treatment.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that on average it takes between nine and 12 years to diagnose someone with type 2 diabetes, the form suffered by the vast majority of those affected, by which time as many as half will suffer complications such as cardiovascular disease? Given the financial and human costs of that late identification, can the Minister give an assurance that when the second part of the National Service Framework relating to diabetes is published, it will include targeted and systematic screening of those most at risk?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that it is very important to put firmly into place a preventive strategy. She will know that the first set standard, which we published in December, refers to a preventive programme. I am aware of the view that a targeted approach to screening may be the best way forward. We have a national advisory committee in place in the form of the UK National Screening Committee whose job is to assess the benefits and disbenefits of such screening. We have referred the very matter raised by the noble Baroness to that committee. It is looking at an integrated approach to the identification of those at the highest risk of developing type 2 diabetes and it is expected to report to the department in 2005. More generally, I agree with the noble Baroness about the need for proactive action on prevention.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the establishment of the National

1569
Service Framework. But can my noble friend say whether in the important delivery paper that will come next summer there will be established minimum staffing levels? Will we promote local leadership and, most important of all, will we provide the finances required to ensure that the NSF is carried through successfully?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is right to refer to the importance of the delivery strategy because it will set out the conditions under which we shall deliver the standards we have set out in the paper published last December. I cannot comment in relation to resources because that is a matter being considered as a part of the discussions being held on the next spending review. However, I understand the importance of investment in this programme. I also accept the point made by my noble friend in relation to local leadership. We would expect the primary care trusts, which in the future will take on much of the burden of NHS commissioning, to be very exercised as regards the need to give that leadership.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the National Service Framework is already overdue by a year or more. Can the Minister try to ensure that the implementation date for the NSF is brought forward?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that we have stated that the 10-year implementation programme would start in April 2003. I think it is important to allow the service to digest the results of Part 1, which sets the standards, so that when it comes to starting up the implementation programme everything will be in place. We can then be assured of success in the delivery of the programme. More generally, the question of local delivery and the involvement of primary care—primary care will play a major part in this—is crucial. I think that it is right for us to spend time making sure that primary care is in the right condition to take forward the strategy.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that diabetes can trigger many complications involving the eyes, legs, feet, kidneys and other organs? Does he further agree that the specialist units carry out a marvellous job? It is extremely important to ensure that trained nurses are involved in the care of those with diabetes and that they can go out into the community.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness on the points she has made. Specialist services have a major role to play and we are committed to ensuring that, under the new arrangements for the NHS being taken forward, there are arrangements for the commissioning of specialised services. Equally I believe that much of the action will be undertaken at the local level; that is, within primary care. We are looking to primary care to take a leadership role in this area.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a very strong association between type 2
1570
diabetes and obesity, and that there is also a link between obesity and coronary heart disease—partly through the same mechanism which causes type 2 diabetes? Does he further agree that obesity is one of the major public health problems facing this country, with very rapid increases due to our more sedentary lifestyles, increased mechanisation and better heating in homes, as well as a far too high proportion of calories from fat in our diet? Do the Government have those priorities in mind?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, yes. Obesity is one of the issues that we in the Department of Health are attacking with vigour. This problem needs a cross-government approach because there are various elements to tackling obesity, including the encouragement of greater physical activity. To that end, along with our colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills, we are encouraging school travel plans which encourage children to walk and cycle to school. We have introduced a national schools fruit scheme which is being piloted in the West Midlands. The scheme enables children in infant schools to have one piece of fruit per day. Indeed, only a few months ago the National Audit Office published a report on tackling obesity in England which we are now considering as a part of taking forward an obesity strategy.
Lord Chan: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that those ethnic minorities which comprise high risk groups, suffering up to six times the average incidence of diabetes and coronary heart disease, will also form a part of the new plans for treatment?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand that type 2 diabetes is up to six times more common in people of South Asian descent, and up to three times more common in those of African and Afro-Caribbean descent. It is also more common in people of Chinese descent, as well as in other non-white groups. That is a very significant set of statistics. I can assure the noble Lord that reducing inequalities will be a key underlying principle, both in terms of the standards that we have already produced and in relation to the implementation programme which will follow in Part 2 of the National Service Framework.

Euro/Pound Exchange Rate
3.18 p.m.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they believe there is something fundamentally wrong in the current euro/pound exchange rate.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, while the Government do not have a specific exchange rate target, a stable and competitive pound is sought over

1571
the medium term. The key to a stable and competitive pound is low and stable inflation, supported by sound public finances.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I do not know if he has yet had a chance to read the minutes of the January meeting of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee which were published yesterday. They make interesting reading:
"the worsening imbalances [in the economy] posed a particular threat. Real domestic demand growth had exceeded real output growth by 5.7% over the past five years … This was unsustainable, and at some stage there could be a sharp correction to the exchange rate in response to a widening current account deficit".
Perhaps I may translate that central Bank-speak into English—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay:—"Runaway consumer boom; industry in dire straits; balance of payments up the spout and the pound riding for a fall". That is what the Monetary Policy Committee is saying. Will our complacent Chancellor stop preening himself on his so-called success and now take the advice of his colleagues such as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and get on with joining the euro at a competitive rate?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am not sure why the House disagreed with the noble Lord seeking to reinterpret his question. I was rather grateful for it. Far from preening himself, the Chancellor reflects on his achievements with the real economy during the years the Government have been in power. After all, productivity has increased by 13 per cent since 1997, which improves the position of our manufacturing industry as well as other sectors of the economy. As to the issue of the exchange rate against the euro, sterling is in a particularly strong position at the present time. But the noble Lord will recognise that, in regard to exchange rates, we do not look at short-term policies but at our long-term position.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, is it not clear that the exchange rate problem is with us once again and is very serious indeed? Does my noble friend accept that it is not only our exports which are suffering, but imports coming in which are affecting our balance of trade and balance of payments, and that there is no sign of that improving over the next few years? It is not only a question of the five tests that the Chancellor quite rightly insists on being met, but of the exchange rate at which we go in. That will be the important and dominant factor in regard to entry into the euro mechanism in due course.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend is right—the exchange rate will play its part in the five tests to determine the economic case for entry into EMU. However, he should not reflect too great a
1572
pessimism about our present position. Last year was very difficult. It was, after all, a year in which three of the world's great economies—the United States, Japan and Europe—suffered serious decline. But my noble friend will recognise that, at the present time, of all the major economies in the world, the British economy is growing at the fastest rate and is on target to grow by 1.9 per cent this year. Too much gloom is not well founded in these circumstances.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the Chancellor has now been in office for five years. Is sterling currently competitive and stable?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord will recognise that there are very stable factors in regard to the economy—not least, he might reflect, the unemployment rate in comparison to the years when the administration in which he played his part was in power. However, I hasten to add that of course there are fluctuations in exchange rates—we all recognise that—but they reflect the fundamentals of the economy. The reason why sterling is strong at the present time is that the fundamental aspects of the British economy are strong in themselves. Surely even the noble Lord can find it in himself to offer some congratulations on that score.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, given that over the past two or three years sterling has remained fairly stable against the US dollar, the Canadian dollar, the Swiss franc and most other major currencies, while the euro has declined consistently and steadily by something like 30 per cent, might there not be a problem with the euro?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord is right, the euro has not performed as well as it was hoped it might. But during the past two years the pound has not appreciated against the euro. It did, certainly, up to 2000, but that has not been the case in more recent times. We all look forward to a situation in which the euro economy develops strength. For all peoples of the advanced world at the present time—and this impacts significantly on the under-developed world—there is widespread recession in some of the major economies. Fortunately, under the Government's guidance, this economy is stronger than others.

Taliban and Al'Qaeda Detainees
3.24 p.m.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the status, with respect to the Geneva Conventions, of Taliban and Al'Qaeda militants captured in Afghanistan.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the status of each detainee under international humanitarian law—the law of armed conflict—has to be considered in the light of the facts of the individual case. We do not have all

1573
the facts. The bottom line is that, whatever their status, they are entitled to humane treatment and, if prosecuted, a fair trial.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I remind the House that I have a peripheral interest. World security and stability is paramount. Her Majesty's Government are not at fault in this problem, but does the Minister agree that compliance with the conventions is morally and legally right? Does she further agree that any perception that we are not committed to full compliance could result in our military opponents failing to surrender at the earliest possible moment and members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces not enjoying convention rights themselves?
Baroness Amos:My Lords, we have made our position absolutely clear. We have said that the detainees are entitled to humane treatment under international law. The Americans have said very clearly that the detainees will be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. That statement was repeated yesterday by the US Secretary of State for Defense. As to the position of our military opponents, I cannot speak for the opposition forces in Afghanistan. It is important for us to ensure that the consensus we have built up for dealing with international terrorism is maintained and we must be sensitive to the concerns expressed. That is why we have made it absolutely clear that humane treatment is the bottom line.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is right in regard to perceptions being important and that the concerns raised in the national press and by various commentators need to be taken very seriously? Does she further agree that the best way to ensure that they are taken seriously is to ensure that the Red Cross and British officials continue to have access to those prisoners in order to reassure the international media and the public in general that provisions are continuing to be made for those prisoners?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the ICRC has permanent representation at Guantanamo Bay. It has unlimited access and is due to make a confidential report to the US authorities. It is important that the House should remember and recognise that the ICRC is an independent organisation. In that respect, my noble friend and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, are right—the comments of an independent organisation such as the ICRC about treatment at Guantanamo Bay are very important. As to the three British detainees, the House will know that a team of diplomats went to Guantanamo Bay and spoke to them.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the news of an upgrade in status and conditions at Camp X-Ray is welcome. Does the Minister agree—I am sure she does—that these are very dangerous men? One of
1574
them, apparently, tried to bite through the cables in the DC-9 he was brought over in in order to crash it; another has bitten a guard; and two others are suspected of being the people who bit to death the CIA agent in Mazar-i Sharif. So Washington and the United States are fully justified in treating these potential terrorist criminals with the greatest care. Would not the right line be to encourage the Americans to sort out who are criminals and who are prisoners of war, establish their status as soon as possible and then return them to the nations from which they came, where relevant? In the mean time, they could give a full understanding that in Cuba they are dealing with intensely dangerous and, in some cases, maniacal individuals.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. We have always said that these are high security prisoners and therefore there are security needs which have to be maintained in Guantanamo Bay. At the same time, it is important that we should recognise what the US authorities are doing. They have said that they intend to, and will, treat the detainees in accordance with the principles of the Geneva Convention. It is important that that is recognised.
With regard to the noble Lord's other questions, yes, I accept that it is important that the status of the detainees is clarified; we are in constant contact with the US authorities in relation to the matter. Once their status is clarified, we can make decisions as to the next step.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am happy to say that I have some news which I hope the House will welcome. When I announced the dates of the February break last week, it had been agreed with the usual channels that the House might sit on Friday 15th February. During the course of this week, however, it has been possible to rearrange the business that had been arranged for that day. As a consequence, I am happy to announce that, subject, as always, to the progress of business, we shall now rise a day earlier for our February break. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday 14th February and rise at the end of business that day, returning on Monday 25th February. The dates that I announced last week for the Easter and Whitsun Recesses remain unaltered.

Police Reform Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make new provision about the supervision, administration, functions and conduct of police forces, police officers and other persons serving with, or carrying out functions in relation to, the police; to amend police powers and to provide for the exercise o f police powers by persons who are not police officers; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.

1575
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Human Rights Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Perhaps I may explain that this will in effect allow the Lords' component of the Joint Committee the power to adjourn from place to place without limiting the committee to travel within the United Kingdom, and to make occasional visits to the institutions of the Council of Europe. A similar Motion was passed in the House of Commons on 8th January. It would be unfortunate if only half the committee were allowed to have this discretion. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, That the order of the House of 3rd July 2001 appointing a Select Committee to join with a Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Human Rights be amended by leaving out the words "within the United Kingdom, and to institutions of the Council of Europe outside the United Kingdom no more than four times in any calendar year".—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Hybrid Instruments Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Baroness Fookes be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Earl of Courtown.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Privileges Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Trefgarne be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Viscount Cranborne.(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Homelessness Bill
3.33 p.m.
Read a third time.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
"CO-OPERATION IN CERTAIN CASES INVOLVING CHILDREN
After section 213 of the 1996 Act (co-operation between relevant housing authorities and bodies) there is inserted—
"213A CO-OPERATION IN CERTAIN CASES INVOLVING CHILDREN
(1) This section applies where a local housing authority have reason to believe that an applicant with whom a person under the age of 18 normally resides, or might reasonably be expected to reside—

(a) may be ineligible for assistance;

(b) may be homeless and may have become so intentionally; or

(c) may be threatened with homelessness intentionally.

(2) A local housing authority shall make arrangements for ensuring that, where this section applies—

(a) the applicant is invited to consent to the referral of the essential facts of his case to the social services authority for the district of the housing authority (where that is a different authority); and

(b) if the applicant has given that consent, the social services authority are made aware of those facts and of the subsequent decision of the housing authority in respect of his case.

(3) Where the local housing authority and the social services authority for a district are the same authority (a "unitary authority"), that authority shall make arrangements for ensuring that, where this section applies—

(a) the applicant is invited to consent to the referral to the social services department of the essential facts of his case; and

(b) if the applicant has given that consent, the social services department is made aware of those facts and of the subsequent decision of the authority in respect of his case.

(4) Nothing in subsection (2) or (3) affects any power apart from this section to disclose information relating to the applicant's case to the social services authority or to the social services department (as the case may be) without the consent of the applicant.
(5) Where a social services authority—

(a) are aware of a decision of a local housing authority that the applicant is ineligible for assistance, became homeless intentionally or became threatened with homelessness intentionally, and

(b) request the local housing authority to provide them with advice and assistance in the exercise of their social services functions under Part 3 of the Children Act 1989,

the local housing authority shall provide them with such advice and assistance as is reasonable in the circumstances.
(6) A unitary authority shall make arrangements for ensuring that, where they make a decision of a kind mentioned in subsection (5)(a), the housing department provide the social services department with such advice and assistance as the social services department may reasonably request.
(7) In this section, in relation to a unitary authority—
"the housing department" means those persons responsible for the exercise of their housing functions; and

1577
"the social services department" means those persons responsible for the exercise of their social services functions under Part 3 of the Children Act 1989.""
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as I said on Report, the issue of accommodation for children in need and their families under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 is an important one and will be considered in the House of Commons in relation to the Adoption and Children Bill. This will address a central issue of concern that has been raised both in this House and outside; namely, that it needs to be clear that social services have the power to provide accommodation for children and their families under Section 17.
But there is also the separate question of ensuring that there is good co-operation between the housing and social services departments in working to meet the needs of such children and their families.
I have previously mentioned having met a number of social services directors and being impressed by the arrangements they have in place to ensure that their own department works together with the housing authority—or housing department in the case of unitary authorities—to find an appropriate solution for the whole family when dealing with families with children who are intentionally homeless or ineligible for housing assistance. I am bringing forward amendments with the purpose of ensuring that all local authorities should adopt similar co-operative arrangements.
New Clause 11A—which would insert a new Section 213A in the Housing Act 1996—would require housing authorities to have arrangements in place to ensure that the social services authority is aware of cases where the housing authority is dealing with an application from an applicant whose household includes a child under age 18 and the authority has reason to believe that they may be homeless, or threatened with homelessness, intentionally, or may be ineligible for housing assistance. The housing authority would also have to inform the social services department of the decision taken on the homelessness application.
These requirements would be subject to the applicant's consent, although, where consent was withheld, this would not affect the housing authority's ability to alert the social services authority in any case where it was concerned that a child might be at risk of suffering significant harm.
New Clause 11A would also place a new duty on housing authorities to provide advice and assistance to the social services authority, where the latter was aware of a decision by the housing authority that a household that includes a child under 18 is intentionally homeless, or threatened with homelessness, or ineligible for housing assistance, and the social services authority asks for assistance in the exercise of its functions under Part III of the Children Act 1989. This new duty will not prejudice the current provisions on co-operation between authorities in Section 27 of the Children Act 1989.
New Clause 11A would also place a requirement on unitary authorities to have similar arrangements in place; that is, to ensure that, subject to the applicant's
1578
consent, the facts of such cases and the decision on the homelessness application are referred to the social services department by the housing department, and to ensure that the housing department provides advice and assistance, such as is reasonable in the circumstances, to the social services department on request.
As I said on Report, my department and the Department of Health intend, in addition, to issue joint guidance to housing and social services departments about co-operative working in the context of these new provisions.
It is essential that when dealing with homeless families with children there is positive co-operation between housing and social services departments, and that there are joint protocols in place to ensure that this is carried through in practice. Some authorities are already doing this, and I applaud them. We want to see this extended to all authorities. New Clause 11A will provide the statutory framework to ensure that this happens, and I urge noble Lords to give their support to it.
Perhaps I may mention the fact that these proposals were first raised in this House, and from all sides. The noble Baronesses, Lady Maddock and Lady Hanham, both referred to them. My noble friend Lady Massey, who is not present today but who knows about this provision, has persisted in raising the issue—rightly—throughout the course of the Bill. Shelter has also done a significant amount in bringing this matter to the attention of those in this House and beyond. One of the great things that we manage to do in this House is to produce provisions such as this. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I welcome these provisions. They will strengthen the Bill and move towards meeting what has for some time been a crying need to make sure that parents, particularly mothers, with children who find themselves homeless or about to become homeless are not separated. That has been one the great shames in some places in the country.
I have no difficulty in welcoming the amendment. As this may be a final opportunity, perhaps I may say in passing that on the whole the Bill has been uncontroversial. What we have all tried to do during its passage through this House has been to strengthen it and ensure that it achieves the objectives that lie behind it.
My anxiety remains that the Bill may be a triumph of hope over experience—largely because it extends the "homeless" categories. We all know that that objective will be impossible to meet if we cannot resolve the problems of temporary and permanent housing for those for whom the Bill is intended. It is a matter to which we may return on other occasions. It is

1579
certainly one that I shall want to continue to monitor. None the less, the Bill is welcome, and I particularly welcome the new clause.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I do not wish to carp, but it would have been helpful if the amendment had been tabled a day earlier.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise for that. It was entirely my fault. There were still things to sort out. If there are any difficulties, I hope that I can resolve them and answer any questions raised.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I shall put my questions into my remarks. I made that point because for those of us who do not have large departments or lots of people helping us with legislation, it is quite difficult. We have been asked by the usual channels to make sure that we table amendments on time. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord recognises the difficulties.
The noble and learned Lord did not make it clear whether the Government were going to make changes to the Adoption and Children Bill. It is obvious from comments that I have made at earlier stages, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, who is very sorry that she cannot be here, that the amendment meets the points that we have raised and the concerns that Shelter has expressed.
It is important to emphasise how sensitively housing departments will need to deal with the issue. Applicants in those circumstances are likely to be very vulnerable and distressed. Given the preconceptions that some people have about social services and the publicity that has surrounded the issue, a suggestion that they will be referred to social services may cause some people further distress and may discourage them from giving their consent. The important aspect of the amendment is that the consent of people presenting themselves to the local authority is required. It will therefore be important for housing departments to make it clear sensitively that social services may be able to assist them. That should be reflected in guidance. I hope that the Minister will tell us that that will happen.
It would also be helpful if the Minister could expand a little on what is meant by,
"such advice and assistance as is reasonable in the circumstances".
How will that be dealt with in guidance? I hope that housing departments will be encouraged to be active in that area and to use their local knowledge to advise social services on the state of the local housing market.
With those provisos, we welcome the amendment. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on the two points that I have raised.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I share the concerns and the enthusiasm expressed by the previous two speakers. It is good that the Government have listened to those concerns. Where children are
1580
involved it is important that safeguards are built in. I am glad that the Government have tabled the amendment, which has my support.
Baroness David: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Massey is unable to be here today, but she asked me to say on her behalf how pleased she is and how grateful she is to the Minister for the amendment that he has tabled. She is entirely satisfied that it will deal with the problem of parents and children being separated, which had caused anxiety to many of us. I add my thanks to hers. We are very pleased that at long last an amendment has been tabled that seems to fulfil all our ambitions on this difficult problem. I thank the Minister on behalf of us all.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, will the Minister be so kind as to explain the meaning of "intentionally" in subsection (1)(b) and (c)? I think that I understand the circumstances in paragraph (b) in which a person becomes intentionally homeless, but paragraph (c) is less clear to me. Who would be threatening the child? What are the circumstances foreseen? If that could be read into the record, it would be a substantial help in subsequent litigation.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I too warmly welcome the amendment. I should appreciate the Minister's clarification on a few points. It would be helpful if he could expand on what is meant by providing,
"such advice and assistance as is reasonable in the circumstances".
I hope that housing departments will be encouraged to be active in that area and to use their knowledge and expertise on the local housing market to help social services in exercising their functions to provide housing assistance to families. That could mean, for example, suggesting the names of private landlords with property in the area or arranging for housing benefit claims to be expedited to secure private accommodation.
In certain circumstances in which the needs of children are unlikely to be met outside the social sector—for example, if they are disabled and need a specially adapted property—I hope that such assistance would not preclude the provision of accommodation. That might be reflected in guidance. Perhaps the Minister might write to me on those points if that would allow him to expand further on them.
Finally, on the point of intentionality, it would be helpful if the Minister could encourage local authorities to take more account of the circumstances in which a family's homelessness arises in the first place and the potential implications for them when applying the law relating to intentional homelessness. Families are sometimes declared intentionally homeless in extremely harsh circumstances. Taking a longer-term approach could save a good deal of distress, particularly if, as in the example that I gave earlier, the child has special needs. Shelter's legal teams are

1581
frequently successful in overturning harsh decisions about intentionality. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I apologise for making this point so late in the proceedings. I hope that I am not too late. Clause 15(3), which deals with allocation schemes, says:
"The scheme may also be framed so as to give additional preference to particular descriptions of people within this subsection (being descriptions of people with urgent housing needs)".
May I ask most strongly that whatever guidance the Minister gives should cover the needs of families who have been—as the Government politely call it—relocated from Northern Ireland under paramilitary threat? Approximately 150 such families arrive in this country every year, homeless, helpless and distraught. They usually have children and are often probably not very intelligible to many people, having strong Belfast accents. If anybody is in urgent housing need, they are. Although the Bill applies only to England and Wales, I hope that citizens of Northern Ireland will come within the purview of the scheme if they arrive here homeless. My urgent request to the Minister is to ensure, when framing the guidance, that some specific reference is made to that problem and to the particular need of those people for priority treatment.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, on Report I moved an amendment on the particular problems faced by local authorities when dealing with homelessness among gypsies. Since then I have written to the noble and learned Lord, although I do not expect him to have had time to consider the points that I raised in that letter. I should like him to interpret the new clause as it applies to gypsies who become homeless.
As the noble and learned Lord knows, many gypsies have large families. If they are living on an unauthorised encampment, they are already homeless. As I pointed out in my letter, the police have the power to issue directions for them to move under Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The local authority also has the power to direct them to move if they are camping on land without the permission of the occupier or on the roadside and in certain other circumstances.
Consequently, if police were contemplating using Section 61 or local authorities contemplated using Section 77, the gypsy family living on that land would be threatened with homelessness and the provisions of this clause would, I think, come into play. However, as the Minister is also aware, it is not normal for gypsies to accept temporary accommodation as they have a strong cultural aversion to going into bed and breakfast. Recently, moreover, the courts have ruled that that is a perfectly reasonable attitude for them to take. Yet, in most local authorities there is not sufficient accommodation for the gypsies already residing in or resorting to their area. That is one of the difficulties that we face because we do not have the guidance. We do not know what local authorities will be asked to do when they are faced with such circumstances.
1582
When a gypsy family are in unauthorised occupation of a piece of land, there is a threat that they will be removed. Under this legislation, the local authority would have a duty to make provision for them that does not sunder the children from the parents even though there was no accommodation on authorised sites within the local authority area to which they could be asked to move when directed to leave their current accommodation. I just wonder how the Minister will reconcile that problem in the eventual guidance.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have welcomed the amendment. I shall deal with the specific points.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked about the amendment that is needed in relation to the Children Act 1989. As I said on Report and again today, the critical issue is to ensure that the social services directorate has power, when appropriate, to house the family and not only the children. As my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Department of Health said in the Commons on 17th January, to which I referred on Report, we have undertaken to bring forward amendments to the Adoption and Children Bill to address that issue.
As for guidance on the difficulties to which the particular duty gives rise—as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, there will be sensitivities between housing and social services because of the fact that they are dealing with children—those particular sensitivities need to be reflected in the guidance that will be issued.
The noble Baroness also asked what type of advice and assistance would be provided. That issue was raised also by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness and the noble Earl on what we wish to see in the advice and assistance. The types of issue raised by the noble Earl—such as practical help in finding accommodation and obtaining housing benefit—are precisely those we would expect to see addressed in the advice and assistance.
As for the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, I do not want to get sucked into a debate on what might happen in relation to litigation. However, the difference between subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c) is that, in subsection (1)(b), the subject has become homeless and, in subsection (1)(c), the subject is threatened with homelessness. The word intentionally has the same meaning in both paragraphs and that meaning has been enshrined in homelessness legislation for a very considerable time. I think that the distinction between the two is simply that one subject is homeless whereas the other is threatened with homelessness.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, raised an issue that, with the greatest respect. I think has absolutely nothing to do with the amendment we are debating. Nevertheless it is an important issue. If I may, I shall write to her on the particular issue.

1583
I think that that deals with all the points that were raised.
Baroness David: My Lords, if the Minister is writing letters, perhaps he could place copies of them in the Library.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, of course I shall do that.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to address the issues that I raised?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The provision applies only in the case of intentional homelessness. It was difficult to work out from the example that he gave whether the circumstances constituted intentional or unintentional homelessness. If it were a case of unintentional homelessness, the provision would not apply.
We need to consider carefully how the types of issue that the noble Lord raised would be addressed in guidance. I am sorry to be vague on the point, but the provision is only now being added to the Bill and we have to think very carefully about the guidance before we produce it. However, I shall consult him before we go forward with the guidance.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Allocation schemes]:
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 11, line 1, after "any" insert "deliberate, wilful, or negligent"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I apologise for taking up the time of the House. However, as my noble friend Lord Avebury said, we might not be pressing some of these issues so much if the guidance were past the draft stage.
Amendment No. 2 is designed to ensure that local authorities exercise their discretion in determining the priority given to applications in line with the Government's policy intentions, by stipulating more clearly the behaviour defined in Clause 15(3)(2A). We believe that the provision should be limited to deliberate, wilful or negligent behaviour, which—to be quite clear—could include anti-social, threatening or violent behaviour, applicants who have previously wilfully refused to pay their rent and applicants who have deliberately caused damage to their own or to others' property. I believe that the amendment would also make it clear that issues such as low-level rent arrears and problems caused by inefficient housing benefit payments should not affect the priority given to an application.
I raised this issue in the House last week and I have also written to the Minister about it. I therefore hope that it will be possible for him to say something about the guidance on it. Although I realise that priority should be left to the discretion of individual authorities, I am sure that the Minister will agree that
1584
the housing Green Paper set out a framework giving priority to housing need and that that is what this Bill is about. So far, the draft guidance that I have seen seems very weak. We have established during the Bill's passage that the practices of some local authorities leave much to be desired.
I hope that the Minister can reassure me on those points. I should be particularly grateful if he would emphasise the types of circumstance in which he could not envisage priority being reduced.
We have come to the end of the Bill's passage. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham said, it has not been particularly controversial. I think that we all hope that the Bill is passed and that its operation is as successful as we have discussed. However, its success will depend on resources. I therefore hope that the Minister will reassure us that, at least after one year, there will be a review of the legislation's operation and cost. Some local authorities are concerned that the department's estimates do not reflect the true costs.
As I said, I very much welcome the Bill. In another place, I took part in the passage of the Housing Act 1996. I was very disappointed that it took so long to pass that legislation, which had previously been piloted through Parliament as a Private Member's Bill by Stephen Ross, the then Liberal Democrat—or Liberal—MP for the Isle of Wight. I am also sorry that it has taken us so many years to put right some of the things that we got wrong in that legislation. Nevertheless, as I said, we welcome the Bill, and we thank the Minister for the constructive way in which he has dealt with all our queries. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, in relation to Amendment No. 2 I echo the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that adequate funds will be made available to put into practice this Bill, which has received such wide support in the House and whose importance we all recognise. The Government set aside £8 million for local authorities to meet their additional costs. The Local Government Association estimates that the actual costs will be double that sum or more.
As the noble Baroness requested, perhaps the Minister will indicate whether or not the Government will be reviewing the cost to local authorities in the first 12 months after the Bill comes into operation in order to ensure that no additional financial burdens are being placed on already over-stretched local authorities.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I deal first with Amendment No. 2. Authorities may wish to take account of both good and less good behaviour, where that has been demonstrated by individual applicants. I have previously given as examples two applicants, one with a history of persistent but minor rent arrears and another who has demonstrated that he or she is a model tenant. All other factors being equal, the authority may consider the latter deserves more priority than the former. The qualification imposed by the amendment would then be wholly inappropriate.

1585
However, I know—the noble Baroness has made it clear to me personally and in correspondence—that the noble Baroness has genuine concerns and perhaps I can try to address those and seek to reassure her. One such concern is that some authorities are not paying heed to current guidance that urges authorities not to exclude people from the housing register for low-level rent arrears, and urges them to take housing need into account before making decisions to exclude.
I would point out that the statutory guidance that is currently in force regarding Part VI of the 1996 Act is that issued in December 1996, and does not address those issues very forcefully. Indeed, at paragraph 4.27 it suggests that the groups that authorities may wish to exclude as non-qualifying persons might include tenants with a record of rent arrears. Although this Government issued revised guidance on Part VI for consultation in 1999 which addresses those issues more fully, that does not have statutory force. Authorities therefore are not required by law to have regard to it.
I can assure the noble Baroness that the guidance that will he issued in support of the Bill will include robust guidance on the issues that she is concerned with here. We will make clear, for example, that in making any decisions as to the degree of priority that should be given to individual applicants, the level of their housing need should be a factor that is taken into account. We will also make clear that it would be unreasonable and inappropriate for an authority to reduce priority because of rent arrears that are due to housing benefit delays beyond the control of the applicant.
Another concern of the noble Baroness is that she has seen an early draft of the guidance that she feels is weak on some of these points—if that is not understating the position. I hope she will let me reassure her that the guidance is still very much in development. It has moved on from the earlier draft. There will be an opportunity for detailed consideration of this, and an opportunity to take me to task if I have not met the various commitments made during the passage of the Bill, when we consult on that guidance.
I hope that provides some reassurance on the points made in relation to the amendment. The noble Baroness and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, raised the issue of resources. This is not the appropriate place to talk about resources but perhaps I can say, as we announced towards the middle of last month, that we have set in place the introduction of a homelessness directorate that will take on what the Rough Sleepers' Unit did, what the Bed and Breakfast Unit did, and the other aspects of central government's activities in relation to homelessness. I hope that at about the same time as this Bill becomes law, it will be possible to make an announcement about its activities.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that very full reply. He has satisfied me on the points that I raised.
Given the fact that the guidance was not ready during the passage of the Bill, perhaps he will be in a position to enable us, at some future date, to debate the
1586
issues and discuss some of the genuine concerns that have been raised. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 15, line 44, leave out "195(6)" and insert "195(8)"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, on Report the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, helpfully identified a numbering error in one of the suite of amendments that I tabled which were intended to bridge gaps in the provisions of the Housing Act which allow housing authorities to secure accommodation for homelessness applicants pending a review by the authority of its homelessness decision and pending an appeal to the county court on a point of law. This is a purely technical amendment to correct the error.
The noble Baroness raised a number of other issues and permitted the amendment to go through on the basis that I would deal with those points. Though it is not strictly germane to my amendment, perhaps I can take this opportunity to clarify a point that was raised during the passage of the Bill in relation to non-priority need applicants.
The issue is that local authorities should have a duty to secure accommodation for applicants who are homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need. At the inquiry stage there is an interim duty to accommodate if the authority has reason to believe that applicants may meet those criteria. Where, following the inquiries, the authority is satisfied that those criteria are met, it must accept the main homelessness duty to secure accommodation. Where the authority is satisfied that there is eligibility and priority need, but considers that the homelessness was intentional, there is a power to accommodate pending a review or appeal.
Elsewhere the Bill gives authorities a discretionary power to assist applicants where they are satisfied the applicant is eligible, unintentionally homeless and does not have a priority need. The purpose is to ensure that authorities are able to assist such applicants, including by securing accommodation, where local circumstances and resources allow—for example, in areas where housing demand is low.
While one effect of that is to give authorities a general power to accommodate such applicants pending reviews and appeals, that is not its main purpose. Nevertheless, it has been suggested that it is inconsistent that authorities should have a power to accommodate where they are satisfied that such applicants do not have priority need, but they do not have a power to do so, pending inquiries, where they are not so satisfied.
I have explained the rationale behind the powers which are explicit in the homelessness legislation; that is, taking together the current provisions in Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 and the provisions in the Bill. However, in the absence of a specific power in the homelessness legislation, it would be open to

1587
authorities to decide to use the "promotion of well-being" power in Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 to accommodate homeless applicants where they consider that would promote or improve the social well-being of the area and was consistent with any community strategy prepared under Section 4 of the 2000 Act.
As this will be the last time I speak in the course of the passage of this Bill, perhaps I can thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate, which has been in the main incredibly constructive. Together we have improved the Bill. Also, I thank the Bill team for the work they have done and for their support, which has helped the deliberations of the House: Avril Huston, Alan Edwards, Bronwyn Hill, Duncan Campbell, David Gleave, Paddy Knowles, John Wright, Katie Goodall and Tom Walker in my private office. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, it would be very ungracious of me not to welcome this amendment. I too am grateful for advice from Shelter and the housing law practitioners association which enabled me to bring forward the amendments. Again, I thank the Minister for all his support during the passage of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

State Pension Credit Bill [H.L.]
4.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Serota) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Entitlement]:
Baroness Greengross Baroness Greengross moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 4, at end insert—
"(1A) State pension credit shall be publicised to the general public under the title "state pension credit" unless or until an alternative title is shown to be more appropriate or effective."
The noble Baroness said: The first amendment we consider to this important Bill concerns its title. It is important that we do so. On Second Reading even the Minister appeared not to be convinced by the title, nor was the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, among others. It is important that we get the title right as it could affect take-up for example. We have the bitter experience of the precursors to the state pension credit to learn from—all were rather badly named.
1588
To call extra help for a pensioner "supplementary benefit" is never likely to instil the feeling that it is a right rather than a handout. A similar situation has applied to income support from 1988. That is a benefit also paid to all low income groups, most of whom are likely to be in a completely different situation from that of a retired and sometimes very elderly person.
Therefore, I personally welcomed the principle of breaking the link between income support for those aged over 60 and those aged under 60 when the minimum income guarantee was introduced in 1998. However, the name did not constitute much of a move forward, particularly as it was neither a guarantee nor a minimum income if one had savings over £3,000. The Minister may recall that at the time Age Concern supported a case to the parliamentary ombudsman on that very point; that is, that the name "MIG" is misleading. Apart from anything else, it reminds everyone of the cold war, which is unfortunate.
I know that some, including many of my former colleagues at Age Concern, are worried by the term "credit" in the Bill's title. They feel strongly that it might be taken to mean a loan or a debt. I do not share that view as I believe that people get used to new things and new names if they are introduced well and thoughtfully, as we have seen with the introduction of the euro. The notion of a tax credit, money not paid in tax or a form of "tax back" is, I think, better understood than it used to be.
It might be better to call the state pension credit the state pension premium or the state pension addition, but that is a matter for debate. However, my main concern at the moment is that we seem to have two names for it. The Bill is titled the "State Pension Credit Bill", yet in all the promotional material that I have seen from the Minister's department the provision is called just the "pension credit". The dropping of the word "state" is unfortunate as the provision is a state benefit. My amendment seeks to restore the word "state" in the name presented to the general public so that people will not become muddled and think that the provision has something to do with private pensions or some other scheme. In addition, my amendment would give the Government the flexibility to rename the state pension credit if it is shown, through research or experience, to be unfortunately or unsuccessfully named.
The amendment is, of course, a probing one to determine what research or thought was carried out as regards the naming of the measure. I should like to know if any such research was done. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Higgins: At the beginning of our proceedings I must once again declare an interest as a chairman of an occupational pension scheme. I have considerable sympathy with the points made by the noble Baroness,

1589
Lady Greengross. It seems to me that to some extent the Bill's title is rather like that of the Holy Roman Empire which was neither holy, Roman nor an empire.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It survived for a long time.
Lord Higgins: The noble Baroness reminds me that it survived for a long time. That may be so. We must hope that suitable provision for the elderly also survives for a long time. However, I do not know why the title includes the word "state". I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, on that point as it seems to me a rather unnecessary complication. As she rightly pointed out, most of the promotional literature refers to the pension credit rather than to the state pension credit.
Before the end of our proceedings, we shall obviously need to reach a decision on the proposal. However, in announcing the Committee stage of the Bill, the Deputy Chairman requested that the title of the Bill be deferred. Perhaps at that stage we could reach a common consensus on the matter.
There are serious issues involved here. As the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, the word "credit" can lead to confusion. The provision is not a credit. All it means is that the Exchequer will take rather less of people's money than was formerly the case. To that extent, to call the provision a credit is a little disingenuous.
I am worried about the terminology used throughout the Bill. The Bill brings together two separate propositions: the guarantee credit and the savings credit. They appear in most of the clauses that we shall debate. As regards pensioners, I ask the Minister whether it is proposed that the minimum income guarantee terminology should disappear altogether? People are used to that terminology and considerable explanation will be required to inform people that what they thought was a minimum income guarantee has not disappeared but is subsumed under a different title, part of which comprises what used to be MIG and part of which will be the savings credit.
I am also worried about the huge proliferation of terms in the Bill. We not only have the state pension credit but also the appropriate minimum guarantee, the standard minimum guarantee, the savings credit threshold and others. Those terms will greatly complicate the terminology. As one of the problems we face is whether people understand these matters—if they do not, they tend not to claim and take-up is correspondingly reduced—in the course of our proceedings we ought to see whether we can simplify these matters, particularly the title. It was helpful of the noble Baroness to raise that point.
Baroness Barker: I said on Second Reading that I was something of a neophyte in terms of pensions debates. I point out to the Minister that, just as she predicted, my reading matter over the past few months has changed dramatically. I have been immersed in a number of fascinating documents. Whether or not I would have found them fascinating before I was
1590
involved in this matter, I am not sure. Perhaps one of the most fascinating, and one to which I shall return, is Overcoming Barriers: Older People and Income Support, the Government's own research into the many reasons why older people do not claim income support.
On reading that document I was struck forcefully by the importance of the seemingly trivial amendment that we are discussing. I also said on Second Reading that I was not thrilled by the title of the Bill. I find it most unhelpful. I believe that the Minister also said that she was not terribly wedded to it either. Having read of the reasons why many older people do not claim income support, I am even less disposed towards the Bill's title. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on one point that he made as regards dropping the word "state". The Government's research indicates strongly that older people are more likely to claim additional benefits the closer those benefits are linked to the state pension. One of the major barriers to people claiming benefit is their feeling, rightly or wrongly, that they are not entitled to it. However, they consider that they are entitled to the state pension.
Lord Higgins: But it is not called a state pension, is it?
Baroness Barker: The term "state pension" is widely understood by many pensioners. I thought the noble Lord talked about a state pension credit. I believe that we should consider what the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said in that regard. I think she would agree that we have not yet found a way correctly to identify the two elements of the new provision: the guarantee credit and the savings credit, to which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, referred. Until such time as we do, there will be a severe problem not just for pensioners but also for all those who seek to advise them on their entitlement. Perhaps we could come up with a title that was longer but more descriptive, such as "the pension top-up" or "the pension top-up and savings allowance". That is, I agree, clumsy and inelegant but it is descriptive. That would have an effect on take-up.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I find myself in some sympathy with the purposes that lie behind the amendment. As my noble friend said, the Bill's nomenclature is confusing in the extreme. The savings credit threshold as defined in the Bill is extraordinarily hard to understand—I have read it many times. We have not discussed estimated rates of return, which are imputed across savings at different levels.
Wherever possible, we must try to say what we mean. There will inevitably be complications in the detail but at least the scheme's name could he clearer. I should not favour calling the arrangement a "pension credit" because it is not a pension credit. Unless one has a full state pension, one does not get a credit on part of one's pension income; one qualifies for that only if one has a full state pension. We shall discuss that later. Moreover, the arrangement should not be

1591
called a "state pension credit" because it is an incentive to save. I hope that we will find a way to use the phrase "savings incentive", because the arrangement is an attempt to encourage people, on top of their basic state pension, to have savings that will qualify for the proposal. I hope that we will consider wording that involves the phrase "savings incentive" rather than "credit", which has a different nomenclature and implication. That phrase would make the position clearer. "State pension" suggests that there is a basic idea of qualifying, "savings" suggests that there is something that one needs to do and "incentive" means that one gets some return from it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Listening to this debate about the appropriate title is rather like listening to debates on reform of the House of Lords—everyone knows what they do not like but no one can agree on what they do like. We are somewhat in that position. Some suggestions do not involve titles that are easily recognisable titles to pensioners out there; they are accurate legal descriptions of the content that the scheme may involve. That is not necessary and it is not what we are dealing with.
Since the idea was first mooted, we have used the title "pension credit" from the beginning. Members of the Committee will recall that at Second Reading I explained that we had to use the prefix "state" for purely legal reasons and that we will continue to refer, in literature and so on, to "pension credit". The name has been in the public arena for sufficiently long already to have achieved a degree of acceptance and understanding. To further change it would suggest to many people out there that we have yet another different scheme and it would add to the complexity.
I accept the thrust that lies behind the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, which was to ensure that everything possible should be done to reduce stigma and to promote the take-up of pension credit. We do not want the name to stand in the way of that objective. She was absolutely right in that regard. I hope that she will accept my assurance that we will undertake a substantial programme of targeted publicity to achieve the dual aims of reducing stigma and promoting take-up, which we share with her. I hope to draw on her expertise and experience as we develop the matter.
It is appropriate to mention the pension service, which will come into being in April and which will focus exclusively on pensioners and those approaching pension age. It will deliver tailored services, which will mean less intrusion, less hassle and services that meet pensioners' needs in a more helpful and positive way. It is also our intention to present pension entitlements in a more holistic way. We want people to see pension credit as part of their overall pension entitlement. Current pensioners do not need to know about how one arrived at arrangements such as the five-year proposal, integrated sums of money and automaticity, although future pensioners do. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was absolutely right to suggest that future pensioners need to know that such arrangements will
1592
be available to them—that is an incentive to save. Existing pensioners are where they are, as it were, and the important point is to have simplicity and transparency for them. Our literature will ensure that that is the case.
We firmly believe that such practical linking of processes—the retirement pension with the two elements, as it were; that is, the guarantee element and the savings element—into one pension payment will help pensioners to claim it. We currently do that with SERPS, the graduated pension and pension increments.
I welcome this opportunity to say that what lies behind the arrangement is what matters, not what its title is. The title "pension credit" is reasonably well established. It is not the most elegant formulation but no one can come up with a better title that keeps simplicity, as opposed to being, in effect, the Long Title of a Bill. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Greengross: I thank the Minister for her explanation and sensitive approach. The matter obviously needs a little more thought to ensure that we have got it absolutely right. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 5, after "credit" insert "calculated in accordance with section 2"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, 21 and Clause 3 stand part.
First, I explain to the Committee that I shall be speaking to all the amendments today that stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Castle. Unfortunately, my noble friend has had a fall. She has been badly shaken but she is making good progress. She is not, however, well enough to come here today. I am sure that we all wish her a speedy recovery.
Secondly, I was not myself able to come to the Second Reading debate on this Bill. My noble friend the Minister will not be surprised to learn that I am not terribly happy about the general thrust of the Bill. It is true that extra money is being made available for pensioners, and that is surely to be welcomed. But it is dependent on a system of means testing and it will be extended, ultimately, to a large section of pensioners. According to the Government's own long-term projections, by the middle of this century as many as 65 per cent of pensioners could be eligible for the pension credit, with all that that implies.
One of the problems about means testing is that it is not only expensive to administer but it is often very complex. Account has to be taken of income from various sources, capital and so on. We shall debate some of those matters later. Provision has to be made for a taper, and that can be complicated as well.

1593
When I first read the Bill, I found parts of it very confusing. If we are to have this system, could we at least make it as easy as possible to understand? It is true that there are very useful notes on clauses, but I still find parts of the Bill difficult to comprehend. I therefore sought some assistance from a specialist adviser who knows a great deal about pension provision and social security in general. As a result, the amendment that is before the Committee and those that are grouped with it were framed. It will be noted that we want to do away with Clause 3 altogether and substitute a formula that we believe secures the same objective but which is much simpler. Instead of treating the savings credit as a separate benefit, the proposed formula in this group of amendments treats it as one element in the calculation of the guaranteed credit.
If the amendments were agreed to, the terms "guaranteed credit" and "savings credit" would be redundant; there would be one benefit—the state pension credit—in the calculation of which 60 per cent of certain types of income would be disregarded. That is our aim. In place of Clause 3 there would he the much simplified wording that we have framed in Amendment No. 21.
I hope that the Minister will agree that, irrespective of her view of the actual wording, which no doubt could be improved, there is a case for simplifying the formulation. I am not alone, it appears, in regarding Clause 3 as incomprehensible. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has drafted what amounts to a rewrite, which we shall no doubt debate later this afternoon.
This is by no means a wrecking amendment. Despite my view, which I have already expressed, as to the philosophy that lies behind the Bill, I accept that the Bill is before us and that it is up to Members of the Committee to do what we can to make it viable and accessible. I therefore hope that the Minister will look with some favour on what I have said. I repeat that we are not out to wreck the Bill; we simply want it simplified in order to make it accessible to the people who it is intended to benefit. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Higgins: I am sure that the whole House will be sad to hear of the fall sustained by the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, and that we all wish her a very rapid recovery. She is certainly missed at these debates—she is one of the usual suspects who is usually involved in them. When we previously debated this Bill, the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, was noted and we wished her well. Therefore, we are particularly pleased to see that she is now back with us.
As the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, these are very complicated matters, and she has sought to put forward an alternative proposal. Of course, it is well known that both she and the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, would much prefer—as, indeed, would many outside bodies—to see the money which the Government's proposals in the Bill would cost spent on uprating the basic state pension. I could not agree more with the concerns expressed by the noble
1594
Baroness in moving the amendment with regard to the extension of means-testing. There is no doubt that the proposals in the Bill will lead to a substantial increase in means-testing.
In the context in which she proposes her amendments and in the context of the Government's own proposals, I considered it extremely helpful to have the document published by the Department for Work and Pensions on pension credit for long-term projections. That document compares the Government's proposal for pension credit reforms with the proposal for increasing the basic state pension in line with earnings. The latter would normally be advocated by the noble Baroness who moved the amendment.
The figures given in the document are quite surprising. Those which relate to the cost of pension credit reform under the Government's proposals are based on three separate scenarios. I am not clear why there are three scenarios because different assumptions are made about the pension credit on the one hand and the savings credit on the other, uprated with prices, earnings or whatever. I should have thought that by now the Government would be fairly clear about what they intend to do with regard to uprating both the savings credit and the standard credit. Perhaps the noble Baroness can enlighten us on that matter.
If that is the position, then I am not sure why the document published by the department appears to assume that various possibilities arise. I believe that at least we should be clear about the Government's intentions with regard to uprating both the credits involved. We should then be in a better position to appraise the amendments before us. However, certainly if one takes the easiest of the assumptions, then, under the Government's proposals, the cost of the new measures in the Bill would apparently be: by the year 2030, £14 billion; by 2040, £20 billion; and by 2050, £26 billion. Those compare with corresponding figures of £29 billion, £46 billion and £62 billion so far as concerns uprating the standard pension in line with earnings. Therefore, clearly the proposals which, generally speaking, the noble Baroness supports would be a great deal more expensive in the longer term. They are fairly expensive even in terms of the Government's Bill, leaving aside the question of whether it is better to spend the money in one way or the other.
The Government's document appears to contain rather strange assumptions about take-up. It assumes 67 per cent in 2004 and then, as the pension credit gradually becomes established, 100 per cent thereafter. It seems to me to be extraordinarily optimistic to assume that after 2004 the take-up of the credit proposed in the Bill will be 100 per cent. We know only too well that generally the take-up of existing benefits is far less than that figure.
The other question which arises in the context of he figures that I have just given is whether the Government's proposal is sustainable. A number of outside bodies—the Pension Provision Group, the

1595
Institute of Public Policy Research, and so on—have expressed serious doubts as to whether the Government's proposals—still less the proposals of the noble Baroness in these amendments—would be sustainable. Clearly, in one sense, anything is sustainable so long as one is prepared sufficiently to increase taxes and social security contributions. But one has to put the matter into the broad context.
In relation to that matter, perhaps I may put a particular point to the Minister—this may be an appropriate moment to do so. If we are to incur these substantial costs, can we be told what the effect is likely to be on the Government's balance sheet? At present, one deficiency in our statistics is that the future liabilities of the Government with regard to pensions are excluded from the Government's balance sheet. We have a list of assets; it is a thick book. But perhaps the most major liability does not appear. I hope that in future we can include that figure.
Finally, with regard to this group of amendments, the important point is what the effect will be on savings. We must hope that the Government's proposals will produce an increase in the savings ratio. I believe we all agree that at present it is clear that insufficient savings have been made towards pensions in order to pay an adequate standard of living for people, let us say, in the year 2040.
Therefore, I was rather depressed by an analysis carried out by the Association of British Insurers. It suggests that, under the current arrangements—that is, without the pension credit—saving £50 a month, even over a long period of time—say, 20 years—is not worth while because of the way in which MIG is withdrawn if it is a means-tested benefit. Even under the pension credit arrangements outlined in the Bill, on the same assumption of approximately £50 a month, again, saving is apparently more worth while for a short period of time than it is now. The implied rate of return would be negative over a period of 10 years because the effective rate of tax as regards the pension credit is 40 per cent.
I should appreciate the Minister's comments on this point. But, if it is the case that one will receive a negative rate of return on savings of £50 a month for 10 years, and if the situation is even worse over a longer period, then we must query whether the proposal in the Bill is appropriate. More particularly, we must query whether an alternative of the kind proposed by the noble Baroness in these amendments might not be a better way of proceeding.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps the noble Lord will help me on this matter. I do not understand his point. With regard to the savings credit, at present someone of the age of 77 with a retirement pension and some other modest savings below the MIG income will see those savings wiped out because they are offset against what they would have received under the minimum income guarantee. In future, they will enjoy the benefit of at least 60 per cent of that amount. Therefore, I simply do not understand the noble Lord's point about negative rates of savings. At
1596
present, there is a 100 per cent negative rate of savings between £77 and £100 so far as concerns modest second pensions.
Lord Higgins: As I mentioned, the figures that I give are based on the analysis carried out by the Association of British Insurers. The association sets out a very reasonable and, I believe, not unrealistic scenario in which someone saves £50 a month over that length of time with various assumptions about the upratings which are likely to take place and the fact that the MIG will cut in at certain points. I do not believe that that is out of line with what Mr Frank Field has suggested from time to time.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Higgins: It is no good saying "Oh" about Mr Frank Field. We realise that he was supposed to think the unthinkable, and so on.
However, I believe that these are serious points both with regard to sustainability and with regard to the extent to which the Government's proposals are likely to increase savings. On the other hand, albeit for a much higher cost, perhaps something along the lines suggested by the noble Baroness in the amendments might be a better way in which to proceed.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 14 and 15 propose a radical change to pension credit and have the effect of substantively bringing forward much of Clause 3 to Clause 2. As Members of the Committee are aware, Clause 3 introduces the savings credit and details of its calculation. Therefore, we are considering this group of amendments together with the Question whether Clause 3 stand part.
In the process, I believe that we have wandered gently over much of the territory of the Bill with which we shall deal more specifically in due course. I should like to leave some of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, until we debate the amendments which relate to them rather more tightly, including the situation regarding the National Insurance Fund, and so on. I could attempt to answer them if he wishes, but these proceedings may sound more like a Second Reading debate rather than a response to the amendments. However, I can comment on some of the points, particularly the percentage of GDP.
The noble Lord rightly made the point that my noble friend's previous position on seeking uprating in line with earnings and basic state pension would have a forecast figure of something like £60 billion by 2050 and that that would be two or three times more expensive than our estimates for pension credit. I agree with him.
He also asked whether pension credit was sustainable as part of GDP. Our projections suggest that we are talking about possibly 0.6 per cent of GDP in 2020 and possibly 1.1 per cent of GDP in 2040. Compared with almost all European examples, we consider that those are realistic, sustainable and affordable percentages of GDP. I have no problems with that.

1597
I have tried to deal with the noble Lord's point about negative rates of return. That may or may not be true for certain assumptions, but not for people who at the moment are losing modest savings against MIG. Pension credit addresses that. It may be that some of the points raised by the noble Lord will be dealt with better when we consider such things as tapers and the like. If I need to respond to other points, perhaps I may do so later.
Perhaps I may turn to the amendment of my noble friend Lady Turner.
Lord Higgins: I entirely agree that it may be better to deal with some of the points later. Nevertheless, I was puzzled about why the Government's paper made different assumptions about uprating of the guarantee credit and the pension credit, so perhaps the Minister could tell us the Government's intentions in relation to prices, earnings or whatever.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall address that later. At the moment the Government have made it clear that our intentions, in terms of what we shall call MIG to the end of this Parliament, are to be uprated in line with earnings. We do not propose to bind future Parliaments on that. That will be determined in due course. We have given scenarios of whether RPI or earnings-related assume different rates of growth, if you like, and as a result what projections would subsequently follow, given possible permutations. On the face of it, that appeared to be a helpful way of presenting what the future liabilities, costs, responsibilities and rewards would be to the pension sector of social security. If my officials had not produced that information, the noble Lord would be pressing me for it under certain scenarios, as we have done.
Perhaps I should comment on the odd assumptions about take-up being 100 per cent from year two. I take the noble Lord's point. All the experience shows that with an income-related benefit there is normally a slow, but steady, climb to a rate of take-up which may be 90 or 95 per cent or more. We saw that with his own government's introduction of family income supplement and we have seen it with other forms of income-related benefits.
Had we put forward any other working assumption, this would have been taken, for year two, as suggesting that that is the total number of pensioners whom we believe will claim—and that would have been a step too far. We are putting in the funding in the hope that we can get as close to 100 per cent take-up as we can. I fully accept that there is no experience to suggest that we shall hit that figure. But if we did not put in the funding, or if we had exceeded it, or if we went for a figure considerably lower than that, I would be accused by the noble Lord of building in a failure to reach our proposed target. That is why we did it like that.
1598
I shall return to the amendment of my noble friend. Her policy position is to replace pension credit with a state pension of a similar amount and earnings-related. The cost of that has already been addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I have tried to put this point to my noble friends Lady Turner and Lady Castle. I am sorry that she is not in her place. We understand the reasons. It is worth reminding the Committee that that would not remove the need for income-related benefits for all sorts of reasons—even if we had an earnings-related increase and it had never been broken—because something like two-fifths of all of those currently claiming MIG would still need an income supplement either because they have an incomplete retirement pension, or because they need, and are entitled to, additional income-related benefits for such things as disability or ISME. Therefore, the notion that there is a choice between no means-testing, high retirement pensions, earnings-related and means-testing pension credit, and so on, is simply nonsense and is not borne out by the evidence. I know that my noble friend Lady Turner respects that information.
As was made clear at Second Reading, we are seeking to target benefit on the poorest pensioners and those nearly poor pensioners who currently see their modest savings being eaten away. We retain this dilemma that we are seeking on the one hand to ensure that the poorest pensioners, who have no savings, have a decent minimum income, which could be £100, but equally that those who have made modest provision will, for the first time, see some reward for it. That is fairness.
Pension credit brigades together the need to have a decent minimum income to address poverty on the one hand with fairness in our response to those who seek to help themselves on the other hand. That is what we are seeking to do.
The amendments of my noble friend remove reference to the pension credit from Clause 1 and substitute the references to the guarantee credit in Clause 2 with references to the state pension credit—not the basic state pension which of course is provided for under Part II of Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. Thus, the whole pension credit calculation would be within one clause and the guarantee credit and the savings credit would be replaced by one calculation covering both elements. I fully understand that the intention is that these amendments pave the way for the proposals made within Amendment No. 21, which seeks to insert a savings disregard into the calculation of the guarantee credit in Clause 2.
My noble friend is right to recognise the importance of this aspect of the pension credit. As I have said, many pensioners today are no better off for having saved, because in seeking to address the problems of poverty we have overtaken the efforts that some people have made for themselves. We do not believe that that provides the right incentive to save for the future.

1599
The savings credit will change that. It will reward rather than penalise pensioners for their thrift by giving them a savings credit, a cash addition for every pound of income pensioners have built up during their working lives.
Under the savings credit in Clause 3, we have proposed that pensioners who are 65 and over will receive a cash addition of 60 pence for every pound of second pension and income from savings that they have above the level of the savings credit threshold. In 2003 the threshold is expected to be around £77 for a single person, and £123 for a couple.
My noble friend proposes a very similar provision for inclusion in Clause 2. That is one approach and it could work for many pensioners, but we do not believe that it is sensible.
One of the problems that my noble friend simply has not recognised is that many pensioners have additional needs such as owner-occupier housing costs, disability, or caring responsibilities. We meet those needs through increases to the standard guarantee—what we call the appropriate guarantee. In Clause 3 we have ensured that those groups still benefit, with a higher lift, so to speak, from the savings credit but that they do not benefit more or disproportionately compared with those pensioners without additional needs.
Under my noble friend's proposal, her savings disregard would continue to accrue on qualifying income above the standard minimum guarantee and in addition people would be entitled to substantial savings credit. By removing the cap, those with additional needs would cost an extra £350 million because the savings element of the pension credit would become an extension of the guarantee. Thus, cases previously on the savings credit, and therefore, not passported, would be passported to housing benefit and council tax benefit. To remove cliff-edge effects would cost an additional £800 million. In addition, this amendment would add a further £100 million to the costs because the guarantee and the savings credit would be payable to those aged 60 to 64.
My noble friend's amendment, as drafted, would add a further £1.25 billion to the costs of £2 billion of pension credit. That £3.25 billion would have to be met either from an increase in taxes or from elsewhere within the Government's wider programme and agreed spending plans. Across Government we believe that we have the correct priorities.
While we accept that my noble friend's intention is to make the scheme more generous, we do not believe that, as she has cast it, that generosity is justified. We have set the qualifying age for the savings credit at 65. I explained that the guarantee is for men and women at 60 and the savings credit for men and women at 65. We believe that all pensioners over the age of 65 should have the opportunity to receive the same level of savings reward based on their savings. It cannot be right that because an individual has additional needs, they benefit disproportionately from their savings.
1600
In presenting the guarantee and savings credit calculations separately in the Bill, we believe that we have made clear our intent that all pensioners should have a guaranteed level of income that none should fall below. We also believe that in detailing the savings credit calculation separately at Clause 3 we are making it clear to pensioners on low and modest incomes that where they have saved there will he an identifiable reward for doing so.
I think that the amendment proposed by my noble friend would undermine those intentions and create an innate unfairness and bias towards those pensioners with additional needs including those with mortgages.
These amendments are inappropriate, extremely expensive, not well targeted and not the best way of taking forward the Bill. I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response. Although there has been some talk about basic state pension, and my attachment to the idea that it should be uprated in line with earnings, the amendments do not deal with that issue. The amendments relate to the wording of the Bill and the intentions underlying the wording. I was most anxious to ensure that the measure was comprehensible. I still believe that Clause 3 is extremely difficult to understand. We shall have another opportunity to consider the matter today; another amendment deals with that very point. However, I find aspects of the wording incomprehensible. I believe that there is an obligation upon us to ensure that primary legislation on a new and important measure such as this should be understandable.
It is not my intention to press the amendments. They were probing amendments to ascertain the Government's attitude towards my view of the comprehensibility of the provisions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 6, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: The amendment relates to pensioners who are living abroad. It is a similar area to that addressed in the later amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on regulations.
In moving the amendment, one has a sense of history. I understand that similar debates have been held intermittently since 1929 on the issue of pensioners who choose to live abroad.
The issue that I seek to address is often raised in the context of the state pension. I raise it in the context of the pension credit. I refer to pensioners who live abroad whose income is not uprated as it would be if they lived in this country. I do not wish to list the countries with which there are or are not reciprocal arrangements. I simply wish to raise one point. The latest figures for those pensioners who receive upratings are dated 15th January 2001. The number of pensioners who live abroad and have a state retirement

1601
pension at a frozen rate is 460,000; 378,000 pensioners have their pensions uprated annually. However, I have been unable to find figures beyond 1998 relating to where those pensioners have retired to.
Patterns of work and pensions are changing rapidly. I do not wish to focus on the common myth that pensioners living abroad are affluent, having retired to the Mediterranean and the sun. I refer to the migration of pensioners to this country. Great changes have taken place during the lifetimes of those pensioners, most notably in countries such as eastern Europe, and so on. That is the issue that I seek to address. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sorry that this amendment is not grouped with the next amendment. We tried. They are in separate groups but raise the same issue. It would have been better to take the amendments together.
Amendment No. 3 would remove the need for a person to be physically present in Great Britain in order to claim pension credit. Pension credit could be claimed, therefore, by anyone living abroad. It will not come as any surprise to the noble Baroness to know that the Government do not accept the proposal. I hope that the Committee will agree that it cannot be right that a person who might have no connection with, or affiliation to, the United Kingdom could receive pension credit, the funding for which will be provided by the taxpayers of this country. Were no residence or presence criteria attached to pension credit, the cost to the British taxpayer could be enormous, potentially running into billions of pounds.
Rather the Government intend that in order to receive pension credit a good degree of affiliation to this country will be required. Some form of residence condition is an inherent requirement in social security benefits generally. We do not believe that pension credit should be an exception to this rule.
We propose, therefore, that, first, it will be a condition of entitlement for pension credit that a person is present in Great Britain when a claim is made. In addition, such a person will be required to be habitually resident in the common travel area of the United Kingdom, Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or the Republic of Ireland. People with certain European Community rights such as workers, refugees and people granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom will not be required to demonstrate that they are habitually resident here.
As Members of the Committee will know, being habitually resident in the common travel area is a pre-requisite for a number of benefits including minimum income guarantee. In order to determine whether a person is habitually resident, a decision-making officer considers a variety of factors about the person's circumstances—for example, the length, continuity and general nature of actual residence, reasons for corning to this country and the claimant's future intentions. Indeed, when my son returned from the States, he was asked to which societies and organisations he belonged, and so on. I believe that
1602
those were perfectly proper questions to see whether someone's place of habitual residence was in this country.
During the previous Parliament, the Government undertook a review of the habitual residence test and made a number of changes to improve the efficiency and fairness of the test. Given that, and the fact that there is some similarity of purpose—I am sure the noble Baroness will recognise that—with minimum income guarantee in providing a guaranteed level of support to poorer pensioners, we believe that it is appropriate to use the habitual residence test for pension credit.
Of course, that is not to say that pension credit should cease immediately upon a person departing these shores. We intend to allow pension credit, as with minimum income guarantee, to continue in payment for periods of temporary absence from great Britain of up to four weeks. Where the claimant accompanies a family member who is a child and travelling abroad to receive medical treatment, this can be extended to eight weeks.
It is useful to get these matters on the record; that is what Committee stage is about. I hope that I have explained the position to the noble Baroness and that she will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barker: I thank the Minister for her reply. When the noble Baroness referred to absences for between four and eight weeks I thought we were in danger of straying into hospital downrating since it will now be increasingly possible to go to a hospital abroad. Perhaps the Government are ahead of us on these matters.
The Minister's response was as I predicted. Perhaps I may repeat that patterns of pensioners' lives are changing and there is a case for further research and updating on this issue. Were these pensioners—they are not affluent but are returning home—to remain resident in this country, they would fall into the category covered by the pension credit. Those people may have been in this country for a long time. Nevertheless, I have listened to what the Minister said. The noble Baroness is well versed and has long-standing experience in these matters. She graciously spent time explaining those matters to us. However, I think that the matter needs to be aired periodically. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 6 not moved.]
5 p.m.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 20, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 7 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. Perhaps I should explain that I was in no way responsible for the de-grouping of the previous amendment with this one. I was not in favour of that.

1603
The amendment seemed to fall naturally into this group. I presumed that there had been representations from somewhere else.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, wants to intervene.
Baroness Barker: I rise to point out that I do not think that the amendments were ever grouped together. They were not de-grouped by me.
Lord Higgins: Therefore, if they were not grouped together in the first place, it is the Government's responsibility.
I shall not go into the arguments which were put forward on the previous amendment by the Liberal Democrats because it had not occurred to me that those issues would be raised. There is a history of problems faced by those abroad who do not have their national insurance pension uprating. That is very well understood. However, I have never heard anyone say that those overseas should get what was MIG and is now the standard credit or that they should receive relief for their pension savings. They would probably be as astonished as anyone else if that were to happen.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9. This is the first stage in the Bill where the dreaded expression "regulations" appears. Perhaps it would be helpful just to say a word or two about that. Many of those outside have complained at great length about it being extremely difficult to know what the Bill does because vast tracts of it will be taken up by regulations. Having said that, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform gave the Government a fairly clean bill of health concerning whether the regulatory powers should be dealt with by positive or negative resolution. It made two caveats—for example, Clause 15. By and large it has not expressed concern. None the less, it is important to seek to establish during the course of debate what the Government's intentions are.
In that context, the noble Baroness said at Second Reading that she would try to provide us with drafts of the various regulations, of which this is the first to appear on the face of the Bill. I realise, and understand, that she has had considerable difficulty in fulfilling that undertaking. None the less, she has managed to get some commentary—I think that would be the right way of putting it—on the various regulations. That only alas—my fault not hers—reached me earlier this morning. I am grateful for it. No doubt between now and Report that will be circulated to others participating in these debates, and we can all take advantage of it.
One basic point of principle is that it is entirely appropriate to make regulations where the particular element of the Bill will be variable in the future. We clearly cannot go through primary legislation every time there is some major change in rates or whatever. On the other hand, if it is a matter which can be put on the face of the Bill, it should be. In a number of instances that may be the case. For example, the
1604
regulations make provision for the circumstances in which a person is to be treated as being or not being in Great Britain. That is not something which varies over time. The Government should know the circumstances in which they will treat a person as being or not being in Great Britain.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord will know that the precise terms of what counts as "habitual residence" were changed by the court case of Swaddling. That encouraged the Government to progress with their review of the habitual residence test. It did indeed change. As a result, all the guidance that had to go out and so on had to be perfectly properly changed. These things are not as fixed and non-variable as the noble Lord suggests. He seemed to be suggesting that the only regulations ever needed were those that dealt with numbers, which might have to change. Everything else would remain constant. No, that cannot be true. Forms of income, of annuity and all those kinds of things change every time different models come through.
The Government, without troubling the House continually with primary legislation, need to be able to have the flexibility to bring these matters forward with regulations, which, none the less, will remain properly scrutinised by your Lordships' House.
Lord Higgins: I was not suggesting that this applied only in cases of numbers. That is not my position. The noble Baroness is fortunate in having a court case which led to her having to change the question of who is or is not in Great Britain. If that had not arisen, she would find it more difficult to make her point. But I take and accept her point.
Amendment No. 8 concerns regulations which provide for whether someone should continue to be entitled to a pension credit if they are temporarily absent from Great Britain. Perhaps the noble Baroness can give us some indication as to how long someone has to be absent and so on. In that regard there probably are some helpful court cases and other financial legislation relating to whether someone is habitually resident and so on. No doubt the noble Baroness can confirm that matter.
The other point is the question of whether or not someone is in Great Britain. Perhaps the Minister can make clear for us what the situation is with regard to Northern Ireland. In particular, if someone visits Northern Ireland, are they said to be inside or outside Great Britain? These are all fairly clear-cut points compared with some of the complexities elsewhere in the Bill. It would be helpful to have the Government's view on that issue and whether it would not be better to deal with it on a United Kingdom rather than on a Great Britain basis. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord has described his amendments with his usual clarity. They all concern the residence and presence conditions that need to be satisfied in order to qualify for pension credit. Amendment No. 7 removes the provision allowing additional residence conditions beyond mere

1605
physical presence in Great Britain to be a prerequisite for receipt of pension credit. Amendment No. 8 limits entitlement to pension credit only to periods of presence in Great Britain. Amendment No. 9 has the effect of preventing payments of pension credit during periods of temporary absence from Great Britain—namely, England, Scotland, Wales—while the person remained in the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord said, that is the Northern Ireland amendment.
Amendment No. 7 as tabled has the effect of requiring a person to be physically present only in Great Britain in order to be able to claim pension credit. It is the mirror opposite of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. The argument remains the same. We believe that it is appropriate to have the habitual residence test, which is a stronger test than merely being physically present. I can elaborate on that matter if that does not answer the noble Lord's point.
Amendment No. 8 has the effect of removing possible entitlement to pension credit for periods of temporary absence from Great Britain. As I said to the noble Baroness, we are permitting that to be continued for four weeks where someone is away and eight weeks when accompanying a family member on a trip associated with illness and the like. I hope that point is covered.
Amendment No, 9 has the effect that pensioners who normally live in England, Scotland or Wales but who go to Northern Ireland for a short time—perhaps to visit relatives—would have to give up their pension credit while away and to claim it back again when they came home. That is the import of this probing amendment.
Our intention is to mirror the current rules which apply to income support. Although it is a basic condition that people are in Great Britain in order to qualify for pension credit, payment can continue for up to four weeks if they are temporarily out of the country, whether in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the world. That goes back to the previous amendment, Amendment No. 8. Exceptionally, if the person is accompanying a child for medical treatment abroad, payment can continue for up to eight weeks. These rules allow pensioners to take short holidays without any disruption to their income. Of course, the intention is that there will be an equivalent pension credit scheme in Northern Ireland. People visiting the Province could, I suppose, claim under that scheme while they were there and reclaim under the Great Britain scheme on their return. However, I do riot believe that to be an appropriate way of handling the situation.
The problem worsens if we compare the position of people visiting Northern Ireland temporarily to those travelling anywhere else. For example, a pensioner going to Spain or to the United States on holiday for up to four weeks would hold on to his pension credit during that temporary absence from the UK, but his neighbour visiting Northern Ireland for the same length of time would have to give it up because he or she would not be in Great Britain, though still in the
1606
UK. Therefore, the visitor to Northern Ireland would be placed into a worse position than that of the pensioner taking up temporary residence abroad on a four-week holiday. I hope that I have adequately explained the possible effect of the noble Lord's amendments. Accordingly, I urge him not to pursue them.
Lord Higgins: In the light of that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 1, leave out from "means" to end of line 4 and insert "the age of 60"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 54, which is also tabled in my name and that of my noble friend. There are also other amendments included in this group. I begin with Amendment No. 10. Under Clause 1(6), the qualifying age for the guarantee credit will rise from 60 to 65 between 2010 and 2020 in line with women's pension age, as was mentioned earlier. The effect of this amendment would be to keep the qualifying age at 60 on the grounds that many people have to retire at that age, often with very small occupational pensions. The MIG is now payable at 60 to both men and women, despite the fact that men's state pension age is 65.
Amendment No. 54 proposes the deletion of paragraph (c) in subsection (3) of Clause 6. Under that paragraph it is the Secretary of State's duty to fix an assessed income period—normally five years—only where the claimant or his or her partner is aged 65 or over. For those under 65 the weekly means test would continue. In the case of a woman retiring at age 60, there is no reason why the First five-year assessment period should not begin at once. In the case of a man under 65, the initial assessed income period should be shorter than five years, but this is provided for elsewhere. Therefore, it does not seem necessary to limit the effect of Clause 6 to those aged 65 or over. That is what the amendment seeks to remove. Moreover, if the five-year assessment is intended to encourage take-up, it will be much less effective if claimants have to be told that it will not apply for the first five years. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I have two amendments in this group—Amendments Nos. 24 and 26—to which I should like briefly to speak. When I spoke previously, I omitted to declare two interests. I am chairman of the trustees of an occupational pension fund and a director of a mutual building society, which gives me a peripheral involvement in the matters now under discussion.
I approach the subject from a slightly different angle from the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. It seems to me that we must make every possible effort to simplify the proceedings, the arrangements, and the nomenclature

1607
in the Bill. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the guarantee credit is available at one age while the savings credit is available at another. Changes will take place in the pensionable age for women—though, admittedly, eight years away from where we are now. However, in primary legislation, eight years is but the blinking of an eye. I hope that we shall be able to change the reference to specific ages on the face of the Bill to the phrase, the qualifying age". This would enable us to be more flexible in the future and not have a series of anomalies that may serve to confuse, and, indeed, lead to idiosyncrasies, inequities, and unfairness after the Bill reaches the statute book.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Barker: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 11 and 24. This group of amendments deals with the issue of equalisation of the savings credit—that is, equalisation of payment to men and women at the age of 60. The matter was aired on Second Reading. On that occasion, the Minister spoke at length about the difficulties and the complexities involved. She also outlined the fact that we are in a transitional period up until the year 2010, and then, again, up to the year 2020, for raising the basic pensionable age. So, until we reach the year 2010, we shall have a difference between men and women in this respect; namely, the pensionable ages of 60 or 65.
As the Bill stands, the guarantee credit will be payable at the age of 60, but the pension credit will be payable from 65. This means that women pensioners between the ages of 60 and 64 will not be eligible for the savings credit. I take a slightly different approach to the issue from some noble Lords. I am sure that the Minister will respond by saying that because of the current situation—the situation that we shall continue to be in until such time as there is equalisation at age 65—there will always be anomalies and inequities and it is a question of which anomalies and inequities we are willing to accept.
The Government have framed the legislation specifically to avoid inequities between men and women. So payments will be made to both men and women at the age of 65. I believe that my amendments would achieve the same aim. They would not create an inequity between men and women. However, they would make the savings credit available to women aged 60 to 64. There are many reasons behind that proposal. We have the Government setting precedents of equalisation at the age of 60 for MIG, winter fuel payments, free prescription charges, and also for concessionary transport.
In the age group of 60 to 64, we know that there are many women who fall into the low-income bracket, and these measures are designed to meet that situation. Equally, we know that, overall, women pensioners tend to be poorer than their male counterparts. One of the arguments that I am sure the Minister will deploy is: why should men aged 60 to 65 receive this benefit when so many of them may well be in work? If that is
1608
so, I would respond by saying that they would presumably be in income brackets that would take them above the level of the award.
There is one further reason for considering the question of equalisation. I have in mind the impact on housing benefit and council tax benefit. The age differences in assessment will create a level of complexity in the calculations of those benefits. With the current proposal to start the savings credit at age 65, rather than 60, this will mean that housing benefit will be calculated in three different ways, depending on whether someone is aged: first, under 60; secondly, 60 to 64; or, thirdly, 65 and over. Bearing in mind all the other complexities of the Bill, it seems to me that this is a matter that we should seek to avoid.
It is often possible in Committee to lose sight of the overall purposes of a Bill as one gets sucked ever more into the detail. We should remind ourselves that the stated intention of the savings credit is to encourage people to save. For those reasons, I do not believe that it is right for women aged 60 to 64 to be omitted from the provision.
Baroness Noakes: A number of speakers have talked about simplification being important in this highly complex Bill setting up the new pension credit. In particular, I support those Members of the Committee who are supporting Amendments Nos. 24 and 26 for reducing the savings credit age to the woman's pensionable age. That not only produces simplification across the whole Bill, but it also deals with the difficult issue of women retiring at the age of 60 who may be in low income groups not having sufficient additional income. Help the Aged has calculated that if women were deprived of their ability to claim the savings credit until the age of 65, they would potentially lose out on nearly £3,600 over that period which is a lot of money for women who perhaps do not have much in the way of additional resources. Similarly, men would be affected if they had retired early, perhaps against their own wishes, and they may need the protection of the savings credit.
A really important point here and elsewhere throughout the Bill is what kind of message we are sending out as regards savings. It seems to me that in this case we are saying that perhaps potential pensioners need to accumulate some capital because they will certainly need to draw it down between the ages of 60 and 65 in order to survive. That does not seem to me to be supporting an attitudinal change to saving which I believe is one of the Government's aims in this matter.
However, we do not live in an ideal world and everything that we might want to do is not necessarily affordable. Can the Minister say what additional public expenditure would be required, if the amendment were accepted, to reduce the savings credit age to the pensionable age rather than 65? I look forward to the Minister's comments.
Baroness Greengross: I support the point which has been raised that women pensioners between the ages of 60 and 65 hearing about the savings credit and

1609
knowing that they are excluded from it are going to feel pretty bad because there is nothing that they can do about it. I believe I remember at Second Reading the Minister saying that there was nothing that the Government could do about the age difference. It looked as though it might be a legal point which was then being brought forward. I imagine that it was connected with all men receiving the benefit at the age of 60 also; but I am not sure. I should be very grateful if that point could be clarified.
The other point I want to raise briefly is my concern about how the Government will inform those affected by this change. In principle I understand that the age must be increased because of rising longevity, changing work patterns and so forth which can justify this provision. But people have to know because this measure will seriously impact on their future planning. They need to begin planning now and it is very important that they do. We have the lessons from inherited SERPS to use as a model. We do not want another failure to inform people of a looming change in policy which will affect them very greatly.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: There are a number of amendments which seek to make changes to the various provisions for age limits in pension credit and I propose to deal with them together.
I should have said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in particular and to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, how much I have appreciated the fact that they were able to table so many of their amendments early which allowed us to do more detailed research work on them. Sometimes one of our difficulties is that what is intended in the amendment is not what it states. I found myself in the dilemma of trying to answer the words on the page—which are not the words spoken to. I suspect that that may also be the case as regards my noble friend's Amendment No. 54, which has an import in a different clause from that which she intended. I am in some dilemma as to whether I should make a speech which is irrelevant to the debate, but relevant to the amendment. But let me see how people's eyes glaze.
A number of amendments seek to make changes to the various provisions for age limits and pension credit and I shall deal with them together. Members of the Committee have made clear this evening that the minimum age for pension credit as a whole and for the guarantee credit in particular, is defined in the Bill as the "qualifying age". This is currently age 60, but will rise with state pension age for women from 2010. The minimum age for the savings credit element of pension credit is set at age 65, as is the minimum age for pensioners for whom an assessed income period can be set. Therefore, I want to return to the issue that was explored at Second Reading as to why the age is 60 for some and 65 for others and why we cannot change the age from 65 to 60. My best estimate is that the cost of bringing the age to 60 would be in the order of £200 million depending on how one "nets off" for other additional savings elsewhere. That is the kind of ballpark figure we are talking about.
1610
Perhaps I may begin with Amendment No. 11. It replaces the current wording used to define the qualifying age with a rather more concise form of words. It does not question the approach taken; namely, that the qualifying age for state pension credit should in future rise in line with equalising state pension age. As this starts in only eight years' time, it is clearly sensible that we should make provision now in primary legislation, as the noble Lord said, because it is the blink of an eye for pension credit to fall into line with this particular change.
However, the laudably concise form of words in this amendment introduces a rather less welcome ambiguity. If we say that in the case of a man the qualifying age will be a woman's pensionable age, we might then ask, "Which woman's pensionable age?" because pensionable age will be different for women born on different dates because the state pension age for women will start rising in 2010. The brief wording used in the amendment does not cover that issue whereas the current wording is rather longer for a good reason; namely, to ensure that there is no legal doubt that the reference is to a woman who is the same age as the man. I am sorry to have to go into that, but sometimes it is worth spelling out why what looks like a crisp solution ties us in legal knots, as this matter does.
I now turn to Amendment No. 10. The effect of this amendment is to set the minimum qualifying age for the guarantee credit element of pension credit at the age of 60, rather than allow the minimum qualifying age to rise in line with state pension age for women from 2010. This means a perpetuity amendment.
The Bill before the House creates a new benefit for pensioners. It is sensible to consider not only the present legal ages, but also those for the foreseeable future. That is why we are doing this. It was accepted in 1993 by the then Conservative government that the unequal state pension age—of 60 for women and 65 for men—was unfair. The resolution of this unfairness—to equalise both at 65—was debated and agreed by Parliament. The Pensions Act 1995, on which my noble friend and I worked closely, set out how that should be achieved. To allow people adequate time to make plans and provisions for their retirement, the women's state pension age will be gradually increased from 2010 so that by 2020 both men and women will reach state pension age at 65. Given that, it must be sensible to build that presumption into pension credit. That clearly raises issues about how we treat women meanwhile.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 24 and 26 which seek instead to handle the matter the other way, which is not to treat women for the savings element as though they were coming into it at the age of 65, but to bring the savings credit element back to the age of 60, bringing it into line with the minimum age for the guarantee element. The minimum age for both elements of pension credit would then rise in line with state pension age for women beginning in 2010. On the surface that may seem a sensible and generous

1611
simplification. But there are compelling reasons why we have chosen to set the minimum age for men and women at 65 for the savings credit element.
As I hope that I explained at Second Reading, 65 is the only reasonable choice. It ensures equal treatment for men and women. We have had particular regard—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross—to ensure that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and with Community law. Therefore, men and women have to be treated equally to that effect during the transitional period.
Amendment No. 24 would thwart us in that respect as it would have the effect of adding to the unfairness which already exists because the state pension age has not yet been equalised. Perhaps I may explain. The 1995 Act sets out how the unfairness of having different pension ages for men and women would be resolved starting in 2010. But in the mean time we have to take care not to introduce new inequalities. That is a darned sight more difficult than it sounds: there are no easy solutions.
The savings credit aims to reward people for thrift, ensuring for the first time that they are not penalised for having made efforts to save. To do that we have to look at what provision, including state provision, people have made for their retirement. So the amount of savings credit payable depends on existing state help such as the basic state pension and SERPS as well as, for instance, occupational and personal pensions and savings. If the savings credit was payable to people aged 60 to 64, even though it started at 60, men and women would still have different outcomes simply because of the unequal nature of the existing state help that they receive. Depending on the exact circumstances, a man could receive either more or less savings credit than a woman in the same situation.
I am happy to try to give the House a worked example. Even if people look glazed now, it may help them when they come to read Hansard. An example was included for my elucidation that I shall share with the House. Let me go through it; I shall try to go slowly.
A 63 year-old woman has a full basic state pension of £77 per week and a £10 a week occupational pension. A 63 year-old man has no basic state pension, due to the difference in state pension age, and a £10 a week occupational credit. If the savings credit were available to 60 to 64 year-olds, the woman in this example would be entitled to £6 per week and the man to nothing, because he did not receive retirement pension.
If we take the same two people, but this time both having occupational pensions of £100 per week, rather than £10 a week, the effect is quite different. If the savings credit were available to them, the man would be entitled to £13.80 savings credit per week—because he received no retirement pension—and the woman would be entitled to nothing, because her pension would float her off pension credit altogether. That would clearly be unfair. To avoid that unfairness, it
1612
was decided to make the savings credit available from age 65, the first point at which men and women are treated equally under existing state pension provision. That also fits with the long-term intention to equalise state pension age at 65.
Your Lordships may well ask—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has got this far, because he has tabled amendments on these lines—"Why must the savings credit build on existing state provision? Why can we not simply reward people's efforts to save for their retirement whatever form that provision may take? We would then avoid the problem of the inequality in state pension age". But that will not work either. If the savings credit were paid at age 60 to reward all types of provision, it would have to reward the basic state pension. But as that is not paid to men until 65, men would be at a disadvantage.
So I suspect that your Lordships would next say, "Why do you not deem him to have the state retirement pension"—we shall return to "deeming" on many occasions—"and then reward the additional provision that people have made?". But that would unfairly reward those who had not contributed to the basic state pension above those who had contributed throughout their working lives. Think of all those women who have only partial state pension because they have not paid the whole contribution.
Again, an example may be helpful. Jack is 63—perhaps we ought to move on to Frank, given that he is much beloved by the Opposition. Jack is 63 years-old and has no basic state pension as he has not yet reached state pension age for men. Before pension credit, his only income is £23 a week from an occupational pension. Jack will therefore receive £77 guarantee credit to top him up to the single persons guarantee level of £100. If he was deemed to have a full basic retirement pension of £77 when calculating the savings credit, all his £23 income from his occupational pension would be rewarded. So Jack would get a further £13.80 a week on top of the £77 guarantee credit. So his total weekly income—that is, his deemed retirement pension, his top up to MIG and his £23 of occupational pension, would be £113.80.
Jack's next-door neighbour Frank—we now come to Frank—is also 63 years-old and therefore cannot get state retirement pension either. His only income also comes from an occupational pension. But he has managed to save a bit more and gets £24 a week£1 more than Jack. What would Frank get? Frank would get £76 guarantee credit to top up his £24 weekly income up to the guarantee level of £100. If he was deemed to have the full basic retirement pension of £77 when calculating his entitlement to savings credit, £23 of his £24 occupational pension would be rewarded at 60p in the pound, giving him £13.80. But his extra £1 would mean that that maximum level of savings credit was reduced by 40 pence, giving Frank an overall savings credit of £13.40.
So Frank's total weekly income, including his £24 of occupational pension, would be £113.40. I am sure that your Lordships have followed me this far. So despite Frank having an extra £1 of occupational

1613
pension compared to Jack, Frank would be 40p a week worse off. That is the result of the complexities of deeming. Perhaps another way to put this is that it results in a more than 100 per cent marginal deduction rate. So it will not have paid to save.
Those are only some of the difficulties; I could go on. However, as I flagged it up, it is also worth raising the difficulties associated with SERPS.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: In the example given by the noble Baroness—in that blizzard of statistics—she mentioned the impact on married couples. Is not one of the difficulties that in the Bill—although admittedly this is not covered by the amendment—men and women have been linked together again, whereas hitherto they have been separated for taxation purposes? Is not that the cause of the difficulty that we face, and does that not meet the point that I was trying to make?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is helpful, but entirely irrelevant, if I may say so. We are dealing here with men, whether or not they are married to someone of the same age, a woman under the age of 60 or a woman over the age of 65 is irrelevant. We are dealing for these purposes with single men aged between 60 and 65. I was seeking to take your Lordships through the argument that we should treat them at the age of 60 as though they were women and thus entitled to savings credit.
The issue of the age of the man's partner is indeed an extra complexity, which would make it even harder to deliver the policy intent of the amendments, but the argument does not hinge on that. Separating out and treating what is actually a household assessment as though it were a disaggregated tax assessment would not improve the situation, because the man would still be between 60 and 65 and, for the purpose of the pension credit, we should have to deem a full retirement pension that he cannot have by law. That is what produces the anomalies that I have been describing. The issue of marriage makes the situation more complex, but does not alter the basic, fundamental flaw of what seems a generous proposal.
That is before I come to SERPS, which makes the position even more exotic. Women may have some SERPS in payment at age 60. Men do not receive that until 65. Again, there is no easy solution. We cannot simply ignore SERPS, because some people will have contracted out of SERPS, and it would be unfair to treat those who have contracted out of SERPS differently from those who have not. Another point is that men continue to expect to build up provision for their retirement until age 65, and this will become increasingly the case for women.
Given all that, I hope that I have persuaded your Lordships that we cannot equalise at 60 the savings credit that is built on a retirement pension that men cannot receive and have never received until 65. That would be true even if women's pension age was never going to rise. The fact that it is to rise to meet that of
1614
men seems to me to render the proposed process foolish. The difference with MIG is that that is about poverty. It has always been available from the age of 60. It is a form of income top-up. The savings credit, which has to deem the full retirement pension to come into play, cannot be paid to men under the age of 65 because they do not have a retirement pension. To deem it as if they had would produce some of the anomalies that I have tried to describe.
Behind the amendments is an understandable concern, which I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that women do not lose out overall, compared to men and compared to the current position, in the pension provision provided by the Government by the state second pension, stakeholder pensions and the Bill's provisions. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to bring such issues to our attention. My noble friend Lady Turner would of course join her in that.
Women tend to have lower incomes in retirement than men and they live longer, so they are more likely to see a relative decline in their pension income over their retirement. Pension credit will therefore be of particular help to women—as is the state second pension. More than half of pensioner households entitled to pension credit will he single women. About a further third will be men and women in a couple. In other words, pension credit will primarily help women and older women, for the reasons that I have just described.
Finally, Amendment No. 54 would extend assessed income periods to cover pensioners aged 60 to 64, as well as those aged 65 and over. I do not think that my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden really addressed that point in moving the amendment. She may not have envisaged the impact of the amendment. I am willing to speak to the draft that I have here, which addresses the purpose of Amendment No. 54, even though my noble friend did not speak in that way. I am in my noble friend's hands: if she would like me to do it, I am willing to do so. She may prefer me to sit down at this stage, for I have taken up a lot of the Committee's time, and we can return to the issue under another group of amendments, perhaps that relating to assessed income periods. I am happy to indicate to my noble friend which clause that will be under.
I hope that I have addressed the Committee's concerns. I recognise that it is an honourable problem, but I hope that I have persuaded the Committee that there is no solution, given that men's retirement age is 65. If we deem it, we will end up with marginal deduction rates, which would introduce further inequalities. Given that and the fact that women's retirement age is creeping up to that of men, we think that we have come up with the best solution, which is to treat men and women equally at the point of their poverty, which is 60. When it comes to the credit, which requires a full RP to get the full benefit it must be at 65, if we are not to introduce further inequalities.

1615
That was a long explanation. I hope that some of the worked examples will make it clearer—if I have not made any mistakes in citing them—when your Lordships read this before Report. I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.
Earl Russell: The Minister has given us a brilliant demonstration of why the demanded simplification of social security law can never be as simple as it looks. Does she accept the principle expressed by my noble friend Lady Barker that there is here no solution without anomaly? Is she attempting to offer us an anomaly-free solution, or is she—in the words once used by Lord Whitelaw—investigating alternative anomalies?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall give the Committee a bit of biography. In an interview for an internal Department for Work and Pensions staff magazine, I was asked what I thought to be the biggest problem in social security. I am sure that the person interviewing me expected me to say, "The Treasury". Heaven forbid—I would not dream of saying that the Treasury was the biggest problem in social security.
What I actually said echoes the noble Earl's point. I said that the hardest issues were those in which there were conflicting or competing good things. All that one can do is go for an optimum solution, not a maximum solution. The noble Earl is absolutely right. No one—certainly not I—would wish to disadvantage women at any point, but to deal with the issue in this way would produce worse anomalies than that which the amendment seeks to address.
We have come up with a decent solution, equalising at 60 men and women who are especially poor and equalising men and women with regard to rewarding their savings at 65. That is the decent solution, although I accept much of what the noble Earl said.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I was going to ask the Minister about the comment that she made about the difficulties relating to the position of women and the desire that women should not be disadvantaged in the way suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. Will the Minister give the matter further consideration, or does she think that it is an anomaly that cannot be addressed?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, I do. I am not the Minister responsible for that portfolio issue, but I have spent many hours going through it, to see whether there were other ways of addressing the issue. I am persuaded that this is the most decent solution that we can come up with.
That does not stop your Lordships revisiting the issue. My noble friend may wish to press the amendment to a vote, but I beg the Committee not to make amendments that simply make the situation worse because of the unintended consequences of the read-across. With social security, it is not, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, about simplicity, it is about
1616
read-across. It is like yellow lines on the road—one never knows where the cars are going to back up, for they do not always back up at the end of the yellow lines. That is what would happen here.
My noble friend Lady Turner of Camden has hit the end of the road on this matter. Obviously, if there are any particular points to pursue, I will be happy to correspond with her. If she wishes to revisit the issue at a later stage, she is, of course, free to do so. We have done the best that we can. I hope that when noble Lords read the proceedings in Committee over their cornflakes, they will agree that the issue should be put to bed.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for her detailed response to the amendments. Of course, I still feel that 60 would be a better age, especially in view of the fact that so many people—especially men—now have to retire much earlier than 65, because of industrial situations. Often, they do so on inadequate pensions.
I accept, however, that it is an extremely difficult issue and that has been illustrated by the Minister's response. Of course, I would like the opportunity to consider in more detail the numerous examples of difficulties that she gave. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Guarantee credit]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 8, leave out "does not exceed" and insert "is less than"
The noble Baroness said: This is a simple amendment. We want to leave out the words "does not exceed" and insert "is less than". The amendment would mean that the Bill would read:
"has income which is less than the appropriate minimum guarantee".
That would be clearer. It has no policy implications and is a simple change. It is a question of whether the Minister wishes to accept it. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I hope that when my noble friend has heard my reply, she, too, will not wish me to accept it. The amendment would have unintended consequences that she has, perhaps, not foreseen.
The amendment would amend the provision in subsection (1)(b) so that it would provide that a pensioner would be entitled to pension credit only if their income were less than the appropriate minimum guarantee. As drafted, the condition would be satisfied if their income were equal to the appropriate minimum guarantee.

1617
I can see why my noble friend might have thought that the amendment was necessary. On the face of it, if a person's income were equal to the appropriate minimum, they would not need a payment to bring their income up to the prescribed level. However, the subsection has been drafted deliberately and benevolently in its current form. It is the Government's policy that a person with income equal to their appropriate minimum guarantee will also be entitled to automatic qualification—passporting—to a range of other benefits provided by other departments and the devolved Administrations, including free dental treatment, the full value of an optical voucher, free wigs and fabric supports, full refunds of reasonable travel costs to hospital for NHS treatment, assisted prison visits, Legal Aid, court fee exemption and grants from the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme.
I am sure that the Committee will agree that those are important and necessary benefits. No one would wish to see them withdrawn, which is why we want to leave the wording as it is. I hope that, on that basis, my noble friend will persuade me not to accept her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for that response. Of course, no one wants to disadvantage people or to affect passporting to benefits. In the circumstances, I accept what the Minister said, and, having made the point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 16 not moved.]
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 21, leave out "or unmarried"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 17, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 25 and 101.
The Bill covers a scheme of pension credits that has a set of payments for single people and higher amounts for married couples. That reflects the way in which the pensions system works. However, the Bill also treats an unmarried couple as if they were a married couple. In that circumstance, two people—I shall come to the definition of married couple in a moment—have all of their income and capital aggregated for the purposes of calculating the pension credit. Of course, the pension credit for couples is not double that for a single person. Thus if two people who are not in fact married are deemed to be a married couple for the purposes of the pension credit, they will suffer from being allocated a lower limit than that for two individuals.
The definition such as it is can be found in Clause 17. An "unmarried couple" is defined as,
"a man and a woman who are not married to each other but are living together as husband and wife otherwise than in prescribed circumstances".
Same-sex relationships are therefore not included, whether they are a same-sex couple, or merely those who choose to spend their lives together such as, for
1618
example, two sisters. I assume that a brother and a sister would never be deemed to be an unmarried couple because that would have to be based on a presumption of incest. But if a man and woman choose to live together, they could immediately suffer the penalty of a lower joint pension credit limit.
Clause 17 defines a "married couple" as,
"members of the same household".
Regulations are in place to determine that. However, the same clarity is not in place for unmarried couples. It appears from the definition that the Secretary of State can prescribe the circumstances in which a man and woman are not to be treated as an unmarried couple, but I cannot find any guidance as regards when they will be treated as a unmarried couple. Does this mean that the pension service will make up the rules as it goes along? Will it inquire into the intimate details of such relationships? What will happen if an unmarried couple do not believe that they should be treated, in effect, as living together as husband and wife, especially if there are no rules to guide the service?
This is an intrusive part of the Bill. I know that many nobles Lords resent the extension of means testing implicit in these new credits, but this is an additional intrusion into the most personal aspects of older people's lives, according them no dignity in retirement. For that reason, Amendments Nos. 17 and 25 seek to remove the concept of an unmarried couple being treated as if they are married.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to Amendment No. 101, which seeks to remove the ability of the Secretary of State to prescribe when a man and a woman are not to be treated as living as man and wife. I know that we will return to the theme of regulation many times during the course of our deliberations in Committee. Why does the Secretary of State need a power to determine who is not to be treated as living together as man and wife? Furthermore, is that the best way of determining how an unmarried couple are to be determined? The Secretary of State appears to have no powers to determine how they are to be treated as an unmarried couple. That seems perverse. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has opened a rather bigger can of worms than she realises. It has been perfectly clear in social security law since—I think I am right in saying—1946 that it is based not on the ceremony of marriage, but on the household unit. The central point of social security is that it is designed to relieve need. We do not wear our wedding rings around our stomachs, and so we feel a great deal of need to sustain ourselves against hunger. That is the case whether or not we are married. If the basic purpose of social service is to sustain against need, then it must be done as it has always been done ever since the welfare state was set up—through the household unit.
That principle runs right through the warp and woof of the whole of social security law. To make it apply to the whole of social security law except with regard to the pension credit would be to create a degree of complexity of the kind which we have spent a good

1619
deal of the afternoon saying that we would rather like to avoid. This is one element of social security law that is absolutely clear.
For my part, I am reminded of a story about Arthur Balfour and the young lady at a dinner party. Halfway through the dinner, the young lady turned to Arthur Balfour and said, "I am in an awfully embarrassing position and I do not know what to do about it. The gentleman sitting next to me has put his hand on my knee and I cannot make him take it away". Arthur Balfour responded by saying, "How long has it been there?". "Since the fish". "Well then", said Balfour, "I'd let it stay there".
On Amendment No. 101, I am going to surprise the Minister considerably by defending the existence of a regulation-making power. We are now in the age of the global economy, as we are in the age of the two-career marriage. I shall take one actual example, that of an individual person—my colleague Professor Natalie Zemon Davies, whose work I am sure is even better known to the Minister than it is to me. She worked at the University of California at Berkeley, but decided to move to Princeton in order to be closer to her husband in Toronto. There was absolutely no doubt that this was a genuine marriage in every possible way, but because they had two careers, they ended up living several thousand miles apart. They thought that reducing that distance to a few hundred miles was a genuine advantage, and one which held great attraction for them.
Is that the kind of circumstance which under the Bill might very well have been prescribed? If it cannot be prescribed, how are we to deal with two-career marriages? I think in particular of the freedom of movement of labour within the European Union, which is likely to make that kind of situation occur a good deal more frequently.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, will not feel the need to press these amendments because they will create a great deal more complexity than they seek to be rid of.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham2: I agree with much of what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. In any income-related benefit, the usual assessment is made of the household; that is, where there is financial interdependence based on a long-term—or in some cases even a temporary—relationship of sufficient stability that the two people concerned can be treated for these purposes as a couple.
The effect of Amendment No. 17 would be to limit the rate of pension credit payable to couples only to those who are lawfully married. An unmarried couple would therefore be entitled only to the lower rate of pension credit payable to single people. However, they would not be able to claim pension credit separately because that is precluded by subsection (1) of Clause 4. Thus they would be worse off and, as was pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that would not be reasonable.
1620
I do not see why the noble Baroness should think that unmarried couples have fewer domestic needs and requirements than married couples. Across income-related benefits there exists a long-standing principle of equal access for married and unmarried couples. I see no reason to abandon that principle for the purposes of the pension credit.
Amendment No. 25 would simply impose a claiming restriction on unmarried couples. Where one member of an unmarried couple was under 65, entitlement to the savings credit could be established only if the partner who was over 65 made the claim. In the case of married couples, provided that one of them was over 65, either one could make the claim.
As drafted, the clause provides for equal access to the savings credit for married and unmarried couples in the same way as for the guarantee credit, which again follows the well established principles for income-related benefits. I do not believe that the introduction of pension credit should be used to overturn the basic assumptions on which social security is based; that is, what comprises a "household" for the purpose of such assessments.
This does not concern whether we do or do not regard marriage as an inferior, superior or equal state; it is about the basic building blocks of social security legislation. I do not think that this Bill should be used to try to overturn such principles. Again, even if the amendment were accepted in principle, the read-across to all other areas of social security would be devastating.
I turn now to Amendment No. 101, at which point I was pleased to note that the noble Earl has discovered a new-found faith in the power of regulation. I shall seek advice about the particular case he mentioned, but certainly the power to prescribe circumstances is a legacy from earlier schemes. Analogies can be found with the example described by the noble Earl. The last time that it was used was in supplementary benefit before 1988, when it allowed for a brief "tiding-over" payment for children in some cases when a couple first started living together and otherwise all benefit would have stopped immediately.
To date, we have not had to use that flexibility and we may not have to use it in the future; but I can conceive of a situation such as that detailed by the noble Earl. With two generous incomes, in practical terms such a couple would be unlikely to come within the framework of the pension credit. However, I can conceive of a situation where one or the other might have caring responsibilities, such as looking after an elderly relative. I shall need to check on the technical accuracy of this, but I can conceive of situations where this might arise and where we might be glad of such flexibility. Were we to use it, however, the result would be only to the advantage of the individuals concerned as they would receive more as two single people than as a couple. The majority of pensioners claiming pension credit will also be claiming housing benefit or council tax benefit. Were there to be a need to use this flexibility, we want to be able to do the same as regards pension credit.

1621
The procedures here are simple, standard and well defined. Given that, I hope that the noble Baroness will understand and accept that it would be profoundly unwise to change the basic building block of income-related—and therefore household-based—assessment.
6 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: The Minister said that it would be unfair because they would not have an entitlement to married allowance, the higher allowance. But one can look at it the other way. If two individuals had a full entitlement before being deemed to be husband and wife, they would lose by being deemed to be a part of a unit. So it depends on which way one looks at it. With increasing numbers of women having their own entitlement to a state pension—the numbers have been increasing and are forecast to continue increasing—that situation will continue.
The noble Earl may be pleased to hear that I tabled these amendments in the full knowledge that the household unit was the building block of social security legislation. However, we are dealing with something which is more akin to pensions, and I do not believe that the household unit is the building block of pensions legislation. We are seeking to create a credit with which pensioners will feel comfortable and which aligns with their experience of the pension system, not something which makes them feel that they are being dragged into the benefits system, with all its problems of uptake. I am sure that we will refer to that subject later.
Perhaps I may put a more detailed question to the Minister about how we define an unmarried couple. The noble Baroness referred to a household unit but, as I read the Bill, there is no reference to a household unit for an unmarried couple. Indeed, the definition in Clause 17 simply states that "unmarried couple" means:
"a man and a woman who are not married to each other but are living together as husband and wife otherwise than in prescribed circumstances".
I cannot find how circumstances will be prescribed and how people will know whether or not they are likely to fall foul of the test.
The household unit is not referred to in relation to an unmarried couple but is referred to in relation to a married couple in Clause 17. I am a little unclear as to how this will work in practice.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall do my best to explain. As to the noble Baroness's first point, it is not the case that if two single people came together as an unmarried couple they would, as a result, receive two single payments and therefore benefit. That is specifically excluded by Clause 4(1) and cannot happen. If they were to benefit in that way, it could be argued that we were privileging the state of non-marriage over the state of marriage—and I am sure that that would not be exactly acceptable to the noble Baroness either.
1622
There is a difference between a same sex relationship couple where there are two single people—and remain so for both the privileges and burdens of social security—and an unmarried heterosexual couple, who are, indeed, treated under the Bill as though they are a couple, with all the financial responsibilities they have towards each other for social security purposes.
As I said, it is well-established—it goes back to 1948—as to what counts as a common law wife, to use the old phrase, or a co-habiting couple. Factors taken into account include the stability of the relationship, financial support, whether they have children, whether they publicly acknowledge the relationship.
For example, this is absolutely core to the issue of whether a lone parent who has a live-out boyfriend is entitled to claim credit and social security benefits as a lone parent as opposed to one of a couple. This is well established in social security law. As I said, the factors can include whether they share a common household, the length of the relationship, whether they have children and whether they operate as a couple.
If the noble Baroness wishes me to send her further information, I shall be happy to do so. But it is a common basis of all social security that where a heterosexual couple share a home in this way they are treated exactly the same for social security purposes whether they are or are not married. I am a little surprised that the noble Baroness would seek to change that. As pension credit and the guarantee element are income related it is reasonable—it has always been the basis of social security—that an income-related benefit should reflect the circumstances of the family, of the household, and that is what the Bill seeks to do.
If I can help the noble Baroness further by writing to her, I shall be happy to do so. But, as I said, what counts as a co-habiting couple is well established in social security legislation.
Baroness Noakes: It is not established in relation to a household unit. There are specific provisions—indeed, there is a regulation-making power—for who is or is not a part of a household unit for a married couple, but there is no similar provision in relation to an unmarried couple. Therefore an unmarried couple would not know where to look in the regulations.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: They are treated exactly the same. If I need to qualify that, I shall write to the noble Baroness. In social security law, so far as it concerns income-related benefits, married and unmarried couples are treated in an identical way.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the noble Baroness. I look forward to hearing from her further. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert—
"() The Secretary of State shall in each tax year review the amounts prescribed as the standard minimum guarantee for the purpose of determining whether those amounts have retained their value in relation to the general level of earnings in Great Britain, estimated in such manner as he thinks fit.
() If on any such review the Secretary of State concludes that the prescribed amounts have not retained their value in relation to the general level of earnings, he shall prescribe such higher amounts as he thinks necessary to restore their value."
The noble Baroness said: The amendment seeks to make provision for the Secretary of State to review the amounts prescribed as the standard minimum guarantee in relation to the general level of earnings in Great Britain. If he believes that the prescribed amounts have not retained their value, he can then prescribe such higher amounts as he believes necessary to restore their value.
The Government have said that the minimum guarantee will rise in line with earnings during this Parliament—I emphasise, "during this Parliament". The objective of the amendment is to put this into legislation as a statutory requirement.
The Government have frequently said—and I agree—that pensioners should be able to participate and share in a general rise in the level of prosperity in the community as a whole. One of the ways in which that can be done—and probably the best way—is to link these amounts to rises in the general level of earnings.
The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 23, which covers much the same ground. In my view, that is also a very good amendment. I wait to hear whether the Minister will respond to either amendment in a helpful and satisfactory way. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: I speak to Amendment No. 23, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner said, is grouped with Amendment No. 18. There is a subtle distinction between the amendments. Unlike the noble Baroness's amendment, the amendment standing in my name and that of my colleague does not seek necessarily to restore the link with earnings but refers to prices or earnings.
I bring the amendment forward for two reasons. First, to build on the current government practice of making an annual statement about uprating in November. I wish to see this on the face of the Bill in order to return to one of the principles behind the whole of the pension credit scheme—that is, to encourage people to make provision for their future. Knowing how to make the correct provision for one's future involves an understanding of what one's likely position will be in time to come.
This relates particularly to the standard minimum guarantee; specifically it does not relate to the other parts of the pension credit. As we have noted throughout much of what the Minister has said on this and other occasions, the Government are moving more towards targeted benefits rather than universal
1624
benefits, and therefore the question of uprating becomes more and more important. There is far less possibility of making an assumption about uprating. That is one of the reasons why the Government choose to go down that particular route.
If the scheme is to work in terms of the objectives set by the Government, it is important for people to have some understanding and certainty about how it will work for them in the future, so that they can plan appropriately. That is the reason for our amendment. I, too, await the Minister's response.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I do not want to introduce a discordant note into our proceedings, but I find some aspects of Amendment No. 23 quite concerning. We all want to see pensioners have a comfortable old age and a share in prosperity. However, if I read the amendment aright, it seems to have forgotten the other half of the social security system; namely, those in work, who are contributing to that system through tax and national insurance payments.
If the uprating is to take place according to whichever is the higher—prices or earnings—then, over a long period of time, arithmetically it could become easier to be in receipt of a pension than to be in work. If I have read the amendment correctly, each year the pension is bound to rise at least in line with the rise in earnings; and if inflation is higher, it will increase according to the rate of inflation. So gradually the gap will narrow. We must be very careful—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Will the noble Lord help the Committee by telling us when prices have exceeded earnings—which is essential to his argument?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Prices have exceeded earnings in the past, and they could do so again. There have been times when the rate of inflation has exceeded the rise in earnings. Therefore, there can be a situation in which it would be advantageous to be in receipt of a pension. It is perfectly fair to have a situation where the amount rises by the rate of one or the other, but over a period of time to be able to opt only for the one that is most favourable seems to lay the burden against those in work. Instead, one should take either earnings or prices, but not choose whichever is the most advantageous. If I have understood the amendment correctly, it seems to give cause for concern.
Lord Higgins: When we discussed uprating earlier, the noble Baroness suggested that we should defer the discussion until later in the Bill. I believe that she said that the undertaking by the Government on the minimum income guarantee—presumably now the standard minimum income guarantee—would go up "for this Parliament". That seemed an odd qualification. Everything is "for this Parliament", so why is it necessary to make that qualification?

1625
On a further point, it would be helpful to know what is the Government's proposal on uprating the pensions element of the pension credit.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Forgive me. I do not understand the noble Lord's point.
Lord Higgins: Will the Government adjust whatever arrangements are made for the pension credit element of the state pension credit to allow for inflation or for earnings?
Baroness Greengross: I support the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. Some form of uprating or attention to the pension credit is needed annually. Over the years, I have seen a great many benefits and concessions withering on the vine because of inflation or earnings growth. This is not a great issue at present, because we have low inflation and low earnings growth. But it could be bad policy-making if the provision is not reviewed annually just to make sure that matters are not going wrong. For example, the capital limits for support in nursing homes were unchanged for almost 10 years, yet that coincided with a period of high inflation during the early 1990s. Some attention to this point is needed.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The effect of Amendments Nos. 18 and 23 would be to place in primary legislation a commitment for all future governments to increase the guarantee element—previously the MIG—of the pension credit by at least the increase in earnings. Amendment No. 23 specifies that it should be increased according to whichever is the greater, prices or earnings.
It is unusual for prices to rise more than earnings. We have been scratching our heads. So far as I recall, during the four years when pensions were related to earnings—between 1977 and 1981—in only one year, or possibly two, did prices exceed earnings. Those are the only two years that I can recall since 1970, possibly since 1960, that that has been the case. The scenario envisaged by the noble Lord—I do not deny that it is possible; in any particular year there may well be lags—is of a gradual invasion of wage rates by a pension which overtakes because it is artificially boosted. On that scenario, it would take about 277 years, give or take a year or two, for that to be extrapolated over time. I hope that he will take that point.
The Bill as drafted applies to pension credit the existing legislative provision for uprating that applies to MIG. Under Section 150(2)(b) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, the Secretary of State is committed in each tax year to review the level of the guarantees credit and to increase it if,
"he considers it appropriate, having regard to the national economic situation and any other matters which he considers relevant".
These amendments ask us to set that provision aside and to make a future commitment. I do not believe that it is wise, sensible or appropriate so to do. As I
1626
said earlier—and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, was right to pick me up on this point—we are not willing as a government to bind future governments. It is not only a matter of "cannot"; we are not willing, on the face of the Bill—which is what the amendment would do—to bind future governments, of whatever persuasion, to an uprating which they may believe cannot be justified in the prevailing economic situation. I do not think that anyone should be asking governments to do that on the face of the Bill.
The amendments may also reflect concern—this is the point about the annual uprating—that omitting the value of the guarantee credit from the face of the Bill undermines the proper processes of parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that the Committee will be reassured to hear that the regulation setting the amount of the guarantee credit and the order which uprates that amount annually will continue, so far as this Parliament is concerned, to be subject to affirmative resolution.
I hope, therefore, that the Committee will accept that we cannot, on the face of the Bill, bind a future government to the "numbers" part. I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that we are producing adequate parliamentary scrutiny. In the light of that, I hope that the amendments will subsequently be withdrawn.
Lord Higgins: Before the noble Baroness sits down, what is the position as regards uprating the pension credit element? Will adjustments be made?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Pension credit is made up of the guarantee and the savings element.
Lord Higgins: I am referring to the savings element.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I could not work out whether the noble Lord was referring to the retirement pension element. Any uprating of the savings element will be decided by the Chancellor at the appropriate time.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Before my noble friend sits down, does that affect the decision that the Government have already made to ensure that the MIG—which, of course, is also a promise to pensioners—would also be uprated in line with the earnings index? I know that the MIG will disappear with this legislation, but there was a commitment—which pensioners took very seriously—that the MIG would be uprated in line with the earnings index.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I can reassure my noble friend that we shall be doing that, at least for the life of this Parliament.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend for her response, and also for her response to Amendment No. 18. I prefer our amendment to Amendment No. 23, although I said that it was a very good amendment. I specifically wanted a link with the earnings index. It still seems to me that that is the way

1627
in which pensioners can be assured of the income that they will have in retirement, permitting them to have some share in the rising prosperity of the community.
Nevertheless, I understand that the Government are unwilling to commit themselves to that in legislation, despite the promises that have been made to deal with the matter outside a legislative commitment. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 35. The two amendments are concerned with a combination of drafting and comprehension. It has always been the case that parliamentary draftsmen have been extremely well paid, but also frequently seem to suffer from a mental breakdown.
The two subsections concerned—one relating to guarantee credit and the other relating to savings credit—are totally incomprehensible. Perhaps the noble Baroness could explain them. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendments Nos. 19 and 35 would remove the regulatory powers designed to enable the Secretary of State to prescribe a lower amount in place of the standard minimum guarantee that would be payable to the claimant and additionally, when appropriate, to set the amount of standard minimum guarantee at nil. Furthermore, they would remove entitlement to the savings reward for whose guarantee credit had been adjusted following a period in hospital. I wonder whether I need to go beyond that.
Lord Higgins: That is what the two subsections say, but what on earth do they mean?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: What they say is what they mean. I am baffled by the noble Lord's question.
Lord Higgins: I do not think that they are comprehensible. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us some indication of the purport of the two subsections. I do not think that anyone reading them could readily understand them. An explanation, no doubt as a result of the draftsman briefing the Minister, would be helpful.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have given the noble Lord the description that I am content with. I shall happily write to him further if that would be helpful.
Lord Higgins: The noble Baroness's description is almost exactly what the two subsections say. For the record, I shall read them out. Clause 2(6) states:
"Regulations may provide that, in prescribed cases, subsection (3) shall have effect with the substitution for the reference in paragraph (a) to the standard minimum guarantee of a reference to a prescribed amount".
1628
What are those two prescribed amounts? That might give us some idea of what is going on. Clause 3(5) states:
"Where, by virtue of regulations under section 2(6), the claimant's appropriate minimum guarantee does not include the standard minimum guarantee, regulations may provide that the definition of 'amount B' in subsection (4) shall have effect with the substitution for the reference in paragraph (a) to the appropriate minimum guarantee of a reference to a prescribed higher amount".
What is that intended to achieve?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I had thought that the noble Lord understood exactly what those provisions were intended to achieve. The £100 a week minimum income guarantee—the retirement pension plus the top-up—is the standard minimum income on which anybody over the age of 60 is entitled to live, taking into account flows of income from capital and the rest. However, the Secretary of State has the power to reduce that standard minimum if, as a result of him taking no action, there would be double provision. That might be the case, for example, if someone was in hospital, in prison or in a convent where there was full care. The Secretary of State will be able to ensure that such people are paid less than the standard minimum of £100 if provision for their support is being made in other ways. In my innocence, I had assumed that the noble Lord was getting at that point. The Secretary of State will be able to prescribe an amount lower than the standard minimum guarantee—currently £100—to be payable to the pensioner claimant. Additionally, when appropriate, he will be able to set the amount of standard minimum guarantee at nil if, for example, the pensioner is in prison. What could be simpler?
Lord Higgins: I can think of very little that is more complicated. Perhaps we should have a quick show of hands.
That is at least a bit of progress. I shall have to consider what the noble Baroness has said. Does it apply to both Clause 6 and Clause 5?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We are dealing with Clauses 2 and 3. It might be helpful if we could stay with the current clauses.
Lord Higgins: The amendments cover two separate clauses. Does the noble Baroness's explanation apply to each of them?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The amendments cover Clauses 2 and 3. What I have said applies to both.
Lord Higgins: I shall study carefully what the Minister has said, as, I imagine, will other people. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
"WITHDRAWAL RATE
No one drawing a state pension credit shall suffer a withdrawal rate of benefit greater than 40 per cent."
The noble Lord said: The amendment is concerned with the 40 per cent withdrawal rate, which is a matter of great importance. Our understanding is that the Government do not intend that the effective withdrawal rate shall be greater than 40 per cent. It seemed appropriate to put that on the face of the Bill. That is better than the 100 per cent withdrawal rate that people in the relevant income bands suffer at present, but they will still not get the full benefit of their savings.
That relates back to our earlier debate on the name of the Bill and whether the provision is a pension credit or merely a relief from taxation. People at that relatively low level of income will pay at the equivalent rate to which someone on an income of nearly £34,000 would be subject. There is a strong case for ensuring that that is put on the face of the Bill.
There is also considerable interaction with housing benefit and council tax benefit. The noble Baroness will remember that I raised the point on Second Reading, when she was kind enough to assure me that the Government would take steps to deal with it. The withdrawal rate that would apply if they took no action could be 85 per cent or more for those benefits. That is a very serious matter. However, it is not clear precisely how the Government propose to make arrangements that will ensure that those receiving housing benefit and council tax benefit do not suffer such high withdrawal rates.
It would be particularly helpful if the noble Baroness could give us some idea of the impact of the proposals on those drawing housing benefit and council tax benefit. In particular, am I right in thinking that the Government are dropping any idea of reforming the situation with regard to housing benefit? We have had frequent discussions on that subject. Will central government or local authorities be responsible for ensuring that people with those benefits do not suffer a higher withdrawal rate? I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised two perhaps unrelated points, I am not sure how best to reply. His first point was that no one drawing the state pension credit should suffer a benefit withdrawal rate greater than 40 per cent. In his comments, he seemed to be asking for a commitment that the taper on pension credit itself would not be greater than 40 per cent. Leaving aside issues such as the 60 to 64 age group, as the Government intend to do, he also drew some analogies with the tax system. I should be happy to debate those analogies with him if time allows. However, it is certainly our intention that that should be the taper on the pension credit itself.
1630
The interaction which the noble Lord rightly identified between the pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit withdrawal tapers is an extremely complicated issue. Perhaps it would assist him if I tried to spell out that interaction. If he wishes, I could follow up the points later, undoubtedly turning something simple into something complex.
Amendment No. 22 would have the effect of ensuring that no pension credit recipient suffered a marginal deduction rate of more than 40 per cent. Although that is fine as far as the pension credit is concerned, if the 40 per cent were to apply to all the benefits that pensioners enjoy—as the noble Lord, in his second point, seemed to suggest it should, although he was talking about 80 per cent—the total cost would be about £17.5 billion. As I am sure that that is not what the noble Lord intended, I shall make a disjuncture between the two parts of his remarks—first, that the pension credit was due to be tapered off at 40 per cent; and, secondly, the effect on MDRs given the interaction between the taper with other tapered, means-tested benefits.
Currently, pensioners with incomes below the minimum income guarantee level—which, in 2003, will be £100 as the guarantee element of the savings credit—suffer a marginal deduction rate of 100 per cent. For every pound of extra income, they lose one pound of minimum income guarantee, to take them up to the threshold level at which we think we can reasonably expect them to live. Consequently, everything they have put into their savings effort is wasted.
Above the minimum income guarantee level, currently, those who receive both housing benefit and council tax benefit experience a marginal deduction rate of 85 per cent: 65p in the pound for housing benefit and 20p for council tax benefit. To reduce that rate to 40 per cent—which is the figure we thought the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, might be indicating in the amendment—we would have to pay housing benefit and council tax benefit to people even further up the income scale, at a much greater cost to the taxpayer. The change would affect 2 million people.
The pension credit improves the situation considerably. The 100 per cent withdrawal rate will be experienced by only one third of those eligible for the guarantee credit. The other two thirds—in fact, all recipients over 65—will have incomes between the savings credit threshold and the guarantee credit. They will therefore be on the savings credit and, as the noble Lord said, face withdrawal rates of 40 per cent, which is an improvement on the current situation. Currently, if they had an income of between £77 and £100, they would be facing a 100 per cent rate. They are therefore going from 100 per cent to 40 per cent. Those on the 40 per cent withdrawal rate could therefore gain up to £13.80 per week if single and £18.60 if a couple. We have also been careful to protect the gains for pensioners who receive help through the housing benefit and council tax benefit systems. As the noble Lord acknowledged, we have also increased the allowable amounts.

1631
However, single pensioners who are on pension credit, receive housing benefit and council tax benefit and are in the £100-£135 income range will be subject to the interplay of the withdrawal of pension credit and the tapering of housing benefit and council tax benefit. As I said in my letter to the noble Lord, the net effect is a marginal deduction rate of 91 per cent. However—and this is the key issue—68 per cent of pensioners are owner occupiers. On my calculations, only 8 per cent of pensioners on the pension credit will experience that taper. Most pensioners are not on housing benefit, although some who are owner occupiers are on council tax benefit. As I said, however, 68 per cent of pensioners are owner occupiers, and others live with their family. Although others have income higher than the pension credit, they are still entitled to housing benefit because they have higher rents.
Therefore, the first group of pensioners, with 100 per cent deduction between RP and income guarantee, will have a deduction of only 40 per cent and be better off. Single pensioners with an income between £100 and £135 will have a 91 per cent rate if they receive housing benefit and council tax benefit. However, only about 8 per cent of the total pensioner population fall into that group. Thereafter, people will be subject only to the housing benefit and council tax benefit tapers, bringing them back down again to the 85 per cent rate as they lose the pension credit.
The key point is that, although there are higher marginal deduction rates, they apply to much higher housing benefit so that there are no cash losers. I believe that everyone is better off as a result of our proposals. Although some will suffer a 91 per cent deduction rate, they will be £7 to £8 or so better off than they would have been under the old system with an 85 per cent deduction rate but without the pension credit.
I hope that my remarks are helping the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. Our changes in the MDRs are better for those with incomes under £100. Although the percentage rates are worse for those on between £100 and £135 if they are receiving housing benefit and council tax benefit, as I said, that affects only 8 per cent of the pensioner population. The situation remains the same for those on more than £135. If single pensioners in that group exhaust the pension credit, they move back on to the old housing benefit and council tax benefit tapers.
Those on between £100 and £135 comprise the pressured group. Nevertheless, although they are subject to higher MDRs because of the new benefit being considered in the tapers, their absolute cash income will still be higher. In other words, they will be much better off—at least £11 per week—as a result of our proposals.
Amendment No. 22 would certainly cost about nine times as much as our pension credit proposals, unless we scaled back the minimum income guarantee dramatically. I am sure that the noble Lord was not intending that, but seeking to probe the effect of the MDRs. Although the MDRs seem to become worse for the small hinge group comprising those on £100 to
1632
£135, in cash terms they will be at least £11 per week better off. Pensioners will therefore see a net improvement in their situation. I do not think that many of them will be bothered about the precise taper. We are not talking about work incentives under which people lose an amount for every pound they earn. Pensioners are on a fixed income and will be better off. I think that they will be most impressed by that fact.
It is helpful to try to have a go at a technically complex subject—the interplay of tapers in two or three different benefits. In the light of my comments, however, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. If he would like to write to me to follow up the points or seek clarification, I shall do my best to be helpful. It is a very technical set of issues.
Lord Higgins: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. The issues are so much clearer when she makes it up as she goes along than it is when, as with the previous amendment, she reads out the official brief. I am lost with admiration that she is able to do that on her feet. I shall study very carefully the points that she has made.
How do the proposals tie in with local authorities, for example? Do they have to be informed of the changes?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes.
Lord Higgins: In previous discussions on housing benefit, I do not think that Members on either side of the House have shown enormous confidence in their ability to handle this type of complex problem.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham2: The noble Lord is correct. Local authorities will have to identify the new applicable amounts for pensioners. However, given the current state of computerisation, we are not worried about that. We should also remember that probably most pensioners who will be affected live in social housing. Consequently, their rent is paid after housing benefit has been deducted at source. Anyone on the basic guarantee does not pay any rent at all. The situation is not comparable with that in the private sector, where giros have to be sent to pay private landlords. As the noble Lord will be aware, in local authorities, housing benefit is not paid to pensioners who are on MIG. They do not pay rent at all, rather than being charged full rent and then being sent a cheque to pay it. There could be an issue, I suppose, that the payments to private, non-social landlords might get hooked up in the current problems that some local authorities have with their administration. That certainly will not affect pensioners in social housing, which will be the large majority as far as I am aware, although I will check the figures. We will obviously have to watch that. However, it is my understanding that this is one of the simpler tasks. After all, housing benefit changes with uprating anyway.
Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1633
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Savings credit]:
[Amendments Nos. 24 to 26 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): In calling Amendment No. 27, I have to inform the Committee that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 28 to 45 inclusive, by reason of preemption.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 3, leave out subsections (2) to (8) and insert—

"(2) A claimant has satisfied the second condition for eligibility under section 1(2)(c)(ii) if a savings credit would be payable under any of the following provisions of this section.

(3) If an eligible claimant has qualifying income in excess of the standard minimum guarantee, and has income in excess of the appropriate minimum guarantee, the available savings credit shall equal the maximum savings credit less the clawback amount.

(4) If an eligible claimant has qualifying income in excess of the standard minimum guarantee, and income which does not exceed the appropriate minimum guarantee, the available savings credit shall equal the maximum savings credit.

(5) If an eligible claimant has qualifying income which does not exceed the standard minimum guarantee, the available savings credit shall equal the prescribed percentage of the amount by which the claimant's qualifying income exceeds the savings credit threshold.

(6) The eligibility of any claimant under this section is subject always to sections 4 and 12.

(7) The Secretary of State shall make regulations prescribing the operation of this section, and, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, this section shall not take effect at any time when no such regulations are in force.

(8) For the purposes of this section—

"appropriate minimum guarantee" has the meaning given in section 2 in respect of any given claimant, save where regulations issued under that section prescribe an appropriate minimum guarantee for any claimant which is less then the standard minimum guarantee, in which case for the purpose of this section the appropriate minimum guarantee for a given claimant shall be the standard minimum guarantee;
"clawback amount" is the amount equal to the clawback percentage of the amount by which the claimant's income exceeds the appropriate minimum guarantee for the claimant, and the clawback percentage shall be the difference between 100 per cent. and the prescribed percentage;
"maximum savings credit" is the amount equal to the prescribed percentage of the difference between the standard minimum guarantee and the savings credit threshold, save that regulations may prescribe descriptions of persons for whom the maximum savings credit shall be nil (and who therefore shall receive no savings credit);
"prescribed percentage" is such percentage, not to exceed 100 per cent., as may be prescribed for the purposes of this section;
"qualifying income" in respect of any claimant is his income less any items of income prescribed in regulations as falling to be excluded in respect of any claimant satisfying any prescribed criteria;
"savings credit threshold" is such amount as may be prescribed in regulations for the purposes of this section, such amount not to exceed the standard minimum guarantee; and
"standard minimum guarantee" has the meaning given in section 2 in respect of a given claimant."
1634
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of Amendment No. 27 is to try to put some clarity into this Bill. It tries to rewrite Clause 3; not to change its substance, but to try to express the savings credit in more direct language. I know that myself, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and a number of others who looked at Clause 3 found it incomprehensible when they first read it; and incomprehensible when they read it a second and third time. This is a modest attempt to try to re-express Clause 3. It is put forward with some humility, not in the belief that it is perfect. It is intended to see whether there is a possibility of finding a clearer way of expressing what should be a relatively simple concept.
If we look at how this relatively simple concept of the tax credit is turned into law, we can see that it has many complicated elements—it has amounts A subtracted from amounts B; it has definitions of all of those amounts; it has two definitions of "income"—income and qualifying income. If we work through it, we could find that to reach the savings credit we have to pass through an obstacle course involving eight different concepts and two different measures of income. That is just to reach the basic level.
There are also more complications. The clawback operates by reference to appropriate minimum guarantee under Clause 2, which assumes that it is a higher amount than the standard minimum guarantee. But that will not always be the case. Occasionally it can be lower under the powers in Clause 2(6).
If we then have something that is lower and put that into the formula that is in the existing clause, that would not work. We therefore have to have a further power in subsection (5) to rewrite amount B. My noble friend Lord Higgins has already said that he does not understand what it is trying to do. It tries to do something extremely complicated.
As I said a moment ago, I do not put forward this amendment in the belief that it is perfect. It is to see whether there is scope for simplification. If so, I am sure that it could be improved upon. The amendment tries to distil the Government's intentions into three simple cases and then set out in subsections (3), (4) and (5) what savings credit follows from those simple cases. In the new subsection (8) it also gives what are, we hope, clearer, more direct definitions than are found in the existing Clause 3. I hope that the redraft commends itself to the Minister and I look forward to her comments. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I hope I am not giving out any secrets when I say that when I was discussing this amendment with my officials they thought this was a very good try. They were mightily impressed. It will not work for all sorts of reasons, which the noble Baroness would expect me to say but which I happen to believe is true. But jolly good points for effort, if I may say so, and that is not in the least meant to be patronising. It was an impressive piece of work.
Perhaps it might be sensible to stand back a bit and, before discussing the detail of the amendment, give an overview of how Clause 3 works as it is presented in the

1635
Bill. It is complicated, as the noble Baroness rightly said. We have tried to present the calculations as simply as possible with reference to a single calculation. To put it simply, this is the amount by which "amount A" exceeds "amount B".
This works in two ways, depending on where a pensioner's income falls in relation to the standard minimum guarantee. First, as the noble Baroness and I am sure other noble Lords are aware, if a single pensioner has income below £100 he will receive 60p a week for every £1 of savings he has over £77. This builds to a maximum of £13.80 a week for someone whose weekly income from pensions and savings is £100.
Secondly, if a single pensioner has income above £100 the savings credit starts to reduce, although it is worth stating that under our proposal a pensioner's overall income will always increase as their pre-pension credit income rises. Where income is over £100, the savings credit will be reduced by 40p for every £1 of original income. The savings credit runs out at £135 a week.
That is the basic structure with which I am sure everybody is comfortable. Exactly the same principles apply to the savings calculation for couples. If we now turn to the noble Baroness's redraft, it seeks to do much the same thing but by reference to individual calculations. Because of that we welcome the chance to discuss it. But it cannot work. The new subsection (5) makes no reference to income which does not exceed the appropriate minimum guarantee. It needs to if the calculation is to work.
The amendment does not include a calculation for those pensioners with qualifying income which does not exceed the standard minimum guarantee and income which does not exceed the appropriate minimum guarantee. I am sure that is not the noble Baroness's intention, but the amendment cannot work without those changes.
In addition, as I interpret it—although I may misunderstand here—the amendment provides for hospital downrating to be considered under the proposed subsection (8) and the definition of the "appropriate minimum guarantee". The definition put forward would have the effect of excluding pensioners with a downrated pension guarantee credit, because they were in hospital, from benefiting from the savings credit at all. Again, I am sure that is not the noble Baroness's intention. Our intention is that those who are in hospital should be rewarded for their thrift through the savings credit as with any other pensioner, whatever may happen to the retirement pension—given the little debate that the noble Lord. Lord Higgins, and I had about the brilliant, transparent clarity of our drafting.
I could go on. But I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that, though this is a gallant effort, her version as drafted will not work for the reasons I have given. I could go on in more technical detail. The noble Baroness is more than welcome to have another go next time. I know that this Bill is extremely technically
1636
complicated with words like "standard minimum", "guaranteed qualifying minimum" and all the rest of it. The point is that the pensioners who need to benefit from this and whom we seek to encourage to take up this new entitlement do not read this stuff. But if we do not have it drawn in ways that immaculately satisfy the parliamentary draftsmen, it leaves the possibility of judicial review in cases that neither the noble Baroness nor I could possibly intend. That is why the wording is often as onerous as it is.
That is not to say that there cannot sometimes he improvements. It may be that with a consolidating Act five or 10 years down the line, the legislation may be consolidated and improved in the process. But I am pretty loath to disturb technical reading. What is important is that we ensure that our descriptions in speeches in this place, the literature that goes out, the briefing to our staff and the briefing to bodies like Age Concern, Help the Aged and citizens advice bureaux are impeccable.
Some time ago I was challenged by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, about the wording of a provision. He produced three or four lines which could be interpreted as saying, "If you get into work, tell us", but we had to couch it in different ways because of the meanings of "work", "occupation", "earnings" and the like. Given that, I congratulate the noble Baroness on the rewrite. I could not have done it. It is impressive. But it does not work as it stands. I honestly think that it is not worth investing energy in that territory, desirable though it may be, unless one is absolutely sure that it is going to be robust enough to stand up to the sort of scrutiny I detailed.
We have been at the receiving end of human rights cases and so on that have been brought as a result of our flawed amendments. At the end of the Committee stage I shall ask the Committee's indulgence as regards an amendment which seeks to correct drafting on which we slipped up in a previous Bill. As I say, I congratulate the noble Baroness but I suggest that she withdraws the amendment.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the noble Baroness for her compliment but I am not surprised at her overall message. However, the amendment is a genuine attempt to illustrate the fact that the Bill is drafted in an extremely complex way. I fully take the point that pensioners will not study what will be the State Pension Credit Act 2002 in their local libraries, but their advisers could study it. It took me an extremely long time even to understand how the parts of the calculations hung together. I found eight concepts of two versions of income.
I am disappointed that the department has not made a greater effort to express these concepts more directly. Parliamentary draftsmen often have their own ways of expressing concepts, especially financial ones, as lawyers, typically, are not particularly good at expressing money concepts. I had hoped that the departmental staff would seek ways to express concepts simply. The Minister referred to Clause 18 in the context of correcting an earlier mistake. I submit that that mistake was made because no one

1637
understood exactly what the draftsmen were doing. More direct drafting is a laudable aim but now is not the time to start a campaign for simpler drafting. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 28, I inform the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 29.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 4, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 28, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 30 and 41. I refer in these amendments to the important issue of the position as regards the state pension credit for those who are not entitled to a full basic state pension but who, for one reason or another, have income from another pension or, indeed, from savings. Before I discuss the detail, I wish to check a few matters with the Minister.
As I understand it, under the proposal savings are assessed at a 10 per cent rate over the £6,000 basic tax free capital sum. In that case, with a maximum payment per individual of £717.60 a year, a 10 per cent assessment means that the maximum capital that person can have is £7,176, plus the £6,000 tax free sum; that is, £13,176 in total. For a married couple the relevant sum is £15,672. If one has a 10 per cent assumed savings rate for any amount over £6,000, and the maximum one can be paid as a savings credit is £717.60, applying a multiplier of 10 to the £717 gives one £7,176 a rid a total of £13,000. Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether my assumptions and/or my arithmetic are faulty in a moment.
I turn to the specifics of the amendments. As I understand it, under the provisions before us, an individual must attain the level of the savings credit threshold to be eligible for the savings credit. The savings credit threshold is to be defined—although I think that it is not yet set—as the level of the basic state pension. But, if a person does not have a full basic state pension, he or she has first to use up any secondary income to get up to the basic state pension level before being eligible for the savings credit.
I accept that there is a strong argument—it is a powerful argument—that you should get what you paid for. If you have chosen to save in some other way, why should the state offer you an additional credit? However, the critical word is "chosen". Many people who do not get a full basic state pension do so because they have broken work records. In many cases that has not occurred through choice. For example, it may have occurred due to long periods of unemployment. There may be other cases of a more voluntary nature, for example, women who have chosen to take a career break to bring up children—indeed, that is something we probably should encourage and certainly should not discourage—or men who have worked abroad. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out earlier, the latter case is increasingly likely to occur with the free
1638
movement of labour through the European Union. Therefore, I submit that although the argument of "what you pay is what you get" is a powerful one. I do not find it all-powerful.
I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I give two practical examples which I hope will illuminate the issue. First, I refer to the issue as it affects two women, one of whom is a single woman aged 65 who has never worked, has relied on state benefits all her life and has no savings. She will receive the guarantee credit of £100 a week. I refer to a widow also aged 65 who worked for a few years prior to getting married. She may be eligible for a part state pension of, say, £35 a week. In addition, she may be in receipt of income from her late husband's occupational pension, for which he saved, and other benefits at a level of £42 a week. The state pension at £35 a week and the other income combine to provide her with a total income of £77 a week. She will receive no credit for her late husband's saving, nor for her eligibility for a small state pension. Instead, she will merely receive the guarantee credit bringing her up to £100 a week—exactly the same position as the woman who has never worked and has relied on state benefits her entire life.
Secondly, I refer to an employed man in his fifties, perhaps with a chequered work history, who is coming up to retirement and is considering what his future pension entitlement should be. He realises, of course, that because he has a broken employment record, perhaps through no fault of his own, he is entitled to only a part state pension. He is potentially able to save a small amount in the few years before he retires in order to provide him with some further income. However, if the noble Baroness or I were his financial adviser, we would have to say, "You should not use your money to build up a pension because it will be removed from you and you will get no guarantee from it. You can aim instead for the minimum guarantee", and need make no savings. No benefit will accrue to him from any savings.
On Second Reading the Minister was robust about the matter and said that what you pay is what you get. However, I refer to married women in particular who have perhaps sacrificed their careers in part to bring up children and who will be disadvantaged by the proposals as they currently stand. The issue deserves further reflection because of women who have taken a career break, people who have been unemployed through no fault of their own and perhaps people who have chosen, or have been able or have been forced, to work abroad for a period of their working lives. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Two amendments in my name have been grouped with Amendment No. 29; that is, Amendments Nos. 42 and 43. My amendments are in effect an attempt to probe the Government's intentions regarding the uprating of the threshold which has already been alluded to. As the noble Baroness knows, initially the savings credit threshold will be the basic pension rate. If it remains tied to the basic pension and rises in line with prices while the minimum guarantee rises in line with earnings, the cost

1639
of the savings credit is likely to rise steeply. The effect of our amendments is to try to ensure that the threshold remains at the level of the basic pension in future years. What are the Government's intentions in that regard? There could be difficulties in future.
7 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: I rise to support Amendment No. 28, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I am particularly concerned about its effect on women. I accept that the amendment may not yet be fully or correctly drafted and that it may not benefit those with a partial state pension record. However, that is its intent, as the noble Lord explained. With regard to the state pension credit, I accept that it would not be right to put those with a partial state pension record on exactly the same footing as those with a full state pension record. That point was made by the Minister at Second Reading. She said:
"it seems to me that someone who has made the full national insurance contribution all their working life should not be treated in the same way as someone who has not".—[Official Report, 18/12/01; col. 189.]
But, by the same token, it seems strange that no account whatever is taken of savings that are made by those on a partial state pension. If anything, those savings are likely to be even more important to those people than to someone who has the full pension.
That no account is taken of such savings is a great disincentive to such people to save. That point was well put by the National Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners, which said,
"a considerable number of retired people do not receive a full state pension and will still be penalised for having an occupational pension".
Many such people will be its members—former employees of the Post Office or BT.
The ABI made the same point:
"failure to award the state pension credit to those with less than the full basic state pension but who have some private savings for retirement could act as a disincentive to save, particularly amongst women who are most likely to fall into this category of saver".
As a result of my concern, I tabled a number of Written Questions to see if I could find out how many people—especially women—were not going to benefit from the state pension record because of their incomplete contribution record. That information has not yet reached me, but I hope that the Minister can provide some further information tonight.
In my view, we should be aiming to reward people in that group for thrift just as much as those who are fortunate enough to have been able to end up with a full state pension and a small amount of private pension. Could the Minister ask her officials to come up with a formula that will allow those with a partial state pension to be eligible for the state pension credit at the same proportion as their state pension? For example, if I received two-thirds of the state pension, I would be entitled to two-thirds of the state pension
1640
credit. I suspect that that might complicate a matter that is already very complicated, as we have discussed, but I believe that it would be right to do.
Lord Higgins: In our exchanges on earlier amendments, the Minister remarked that sometimes it is not immediately clear whether the debate that takes place relates to the amendments. I have to confess that I did not challenge the grouping of the amendments but my Amendment No. 40, which appears further down the groupings list, probably should have appeared in the group that we are currently considering. The amendments that appear in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, are on a somewhat separate point.
I take the important point made by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts about those who do not have the full national insurance pension because they have a deficient contribution record. As he rightly said, in some cases that may be virtually their own decision. In other cases, it happens for inadvertent reasons or, for example, because in an earlier period a person acted as a carer.
I have a long history on the subject of deficient contributions. It was the matter on which I made my maiden speech in another place in 1964. A subsequent filibuster by Mr Richard Crossman and others on a Friday prevented my Private Member's Bill on the subject from being heard. However, that was what we did when we came to office in 1970. My history on this matter goes back rather a long way.
The people with whom I was concerned had no option. They were not allowed to contribute when the national insurance scheme started and were thereby deprived of the national insurance pension. None the less, people now have deficient contributions. An answer to my honourable friend in another place, Mr Willetts, suggested that getting on for 3 million people are in that position. Several outside bodies have expressed concern about the way in which such people will fail to benefit from the Bill.
As the Bill is currently drafted, those people will not get the savings reward that the pensions credit will provide. Under current proposals, less than a full entitlement to a basic state pension will mean that the first part of a pensioner's personal savings will be used to bring it up to that level. As I understand it, it will not then attract the additional savings credit. Age Concern, I believe—perhaps it was another body—gave an example. If a pensioner has an incomplete contribution history and receives a basic state pension of only £67 but has £10 from a personal pension, he will receive the guaranteed income—perhaps the minimum income guarantee element of £100—but no credit for his savings. Failure to award the pensions credit to those with less than a full basic state pension but who have some private savings for retirement could act as a disincentive to save.
It seems to me that, subject to being persuaded otherwise, those people are being unfairly treated. As a result of not having paid a full contribution, they do not get the full basic state pension and may be

1641
penalised in a number of other respects with regard to passported benefits and so on. I am not clear why they should be penalised on top of that—or underneath it, depending on one's point of view—because of their lack of a contribution record if they have some small savings. I should have thought that there is an argument for saying that if they have some small savings, they should get the benefit of the savings element of the state pension credit system.
That issue is of considerable interest. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, referred to some outside interests that have made representations. It would be helpful if the Minister commented on the matter. I will not comment on the amendments that appear in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, which appear to involve a separate point.
Baroness Barker: We are at the heart of the most complex part of the Bill. I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about not knowing exactly what debates on amendments will be about.
From these Benches, I add my support to the proposals that would alleviate the position of people with partial contribution records and who therefore will not receive the full state pension. Will the Minister confirm that about 80 per cent of pensioners do not receive the full amount? I look forward with interest to the Minister's comments. Will she deal with the extent to which capital limits will cover some of the people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, referred?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Fortunately, this is Committee stage. Many questions have been raised, and Members of the Committee will be able to come back to me on those that I do not answer. I shall go into some of the straightforward questions. I do not need to talk about the purpose of the savings credit and so on.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made, I believe, three points: first, the return on capital; secondly, what happens to people with broken work records; and, thirdly, in particular, what happens to women in that situation. That gender point was also picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and my noble friend Lady Turner. With regard to the return on capital, I am not surprised that I looked mystified. Alas, I shall ask my officials to recheck the calculations. I am sure that the noble Lord's building society makes the calculations very accurately, but I am not sure that he did so this evening.
I believe that the noble Lord said that, if it came out of a savings flow, the maximum pension credit of £13.80 multiplied by 52 would generate an income of £717. The capital required to generate that, including the £6,000 disregard, would be £19,800. That assumes that no second pension is available. In fact, capital of up to approximately £60,000 can be held and still give a small entitlement to tax credit.
At Second Reading I told your Lordships that a single person could have savings of over £35,000 and still receive pension credit. A couple could have savings of £45,000 and still receive pension credit. I said that savings were treated five times more
1642
generously than MIG. If the noble Lord wishes me to do so, I shall be happy to ask my officials to write to him more fully about the basis of some of his calculations.
I have sympathy for the other points that he raised concerning people with broken work records, and so on. The noble Lord gave, in particular, the example of women who are affected because they have had caring responsibilities or have been unable to work because of sickness or disability. Indeed, in some cases, the issue of broken work records may also apply to men who have unemployment records but none the less seek work.
Of course, the noble Lord will be aware that in such a situation a person is covered by national insurance credit, which can count as qualifying years for the purpose of the basic retirement pension. Therefore, provided that a person can claim that type of "good cause", he will be entitled to the credit. He can claim the equivalent of another benefit because of home responsibilities. He may have been caring, have suffered disability or been unable to work because of unemployment. Conventionally one is covered for that type of break from work by a credit to national insurance which builds into the retirement pension. A person who has a broken record tends to be a dependent wife who has not been in the labour market and does not have those caring responsibilities.
A widow will receive a pension based on her husband's contributions. Therefore, even if she were to have no such contributions in her own right, she would take over those of her husband. She would be protected.
I believe that that covers most of the groups about which the noble Lord is properly concerned. However, there is an additional point. Women are likely to have a reduced entitlement in their right. I apologise if there has been a delay in getting the information to the noble Baroness. My understanding is that 92 per cent of men and 83 per cent of women receive the full basic state pension. I could give the numbers behind that if the noble Baroness wished, but obviously those who do not receive the basic state pension have incomplete pension records.
That leads me to the substance of this matter. How do we allow for those who have proper—I do not want to sound moralistic about this—good and acceptable reasons for not being in the labour market for the reasons mentioned? The question is whether people who have been out of the labour market—perhaps they have been abroad—possibly during different tax regimes, should be treated in exactly the same way as people who have worked all their lives here, paying the national insurance credit, and so on.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, proposes that the savings credit will be payable at a flat rate of the maximum, which is currently around £13.80 for single pensioners and £18.60 for pensioner couples, until the total income exceeds the pensioner's appropriate minimum income guarantee. For pensioners whose total income exceeds the appropriate minimum income guarantee, the

1643
maximum savings credit will be reduced by 40 per cent of that extra income over the appropriate guarantee until it tapers out.
That would be equivalent—this is the push of the amendment—to increasing the minimum guarantee level for all pensioners over the age of 65 by the maximum savings credit as well as awarding the savings credit to pensioners with incomes above the guarantee level. This matter refers back to our earlier debates on the subject.
These proposals come at a considerable price. The cost of the amendments, together with the consequential housing benefit and council tax benefit changes, would be approximately £2 billion a year. The number of pensioners entitled would not increase, and the additional spending would go to those already projected to benefit from the pension credit proposals. Potentially, the effect would be to reward equally those who have saved nothing and those who have saved. In practice, that means that those who have saved but whose income is still below the level of the guarantee will lose their savings income pound for pound in the pension credit calculation. They will see no additional reward over their neighbour for their hard work and thrift and for the savings that they have built up over their working lives.
Pensioners consider that to be unfair; I also consider it to be unfair. The pensioner guarantee would treat in the same way those with incomplete retirement pension records and those with complete retirement pension records but with no additional income. They would be taken to a threshold of £100. I believe that that is right and proper.
However, when it comes to the savings credit, I believe that it is right that we reflect the effort that individuals have made to build up their savings. If they have built up their savings but their retirement pension record is incomplete, it seems to me entirely appropriate that, first, their savings should be set against their incomplete retirement pension in order to bring the level up to that of the retirement pension before eating into the £77 to £100 figure. I believe that that is right. It is a proper reflection of the difference in the situation of someone who has contributed fully to his retirement pension, allowing for groups which have caring responsibilities, and so on, and those who do not.
As a result, given that the pension credit savings element hinges on the full retirement element, I consider it to be right that we treat people differently when they do or do not have a complete retirement pension. We treat them differently not in relation to the guarantee element, which relates to their poverty—in that case we treat them the same—but in relation to their savings, which relates to their own activity. We treat them differently because they have acquired the right to be treated differently by virtue of their savings. That is the Government's position.
1644
Perhaps I should sit down at this point. If noble Lords, including my noble friend, believe that I have not addressed any issues, I shall seek to answer them. However, it may be that I have answered all points in the course of the general discussion.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Higgins: First, perhaps I may take up a specific point made by the noble Baroness in relation to carers having their contributions record made up. I believe that that is the way that she expressed it. Would that be true of a person who spent years as a carer before the introduction of the invalid care allowance and home responsibilities protection in 1978?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall write to the noble Lord on that point. The benefits changed and ICA came in quite late. I shall need to check that precisely as I do not want to mislead the noble Lord. Obviously, when we discussed the state second pension, we built that in so that for every year of caring a person would receive a year of pension. Therefore, if one completed 40 years of caring, one would receive a £40 pension. Currently that is not the case. However, perhaps I may check how far back those records go. Certainly the noble Lord is right that we are covered following the introduction of ICA and also following the introduction of the appropriate benefits. I shall check on that point and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Higgins: I am most grateful. This point had been raised with me by an outside body which is obviously fairly expert on the matter. By now, the people concerned must be fairly old and are probably very few in number. Therefore, I am content for the noble Baroness to make absolutely sure that that is so.
Perhaps I may return to the main point which I believed she was making, although I shall need to read carefully exactly what she said. I tabled a Written Question which she kindly answered in time for today's debate. I am concerned that the Written Answer that I received today refers to a "pay-as-you-go" principle. Nevertheless, in regard to individuals there is a distinction. What proportion of the state pension would a pensioner receive if the calculation were carried out on an actuarial basis as a result of his contributions?
One would have great difficulty convincing anyone who receives the basic state pension that the following is so: if, over the years, they had simply invested their contributions, the answer is that they would receive nowhere near the basic state pension. A big element of the basic state pension is not covered by contributions. It is at least arguable that those with deficient contribution records are at least entitled to some part of that compared with those who have paid full contributions.
Another point I was seeking to make is that I do not understand why someone who suffers because he does not have a full contribution record and so receives a lower state pension should not be entitled to have at least some recognition of the fact that he has a small amount of savings. As I understand it, under the Bill

1645
as drafted, he does not have that because his small savings are not compensated for in any way. They are used to bring up the pension to the levels that the Minister has mentioned. I am not clear why it is that those who have a deficient contribution record should not receive something from the Government because they have a small amount of savings, if those who have a full contribution record benefit when they have a small amount of savings.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This is not exactly a theological argument, but it touches on a wider debate about the relationship between national insurance and the taxation system. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that although funds go into the national insurance scheme, the state retirement pension is a funded "pay-as-you-go" scheme, as opposed to a money purchase scheme, and in that sense it is funded by today's taxpayers. In turn, the pensioners have funded a previous generation of pensioners.
This matter would depend upon age, gender, work records and the like, as to what actuarial proportion would apply. That is where we are, and the noble Lord knows that as a result the national insurance contributions are levied from an employer and an employee with the availability of a Treasury contribution, if necessary, to make good what GAD forecast is required to have a national insurance fund in balance. That flow of money effectively comes in from different generations of people. Perhaps the noble Lord will accept that description. If we go beyond that we shall be in the realms of theology, if not heresy.
Lord Higgins: I understand all that, but that is not the point that I was making. Is it not the case that those drawing a pension now would receive that pension if all they had done was paid their contributions and received the actuarial result of those contributions?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is true. The basic retirement state pension is the same level irrespective of whether one has been a non-taxpayer or a taxpayer or whatever the level of national insurance contribution one has paid. Technically, some people may have over-funded their pension and others may have under-funded it. There is a cross-pooling effect, across each generation as well as between generations. I do not see anything wrong with that. One may be able to do the sums suggested by the noble Lord, but I do not see that that matters because society pools money for old age.
I return to the second of the noble Lord's questions. If Frank has a retirement pension of £77 and a private occupational pension of £30, he should be in the same financial position as Roy who has a retirement pension of £50 and an occupational pension of £30. That is basically what the noble Lord is saying. One has a full RP of £77 and the other has an RP from incomplete contributions of only £50 and they both have occupational pensions of £30. The result is that under the pension credit Frank's pension will go up from £77 to £100 because his £30 will take him past that, and it is 60p in the pound thereafter. Is it right that Roy's
1646
pension should also go up to £100? His retirement pension record is incomplete but he is poor, and therefore he needs to go up to £100, which is the fulcrum point, and he will still enjoy a proportion of the savings credit in exactly the same way as Frank.
The noble Lord is saying that what is currently MIG should carry the strain between where Roy is with his retirement pension, however modest that may be—£10 worth, £50 worth or £77 worth up to 100—and whatever else he may have; he will still receive a savings credit. That is what the noble Lord suggests and I do not believe that that is right. He is saying that such a person should be rewarded twice over, once with a M1G element, a guarantee element that takes him up to £100 with possibly £20, or £30 or £50 of retirement pension—far more than the first person—and on top of that that he should enjoy his savings credit. Those two people with different retirement pension contributions records would end up receiving the same income. That cannot be right. That is not fair to the person who has worked hard, paid the contributions and saved in other forms—through an occupational pension or through savings.
I do not know whether that helps the noble Lord. We may have to agree to disagree on that. That would be the consequence under his case of someone with an incomplete retirement pension record who would receive all the £100 deemed through the MIG element and would enjoy a savings credit on top. I do not believe that it is right to deal with those two people in the same way. I hope in the light of that explanation that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister for the full attention that she has paid to this amendment. The counter argument from my noble friend Lord Higgins is whether someone should receive no benefit at all—it is not a matter of full benefit—from having some state retirement pension. I look forward to receiving from the Minister's department the capital calculations. In any way that I try to work this out I cannot work it up to £35,000 or £60,000 to be eligible under the proposals now before the Committee.
I am grateful to the Minister for having dealt with some of the cases. I did not hear much about women who take a career break to care for children, but these were probing amendments designed to discover the position of the Government. We have had much juice out of the orange. I may want to see whether I can extract some more juice on another occasion, but for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Nurse Prescribing
7.28 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in the light of their responses (Cm 4172 and 5245) to the reports of the Science and Technology Committee on Resistance to Antibiotics (HL Paper 81, Session 1997–98, and HL Paper 56, Session 2000–01), what precautions they will propose to guard against increasing the prevalence of antibiotic resistant organisms in the proposed nurse prescribing regulations announced on 4th May 2001.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in providing a brief background to this Unstarred Question I shall explain that in 1998 I had the honour to chair a sub-committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents. After its deliberations the sub-committee came to several conclusions of which I shall mention two. The first was,
"This enquiry has been an alarming experience, which leaves us convinced that resistance to antibiotics and other anti-infective agents constitutes a major threat to public health and ought to be recognised as such".
The second conclusion was that,
"there is a dire prospect of revisiting the pre-antibiotic era".
I cite those two conclusions to emphasise the serious nature of antibiotic resistance. It is not an issue to be taken lightly. The Government have been very positive in their response to the report. That has resulted in a number of publications. The Path of Least Resistance was published by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee (SMAC). A series of patient-information pamphlets was produced by the National Health Service to dissuade inappropriate use of antibiotics for simple infections, such as the common cold, coughs, viral sore throats, earache and so on; in other words, the more prudent use of antibiotics. Also included was the setting up of the long-awaited Specialist Advisory Committee on Antimicrobial Resistance (SACAR).
Since 1988 there has been a welcome decline in antibiotic use in human patients—and in animal patients too. Prescribing is down by 23 per cent. That is a very good record. Nevertheless, when the subcommittee revisited the issue of antibiotic resistance in 2001, we reiterated the need to educate professionals to practise even more prudent prescribing. Recently the Department of Health addressed the issue of antibiotic resistance in a publication entitled Getting ahead of the curve: a strategy for combating infectious diseases. As recently as 4th January 2002 the Department of Health published a leaflet entitled, Got a cold—don't ask for antibiotics. There is little doubt that officially and professionally one of the major factors influencing the spread of the resistance to antibiotics is the inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics. It is now intended to extend prescribing of prescription only medicines (POMs) to independent nurse prescribers by amending the prescriptions-only medicines order 1997 to include antibiotics.
The proposals are very worthy. They are intended to enhance patient care by providing quicker and more efficient access to healthcare, making better use of
1648
nurses' time and skills, and allowing doctors more time to deal with the more serious cases presented. That is an admirable concept to be supported by adequate training of nurse prescribers to prescribe the POMs listed—there are more than 100—by the Committee on the Safety of Medicines. Fifteen antibiotics are also listed. Therein lies the concern.
Antibiotics differ from all other POMs in that the needs of the individual patient must be balanced against the need to preserve their usefulness for the general population. Unlike other POMs, the use of antibiotics in one patient may influence the efficacy and efficiency of that antibiotic in another patient, related or unrelated. That does not occur with non-antibiotic POMs.
In its response to the proposed regulations and lists put out by the Medicines Control Agency, the Specialist Advisory Committee on Antimicrobial Resistance firmly believes that systemic antibiotics should be excluded from the list of POMs with the exception of a very few where their use can be easily and accurately diagnosed and proposed. Those include urinary tract infections in young women and bacterial vaginosis.
The extension to nurse prescribers of the ability to prescribe is based on the concept that nurses should prescribe for minor infections; yet it is those very minor infections which have led to the imprudent prescribing of antibiotics by doctors. Will independent nurse prescribers perform better than doctors have done? Will they be able to resist the demands for antibiotics by patients when the nurse prescriber judges that a prescription is unnecessary and yet is pressed by the patient to prescribe? That will not only be a problem for the nurse prescribers; it is a very real problem for medical practitioners. Will the period of training—a three-month programme of 25 taught days—be sufficient for all POMs but including those antibiotics?
The response of the British Society for Antimicrobial Therapy to the proposals recommends limiting the list of oral antibiotics to be prescribed to only the two infections I have mentioned; namely, urinary tract infections and bacterial vaginosis. It has listed the antibiotics which might be used. It points to a very clear role for nurse practitioners by serving as a gateway between patients and medical practitioners. I support that. It is also clear that the programme must be carefully audited especially for any increase in antibiotic resistance. The Public Health Laboratory Service should be brought into play.
I am aware that further discussions have been held with the Chief Nursing Officer, Professor Wise, chairman of the specialist advisory committee, and Dr Martin Wood, consultant physician and President of the British Society for Antimicrobial Therapy. Perhaps the Minister can inform us of the progress made.
In conclusion, I believe that the overall proposals will be a major advance in nursing, provided there is adequate instruction and supervision. I do not cavil with the extension of prescribing by nurses to the 100

1649
or more POMs. The concern is with antibiotics. We have made welcome progress in cutting back on antibiotic prescribing. I believe that that has led to a reduction in antibiotic resistance. Let us not reverse that trend without due caution.
Finally, other nurses such as veterinary and dental nurses handle POMs. Will they, too, be included eventually in this proposal?
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, for giving us the opportunity to debate the issue, I confess immediately that I have no expertise in prescribing—unlike many noble Lords who will speak. What I do have though is considerable experience and expertise as a patient. Since patient benefit or otherwise must be a central theme of our debate tonight, it seems to me that that gives me leave to make a brief contribution.
For seven months of last year I was a patient at the Middlesex Hospital. I had total body sepsis, peritonitis, an open abdominal wound and, for about half my stay, MRSA. Your Lordships will see that I have a very strong interest in the administration of antibiotics, painkillers, fluids, artificial food and practically every other substance which can be administered to a bedfast patient, the names of which I have now mercifully forgotten.
Your Lordships will perhaps understand that it is a bit of a miracle that I survived at all; that I did so is due in large measure to the fantastic care which I received from the NHS and the fact that no effort was ever spared to save my life even when all hope of saving my life seemed to be gone.
We talk a lot about putting patients first and that it is easy to say and hard to put into practice, but I must go on record as saying that not once in all those long months, at least while I was conscious, did any doctor, nurse or other practitioner do anything to me without explaining the procedure, its process, its effects, asking me if it was all right to proceed and generally putting my thoughts and wishes at the forefront. It is perhaps worth also saying, particularly today, that never once was I treated with anything other than respect and dignity.
The co-operation and trust between the doctors, nurses and the allied professions were also exemplary. For example, a special team of nurses had been set up to ensure that there was the utmost co-operation between the ward and the intensive care unit to ensure that no focus on the patient was lost when the lower level of care provided by the ward was substituted for the one-to-one nursing in ITU. The advice of this nurse team on all matters, including prescribing, was taken by consultants, doctors and nurses on the ward.
This caring and concerned atmosphere alleviated what was inevitably a distressing experience. Some of the worst moments were waiting for an on-call doctor to arrive—usually at night, in the small hours—to prescribe more pain relief, more antibiotics, a new IV line and/or more anti-nausea drugs. It is for that reason that I am speaking strongly in favour of
1650
extending nurse prescribing tonight. Who did I want to prescribe for me at these times—the charge nurse or the night sister, with whom I had constant contact, or a new and often inexperienced doctor who had never seen me before? Your Lordships will conclude that it was of course the nurse. In any event the doctor would take the nurse's advice because she knew more about me.
As the size of my notes grew—and noble Lords will appreciate that they eventually filled four folders and stood almost a foot high—who was seriously going to read through all that? No one of course. My history was given to the doctor by the nurse or by me and it was on that basis that the prescription for whatever it was was written out. The delay was sometimes considerable and it caused distress not only to me but to the staff. How much better for the nurse to have prescribed in the first place. Indeed, I am very much in favour of extending nurse prescribing. When it came to putting in lines, the nurses who did so were frequently more skilful and tender to my poor sore veins than the doctor, who, however well-meaning, was often just learning.
I must emphasise that the advice of the nurses resulted from long connection with me, wide knowledge and experience of my condition and close co-operation with the consultant and registrar who saw me daily. Speaking as a patient, I certainly would not want anyone to be prescribing for me without adequate training. So I very much welcome the emphasis placed by the Government on training and on the commitment of £10 million to support this extra training for nurses.
For the proposed extension of prescribing to be successful, trust and respect for each other is vital. That applies not only to the relationships between doctors and nurses but to the relationships with those other professions who contribute so greatly to the welfare of patients, such as physiotherapists and OTs.
I am sure that the new arrangements for prescribing will bring enormous benefits in terms of time and money saved, but I principally support them because of the benefits to patients which I am sure will result from well trained and well informed nurses prescribing as proposed.
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for relating a pleasant experience of being in hospital. As a medical practitioner I found it most welcome.
I should like to confine my remarks to antibiotic prescribing and the extension of that to nurses. Antibiotic and anti-fungal resistance are modern phenomena. Stored strains of bacteria from 1915 to 1950 show no transferable resistance, so Darwinian natural selection is very active among microorganisms.
Currently, it has been assessed that in Wales about half of all antibiotic prescriptions are unnecessary. There are wide variations in antibiotic prescribing across Europe. High rates in Spain correlate with high

1651
levels of penicillin resistance. The noble Baroness has already mentioned the problems of resistance in bacteria.
Interestingly, in Finland, a major campaign to decrease macrolide antibiotic use resulted in significant falls in resistant Group A streptococci. Decreased tetracycline use has also been linked to a fall in the amount of resistant strains. So natural selection comes into play and resistant strains of organisms do not emerge.
Nearer to home, there are powerful data from Howard and colleagues. They have looked at antibiotic prescriptions dispensed from a GP practice and the presence of antibiotic resistance in specimens from patients from that practice. When the prescribing rates of antibiotics were high they found high rates of resistance to that antibiotic. The other worrying finding was a cross-correlation between usage of one antibiotic and antibiotic resistance to another. For example, Trimethoprim was associated with multi-resistance in coliform to up to four different antibiotics.
They also demonstrated higher levels of resistance in areas of social deprivation, which strongly supports the hypothesis that the pool of bacteria in a practice population develop resistance. When a member of that community becomes immuno-compromised for whatever reason, he is more likely to be ill with a resistant strain. So the data on resistance relating to the number of prescriptions for antibiotics are strong.
Next, perhaps I may comment on the drugs themselves. They are potent and potentially dangerous. For example, some patients prescribed Minocycline for acne have developed severe lupus-type liver damage. Life-threatening hypersensitivity reactions are well recognised with many antibiotics.
As well as antibiotics there are anti-fungal agents on the list, which I would like to address. Candida albicans used to account for over 95 per cent of all fungal infections, but it now accounts for only about 60 per cent in the UK and 50 per cent in the USA. Resistant strains, particularly glabrata and kruisei have become prominent. Systemic fungal infection is notoriously difficult to diagnose and the anti-fungals anphotericin and Miconozole must be reserved for life-threatening fungemia.
Dental stomatitis and gingivitis needs good oral hygiene and denture-cleaning, not anti-fungals or antibiotics. Dental abscess, which is normally due to prevotella, which is an organism found in the mouth, develops penicillin resistance very readily by Beta Lactamase production. I would remind your Lordships that some dental abscesses have been fatal.
I return to social deprivation because nurse practitioners in walk-in centres in areas of deprivation have been providing a service which evaluates well. It is precisely in the more deprived areas that resistant strains of bacteria are prevalent. Compliance with completing courses of antibiotics is notoriously low and poor social conditions mitigate against care at home of serious infection.
1652
Nurse management protocols, which include prescribing of items as on the current approved list, indicate when to refer on to a doctor those infections that may need systemic antibiotics. That would include the oral antibiotics, obviously.
This nurse contact undoubtedly prevents some patients going straight to the GP for antibiotics. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, has outlined current major initiatives to decrease antibiotic prescribing and maintain a list of hospital only antibiotics in the Armementarium against life-threatening infections. Minor infections will get better with good nursing care, especially cleansing and topical measures. Antibiotics systemically should not be used for them anyway.
Serious infections, such as cellulitis, need a serious diagnostic medical workup, for they are potentially fatal. The amount of antibiotic in every community must be decreased to avoid that individual community developing more and more antibiotic resistant strains of organisms.
That is why I would like to see antibiotic prescribing more restricted and not extended to the initiation of antibiotics by more people, and therefore that is why I oppose nurse prescribing of antibiotics. But I should like to make it clear that I do not oppose nurse prescribing of the other items.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, is right to ask this Question, which has caused concern to many clinicians. He is a veritable terrier in the tenacity with which he has warned us of the dangers of emerging resistance to antibiotics, since he so ably chaired the Science and Technology Committee in 1998.
I would say that there are two golden rules for antibiotic prescribers: first, as far as possible, restrict the prescription of antibiotics to moderate or severe infections whose duration can be significantly reduced by antibiotics, or where there is significant risk that they will otherwise become more severe, or where complications will develop; and, secondly, most infections should be treated initially with one of a small range of effective, well understood "first line" antibiotics. "Second line" antibiotics, which are usually more expensive, should be reserved for infections that do not respond to the first-line drugs, or where there is a known resistance to first-line antibiotics. I hope the noble Lord agrees with those principles, which, as he indicated, are not always easy to live up to in the heat of a patient consultation.
MLX 273—the extended list of drugs that has, I gather, been agreed by Ministers—contains 15 antibiotics. I would classify six of these as second-line, to be held in reserve, and nine as first-line drugs. The short list proposed by the Committee on the Safety of Medicines (the CSM) is composed of these first-line antibiotics In fact, they are exactly the ones that I, as a GP, used in the great majority of patients who needed antibiotics. I do not think that the longer list of 15 is appropriate as it stands.

1653
In all cases where treatment fails with first-line drugs, it would be reasonable for nurses to seek a medical opinion, or agreement, before using one of the six second-line preparations on the extended list. I do not suggest that they should not be able to prescribe these, but that the decision to do so should be a shared one.
The extended MLX 273 list, which actually contains 143 drugs, also includes nine anti-fungal preparations. As this was covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I do not propose to talk about fungi, except to say that the same considerations apply to them as to bacteria.
Nearly half of the total list consists of newer or more expensive second-line preparations. These are other than antibiotic drugs: they are alternatives to well-tried drugs. Again, I believe that the rule should be that they be used mainly as second-line drugs. They are usually considerably more expensive than first-line preparations. If a first-line drug is ineffective, it may well be that the diagnosis is wrong rather than that the condition is not responding to the prescribed treatment. Therefore, I believe that a shared decision would be appropriate.
One of the considerations that is not clear when reviewing this list of drugs is how often the nurse prescriber will be signing a repeat prescription for a patient on long-term treatment. If the decision to initiate the treatment was a medical one—or part of a team decision, or protocol—then it would be quite legitimate for a nurse to sign a wide variety of prescriptions if he or she were caring for the patient; but as a completely independent practitioner, I think that the current list is too extended.
As the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, said, we have seen general practitioner prescriptions for antibiotics fall by 23 per cent between 1995 and 1998, which is very gratifying. But, as the noble Lord indicated, we could do better. If nurses are to prescribe antibiotics, their training must—and, I believe, does—include very specific knowledge of the problems of microbial resistance and how to minimise it. I am confident that, with this training, nurses will be as prudent in the use of antibiotics as the best general practitioners; and much better than many. There is evidence in the United States to show that nurses prescribe high-cost antibiotics much less often, and more appropriately, than physicians.
7.55 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, before beginning my speech, I should just like to declare an interest. I am a vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing, and of the Royal College of Midwives and patron of the Association for Nurse Prescribing. I thank my noble friend Lord Soulsby for initiating this debate, not least because it has given us the opportunity to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. I have to say that the NHS clearly played a very important part in her survival, but I suspect that the noble Baroness's personal courage and determination played an equally important part in the process.
1654
I am one of those very sad people. I have only ever had one original idea; namely, nurse prescribing. I am really passionate about the subject, and, I have to say, slightly unhinged. In 1986, I was commissioned by the then government to review community nursing for England. As I undertook the task, I visited parts of England and was appalled when I witnessed some of the enormous discomfort, suffering and pain that patients suffered at that time, although they were well attended by a qualified nurse. The nurses were unable to vary the medication both in its duration and in its strength. These people were actually dying; and community nurses were trying to keep them at home. The situation seemed to me to be simply dreadful.
I then visited doctors' surgeries and saw district nurses and health visitors—highly-qualified professional nurses—standing outside the consulting room doors of GPs, waiting for prescriptions to be signed. They had actually written the prescription, but had to wait for a doctor's signature. That seemed to me to be pretty humiliating. When undertaking the review, one of the recommendations produced by my team was that nurses should be allowed to prescribe from a limited list, provided that they were qualified as district nurses and health visitors and undertook the training.
After a huge effort in winning cross-party support, bouncing the Treasury, persuading other health professionals that this was a good idea, and setting up the first Crown committee (which, among other things, reviewed nurse prescribing) the scheme came into being. There is now a national roll with 23,000 nurses being allowed to prescribe. That is terrific. But throughout the process two severe criticisms have been made. The first related to training. Initially, it was thought to be too thorough. The second criticism was that the Formulary was too restrictive. However, over the years both those issues have been addressed. The training is now realistic: it is well founded and appropriate. Until now the standards have been set by the UKCC, and the curriculum has been approved by the English National Board.
I understand that mechanisms are now in place to ensure that when these bodies cease to be, the new bodies will take on the scrutiny and the leadership of this particular part of training. The training programmes will continue to be set at degree level. They not only involve higher education, but also practical supervision for three months. It is a very solid training regime. The point that I should like to make is that the people about whom we are talking—those who are being trained and who are prescribing—are not fresh-faced school-leavers: they are experienced, professional men and women. Most of them have additional qualifications as nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, or nurse consultants. They are individually accountable for their actions and they are required to work within their competence.
All the research, including three randomised control trials of over 4,000 patients in 35 GP practices, show that nurses are not cavalier when prescribing. Originally, the limited list was a sop introduced in order to get other professionals on board. My vision

1655 for the future is that we should not have a limited list, that nurses should have the full range of the National Formulary.
When I look at what nurses are doing in areas such as diabetes and asthma, I find that once the doctor has made the diagnosis it is the nurses who are the experts and who have the knowledge to manage the care. Many GPs are only too willing to let them do so. I believe that there is scope to go much further than we are at the moment.
I wish to give your Lordships one example where I believe it is so obvious that nurses should be allowed to prescribe antibiotics. Currently, a highly trained nurse may take a history from a patient, examine her, carry out diagnostic tests and diagnose a urinary tract infection. But that patient has to wait for the nurse to find and speak to a doctor, get a prescription signed, often without the doctor even seeing the patient, before the patient can receive the antibiotic treatment she needs. I believe that that is nonsense. In the interests of responsive services to patients we should look at the evidence here and in the United States of America and Australia and recognise that nurses are responsible professionals and we should entrust them to prescribe antibiotics.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House. Perhaps I may also say how moved I was to hear the eloquent speech of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley. So I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity of speaking in the debate not only because I believe that bacterial resistance to antibiotics is particularly problematic as a major health hazard—and here I would like to express an interest as chairman of the board of the Public Health Laboratory Service—but also because I have always supported the idea of nurse prescribing; not all nurses, perhaps, and not all drugs. But the principle of nurse prescribing has always seemed very reasonable to me.
But with antibiotics we have a dilemma because, as we have heard, the prescription for one patient has implications for others when resistant bacteria emerge. How, then, can we square the circle of restricting antibiotic prescribing, as we have been trying to do across the medical and veterinary professions, while at the same time widening access to nurses? Blanket approval and blanket disapproval of nurse prescribing does not seem to be appropriate and, as always, resolution depends on the detail. Not all infections are the same and neither are all antibiotics.
At one end of the spectrum we have a patient seriously ill with a high temperature and looking very sick. As a doctor, as I once tried to be, my response to that patient would have been a thorough history and a careful examination for clues about a diagnosis. Then perhaps a chest X-ray, a blood culture and possibly other tests. After that, I might or might not have prescribed a first-line antibiotic while I waited for the
1656
results. That case clearly sounds primarily like a medical rather than a nursing problem, at least to start with.
At the other end of the spectrum is a patient with a seemingly minor illness, perhaps a sore throat or a boil, and here again an antibiotic will not be the first line of attack by a doctor or nurse. We would be stepping into areas of inappropriate prescribing where we have begun, as we have heard, to make progress among general practitioners. So if severe infections require medical skills and knowledge before the prescription of antibiotics—and minor infections do not generally require them—what is left for nurses to prescribe?
It is those kinds of considerations that made the specialist advisory committee on anti-microbial resistance look very critically at the long list of conditions which were thought to be appropriate. It felt that many of the proposed infections and antibiotics were inappropriate because they fitted into one or other of the categories I have described. Where it might be reasonable, however, is in one or two unusual or small examples. Urinary tract infections have been mentioned, but even here the types of antibiotics which are used should be limited to first-line treatments, leaving out entirely those second-line treatments which should be reserved for serious infection.
The dangers of emerging antibiotic resistant organisms are spelled out very clearly in the document The Path of Least Resistance which was produced by an excellent group under the chairmanship of Dr Diana Walford of the PHLS at the behest of the standing medical advisory committee. It is worth reading because at the very least it emphasises the need for caution in extending the ability of anyone, not just nurses, to prescribe antibiotics without careful attention to the details of what can be prescribed and for what diseases. It is the detail of which antibiotic and which condition rather than the principle, which I am sure the Minister will consider very carefully when he replies.
8.5 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, for raising this important subject. We have heard some very cogent cases tonight for nurses prescribing, with some reservations and some opposition. It seems to me that what we have to ensure is that prescribing is safe not only on an individual basis but also in the wider public health context.
Public health measures such as sanitary reform made the key difference to health in the 19th century: antibiotics played this part in the 20th century, especially as regards hospital medicine. Yet these miracle cures, these magic bullets, do not operate against some static, unchanging enemy.

1657
As the Select Committee on Science and Technology starkly stated in its report of 22nd March 2001:
"We cannot eliminate [antibiotic] resistance. We can however slow it down, by using antibiotics only when necessary, and by rigorous infection control and basic hygiene, both informed by thorough surveillance".
General practitioners have responded by decreasing their prescription of antibiotics. As a mother of school-age children, I was part of the Government's target audience in their 1999 campaign. I certainly found that that campaign struck a chord among other mothers at the school gates: when their children went down with coughs and colds they were much less likely to rush off to the doctor. I trust that this campaign will not be a one-off.
It has to be alarming though that hospitals have not improved in this regard. I gather that most hospital trusts now do have protocols for what are to be used as first, second or third-line antibiotics and advise on the restrictions in their use. All should have such protocols.
But I also hear that up and down the country the same debates are going on in the various trusts about the low level of compliance with these protocols. I wonder whether the Minister has suggestions on what sanctions there could be to ensure that there is compliance.
One microbiologist tells me that in his experience surgeons have proved more compliant than physicians. He says that is because surgeons know the names of only two antibiotics and can spell only one. As the wife of a surgeon, I could not possibly comment.
But how are we to know what is being done where and by whom in any systematic way if the information systems are not in place? That has to be the key to the proper understanding of this problem and tackling it more effectively.
If hospitals still have much room for improvement but in general practice things are looking a little better, how will nurse prescribing fit in? After all, it has long proved to be the case that it is easier to prescribe than not to prescribe.
I have a copy of the outline framework for nurse prescribers which was produced by the NHS National Prescribing Centre in November 2001. When it comes to listing the kind of clinical and pharmaceutical knowledge to be expected of nurse prescribers, it may be that the issue of resistance to antibiotics is implied but I certainly did not find it stated.
I note that on 9th January 2002 the Medicines Control Agency reported that Ministers agreed that they wish to give more detailed consideration to nurses prescribing oral antibiotics. I also note that on its website the RCN states that it is,
"mindful of the need to ensure appropriate prescribing as a means of minimising resistance".
I am glad to see that the problem is being addressed.
1658
Nurses are at the beginning of a new and exciting era, which I support. However, now is the time to set in place the guidance and the monitoring systems to ensure that what should be a positive development in the NHS is indeed such.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, it has been a great privilege to hear such an informed debate on such an important subject, involving all parts of the House. We have heard both sides of the argument. We have heard from a patient, from prescribers and from experts, particularly my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. I do not think that she is at all unhinged on the subject of nurses prescribing antibiotics. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior for introducing the debate.
It would certainly seem to be a good time to review the strategies that we have in place to try to halt the march of resistance and guide us in our approach to future regulations. One of the chief problems confronting any effort to reduce the spread of resistance is the lack of information available. Policy development is surely hampered by our not knowing the true extent of the problem with regard to individual strains of bacteria and individual types of antibiotic.
In preparing for the debate, I came across the work of the MYSTIC surveillance programme, which has provided some insight into the link between prescribing rates and resistance patterns. MYSTIC researchers have found that usage does not always affect resistance. Professor Richard Wise has said:
"What we know about the link between prescribing and antibiotic resistance is fairly crude. The finer points are lost, but this information is necessary to deal more effectively with the problem of antimicrobial resistance".
It seems clear that guidelines for the prescription of antibiotics would benefit from that sort of detailed research, and I am delighted that seven UK hospitals are providing data for the international programme.
On a broader scale, it appears that the existing surveillance tools are fairly blunt. They do not provide good quality information that not only monitors resistance patterns but provides relevant data on antibiotic consumption. Until we have a standardised national data collection system, any monitoring of the situation will be limited. I understand that it is not a problem peculiar to the United Kingdom and that matters may improve significantly with the introduction of the electronic patient record. However, I should still be interested to learn when we might see some discernible improvement in the surveillance of resistance in terms of individual drugs and individual infections.
The cost of antibiotic resistance cannot be overestimated. One hundred thousand people pick up antibiotic-resistant infections in UK hospitals every year. Treatment costs the NHS about £1 billion. It costs 100 times more to treat a patient with drug-resistant TB than one with normal TB. At present, the problem is more pronounced in other countries. In Estonia, Latvia and parts of Russia and China, more

1659
than 10 per cent of patients with TB are infected with strains that are resistant to the two most powerful medicines used to treat the disease. In Thailand, three of the most common anti-malarial drugs are now useless.
It is of increasing concern that in less wealthy countries patients are often unable to complete a full course of antibiotics, which allows the stronger bacteria to survive and develop resistance to the drug. We should be concerned by those developments, which seem so far removed from our hospitals. Bacteria do not recognise international boundaries. International travel introduces infections that are difficult to treat.
In Britain, we have our own problems to contend with, the best publicised being the superbug, MRSA. Vulnerable patients become infected, and the sheer numbers involved mean that the infection spreads rapidly. It is a worrying situation, and we should think about it internationally, as well as concentrating on our own hospitals.
Where are we in our efforts to slow down the spread of resistance? In 1998, the Select Committee on Science and Technology recommended that the public should be educated in the prudent use of antibiotics. I believe that that recommendation has been taken seriously. I hope that, in accordance with the Select Committee's report of last year, specific campaigns will be repeated frequently and regularly, in addition to the phase 2 mentioned in the Government's response.
One of the greatest problems is public expectation. Patients should know why they are not being prescribed antibiotics when they might have been in the past. The non-prescription form has been effective in helping to reassure patients that they are being cared for and not simply ignored.
For all its worrying prognosis, there is a positive thread running through the discourse on antibiotic resistance. Antibiotics can still provide an effective means of dealing with infection. Accurate diagnosis and immediate treatment are reducing the number of what may be termed needless doses. It is now essential that multidisciplinary initiatives and partnership play their part.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am pleased to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, in this important debate. It could hardly have been more timely. Although the process of consultation has nearly been completed, it is not finalised, and Ministers have not yet made their decisions. Therefore, although my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath cannot be here, due to other pressing business, he will read the debate with considerable care and interest, prior to coming to a view on the issues.
The issue of antimicrobial resistance has been well covered. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and I welcome your Lordships' continuing interest. The House's Science and Technology Committee has made a first-class contribution to public health in this
1660
respect. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, was a powerful contributor to both the first report and the subsequent report. On that basis, the Government have been able to move forward in developing our own strategy. As the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, signalled, it is not just a national problem, it is an international one. In that respect, if no other, we are not an island, as we are open to infection from elsewhere.
In the light of the Select Committee's report, the United Kingdom developed a strategy. I am grateful for the acknowledgement from the noble Lords, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior and Lord Astor of Hever, that concerted action has been taken and that there has been a systematic attempt to address this serious problem. There are, however, no grounds for complacency. We have seen a significant early improvement. The 23 per cent reduction between 1996 and 2000 is good news. One expects that, as with all such initiatives, it will be tougher getting the next 10 per cent down. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, rightly said that it was not just a GP issue. It is also a matter of whether hospitals are doing it, and I have noted the comments about data records and the importance of hospitals. The monitoring system, to which I shall refer later, will help, at least in part.
Several speakers remarked on the importance of public information on antibiotics and resistance. We have an educated public. It is not the case that people cannot understand an argument that is put to them. It is extremely important, therefore, that the public are aware of the special nature of antimicrobial agents, not least because it helps to reduce the pressure on prescribers. The Department of Health ran a media campaign in autumn 1999. That was not a one-off; there will be subsequent campaigns for the general public and for schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, also kindly mentioned the recent announcement made by the Chief Medical Officer in the report, Getting Ahead of the Curve. This is not only about the reduction of inappropriate prescribing, it is also about reducing the need for antibiotics in the first place. Therefore concerted action is required to control the growth of infection and, where appropriate, to consider vaccination. Clearly that must form a part of any sensible strategy for dealing with this major problem.
It is clear that the prudent prescribing of antimicrobials is central to our debate tonight. Noble Lords have repeatedly stressed the importance of prescribing antimicrobials only when it is really necessary to do so, in the right dose and for the right length of time, and seeking to cut down on the unnecessary and inappropriate use that undoubtedly still continues to occur. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, gave the House a frightening statistic which she believes reflects the level of inappropriate prescribing taking place in Wales.
The issue for our debate is whether, if nurses—suitably selected and suitably trained—are allowed to prescribe a limited range of antibiotics, that will lead to an increase in resistance. We need to address the

1661
question of whether nurses are likely to make more inappropriate judgments than other medical professionals. Nurse prescribing is not new. Fundamentally, it has come about through the pioneering work of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. Many in this House concerned with these issues have great pleasure in acknowledging the power and force of her pioneering work in this area.
What has been interesting to note in our debate is that no one has argued against the extension of nurse prescribing. How the world has moved on. The debate has concerned inappropriate prescribing, or whether nurses would be more likely to prescribe antibiotics inappropriately. I hope that the noble Baroness will take some comfort from that, although she will not get full comfort because I am not going to go as far as she would like me to in regard to what the Government are likely to do.
My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley made very clear the advantages to patients of nurse prescribing: convenience, immediacy and the assurance of having someone who knows your whole history, has your confidence and is a person you know will be an advocate for your needs. I should like to be able to cite examples, but time will not allow. Let us focus therefore on the key issue of whether nurses would be more injudicious than doctors. I think that one would hope that in fact nurses would be more cautious, more prudent and more keen to follow protocols. That, of course, is the challenge facing the Government in terms of how these proposals should be implemented.
Such evidence as there is was found in three randomised control trials held over the past two years. They involved a total of almost 4,500 patients in 35 general practices. They were tested to see what GPs prescribed and what was prescribed by nurses for a range of common conditions. Those tests revealed no statistical difference between what was prescribed by GPs and what was prescribed by nurses.
The debate does not cover all nurses. Clearly it covers only a limited range of nurses. Not all nurses will want to train. Only first-level registered nurses and registered midwives would be eligible to train. In response to a question put by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, there are no plans currently under consideration by the Government to go further than that. In general, one would expect at least three years' experience before nurses were in a position to take up the training that has been developed. The education and training programme comprises 37 days' training in total, 25 days spent at university level along with a further 12 days' supervision in practice spread over three months, plus self-directed learning. That is then followed by an assessment on both theory and competence in practice.
I can confirm the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, when she asked whether the training would contain a specific focus on prescribing in the context of public health, including teaching on antimicrobial resistance, and the importance of compliance with local antimicrobial policy. As the noble Baroness so rightly remarked, the training will need to cover those points.
1662
Since October 2000, the Department of Health has consulted widely on the extension of nurse prescribing, and again since the summer of last year on the particularly hard issue of the prescribing of antimicrobials. For many reasons of time and skill I shall not attempt to debate the specifics of the lists of antimicrobials for which conditions, because I do not think that we would be able to do justice to those issues at this point. Having said that, however, the Government will look with care not only at the thoughtful advice provided by SACAR and that by noble Lords during the course of this debate, but also at the specifics of what type of antimicrobials might be appropriate in what circumstances. Arguments relating to that were put forward clearly by my noble friends Lord Rea and Lord Turnberg.
The Committee on the Safety of Medicines, which is the statutory consultee on the Government's part, when consulted on the prescription of antimicrobials, lent its support to allowing a limited range of antimicrobials to be prescribed by suitably trained nurses.
A number of noble Lords commented on the importance of monitoring and evaluation. The Government strongly agree with those views. There will be a research programme to monitor the practice of nurse prescribing and we shall certainly wish to consult with SACAR over the findings of that research as it rolls out from 2003 onwards.
Ministers have now decided that first-level registered nurses and registered midwives can prescribe a broad range of medicines, including 130 prescription-only medicines, following the successful completion of a specific programme of extended training. There appears to be no substantial or significant opposition to that which, again, should give some pleasure and comfort to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege.
On the specifics of which antimicrobials should nurses be able to prescribe, the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, referred in passing to further discussions taking place between the Department of Health and senior representatives of SACAR. I have heard positive noises from those discussions, but those have not yet been put to Ministers and therefore I cannot comment on the detail. However, one would expect to be able to do so in the future.
A number of noble Lords raised questions about future developments. Perhaps, to some extent, let us see how we go with the current arrangements. I have signalled that there are no thoughts for further nurse prescribing. However, there are strong arguments for looking at supplementary prescribing, whereby nurses operate as part of a health team and operate under strict protocols, thus improving service to the patient without straying into areas of risk. However, as I have signalled, we shall not be going as far as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, would have liked.

1663
In conclusion, as was said last week by the Secretary of State for Health, the NHS Plan published 18 months ago sets out our vision for the future of healthcare in our country, where patients always come first. The extension of nurse prescribing by suitably trained nurses operating within defined circumstances, with access to advice where needed, and properly monitored, will form an important part of improving the health service for the public. I am confident that, as long as we move on in the ways on which noble Lords have given advice, we shall have the support of the House and of the public in so doing.

State Pension Credit Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 3.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 4, leave out "qualifying"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 29, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 33 and 37. We have already looked today at some examples of the complexity of the Bill. This was a theme among many of those who responded to the Government's consultation document. One of the complexities is the treatment of income in the calculation of the components of the pension credit. The guaranteed credit uses the word "income" and we must look for the definition of that in Clause 15, which we shall come to in due course.
The savings credit is calculated using the claimant's "qualifying income". Of course, we do not know what is in that because it is to be dealt with by regulations under Clause 3(6). The concept of income is further complicated later in the Bill by something called "retirement provision", which is another shot at defining income.
So we have three separate concepts of income in the Bill. If that is not complicated, I do not know what is. Even if noble Lords think that they understand the differences between the concepts, does any noble Lord think that the average pensioner will understand them? The way in which the Bill is currently drafted places barriers to comprehension.
My amendments seek to cut through this complexity and to insert one definition of "income" for both the guaranteed credit and the savings credit, both looking to the definitions in Clause 15. As there is no concept of qualifying income, subsection (6) becomes unnecessary and can be removed from the Bill, which is what Amendment No. 37 seeks to achieve.
I hope that this further attempt at simplification commends itself to the Minister. If it does not, I hope that she will explain why this multiplicity of income
1664
concepts is necessary and what differences the Government envisage between the different types of income. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps the noble Baroness can help me. Which amendment has she moved?
Baroness Noakes: I moved Amendment No. 29. I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 33 and 37.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: And Amendment No. 36?
Baroness Noakes: No. Amendment No. 36 is not in this group. We will come to it later on. I have not spoken to Amendment No. 36.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is another amendment that has been ungrouped—inadvisedly in my case. I had two spheres—one in which it was grouped and one in which it was not. I believe that it should be grouped but the Opposition Benches, in their wisdom, have decided against that.
Amendments Nos. 29, 37 and 33 seek to remove the concept of qualifying income from the savings credit calculation at Clause 3. It also removes our ability to prescribe in regulations what is and is not qualifying income.
I believe that the noble Baroness's intention is that she wishes to include all of a pensioner's income, as defined in Clause 15, in calculating the savings credit and to remove the notion of qualifying income from the calculation of "amount A" within the savings credit. On first sight, this seems a rather technical matter, but the notion of qualifying income is very important to the working of the savings credit and the principles that lie behind it.
We are attempting something radical with the savings credit. We are seeking to reward savings or modest flows of appropriate income in retirement. Qualifying income establishes an important principle within the savings credit as we are here saying that we want specifically to reward savings for retirement, such as second pensions and capital. This is because, as part of our wider pensions strategy, we believe that second pensions are the best way to provide for retirement. We also recognise that some people may choose other investment vehicles, such as shares, PEPs, ISAs, or that these savings vehicles may be more suitable for some and that they should also be rewarded. Probably on the next day in Committee we shall examine individual streams of income flow in much greater detail.
That is why these are the things that we want to reward through the savings credit. Our intention is that under Clause 3(6) regulations will list the sources of income that we want to reward and class as qualifying income where they exceed the savings credit threshold. This is the definition that would then apply when using the term "qualifying income" throughout the calculation in Clause 3.

1665
We intend that these should be all income defined in this Bill as "retirement pension income" at Clause 16. Qualifying income—this comes to the heart of the noble Baroness's question about what is the difference between the various labels, a question I, too, have asked on more than one occasion—will therefore include, for example, all second pensions, including SERPS, state second pensions, occupational pensions, personal pensions and retirement annuity contracts. It will also include income from capital and annuities as defined in regulations under Clause 15. This is because these income streams either represent a pensioner's savings through their working lives, or other income—for example, DLA—which is appropriately disregarded and exempt from the calculation of qualifying income.
In practice, pensioners may have many and varied income streams, including, for example, social security benefits and war disablement benefits. These may be paid to individuals who, through no fault of their own, have not had opportunities to build up second pensions or other investments. However, other pensioners may have younger partners who, by their nature, are likely to have different income streams. These are few in number and we need to consider further whether we should make rules to cover exceptions—for instance, by not rewarding the contribution a younger partner may make.
I am sure the Committee will recognise the important step forward that we are proposing through the savings credit. I hope that noble Lords will wish to support those who have worked hard and saved hard. Qualifying income does just that. I hope that the Committee will recognise the advantage of being able to define qualifying income in regulations.
I repeat: qualifying income is the income to be rewarded in savings credit. It will include second pensions, rent from lodgers and so on. Disregarded income is income which is exempt from being either qualifying or not qualifying; DLA, AA, money from charities and so on is exempt and not taken into account. There are other incomes—earnings is one such—on which we have to seek further advice finally to determine the position. But qualifying income is the basis on which pension credit will be returned.
There are concerns about other kinds of income—for example, where a claimant's wife is on IB—and whether we reward them. Incapacity benefit is itself a benefit. Do we reprivilege a benefit and reward it, effectively, twice over? Issues such as that will be picked up and further explored in regulations.
There are only about 50,000 cases where quite small benefits—incapacity benefit, contributory JSA, WTC—are affected. The dilemma that faces us is whether it is sensible to treat those benefits as qualifying income on the ground that it is not worth the hassle, or whether anomalies will be created by rewarding some income twice.
Basically, qualifying income is the income on which the assessment is made; a tranche of income—DLA, AA, charity and so on—which is disregarded entirely;
1666
and we are still taking advice and consulting with organisations about some other kinds of income. These will be specified in regulations.
With that explanation—I have tried to be frank—I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I am still mystified. I can understand why some benefits may need to be taken out of the calculation for arriving at qualifying income in order not to reward benefits received from another source—I had not appreciated that point—but I do not see any reason for the difference between the income definition in any other respect.
Can the Minister say when we will be able to see the draft regulations setting out precisely what the department intends to do in this area so that we may consider this further? I repeat: having these different concepts of income in different parts of the Bill is one of the major complications to have been introduced. We on these Benches will certainly seek a way of simplifying this and I hope that the Minister will also.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I cannot help the noble Baroness as to when draft regulations will be available. I do not know. However, we will be debating many of these issues—benefits and the like—during the second day of Committee and we will be able to explore them further. The "biggie", on which we have not yet fully resolved our position, is that there are a lot of colliding considerations, if I can put it that way—for example, earnings. Most of the other benefits concerned involve small numbers. The biggest problem concerns earnings, about which there are pros and cons. and we are seeking to resolve it.
It is perhaps worth saying that we cannot produce draft regulations until both Houses of Parliament have determined what will be in the Bill. Anything I can give to the noble Baroness at this moment has to come with very strong health warnings attached—it may be addressed and amended in another place. But certainly, at present, there is a distinction between "qualifying income" and "income". "Income" can include attendance allowance and disability living allowance, for example. The noble Baroness will understand that that is exempt as an extra cost benefit. It may exclude some of the other benefits for which, otherwise, as she recognises, there would be double provision.
The third category is earnings, in relation to which we are still seeking advice as to the best way forward. It is a case of "on the one hand" and "on the other". We are seeking to go for simplicity where we can, while being fair to as many people as possible. I do not think that I can help the noble Baroness much beyond that. The two big flows of income that we have been talking about are obviously the second pension in its various forms and the flow of putative income from savings.

1667
That is made very clear in the Bill. The rest are relatively small items, apart from earnings, which I am sure we shall explore at a later stage.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that response. I wonder whether it would help our consideration on Report if we could have a list of the matters that will be included in draft guidelines when the department is in a position to produce them. I accept that, technically, that is not until the Bill has been through both Houses. However, the Government should have some idea as to what will definitely be included in one category and what will be included in another, and possibly an idea of where the difficult areas are.
The issues relating to earnings will be explored in later amendments. Clearly, this is a difficult matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 3, line 13, at beginning insert "the amount equal to"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 34 and 44.
The amendments are intended as helpful technical amendments. Amendment No. 34 concerns the calculation of "amount A" in Clause 3—much loved by those who look at the clause—and the amount which must be ascertained in calculating the savings credit. Those who are familiar with the provision will know that "amount A" is the smaller of two figures: first, the maximum savings credit; and, secondly, a prescribed percentage of the amount by which qualifying income exceeds the credit threshold. This is where the Government intend to calculate 40 per cent of a claimant's income above the minimum guarantee.
However, Clause 3(4) compares an "amount" in paragraph (a) with a "percentage" in paragraph (b). That will not achieve the Government's aim, because the calculation cannot be performed. A similar confusion exists in respect of "amount B" in subsection (4) and in respect of "the maximum savings credit" in subsection (7).
If a court ever had to construe this, it would doubtless seek to give practical effect to the drafting. However, I hope that the Committee would not want to present the courts with such a problem. Therefore, the amendments seek to replace "percentage" with "the amount equal to" a percentage, so that the result of the calculation replaces an element of the calculation. So, taking "amount A", if the percentage is 40 per cent, and the amount of a claimant's income is £10, the result would be £4, and that rather than 40 per cent., would be used in the calculations. I hope that the amendments will be regarded as helpful and that the Minister will be able to accept them. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendments Nos. 31, 34 and 44 propose refining the drafting of Clause 3—
1668
Amendment No. 31 at "amount A" in Clause 3(4)(b); Amendment No. 34 at "amount B" at Clause 3(4)(a); and Amendment No. 44 at "the maximum savings credit" at Clause 3(7)—to include the wording "the amount equal to".
We welcome the opportunity to improve the drafting of the Bill during its progress through the House. One of the many accomplishments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, when he was pensions spokesman, was finding, as he liked to think, at least one drafting error by parliamentary counsel in a pensions Bill. So if the noble Baroness is correct, she will be following an admirable precedent. I am sure that the amendments seek to be helpful in this regard.
I recognise that Clause 3 may appear complicated. But in essence, it defines the calculation of the savings credit by reference to a single calculation. In effect, it comes down to the amount by which "amount A" exceeds "amount B". That is the basis of the calculation.
Although the clause could work equally well with the addition of the words inserted by the amendments, the effect of doing so is the same as the current drafting and I believe that they would make no difference to the operation of the clause. Neither do I believe that the amendments would increase transparency or understanding of how we want to calculate the savings credit. They seek to add extra words to a clause that is already precise. I suggest that the changes are not necessary to deliver pension credit successfully, and that they do not add to or alter our understanding of intent.
I am happy to examine the noble Baroness's point about an "amount" as opposed to a percentage. I shall discuss the matter with officials and see whether the amendment does what she believes it does. They do not believe it to be the case. However, I am happy to scrutinise the wording to see whether it is. If so, I shall either write to the noble Baroness or return to the matter during the course of the Bill. My present understanding is that this proposal would not improve the drafting of the Bill, but I am happy to scrutinise it. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was invariably right and it may well be that on this occasion the noble Baroness is right—I rather doubt it, but she may be. Let us have a look at the wording. After all, that is the point of a Committee stage. I hope that with those offers, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that response. To reiterate the point, in the calculation of the savings credit,
"'amount A' is the smaller of … the maximum savings credit"—
which is an "amount", and,
"a prescribed percentage of the amount".
That drafting does not work. I mentioned earlier in Committee that parliamentary draftsmen are not always very good at drafting for financial calculations. However, I was pleased to hear what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

1669
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 3, line 13, leave out "a prescribed percentage" and insert "60 per cent."
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment. The savings credit is a prescribed percentage of qualifying income above the savings credit threshold. Initially, as we know, the percentage will be 60 per cent. But if the threshold remains tied to the basic pension, which rises in line with prices, while the minimum guarantee rises in line with earnings, the cost of the savings credit is likely to rise steeply. The Government may decide to contain the cost by reducing the percentage.
The November 2000 consultation paper stated that the initial rate would be 60 per cent. We have already been over this course to some extent. However, I should be grateful if the Minister would state the Government's intention. I suspect that she is likely to tell the Committee that the Government are not prepared to tie future governments. However, I should be obliged if she would say what precisely is the Government's view in relation to this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Again, this is a "good try" by my noble friend. I should like to put two points on the record. First, we have made our policy intentions clear in our consultation document. There has never been any suggestion that the Government would adopt anything other than 60p in the pound, or 60 per cent, reward for savings. That is our policy intent. However, the general point remains that you do not bind future governments and you try to keep the figures out of the way in regulation.
The commitment is for the lifetime of this Government, and that is precisely why we have committed ourselves to the policy of uprating the guarantee credit in line with earnings for the duration of this Parliament. However, I do not believe that we can bind the hands of subsequent administrations, given the discussions we had earlier about what may happen to the balance of public funds.
We expect the structure of pension credit to endure. The principles have wide support on all sides of the Committee. That is not to say that in future it may not need tweaking in various ways. Fine-tuning may be necessary in future months and years.
My noble friend may also be worried that this provision may never face proper scrutiny. But, again, the regulations setting the amount will be subject to affirmative resolution. Needless to say, any change that she fears would have to be brought before the House in an affirmative resolution. It is certainly not our intention to depart from the provision, but experience has taught governments to be wary of enshrining such matters in case the situation may need to change. For example, it is conceivable that in future years a government might seek to disaggregate or reaggregate the concept of "household" as a social
1670
security basis. That might have knock-on implications for percentages and the like. It is therefore not unreasonable to keep flexibility.
I cannot be clearer than I have been: I have set out the Government's intention and said that we expect it to endure. However, we need flexibility should circumstances change or should subsequent pension developments mean that there are interlocking consequences that may lead us to revisit the issue. With that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Higgins: The Minister pointed out earlier that the present Government cannot bind future governments, for which we must be grateful. However, on a related matter she was also prepared to give an undertaking that a certain assurance would persist for the rest of this Parliament. Will she give a similar assurance on the point that has just been made? If she cannot do that in terms of 60 per cent, will she at least promise that the withdrawal rate will not rise above the top rate of income tax under this Government?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: On the second point, the noble Lord is simply wrong, if he will forgive me. The withdrawal rate for pension credit cannot be separated out from the withdrawal rate for other benefits. That takes us back to our debate about MDRs. However, on the first point I assure my noble friend that for the life of this Parliament, the reward for savings—which pensioners have never had the luxury of experiencing—will be enjoyed at a rate of 60p in the pound if as a result they stay under the £100 threshold.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for those assurances. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 34A:
Page 3, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) In relation to amount A, the prescribed percentage shall be 100 per cent. less the basic rate of income tax.
"( ) In relation to amount B, the prescribed percentage shall be the basic rate of income tax."
The noble Baroness said: I apologise for the amendment not appearing on the Marshalled List. We tried to table our amendments as early as possible. I thought that his one had been submitted, but there was a slight problem.
Throughout the Committee people are making valiant attempts to deal with Clause 3—not only to understand it, but to improve it. The amendment would not change the structure of the pension credit, but would deal with the principle. In her reply to the last amendment, the Minister talked about the structure and the principles of the pension credit being established.

1671
As was said on Second Reading, one principle appears to be enshrined: although there may be a reward for pensioners for the first time, their savings will still, in effect, be taxed at 40 per cent. That is extraordinary when we are talking about people who, to repeat the phrase used by the Minister on Second Reading, are not poor, but are nearly poor. We are talking about people with very low incomes.
On an earlier amendment dealing with the withdrawal rate, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, pointed out that people with very low incomes are being subjected to a taper rate that would normally apply only to people with earnings of more than approximately £35,000 a year.
The amendment would not change the structure or the workings of the savings credit. I am sure that by now we all have the diagram in our heads explaining how the system will work. However, the amendment would introduce the principle that the taper rate should not be more than the basic rate of income tax. I hope that it is as simple and as clear as that. I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am amazed that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has withstood the opportunity to say that this is not a tax credit. Can I not tempt him? Go on, cheer us up. Going, going, gone.
Amendment No. 34A would substantively change Clause 3 by substituting a revised calculation for the savings credit, linking the amount payable to the basic rate of income tax—22 per cent. It would reward savings up to the level of the guarantee at 78p in the pound. For those with income above the guarantee, the savings credit would be reduced by 22p in the pound.
At best, the amendment is misdirected. It would reward not only modest savings, but also pensioners with much higher incomes. At worst, the cost would be seriously substantial.
As drafted, the Bill ensures that entitlement to the pension credit guarantee is based on pensioners' personal needs, taking account of their resources. The savings credit builds on that by rewarding those who have made some provision for their retirement but who find themselves penalised by a system that reduces benefit entitlement by £1 for every £1 that they have saved, if it is not sufficient to float them off MIG altogether.
Clause 3 introduces fairness where there was precious little, ensuring that those who are likely to have only a modest retirement income are rewarded for their thrift. That is why we intend to reward savings up to the level of the guarantee at 60p in the pound, pace my noble friend Lady Turner, who moved her amendment a few minutes ago, and reduce the savings credit by 40p in the pound for those with income above that level.
The amendment would make the savings reward far more generous. An additional I million pensioners would be entitled, including many comparatively
1672
wealthy pensioners for whom the pension credit is not designed. Single pensioners with incomes up to £181 a week and couples with incomes up to £263 a week would be entitled to the savings credit as described by the noble Baroness. The cost would he fairly substantial—an extra £1 billion.
I was expecting the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, to intervene on the amendment. I thought that it would be interesting to see what would happen if we aligned the withdrawal of pension credit with all the rates in the tax system—not just the 22p rate, but the 10p rate and all the others. That would taper it out for pensioner couples when they reached an income of £45,000 a year, at a cost to us all of getting on for £30 billion. If we went for 22p in the pound, I suspect that we could not justify not extrapolating all the tax rates.
Lord Higgins: I have always been reluctant to promote amendments that cost £35 billion. The Minister has made the important point that the withdrawal rates, and eventually the taxation rates, vary a great deal as one goes up the income scale. In the light of the Bill, they seem to go rather erratically. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pointed out, at the bottom end of the scale there are some very poor people. Then we go to another band where the withdrawal rate or the tax rate is much less than 40 per cent. It then goes up again to 40 per cent. Perhaps we could have a note some time on exactly how the marginal rate goes up, depending on individual circumstances. Perhaps the Minister could take some typical examples. That would be interesting. When we legislate with one Bill after another, there is always a danger that the tapers will not work out and no one will sit down and calculate all the marginal rates at various levels of income.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am happy to revisit some of the discussions that we had earlier. The noble Lord is talking about marginal deduction rates as regards the interlocking of the three different benefits—pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit. We saw that up to an income of £100, the marginal deduction is 100 per cent. Between £100 and £135 it comes down to 91 per cent for the 8 per cent of pensioners who also have housing benefit. At £135, it reduces to 85 per cent with a tapering of housing benefit, which itself is based on rent. Pensioners above that level begin to be covered by the ordinary tax rates and we begin to see the interlocking of taxes.
If the noble Lord is asking me a second question—what happens to the benefit tapers when they are overlaid by the tax system, which is a perfectly reasonable question—I shall write to him on it. I think that such a discussion would be helpful. However, I believe he will find that, given that pensioners' personal allowance is, I think, about £5,000, there is very little overlap between those on £100 to £135 and those paying taxes. The overlap begins to knock-in only when one is losing the pension credit but is on fairly high benefit rates. I should be very happy to have those calculations worked out, and agree with the noble Lord that it will make an interesting

1673
investigation. One needs to see the total picture. However, as pensioners have benefited so widely from the generous increases created by lifting pensioners' tax rates, I am sure that he will be deeply impressed by the result.
9 p.m.
Baroness Barker: As I had hoped, the amendment has sparked a debate which has been fairly informative. I, too, look forward to seeing the information that the Minister has promised.
For some of us, it is difficult to accept the disproportionate effects on people at the levels described by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. Not only is it difficult to work out the effect of benefits, it is difficult to work out the effect of the tax system on other groups. This debate has been helpful to the extent that it has fleshed out that issue.
We should also make it clear that, although the Bill may be passed, some of us object to the principle of taxing the income of comparatively poor people at the higher rate.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I take issue with the noble Baroness; perhaps I should have spent more time replying to her.
We are not taxing people, as she said, at 40 per cent. We are, for the first time, allowing pensioners who would otherwise not see any benefit from their hard-earned savings—precisely because we have established a decent, if not generous, basic income level for all pensioners; that is the trap and problem for us—to keep 60 per cent of their income. I will not accept suggestions that they are being taxed at a 40p rate; they are currently not receiving a penny of that money. We are enabling them to keep 60p in the pound both as an incentive and as a recognition of their efforts to provide for themselves. It is also fair. They are currently losing pound for pound; they will in future keep 60 per cent.
I think that that is the generous and decent thing to do. We have a problem only because we have a decent MIG level. The problem would not arise if we had a low level, as we had under the previous administration. We have the problem of seeking to be fair to those who have sought to help themselves because we are seeking to alleviate poverty. I shall therefore not accept statements that we are seeking to tax people at 40 per cent. We are returning to people, and allowing them to enjoy, the rewards of their own thrift, which hitherto they have not been able to enjoy.
Baroness Barker: I accept the Minister's point that my terminology was wrong. However, we still do not want to establish such a 40 per cent taper as a principle. The Minister has spoken consistently about not wishing to tie the hands of a future government. However, we also should not seek to tie the hands of a future government who have the resources to be more generous in the taper. Although we appreciate that the provision will be in force for this Parliament, we do not think that it should be established as a principle. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
1674
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 3, line 25, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: The amendment is concerned with definitions of income. However, I should like first to say that I very much welcome the Minister's offer on investigating the issue of marginal rates as one goes up the income scale. The point is relevant if we are really going to work towards what used to be called a negative income tax. As I think I have said before, back in the 1970s we had legislation on a genuinely negative income tax which sought to smooth out the marginal rates. Alas, in 1974, when the Labour government unfortunately came into power, the whole idea was clobbered by a committee consisting of the now noble Baroness, Lady Castle, the now noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and one other person whose name I forget. Nowadays, the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, and I are more in agreement.
As I said, this amendment is concerned with the regulations deciding what is qualifying income. It relates to the provision that my noble friend Lady Noakes spoke to a short time ago and the fact that we are landed with at least three definitions of income. Different definitions of income apply to different sections of the Bill, inevitably leading to considerable confusion. One might think it appropriate to use the same definition throughout the Bill.
A moment or so ago, in reply to try noble friend Lady Noakes, the Minister said that the Government cannot produce the regulations now. We understand the problems of producing regulations. However—as the Minister is always helpful on these matters and as we are all in a sense on the same side on these matters—it would be very helpful if we could have a list of the items that the Government propose should be included in each definition of income and then at the end a list of the items about which they have not made up their minds.
It is true that eventually, when a Bill is passed, such items are embodied in regulation. The trouble with that is that we have no opportunity to amend them as regulations are not amendable. Therefore, if we could have a list of the three definitions of income—or more, if there are more—the House would be able to express a view on whether we think the list is appropriate. Given that we will be deprived of amending the eventual outcome in regulations, that may be helpful.
That point arises on this amendment, which suggests that we knock out the power to make regulations. If the noble Baroness can respond helpfully on that point, it would be easy to withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: I should have said to the Committee that if this amendment were to be agreed to, it would pre-empt Amendment No. 38.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: What the noble Lord asks for is entirely reasonable. I shall seek to write to

1675
him and share the information with the House. For reasons he will understand, some of the points may take longer to determine. But at least I could identify the areas on which we are clear and those areas on which we are still consulting. If Members of the Committee wish to give a view on those areas, that will be helpful.
Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 3, line 25, after first "income" insert "including earnings"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 38 is another probing amendment. If it were accepted, subsection (6) would read:
"Regulations may make provision as to income [including earnings], which is not to be treated as qualifying income for the purposes of this section".
The White Paper originally said that consideration was still being given to the treatment of earnings in the pension credit. At present, pensioners can normally earn only £5 a week without loss of income support. The amendment would ensure that earnings are counted as qualifying income for the purposes of subsection (6). I am wondering, therefore, whether the Minister will be kind enough to say whether the Government have concluded their consideration of earnings in relation to pensions credit and, if so, with what result. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: In the light of the discussion we had a moment ago I am a little uncertain how to respond to Amendment No. 38. I was inclined to take the view that it would be better to consider the question of what is and what is not earnings under Clause 15 of the Bill. But I suddenly realised that the earnings in this section may not be the same as the earnings in the later section.
Important issues arise as to what the situation is in relation to disregards for part-time earnings, both as to standard credit and savings credit. However, I am inclined to defer my remarks until we come to Clause 15. If I have made a mistake we can return to this matter on Report.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My noble friend seeks an assurance from us that earnings taken into account in the pensions credit calculation are always rewarded.
It has always been our intention that those who continue to work after age 65 are rewarded for their efforts. I hope Members of the Committee will appreciate my dilemma. We are still considering how best to do that. For example—a point I made at Second Reading—we need to consider the relationship between pension credit and working tax credit; or, as my noble friend suggested, whether the small earnings disregard still suits our purposes. So issues do arise here. We are trying to seek the best way forward.
1676
We are not dealing with an inconsiderable number of people. Around 450,000 people have earnings which could affect pension credit. But, equally, we want to encourage them to work where they can do so. How best to do it, and whether it is best done through the vehicle of working tax credit, through earnings disregard or through allowing earnings to be regarded as qualifying income for pension credit purposes, we are still consulting on and considering. I hope the Committee will tolerate that. That is probably as much as I can say as to how things are going at the moment. Obviously we will be revisiting this matter.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. It was in order to find out what the present score was that the amendment was tabled in the first place. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins moved Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 3, line 26, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations made under this section may not specify as qualifying income for the purposes of this section any item of income relating to earnings which has been prescribed to be disregarded under section 15(6)(b)."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 39 is an attempt to try to bring in some consistency between the various parts of the Bill given, as we now discover, there are various definitions of "income". I thought initially it was merely tidying up the drafting and making sure the various parts were consistent. In the light of the earlier discussion, I am not at all sure that that is all that arises on this amendment.
It may be that some items will be disregarded in this part of the Bill which are not disregarded under Clause 15. No doubt the Minister can enlighten us as to whether or not that is the case. Each of the amendments interlock to some extent. I pick up the point the noble Baroness made on the previous amendment; that is, that the Government were unsure what to do about the additional pension received if people defer drawing their basic state pension.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Higgins: I thought that was what the noble Baroness said. In that case I am stimulated to think about that point even though she did not say that.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not always give the noble Lord all the words of everything I am thinking all the time. He might not want that.
Lord Higgins: I am making a serious point; namely, that we shall have to consider among the items which should or should not be included in income the additional income which pensioners get if they defer their retirement age in order to get a higher basic state pension. That is a pretty meagre increment at the moment. I am bound to say that the ability of the

1677
department to pay it dead on time when it is subsequently drawn has been pretty lamentable in the past. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, nods in support. We need to consider that matter because the Government pay a little extra if people defer their retirement. People are increasingly doing so. It is important to relate the extra amount which the Government pay to the effects of the Bill upon the eventual net amount.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Again I have some difficulty here because my understanding of the amendment bears no relationship to what the noble Lord has said. It is equally clear that he decided that his own amendment did not bear much relationship to what he originally intended to say and he added to it interestingly in good House of Commons style as his speech proceeded.
The Chairman of Committees: I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me if I put the amendment to the Committee. Amendment proposed,
Page 3, line 26, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations made under this section may not specify as qualifying income for the purposes of this section any item of income relating to earnings which has been prescribed to be disregarded under section 15(6)(b)."
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have never done that twice before on a Bill and certainly not with one Chairman of Committees. I seek the Committee's apology.
I shall respond first to the amendment as drafted. The amendment as drafted seeks to ensure that any earnings which are disregarded in the income assessment are not rewarded. The truth of the matter is that no income, including earnings, which is disregarded in the income assessment will be rewarded. This is achieved in Clause 15(6)(b) which allows in prescribed circumstances for capital or income which is possessed by a pensioner to be disregarded. Disregarded means exactly what it means. No account will be taken of that money in calculating an individual's entitlement to the guarantee. DLA or AA are the obvious examples.
By the same token no reward will be payable in respect of that money through the savings credit. It is simply outside the calculations in a kind of "suspense" account. It may be that the noble Lord's intention in proposing the amendment was to ensure that apart from disregarded earnings any other disregarded income should attract the savings reward. However, that would mean that people would get a double advantage of not having the money count against their guarantee credit while at the same time receiving a 60p in the pound reward for it. That is certainly not our intention and, I suspect, is not the noble Lord's either.
I am not sure about the noble Lord's approach here. However, he then turned his comments into an introduction on an issue which is certainly important and interesting; namely, the increment question. However, that is nowhere indicated or reflected in the amendment. I shall have a go at it all the same. My
1678
understanding is—I shall write to the noble Lord if I am wrong about it—that if someone chooses to defer his or her pension to get a higher increment later, possibly because they are earning now, we shall assume none the less that they are receiving the state retirement pension. Otherwise, people could get, so to speak, a double payment for not drawing down that which they could. We have to deem them, you like, to be drawing down the retirement pension to which they are entitled and then building the pension credit around that. As I say, if any of what I have just said needs adapting, revising or revisiting, I shall write to the noble Lord. However, it is my understanding that a retirement pension that has been postponed so to speak will none the less be taken into account notionally.
Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for clarifying that point. I obviously misheard what she originally said. None the less, an important and interesting discussion was stimulated. Tomorrow we can read exactly what was said in Hansard.
The noble Baroness has made two false starts. When I used to run, that would have disqualified runners. However, that did not apply in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Archer, who got away with it several times, and that was the least of his crimes. Even so, he never managed to beat me over 100 yards, or metres as it would be nowadays. I am most grateful for the noble Baroness's comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 40 to 44 not moved.]
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 3, line 33, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: Subsection (8) states:
"Regulations may prescribe descriptions of persons in whose case the maximum savings credit shall be taken to be nil".
I should have thought that the Government were fairly clear by now about which "descriptions of persons" would not be entitled to any maximum—or even any minimum—savings credit. I am not quite clear why the Bill cannot state who those interesting if somewhat hard-done-by people are. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: One can tell that the noble Lord was a sprinter. I used to run relay races, and I never had to worry about false starts—just about where the end of the line was. It may be at 10 p.m. or 11 p.m.
The amendment would remove the proposed power to prescribe cases in which the savings credit will be set at nil. The policy intention behind the subsection is to complement Clauses 2(6) and 2(9). The intention is that, taken together, those clauses will provide powers to ensure that prisoners and members of religious orders who are fully maintained by their order will be excluded from entitlement to pension credit.
We intend that prisoners and members of religious orders who are fully maintained by their order will be excluded. That is because the cost of maintaining those

1679
groups is met by other organisations. The reason for seeking to exclude those groups in regulations instead of in the Bill is simple. That approach affords us flexibility to reflect future changes: for example, we may need to adjust our treatment should the Home Office make changes in the categorisation of prisoners.
The proposed treatment of prisoners in pension credit is consistent with the approach taken in other benefits. For example, prisoners are excluded in working families and disabled person's tax credits and attendance allowance, and the basic state pension payment is suspended for the duration of the sentence. The latest Home Office data showed that in November 2001, 1,385 prisoners were aged 60 and over and 651 prisoners were aged 65 and over.
We intend to provide in pension credit for the housing costs of prisoners held on remand or awaiting trial or sentencing to continue to be met for up to 52 weeks. Similarly, where prisoners are hospitalised under the Mental Health Act 1983, they will be entitled to pension credit in the same way as other long-term hospital in-patients.
I am glad that the amendment was moved—it is useful to put the position on the record; that will help people to advise families in particular in stressful situations. For completeness, I am sure that the noble Lord will want to know how we intend to respond to the situation involving prisoners' families. Where the pension credit recipient is detained in custody, the partner may claim in their own right; however, a new claim would be required. There will be a facility in pension credit for the customer to opt for the claim to be made from "as early as possible". That would allow the decision-maker to consider entitlement for up to three months earlier than the initial date of contact—that is almost like a form of back-dating—provided that the conditions of entitlement are satisfied for that period. Where the partner is imprisoned the decision-maker would want to supersede the existing award to exclude the partner from the day following imprisonment.
I do not know whether that meets enough of the noble Lord's concerns. I could add further details on religious orders, whose members are also fully maintained. These are important issues, although they apply to only a very small group of people. I am glad to have had an opportunity to respond to the issue.
Lord Higgins: I am most grateful to the Minister for that explanation. It is helpful to have this rather esoteric point on the record; it is obviously of considerable importance to those concerned. No doubt those involved with these groups of people will read Hansard and find a clear explanation of the Government's intentions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 3, line 34, at end insert—
1680
"(9) When benefits are reduced under the provisions of the Social Security Hospital—Inpatients Regulations (S.I.1975/555) they shall be restored within one week of the patient being discharged from hospital.
(10) In the event that benefits are not restored within the period mentioned in subsection (9), payment shall be made as soon as possible at twice the normal amount for the period from one week after the patient is discharged until the date that payment is received by the patient."
The noble Lord said: This amendment is concerned with the situation regarding people affected by the Social Security Hospital—Inpatients Regulations. That matter has caused considerable concern. It relates to the way in which a large number of benefits are withdrawn from an individual who is in hospital. I believe that the Government estimate that around 31,000 retirement pensioners are affected by those reductions. As a result, there is a saving in public expenditure of some £60 million per year. That is so far as concerns the retirement pension. I do not believe that figures are available for other benefits. Perhaps the noble Baroness can help us in that regard.
I stress that there is much concern about this matter. As the noble Baroness pointed out on a former occasion, it relates to a provision on double-counting which goes back to the beginning of the national insurance scheme. That is understandable, and sufficient remains of my Treasury halo for me not to question the principle. However, two points give cause for concern. One is that considerable doubts have been expressed recently about whether the extent of the reduction is in line with the savings made by the individual concerned. The noble Baroness may wish to comment on that, although it is not the point with which the amendment is concerned.
The issue on which I have received most representations—I used to receive them from my former constituents—is the long delay that occurs after a person is discharged from hospital before benefit payments are resumed. I see that I have a lot of support on that issue from the Back Benches opposite. It is obviously a matter of great concern. People who have just been discharged from hospital may typically return to their homes alone or, even if other people give them assistance, they may be in a very bad way and unable to cope well with an immediate crisis. If they suddenly find that they are discharged but no longer have the benefits which they received before going into hospital—benefits to which they are none the less entitled once they are discharged—understandably they may feel, or indeed be, distressed.
Therefore, the amendment seeks to impose a limit whereby the benefits should be resumed, at any rate, within one week of their being discharged from hospital. I realise that technical problems are involved. However, by way of incentive—this is perhaps a rather crude way of doing it; I understand that—some form of sanction should be imposed on the benefit-paying organisations. Such organisations are of course varied because they cover a wide range of benefits, but an incentive or sanction should be imposed on those who fail to resume payment with a week. For a person who

1681
has just come out of hospital and finds that he is not receiving his benefits, even a week can be long enough to cause considerable concern.
This is a probing amendment. I do not necessarily wish to press it in every respect, but I believe that an important issue is involved and somehow we must deal with it. One way in which to do so—again, I am not sure that it is by any means the ideal solution—would be for the benefit to be paid throughout the period. Then, the amount which is deducted because the person in question is said not to have incurred so many costs in hospital could be collected subsequently. The noble Baroness grimaces, if I may use that expression, and I understand that. None the less, such a solution may cause rather less distress than the present situation, which can be quite fraught.
I believe that this is an important matter. Concern is now growing that the amounts deducted are not appropriate and that the system does not provide adequate arrangements for resuming payment the moment the person is expelled—not "expelled"; I am not going to become involved in yesterday's controversy—discharged from hospital. Again, perhaps better arrangements can he made with regard to the procedure for discharge.
These issues are important to those who are affected. They may well be among the poorest of our people and, in any case, may be among those who are least well and least able to cope when eventually they emerge from the hospital environment. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: Some important points have been raised by the noble Lord. In October last year I raised this issue in a Starred Question. It is time for a policy that was designed so long ago—in the 1940s—to be updated. We are now in the 21st century. People do not live in hospital any more. They stay in hospital while they arc ill and, assuming that they have somewhere to go, they are discharged from hospital. The old geriatric wards have gone.
The situation is very different from the one to which this rule was designed to apply. If frail elderly people do not require intensive medical treatment, they are transferred to care homes. The process of intermediate care should be better and smoother. Often, if such a move does not take place within six weeks, it is not the patient's fault; we know that it is the failure of the authorities concerned to find a suitable place and that leads to bed-blocking. This has been under review since 1948, but I believe that the Government should conduct a genuine review. The current system of taking money away from inpatients is complicated and bureaucratic.
My last point is that there is an anomaly. The five-year period of assessment, that I welcome, does not apply if one has had a stay in hospital. That has to be reported. I believe that if one is ill, one has to report that to the social security department.
Baroness Barker: I, too, support the amendment. This is one of the most timely revisions that there could
1682
be. I hear all that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, have said about the time when this rule was introduced. I was not alive in 1948 and I do not know whether there was an equivalent system of housing benefit at that time. No one could have foreseen then the misery into which many pensioners are forced today by the operation of this rule.
This rule has a bearing on the lives of pensioners in two ways. First, it makes an assumption that there is double funding, but an increasing amount of research suggests that there is little double funding. When this rule came into effect there was an assumption that if someone was in hospital they would have no heating charges at home, but today pensioners have standing charges to pay.
A couple of weeks ago in response to a Question, the Minister responsible for pensions said that this downrating was about board and lodging. I believe that board and lodging, in the context of a hospital, means food. The most recent figures from the Government that I have been able to find from the Library suggest that on average the amount of money spent on food is £1.67 per day for every person in hospital. That is worked out from an overall amount of the numbers of patients and the cost of food. There is a flaw in the way in which this rule operates in that it makes assumptions about double funding that are not true.
Secondly, it does not recognise the increased costs to older people of being in hospital. In my work with Age Concern London last year I was involved in the production of a report on hospital transport entitled A helicopter would he nice. That was what an older person said to us about hospital transport. I offer this observation. One is more likely to have free parking at Sainsbury's than at a hospital. For the spouses or partners of older people, there are a number of increased costs as a result of being in hospital.
Perhaps more important is the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, referred: the huge disruption to housing benefit and council tax benefit. The noble Lord questioned the Minister—she did not respond—about the review of housing benefit having been put back. We know that there are enormous problems with housing benefit administration. Those are acute in London. If Members of the Committee want evidence of that, they should drive through Brixton at about 7.30 in the morning, before the benefit office opens, to see the queue of older people who wait for several hours before they are due to be seen. In many parts of the capital, housing benefit administration is a disgrace which drives pensioners to distraction. I do not believe that anyone would wish that on any pensioner, far less on one who has been ill enough to be in hospital.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, rightly indicates why we should now review the situation. The new arrangements for intermediate care lack clarity about who will be deemed to be having hospital care. That is why we need to probe what is happening.

1683
At Second Reading the Minister said that the circumstances of pensioners do not change that much. That was the reasoning on which she based periods of assessed income. For some pensioners going into hospital is a precursor to great change, but for most it is not. If the Government are confident that the circumstances of pensioners do not change in the longer term, it is right to consider benefit for what may be short periods in hospital.
I have not received an answer to my Written Question to the Minister about the cost to the department of making changes. I hope to receive an answer during these debates. If there is change when a pensioner goes into hospital, there is another change when he or she comes out. So there are two costs. The Government receive back about £57 million a year as a result of hospital downrating. I shall be interested to know the cost to the Government of implementing the rule. I look forward to the Minister's response.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The amendment is more narrowly focused than the discussion. Perhaps I may say a few words about the broader issue and come back to the amendment.
The amendment would impose an obligation on the department to restore a person's pension credit within one week of his discharge from hospital, presumably at the pre-admission rate of payment, and proposes that the person be compensated for any delay in the payment of such an increase. The noble Lord was understandably quite explicit that it was the intention to put pressure on the competence of the department to reinstate benefits where delay would otherwise cause stress.
Perhaps I may just step back for a second and talk about the wider issue. We propose that for hospital inpatients receiving pension credit a single person would have their standard minimum guarantee replaced with a lower amount. The reduction in such cases would be equivalent to about £28 or so of the basic state retirement pension after six weeks in hospital, with a further reduction to 20 per cent of the basic state retirement pension following an extended stay of longer than 52 weeks. At that point essentially there is a read-across between the amount remaining to a long stay hospital patient and someone in a local authority home who is receiving, so to speak, pocket money after their costs have been met.
Baroness Barker: I rise to make one point. In the past the noble Baroness has, very rightly, taken Members of the Committee to task for using wrong terms about benefits such as MoT tests. The term "pocket money" is offensive to older people. We are not talking about children with small amounts of money for sweets. We are talking about adults and a personal allowance, which they have the right and the dignity to choose how to spend.
Furthermore, to talk about pocket money is misleading. It gives the impression that this is some additional extra—some indulgence. For many older
1684
people it is not. It is about buying the necessities for the circumstances in which they find themselves. Rather worryingly, the social policy ageing information network is beginning to tell us about instances where people in residential and nursing homes are being asked to contribute that money towards their fees.
I wanted to make that point to all Members of the Committee. It seemed appropriate to do so now. To talk about this as a personal allowance as opposed to pocket money is important. It is a principle on which the noble Baroness has previously picked up other Members of the Committee. I hope that she will accept that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I used to call it "personal allowance" to my children. They called it "pocket money". But I am very happy to use that term if the noble Baroness feels more comfortable with it. I do not have any problems with it. The point which I was making was not a language point, but actually the substantive point, which I am sorry the noble Baroness did not come back or challenge me on. That is that after 52 weeks the residual monies, or personal allowance or whatever she wishes to call it, for a person in a long-stay hospital has a read-across to the local authority situation, which is why it takes that particular form.
In the case of couples, the reduction would be equivalent to about £14.50 off the basic state pension after six weeks in hospital and 39 per cent of the basic state retirement pension after 52 weeks. However, any savings credit, as opposed to retirement pension, will continue to be paid regardless of the length of stay in hospital.
Not to accept the principle that there should be no double payment would mean that a person in hospital is put on exactly the same footing as a person living in their own home. I think that noble Lords have always accepted that there should be no double payment of benefits. For example, if one gets a widow's pension one does not often get ICA and the like. Food, laundry and heating, particularly if one is a single person, are expenses that are reduced from one's retirement pension if one is in hospital because those items are provided by the hospital, compared to the situation of living in one's home. That is the basis of the Government's position.
Perhaps I may now turn to Amendment No. 46. Members of the Committee will be aware that currently a person is required to notify the department of periods of in-patient treatment and will be required to do so under pension credit. That allows the department to make the necessary adjustments following admissions or discharge. As noble Lords will appreciate, the department can act only upon the information within its knowledge. When a person is discharged from hospital their pension credit entitlement would be restored to the pre-admission rate of payment. Where a person's pension credit entitlement ceases as a result of the interaction between his income and the application of the downrating provisions, a new claim to pension credit would be required upon discharge from hospital. This

1685
is to ensure that the correct rates of benefit are paid and that all changes in a person's circumstances are recorded.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, rightly pressed me on the clearance times and, therefore, the delay in reinstatement of benefit. It may help the Committee if I were to indicate the Government's target figure and the actual level of our performance. Obviously, the averages that I give are just averages, so there may be a lot of variations around the mean. As for new or repeat claims in terms of the income-related benefits—income support and MIG, as well as JSA—our target is 12 days. The actual performance for IS and MIG is 9.4 days. Our target in respect of a change of circumstances is to have that benefit reflect such a change within four days; our actual performance is 2.5 days, which is quite impressive.
I understand the noble Lord's wish to encourage us to improve those performances from the department that differ very widely from the rather satisfying averages that I have given. However, there is a difficulty with the noble Lord's proposal. If every week of delay would result in a customer being paid double the benefit, we would be offering people an incentive not to report their discharge from hospital on time. It is a two-way process: it is when the customer reports to us, as well as when we can reinstate benefit. We need to be exemplary in our performance. I believe that the averages that I have given indicate that the performance is really rather good. We are also dependent on the former patient notifying us of the situation. As such former patients are convalescing, it may take them some time for them to do so; and we cannot act until we have that information.
However, the department will be providing full training to the staff who will be administering pension credit to ensure that claims and changes in circumstances are processed as quickly as possible. We shall be making significant improvements to service delivery. The introduction of the Pension Service will make it easier for customers to contact us. Over time, the Pension Service will provide former hospital patients, as well as all other pensioners, with a wide range of contact channels through improved modern technology, including telephony, digital television and Internet technology. Call and contact centres will be open longer than current office hours to allow pensioners to contact the service when it is convenient for them to do so.
In cases where we have delayed unreasonably, the department already has a special payment scheme that provides compensation. We use the average retail shares and deposits rate supplied by the Building Societies Commission to calculate compensation payments for delay. However, the noble Lord's amendment would provide compensation to pensioners at 100 per cent, which is an unrealistic rate. Moreover, we would have to extend it to all other benefits; indeed, in all justice, we could not limit it to pensioners. The noble Lord will have to accept that fact.
1686
Finally, I was asked what the cost of administration would be under the current system. As a matter of information, I can tell the Committee that we are talking about a figure, on average, of about £4.5 million. It is absolutely right that the noble Lord should put pressure upon us to speed up our reinstatement process. However, if he shares with us a recognition that, to some extent, it all depends on when the information is supplied to us by the former patient or his or her family, I am sure that he will realise that his way of making us respond is inappropriate. Our performance has improved. Our targets are quite challenging, but we are meeting them. Indeed, we are doing better than our target in some cases; for example, as I mentioned earlier, 2.5 days.
The Pension Service will seek to improve our performance still further, but unacceptable delays remain unacceptable. If the noble Lord has other ways of meeting his objective without going down this path, which, as I said, would produce perverse incentives, I shall be very happy for him to share them with us in due course. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Barker: The Minister mentioned the figure of £4.5 million. Can she give details of how that figure has been arrived at? The Minister may wish to write to me. The hour is late.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I gave the figure of £4.5 million in respect of staff, costs and the rest of it over the table. I believe that it is appropriate for me to write to the noble Baroness if she wishes for further information on this matter.
Lord Higgins: I am most grateful to the Minister for that very helpful reply. I need to consider the points that she made. Perhaps I may take up two points and a suggestion. First, is it the case, as I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said, that if someone goes into hospital the five-year period runs afresh? Secondly, the noble Baroness has given the figures for the average, but that is not the problem: it is the dispersal around the average. While some people may receive fairly immediate resumption of their benefits, others may have to wait a great deal longer than was revealed by the figures which the Minister gave.
Perhaps I may make one suggestion. This matter has been in existence for so long that it has probably not been considered in any depth until quite recently. One way around the problem of the resumption of benefits would be to continue them all the way through, but to charge the individual for rent, accommodation and so forth. That might be more acceptable to them in the sense that they are paying for something and receiving something in return. I merely put forward that suggestion. We may well wish to return to this point on Report.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the noble Lord for triggering my memory. As I understand it—I shall qualify it in writing if I need to—reduction alone in the retirement pension through being a

1687
hospital patient for more than six weeks will not of itself end the assessment period. The assessment period would not have ended for those purposes. One would have to start after 52 weeks when changes in the household composition would effectively turn it into a disaggregated claim. I believe Members of the Committee will understand that.
The noble Lord made a second point about averages. He is right in saying that it is the aberrant cases, not the averages, which are the problem. We have a compensation system and the noble Lord is right to press us about it. He suggested that we might wish to recover the costs subsequently, and that payment would continue while in hospital. That would be worse from his point of view than the current situation.
The notion that someone could be charged and be told, "Here is your retirement pension, but we are going to take away 'X' for this and that" comes perilously close to a charging system which would have to include people not on benefit. Is the noble Lord suggesting that it should apply to people on benefit? Otherwise, there would be no justification for someone not on benefit with several times the income being charged for their food, laundry or heating. I do not believe that we can go down that path.
The problem here is double provision in that people are receiving a retirement pension which is expected to cover their food, laundry and heating. I believe that most people would accept that when one goes into hospital some costs are reduced but some may increase. None the less, there is double provision. Some costs certainly do reduce and that is why this situation has existed for many years. I believe that the noble Lord's suggestion could not be applied simply to pensioners: if we are to have that form of payment it would have to be applied to those receiving wages and earnings. I am very happy for the noble Lord to return to the matter if he wishes, but I still believe that his solution is worse than the dilemma which currently faces patients who go into hospital.
Lord Higgins: I am most grateful for the clarification of the various points. Before asking for leave to withdraw the amendment, perhaps I might just clarify what I was saying. I was not suggesting that they should pay subsequently; I was suggesting that payments to them would continue throughout their period in hospital and beyond, but that they would then be charged while in hospital. They would then have no problem on discharge.
The noble Baroness said in that respect that other people in hospital not receiving benefit would have to be put in the same position by charging them, as if it were not the case that we were charging those on benefit now. It is simply that the matter is stopped rather than charged. However, at all events, we are making some progress, and we can return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
1688
Clause 4 [Exclusions]:
Baroness Greengross Baroness Greengross moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 3, line 36, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Baroness said: This is also a probing amendment. It may be somewhat badly drafted—on the back of an envelope, literally. I expect that the Minister's brief has already indicated that.
The amendment would allow members of married or unmarried couples to claim the state pension credit, each in their own right. I understand why subsection (1) has been included. If it were not, the cost of the state pension credit would be much higher and would allow all kinds of incentives for well informed couples to shift their resources around to maximise their entitlement. However, there is a serious point behind my probing amendment and I referred to it at Second Reading in relation to tax credits.
I am disappointed that the Government have not had the courage at least to begin to chip away at benefit rules that still assess a couple's income together, rather than individually. Only when that is tackled will we see the beginning of the genuine integration of tax and benefits. I strongly favour that, not least because it would benefit women significantly. However, it would also be to the benefit of older people generally, in particular poorer older people, the very people whom the Bill seeks to help. A genuine integration of tax and benefits would be the best way to tackle take-up, so that, as the Minister explained at Second Reading, we move away from the language of means testing to the language of entitlement. We would all appreciate that.
Everyone understands that above a certain income one pays tax, usually automatically, via PAYE, or by being taxed at source on savings. If benefits were integrated with that basic and accepted principle, the opposite would apply. Below a certain income, the state would automatically pay money back to people to top up their income.
In the case of the State Pension Credit Bill, I was encouraged to read in the November 2000 pension credit consultation document that,
"over time, the Government wants to take tax and benefit integration further … ultimately to create a seamless and integrated system of support".
As I said, that can work only if the tax system and the benefit system both assess people individually. I move my probing amendment to ask the Minister why has that has not happened more with the Bill. Is it the Government's intention to integrate the state pension credit with the tax system in the longer run? I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: I should draw the Committee's attention to the fact that if the amendment were to be agreed to, it would pre-empt Amendment No. 49.
Baroness Noakes: I spoke earlier about married and unmarried couples and some of the related problems. Treating married couples as one unit, rather than two individual units, may have been appropriate for a

1689
different age, when the husband worked most of his life as a breadwinner, providing for his wife and himself in their retirement. However, the world is changing, and increasing numbers of women are in receipt of their own retirement pension by dint of their own contributions. The figure was 53 per cent for 1997, according to a Written Answer given on 16th January by the Minister's right honourable friend in another place. That is forecast to rise to 68 per cent, comprising almost 5 million women, by 2006–07.
This issue is coming up and is ripe for the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, to raise. I suspect that the problem lies in its public expenditure implications. I should be interested to learn what the Minister has to say with regard to the costs. From my perspective, it is clear in which direction we should travel, but I am less than clear that we could afford the bill.
10 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: The hour is late and so I shall be brief. I very much support the thoughts and philosophy driving the proposer of the amendment. The separation of the taxation system and the possibility offered here for integrating taxation and benefits and all that that would mean seems to me to be an objective worth pursuing. It is something which perhaps we have passed by too lightly amid the many other complexities of the legislation before the Committee. I hope that the Minister will be able to take up, explore and think about the points made by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Pension credit is a household-based, income-related assessment. It is not a tax system based on the individual assessment of income. It could mean that, for example, the wife or partner of a wealthy husband with very little money held in her own name would be entitled to the pension credit, despite her wealthy partner. That may be the situation with regard to a tax—if you do not aggregate, you separate—but it does not strike me as a suitable or appropriate basis for a pension credit. A non-working spouse, or someone working only part-time, or perhaps with only modest savings or £5,000 or £7,000 in a building society who none the less had an extremely wealthy husband, would be entitled to claim pension credit. I cannot believe that that would be a sensible use of public money. Indeed, it would be similar to introducing a policy pursuing the route of "wages for housework".
There are other and better ways of addressing the problem identified by the noble Baroness. We shall do that through the state second pension. The fact is that the majority of beneficiaries of the state pension credit will be women when they find themselves in a position, perhaps through the death of a partner or spouse, where they are required to support themselves, if they have not already been doing so.
1690
We shall not go down the path of disaggregation. We cannot do so because this is a household-based, income-related benefit. It is not like a tax and thus based on individual assessment. Furthermore, it is not like a tax and thus based on an annual assessment of the previous year. It is also not like a tax based on actual income as opposed to a notional income based on capital. For all those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that we are not going to disaggregate in that way.
I do not believe that the noble Baroness would wish to advocate some of the more bizarre possible interpretations of her amendment. With regard to the substance of the proposal—whether we are going to disaggregate—the answer to that is no. We shall not do so in the case of pensioners, most of whom in any case are not taxpayers. We are seeking here to establish a right and decent way to respond to pensioners' needs. Their needs are household based and their ability to meet those needs will be met by household-based income. That is why we think that it is right and proper that pension credit should be based on households rather than on individual disaggregation.
Even if the noble Baroness does not agree with my comments I hope that, with my explanation, she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Greengross: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. I remain disappointed that any opportunity to move a little way towards integration, on which the noble Baroness herself commented a little while ago, could not be taken just a shade further each time. I imagine that my efforts to make these points will have to be resumed on future occasions.
Any opportunity to begin to achieve the long-term goal of integration, which in my view is related to full citizenship, is worth pursuing. The amendment provided a small opportunity to highlight the issue. I appreciate the response made by the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

International Development Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment was considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes past ten o'clock.

  Golden Jubilee: Grant of Lord Mayoralty
  Golden Jubilee: Grant of Lord Mayoralty
  Gulf Veterans: Mortality
  Gulf Veterans: Mortality
  Community Energy Programme
  Community Energy Programme
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Park and Ride
  Park and Ride
  Planning
  Planning
  East Midlands: Regional Planning Guidance
  East Midlands: Regional Planning Guidance
  Children of Asylum Seekers: Education
  Children of Asylum Seekers: Education
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Parliamentary Written Answers
  Parliamentary Written Answers